For those that don't support full equality for all Americans

[BDKJMU]

That's not a true statement.

Yes, it is.

So says the AMA and the DSM-IV

The science is extremely clear on the subject.

Ok, then how come something like half of guys in prisons choose to be gay?

[CID1990]

I DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY. If you think that being gay is a choice, then you are **** ignorant.

If your religion teaches you that, then your religion is **** up, and is a hateful and bigoted religion.

I've met & broke bread with both Jon & his partner. Two finer people you'll never meet so I say this with heavy heart but, for argument's sake, please answer this question: If being gay isn't somewhat of a choice, then I assume you've never had heterosexual relations? Because if you chose to have heterosexual relations, then why couldn't you choose to have homosexual relations & just prefer it over heterosexual relations?

I find it ironic the gay community demands to be accepted (as if they shouldn't be by any rational person's criteria - what business is it of mine?) yet won't accept the theory that maybe it's not an either/or decision (nature/nuture) but more likely a combination of both. It's almost as if they need the "crutch" of it only being nature so they can reconcile the lifestyle with themselves. I know they found Buck's comparison to alcoholism offensive, but remove the emotion and look at the argument: some people, through evolutionary heredity (mother/father), are more pre-disposed to alcoholism. They don't all become alcoholics, but are more likely to as their are more receptors to alcohol in their system. Couldn't homosexuality be similar? I mean, not all children of homosexuals are homosexual & certainly not all heterosexual parents bring heterosexual children into the world. But then again, my opinion & $.50 might buy you a cup of coffee on this subject....

If I ever try to shoehorn my tally-whacker into some guys hairy anus you better damn well believe it was a choice.

[OSBF]

Yes, it is.

So says the AMA and the DSM-IV

The science is extremely clear on the subject.

Ok, then how come something like half of guys in prisons choose to be gay?

I don't think that meets the defination of homosexual

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess there isn't any tounge action or any other foreplay

glorified masturbation

once they're on the outside again, they go right back to pussy

[Gil Dobie]

Ok, then how come something like half of guys in prisons choose to be gay?

I don't think that meets the defination of homosexual

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess there isn't any tounge action or any other foreplay

glorified masturbation

once they're on the outside again, they go right back to pussy

A guy I knew, said he got thrown in a cell drunk, came-to with 2 guys holding his arms and legs and another going at his bung-hole.

[native]

I don't think that meets the defination of homosexual

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess there isn't any tounge action or any other foreplay

glorified masturbation

once they're on the outside again, they go right back to pussy

A guy I knew, said he got thrown in a cell drunk, came-to with 2 guys holding his arms and legs and another going at his bung-hole.

Yikes!

[OSBF]

I don't think that meets the defination of homosexual

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess there isn't any tounge action or any other foreplay

glorified masturbation

once they're on the outside again, they go right back to pussy

A guy I knew, said he got thrown in a cell drunk, came-to with 2 guys holding his arms and legs and another going at his bung-hole.

no slobbery wet french kisses?

no reach around?

[Gil Dobie]

A guy I knew, said he got thrown in a cell drunk, came-to with 2 guys holding his arms and legs and another going at his bung-hole.

no slobbery wet french kisses?

no reach around?

Just a wakeup call.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

A guy I knew, said he got thrown in a cell drunk, came-to with 2 guys holding his arms and legs and another going at his bung-hole.

no slobbery wet french kisses?

no reach around?

No fucking shit OSBF. Most men would curtail that shit with women as well if they didn't require it. Why the hell would men want to wait around for foreplay when neither party is into it. Dumbass point you're trying to make there.

[Cap'n Cat]

I don't think that meets the defination of homosexual

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess there isn't any tounge action or any other foreplay

glorified masturbation

once they're on the outside again, they go right back to pussy

A guy I knew, said he got thrown in a cell drunk, came-to with 2 guys holding his arms and legs and another going at his bung-hole.

Did it hurt, Gil?

[Gil Dobie]

A guy I knew, said he got thrown in a cell drunk, came-to with 2 guys holding his arms and legs and another going at his bung-hole.

Did it hurt, Gil?

You didn't yell, so it must not have, in fact you were kind of getting into the flow and going with it.

video at 11pm

[native]

Did it hurt, Gil?

You didn't yell, so it must not have.

[Chemhen]

How can you be against gay service members serving openly while being ok with (I presume) black and white service members serving in the same unit?

The only possible answer I can think of assumes that being gay is a choice, while you cannot choose your skin tone. Personally, I think that in some cases people don't chose to be gay, while in others people do. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals and has been shown to have evolutionary benefits, suggesting that it is natural.* I would guess that, while a combination of genetics and environment can increase or decrease the chances of being gay, people can override that choice some of the time. But why should they have to, even if its possible?

As to gay marriage, it is NOT a paper issue. Tell that to a spouse who can't visit their partner in the ER because they're not "family." How about this: take all federal, state, and local laws and do a find and replace for marriage with civil unions. As far as the government is concerned, marriage doesn't exist. As far as churches are concerned, civil unions don't exist.

*Rahman Q, Wilson GD. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Volume: 34 Issue: 8 Pages: 1337-1382 Published: JUN 2003

edit for citation

[kalm]

How can you be against gay service members serving openly while being ok with (I presume) black and white service members serving in the same unit?

The only possible answer I can think of assumes that being gay is a choice, while you cannot choose your skin tone. Personally, I think that in some cases people don't chose to be gay, while in others people do. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals and has been shown to have evolutionary benefits, suggesting that it is natural.* I would guess that, while a combination of genetics and environment can increase or decrease the chances of being gay, people can override that choice some of the time. But why should they have to, even if its possible?

