quote:

Originally posted by Joel135:
I think that Homosexuality is totally wrong and that being GAY is not normal.. Hello in the beginning of time Gad created Adam and Eve and they were made for each other. NOTICE God did not make ADAM AND STEVE.... HE DID NOT MAKE ANOTHER MAN TO COMFORT AND SUPPORT ADAM he made a woman. Im not saying that if urr gay that im gonna totally space u off and not listen to urr comments, and NO (me bein a "Bible Thumper") will not judge people or condemn them for there choices.. because thats Gods job NOT MINE.. and in the end of time they will be judged for there wrong doings.. oh and by the way even if u are gay God STILL LOVES U AND ALWAYS WILL.. DONT FORGET THAT ITS NEVER TO LATE TO CHANGE URR WAYS..

the beginning of your argument and the end contradicts itself. you say homosexuality is wrong, and then go onto say you will not judge. hypocrite.

you are right though. God will judge everyone. but the homosexual who treated everyone well and contributed good things to society will get into heaven, while the bigoted, hateful homophobe will be in hell.

quote:

God did not make ADAM AND STEVE.... HE DID NOT MAKE ANOTHER MAN TO COMFORT AND SUPPORT ADAM he made a woman.

Prove it.

I think that Homosexuality is totally wrong and that being GAY is not normal.. Hello in the beginning of time Gad created Adam and Eve and they were made for each other. NOTICE God did not make ADAM AND STEVE.... HE DID NOT MAKE ANOTHER MAN TO COMFORT AND SUPPORT ADAM he made a woman. Im not saying that if urr gay that im gonna totally space u off and not listen to urr comments, and NO (me bein a "Bible Thumper") will not judge people or condemn them for there choices.. because thats Gods job NOT MINE.. and in the end of time they will be judged for there wrong doings.. oh and by the way even if u are gay God STILL LOVES U AND ALWAYS WILL.. DONT FORGET THAT ITS NEVER TO LATE TO CHANGE URR WAYS..

I know, I was just clarifying for anyone who wanted to take RegularGuy's claims and turn it into "Bisexuality is a choice."

I think he's a little confused. Whatever the case, welcome to the club!

quote:

Still, you don't choose to be bisexual either.

I never said or [meant] to imply such.

Still, you don't choose to be bisexual either.

quote:

So you chose to be gay? BS.

Just updating this and telling everyone here that he has admitted to really being bisexual.

Now, anyone who continues to tell gay's that they are destined to hell, I ask you, may I please borrow the revised copy of the Bible that someone gave you in which God came down unto the people and said "You, that whole thing about not judging people? I was just playin'. And remember that whole love the sinner hate the sin concept? Yeah, whatever, I was in a weird mood that day. Hate 'em both. Speaking of which, about all that love and goodness and being kind crap? Screw it, that was just to impress some chick."

Just wanted to say i love how you put that.

quote:

Who you love is choice not science.

So you chose to be gay? BS. Attraction is most definitally science due to phermones and reactions that go on in the brain which produce emotions.

quote:

Someone in my recent family (accoriding to Mendal's Theory) would have to be gay for me to have the gene

Not neccessarily. If it is a reccessive gene that only occurs with certain circumstances, it could be passed down as a reccessive trait for generations.

quote:

#2: From my last physical I was 100% healthy. I am a straight A student on the national honor roll.
How could I have a chemical imbalance?

Did your doctor do a thorough analysis of your chemical levels? A 'chemical imbalance' wouldn't make you unhealthy, because it's not a bad thing. Imbalance is not implying anything negative, it is only stating a difference. And, having a 'chemical imbalance' does not prevent you from being smart. The stereotype of gays being smart and wealthy didn't come from nowhere.

quote:

#2: From my last physical I was 100% healthy. I am a straight A student on the national honor roll.
How could I have a chemical imbalance?

Because a chemical imbalance doesn't necessarily correlate with that?

genetics:
#1: Someone in my recent family (accoriding to Mendal's Theory) would have to be gay for me to have the gene. And I know there isn't one.
chemical imbalance:
#2: From my last physical I was 100% healthy. I am a straight A student on the national honor roll.
How could I have a chemical imbalance?

Just a thought: I'm sure being or not being gay is a choice. Just because you date a girl or a guy doesn't mean you have a chemical imbalance or a certian gene. Who you love is choice not science.

Well the most obvious and strongest is that gays show absolutely no "violent" or "unstable" tendencies. A disorder/imbalance does not mean that you are dangerous. Does having mild ADHD prohibit you from adopting? How about OCD? Truthfully I'm not sure but I'd be willing to wager that they are, at the worst, minor obstacles. A beneign mental disorder that does not increase your chances of being violent or prevents you from holding a steady job shouldn't be a problem.

