quote:

No, you intentionally ignored the obvious fact that I was making; that the inhereted allele can cause it. Like any inhereted disease, yes, but just like blue eyes and attached earlobes; making it NATURAL!

I didn't ignore it. You used genetic diseases and genetic diseases alone in explaining why homosexuality is genetic. If I were arguing that homosexuallity is a horrible genetic disease, I would have said pretty much the same as you said in your post. But lets say you acknowledge your mistake.

It may be 'natural' because it is genetic, but by your OWN ARGUMENTS, you directly state that schizophrenia is also natural. Because schizophrenia is natural, should we accept it as being OK, and leave these people alone? Hell no! Therefore, by your own logic (unless you accept schizos as you do gays), something being natural is by no means a measure of its goodness/acceptability.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

“Our basic civil liberties are in jeopardy, but we're going to be spending our time as a society arguing about whether or not schoolchildren should be forced to pay tribute to imaginary invisible beings who live in magical kingdoms in outer space some”
-Tom Tomorrow

“Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making”
-John Milton

We argue so that the eventual Truth shall be known.

This is still living? People...

-applause-

quote:

Originally posted by RaceDriver205:
So by comparing with Schizophrenia, Bipolar Affective Disorder and Diabetes , you are saying Homosexuallity is a disease? Thats a bit of a backflip?

No, you intentionally ignored the obvious fact that I was making; that the inhereted allele can cause it. Like any inhereted disease, yes, but just like blue eyes and attached earlobes; making it NATURAL!

So by comparing with Schizophrenia, Bipolar Affective Disorder and Diabetes , you are saying Homosexuallity is a disease? Thats a bit of a backflip?

I personally believe that it is a question of Nature AND Nurture with chance. Often i've heard of the twin-story; that since one twin is gay and the other is not, it is choice. Speaking genetically, one theory that fits the available observations is that the penetrance of the "gay gene(s)" is approximately 67%. That causes about half of the males with the gene(s) become gay. "There could be hundreds of millions of straight men walking around with this gay allele but who are straight simply because it didn't penetrate" In the case of the "gay gene(s)" perhaps 10% or more of all males have the allele that causes homosexuality, but in many cases is the allele not "triggered."

Type 1 diabetes: The penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 (early onset) diabetes is only 30%. So, if one identical twin has the allele that causes diabetes, then the other twin will have the same allele. Both will have a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Both twins will have the identical allele; they will have the same genetic structure. But it may or may not be triggered by something in the environment, and cause diabetes.

Schizophrenia: if one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has over a 60% chance of also developing the disorder.

Bipolar Affective Disorder: If one twin develops bipolar affective disorder, (formerly called manic depression) the other twin's chances are about 60% of having it as well.

1. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. They're the same as us. They just like the same gender as them.

2. Can we have something other than religious reasons? I don't believe in religion.

3. If my parents were homosexual, I'd be proud that they're happy, and are with someone they can actually love.

4. Please use correct spelling and grammar, so I'll actually take you seriously.

Touche is said by someone else in response to a statement you make (if they consider it of weight).

A post which predated mine:

quote:

And certainly I never chose for myself a life of being oppressed, undermined, made feel at odds with society because they only promote love as being heterosexual. I've not chosen to feel disconnected, to feel silent because I was afraid I'd be completely shunned. People like you who spew racist ideologies are part of the problem in this country. And it's a general pattern that holds true for most minority, non-Christian, non-male groups, unfortunately.

TAKE THAT is a statement made by me proceeding a touche-able statement made by my self .

quote:

Even though the homophobiacs are trying to "breed" it out of sheep and then people.

Maybe explain to us how homosexuality can be inherited?

Oy vey!
Thank you!
Homosxuality is NOT a disease.
Even though the homophobiacs are trying to "breed" it out of sheep and then people.
If homosexuality is a disease, then heterosexuality is a more common one.

might I, on behlaf of everyone who has read your posts, remind you that you were the one that brought race into a forum about homosexuality.

quote:

Um, homos are a race? Maybe us heteros are a race. Cool!

Touché.

Oh, and

quote:

Sure its gross, but it is an affliction

It's not some disease; I'm sick and fucking tired of people saying that homosexuality is some curable syndrome...SSAD or other bullshit to that nature.

quote:

Not too long ago, miscegenation was considered perverted. Do you oppose interracial marriage on those grounds?

I do consider it perverted. The most famous quote from the old world I can remember is when Tom (I think) in "the great gatsby" says "Next they'll throw everything overboard and have inter marriage between black and white". This thread is desperate to head for race teritory so im out. I don't intend to discuss anymore race in a forum which openly says its best that whites should dissolve away into coloured races.

But just to finish off: clpo13, for future reference, the same party which introduced the White Australia policy later introduced a "Australia should be ethnically linked to Asia (We should import as many Asians and as few Euros as possible) policy". Thats not an exageration, it was pretty much said by party members. That policy was two later revoked, and the policy is now a nice "Easy with the immigration, no Reverse-Racism" policy.
Your country, BTW, was also founded on the policies of "Push the red savages off their land, and take it for our own", and "Use the inferior negros as slaves". To think you have the moral high-ground is delusional (if thats what you were getting at ).

jesus or god or whoever didnt write the bible...they inspired its creation. but if man was made with flaws and if we sin everyday through our judgement then whos to say that that person's own ideas werent also put in the bible?

I persoanlly belieive no book, person or anything can speak for or define god. its not about the religion or going to church or reading the bible its about your relationship with god.