As to gay marriage, it is NOT a paper issue. Tell that to a spouse who can't visit their partner in the ER because they're not "family." How about this: take all federal, state, and local laws and do a find and replace for marriage with civil unions. As far as the government is concerned, marriage doesn't exist. As far as churches are concerned, civil unions don't exist.

*Rahman Q, Wilson GD. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Volume: 34 Issue: 8 Pages: 1337-1382

Published: JUN 2003

Fuck off nerd. This is the politics board.




edit for citation

[Chemhen]

You don't think I actually read it did you?

And by the way, you can't at your own without looking like a

was going for a douche, but you make do with what you have.

[kalm]

You don't think I actually read it did you?

And by the way, you can't at your own without looking like a

was going for a douche, but you make do with what you have.

Lighten up Francis, I assumed that you read the board first before posting, so I thought you might get the sarcasm. Guess I was wrong.

On a side note, i agree with your post 100%.

[Chemhen]

I wasn't offended, just responding in the general spirit of the board.

[kalm]

I wasn't offended, just responding in the general spirit of the board.

Well in that case, well played.

[AZGrizFan]

I wasn't offended, just responding in the general spirit of the board.

Well in that case, well played.

I nominate ChemHen as new poster of the year.

[kalm]

Well in that case, well played.

I nominate ChemHen as new poster of the year.

[OL FU]

How can you be against gay service members serving openly while being ok with (I presume) black and white service members serving in the same unit?

The only possible answer I can think of assumes that being gay is a choice, while you cannot choose your skin tone. Personally, I think that in some cases people don't chose to be gay, while in others people do. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals and has been shown to have evolutionary benefits, suggesting that it is natural.* I would guess that, while a combination of genetics and environment can increase or decrease the chances of being gay, people can override that choice some of the time. But why should they have to, even if its possible?

As to gay marriage, it is NOT a paper issue. Tell that to a spouse who can't visit their partner in the ER because they're not "family." How about this: take all federal, state, and local laws and do a find and replace for marriage with civil unions. As far as the government is concerned, marriage doesn't exist. As far as churches are concerned, civil unions don't exist.

*Rahman Q, Wilson GD. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Volume: 34 Issue: 8 Pages: 1337-1382 Published: JUN 2003

edit for citation

I am curious as to what the evolutionary benefits are?

[native]

How can you be against gay service members serving openly while being ok with (I presume) black and white service members serving in the same unit?

The only possible answer I can think of assumes that being gay is a choice, while you cannot choose your skin tone. Personally, I think that in some cases people don't chose to be gay, while in others people do. Homosexual behavior has been observed in animals and has been shown to have evolutionary benefits, suggesting that it is natural.* I would guess that, while a combination of genetics and environment can increase or decrease the chances of being gay, people can override that choice some of the time. But why should they have to, even if its possible?

As to gay marriage, it is NOT a paper issue. Tell that to a spouse who can't visit their partner in the ER because they're not "family." How about this: take all federal, state, and local laws and do a find and replace for marriage with civil unions. As far as the government is concerned, marriage doesn't exist. As far as churches are concerned, civil unions don't exist.

*Rahman Q, Wilson GD. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Volume: 34 Issue: 8 Pages: 1337-1382 Published: JUN 2003

edit for citation

I am curious as to what the evolutionary benefits are?

Maybe to provide worker bees for the hive?

[89Hen]

That's not a true statement.

Yes, it is.

So says the AMA and the DSM-IV

The science is extremely clear on the subject.

Are you sure it was Mensa that called?

[OL FU]

I am curious as to what the evolutionary benefits are?

Maybe to provide worker bees for the hive?

Maybe , Just to be clear my position, based on observation, is that I support gay marriage and from what I know (which is little) support gay service in the military without hiding the fact. Basically I would leave it up to the people in the military that understand the issue more than me. Whether homosexuality is nature versus nuture impacts my thoughts on gay rights very little other than intellectual curiousity. I have always understood bi-sexuality with respect to evolution. Strong sexual desire being needed for the survival of a species would hint that one might have sex with whatever is available. But the preference for the same sex never seemed to make sense from an evolutionary aspect. However I am certainly interested in why homosexuality (not bi-sexuality which is generally what you see in mammals) might be beneficial for evolutionary purposes and would like for the earlier poster to expand on the statement.

[native]

Maybe to provide worker bees for the hive?

Maybe , Just to be clear my position, based on observation, is that I support gay marriage and from what I know (which is little) support gay service in the military without hiding the fact. Basically I would leave it up to the people in the military that understand the issue more than me. Whether homosexuality is nature versus nurture impacts my thoughts on gay rights very little other than intellectual curiousity. I have always understood bi-sexuality with respect to evolution. Strong sexual desire being needed for the survival of a species would hint that one might have sex with whatever is available. But the preference for the same sex never seemed to make sense from an evolutionary aspect. However I am certainly interested in why homosexuality (not bi-sexuality which is generally what you see in mammals) might be beneficial for evolutionary purposes and would like for the earlier poster to expand on the statement.

I threw up the worker bee comment because of something I have seen in scholarly articles about younger male siblings having more of a likelihood to be gay.

I agree about military service, OL FU. I will support repeal of DADT only when the military itself supports repeal. (I don't care how many times jonboy lights his hair on fire and throws an irrational hissy fit.)

Nature vs nurture, one to the exclusion of the other, is a false choice. You can't have one without the other. Studies of other personality traits which are not so politically charged clearly demonstrate that both play a role. While we focus on "either-or," we are missing the complex interplay of nature AND nurture, which could turn out to be the most important factor of all ... the human "postmordial" soup of our complex societies.

[native]

In their study of male twins, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.