As to combating a socially conservative government, there's not much you can do beside vote, or get a very good lawyer and enough money to convince the Supreme Court of the case. As it stands right now I think that, with enough evidence, the court could not ignore any ban on gay marriage, or at least the equivilant legal rights.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
As to adoption, it could be a hinderance there, however since the "symptoms" in no way make the person a threat like the other disorders you mentioned. I see no reason, aside from the arguement that children need influence from both genders, that this would legetimately affect the case for adoption.

I don't think the problem would be with adoption agencies. (Aside from hardcore Christian ones, most are really accepting of gays trying to adopt.) The problem would lie in a conservative President and administration (and Supreme Court) that may try and outlaw gay adoption based on the "chemical imbalance" and if schizophrenics have rights -- but most cannot adopt as they are not 'mentally stable' -- then gays cannot as well.

Any ideas to try and prevent that? 'Cause I'm warming up to the chemical imbalance idea. If for nothing else than improvement of chances for equality for homosexuals.

Do yourself a favor and stop posting now chica. At the very least, under that name.

quote:

Originally posted by chica_notanugget:
being gay is NOT chemical imbalance, and has nothing to do with family. to tell u the truth i have a sister who is gay, i don't like the way u guys r talking about if, if it is a gene, and is passed through family, then i would be gay, and i'm NOT! i would appreciate it if u knocked of the chemical imbalance bull s***

You need a lesson in genetics and biology.

Firstly not every trait is passed on and recessive genes can show up only in very rare cases. If homosexuality is indeed present in 1 in 10 people, then it's already more likely than many genetic traits.

I'd just like to hear your reasoning as to why you don't think it could be a hormone/chemical issue.

quote:

But you also have to take into account that most people who are homosexual/bisexual. etc. have been having these feelings since they were a kid and only since recognized them. Where are the hormones then?

Your body is influenced by horomones basically from the moment of conception. It's not just the spike in sex hormones at puberty.

quote:

Besides, if they can prove homosexuality is a chemical imbalance you're born with, there absolutely cannot be discrimation based upon it. Because then you could liken it to schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, and chronic depression. All of which are considered chemical imbalances, but those with those imbalances are still allowed ALL legal American rights. (To marry, the most glaringly obvious argument.)

Exactly my point as to how this could vastly improve the case for gay rights.

As to adoption, it could be a hinderance there, however since the "symptoms" in no way make the person a threat like the other disorders you mentioned. I see no reason, aside from the arguement that children need influence from both genders, that this would legetimately affect the case for adoption.

You wouldn't necessarily be gay. The reasoning behind the whole gene thing is that its a recessive trait. Heterosexuality is, in theory, dominant. Its the Punnet Square deal, but obviously more complicated. I haven't had biology yet, or I would explean it to you.

being gay is NOT chemical imbalance, and has nothing to do with family. to tell u the truth i have a sister who is gay, i don't like the way u guys r talking about if, if it is a gene, and is passed through family, then i would be gay, and i'm NOT! i would appreciate it if u knocked of the chemical imbalance bull s***

I still don't believe homosexuality is a chemical imbalance. Perhaps it's simply a different transfer of neurotransmitters. Something hardwired into us at birth. A cure absolves an ailment. I'm not exactly sure how many homosexuals define their sexual orientation as an "ailment." The only cure for homosexuality is denial.

Besides, if they can prove homosexuality is a chemical imbalance you're born with, there absolutely cannot be discrimation based upon it. Because then you could liken it to schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, and chronic depression. All of which are considered chemical imbalances, but those with those imbalances are still allowed ALL legal American rights. (To marry, the most glaringly obvious argument.)

Of course, that's a very dangerous line to walk, legally. It would severely hinder adoption processes.

But you also have to take into account that most people who are homosexual/bisexual. etc. have been having these feelings since they were a kid and only since recognized them. Where are the hormones then?

I'm not trying to discredit your information (I have no scientific proof of the above). I have no idea why some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual, but I prefer to not think of it as yet another disorder that is available to be stamped on the American population. And also, if its a chemical imbalence in the brain this so called "problem" be remedied, as you've already said. That's not something I'm quite willing to accept. I'd have to have near hard-core scientific evidence to accept a "cure" for homosexuality.

Its not a choice, and I don't think its a condition either. But other than that, I have very little idea of what it is, besides "natural/normal."