I mean it makes since why religion is such a hot topic with gay marriage because gay people would be getting married in churches (not all of them). but as far as passing a law against it, thats ridiculous. if i dont recall religion and government are to be kept separate. furthermore...i beleive a law should be something that benefits and protects citizens. not block them out.

quote:

You mean when the states were federated into the Australian nation-state, or something along those lines?

Country, nation, whatever. I meant: when Australia became something other than just a collection of settlements. So, the Australian nation was federated on the idea that it was going to be white-only. Happy now?

quote:

Find me a country that has been VOID of prejudice.

I'm not saying that no country is void of prejudice. I was saying that Australia was founded on the idea that non-whites weren't welcome. The United States, on the other hand, was founded with the idea that all men were created equal. On the other hand, the prevailing idea in Australia during its Federation was, and I quote Edmund Barton here, "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman." Classic case of certain people being more equal than others, right?

Anyways, Australia doesn't really have much to do with anything, so I don't want to drag the topic off any more than it already is. It was just an aside; one that did involve thinking before typing, mind you.

quote:

Originally posted by PrincessMonica12:
I think it is gross and wrong. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. If I afended anyone i dont care.anyone who is one should be put in prison. Its just NOT RIGHT!

1. Don't take the Bible literally. Don't read the Bible without someone who isn't a priest or fundamentalist guiding you. Get a real theologist to help you understand it.

2. The story of Creation and of Adam and Eve are not literal at all, going with my first point. If they were, then why are there two stories of creation? First, Genesis says God creates Man then gives him the fruits of the earth and such. Then it says God makes man again out of mud? Oh, thats right, these aren't literal historical events, these are stories written by human beings with the purpose of teaching lessons.

3. "Adam" and "Eve" aren't individual people. They are puns in hebrew, for all of humanity (Adam) and just women (Eve). Of course, in the English, Latin, German, whatever version we don't get that. We just get the idea that it means 2 individual persons name Adam and Eve.

4. Just because man and woman were created doesn't mean man and man or woman and woman cannot love each other romantically.

Basically, your one remotely valid argument is completely wrong.
Why should homosexuals be put in prison? Because they're "gross"? What the fuck? They aren't a threat to society. You are.
Read a book that isn't the Bible, please.
Though if you read the Bible and know how, you'd just end up as an anarchist.

There's the small matter of consent, for one thing. The situations aren't terribly analogous.

Also, without getting too deep into moral relativism, perceptions of perversion depend on the society in which it is being perceived. Not too long ago, miscegenation was considered perverted. Do you oppose interracial marriage on those grounds?

quote:

I used that quote to refute that, even though you're non-religious, you still used a bible reference.

Jaymeister, can you please check that my statements are towards you. All the things you have challenged me on were nothing to do with you. If someone talks of the bible, I am allowed to talk about the bible two. If someone talks about the White Australia policy, I am allowed to reply TO HIM about that, without you for some reason thinking it was aimed at you (which makes NO sense).

quote:

Perversion is something sick and twisted, not a legitimate poulation out to recieve the rights they whole heartedly deserve without the interference of closemindedness.

Address what I said. Would it not be perverted for a man to marry a 10 year old girl. Would it not be perverted for a man to marry a cow. Would it not be perverted for a man to marry another m... no scratch that one . You can not reject that pervertion is a valid concept. For the same reason you can not reject that greed is not a valid concept. Real is not refutable.

quote:

1901 is when Australia became a country. So it was a founding policy.

You mean when the states were federated into the Australian nation-state, or something along those lines? Australia was always a country, even when there were only aboriginals . Australia was different to the US. All the states were British colonies, and we aren't the United States of Australia.

quote:

I was just calling into question your use of quotes from a historically prejudiced country.

And im just saying thats DAMN RICH coming from an AMERICAN, you ULTRA-HIPOCRITE, thats all . Find me a country that has been VOID of prejudice.
Think before you type.

quote:

And to correct you, the White Australia policy was not a founding policy. It was introduced around 1900 (I think, and not that its relevant).

1901 is when Australia became a country. So it was a founding policy.

And I know it's not really relevant. I was just calling into question your use of quotes from a historically prejudiced country.

quote:

Dude, U R so full of bile. Ease up. Im about as religous as richard dawkins. Whats the point in that attack? Are you trying to pin me a religous so you can use your probably well practiced anti-religous attacks?

I used that quote to refute that, even though you're non-religious, you still used a bible reference. The fact is, inside of religion, there's no refutation. Ask anyone whom has seen my posts, I'm not some noobie out cursing religion and those who believe. I've seen my share of repulsion, and I have learned how to find truth in it, and refute it to find the real answer. I am against ignorance and anyone who follows it's creed.
Are there any things you could give me scientifically?

quote:

Now why are people bringing race into a debate about homos.

Because I already told you that I don't think of homosexuals as a race, it'd be a clear indicator of my intent to use the "interracial couples are not allowed to be married in NC" fact as that in some places, the system is so backed up that it's still on issues that have been resolved since '65. That shows the prejudice of the area; think of what they feel towards homosexuals.

quote:

And to correct you, the White Australia policy was not a founding policy.

I refuted that because that is, simply, Australia. Not the US.

quote:

Now im not saying society is completely perverted, Im just saying 2 to go

The only perversion is going on the "abnormality" complex. The fact is, people revulse difference. That's nature. "Change is the enemy!" Perversion is something sick and twisted, not a legitimate poulation out to recieve the rights they whole heartedly deserve without the interference of closemindedness.