If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Juan_Bottom]

He "assures" us??? Niggaplease. Still wondering about your "every single study" allegation. Your citing one study doesn't really do a lot to support that claim does it? I asked you to cite one experiment that was replicated which offered any proof that homosexuality was biologically based and you hand me this "he assures us" crap??? Sorry dude, i am not assured, only more convinced that you don't know whatthefuck you're talking about and are very easily "assured".


Honibaz

Look, there's very obviously nothing that I can say that will make you stop hating queer folk, or believing they'll raise gay kids and destroy America, or some stupid sh*t like that. I mean, I'm trying to sound like I understand you but I'd have to wrap my head in carpet and have the mob beat me in the face with a golf club to fall that far.

Here's what I gave already gave you, as quoted by the others:

The NLLFS follows lesbian mothers and their children who were conceived by donor insemination during the 1980s. The study, which was initiated by Gartrell in 1986, examines the social, psychological, and emotional development of the children as well as the dynamics of planned lesbian families. This is the longest-running and largest prospective investigation of lesbian mothers and their children in the United States.

Here is the host of that study, Dr. Nanette Gartrell's one negative conclusion:

What we know from the studies of children who are older, who were raised by lesbian moms or gay dads, is that the incidents of those children becoming lesbian or gay is no different from the population in general.
By the age of ten, about half of them have experienced what they describe as homophobia.

And that's the goddamn deal. The fact that so many gay couples could raise kids and yet their children have no better or worse odds of becoming gay is a pretty strong indicator that people are born gay, and not raised gay.

I threw Dr. Dean Hammer's name in there is because he's often credited with actually discovering the gay gene, and that happened forever ago. He's written books about it, been featured on magazine covers, been featured in a dozen documentary's, tv programs, and radio. I chose the word "assures" because his discovery today is on shaky ground, due to new understandings of genetics. Even if later generations are able to prove him right or wrong, we still have plenty of other evidence that people are born gay. Evidence like Dr. Nanette Gartrell's study. I'm really flabbergasted that you chose to ignore my entire post and skip to the last sentence. You asked me for one study off of the top of my head, and I had two for you.

[thegreekdog]

I'm still unclear as to why "freedom lovers" would care whether someone is "born gay" or "chooses to be gay." Seems irrelevant to the overall discussion.

[Woodruff]

I'm still unclear as to why "freedom lovers" would care whether someone is "born gay" or "chooses to be gay." Seems irrelevant to the overall discussion.

Because being gay isn't about freedom, it's about oppression. Oppression of the ability to oppress others.

[Lootifer]

I'm still unclear as to why "freedom lovers" would care whether someone is "born gay" or "chooses to be gay." Seems irrelevant to the overall discussion.

really?

choice implies acceptance of responsibility for that choice ("you chose to be gay, and gays cant get married so its your own fault you're not allowed to get married!").

[b.k. barunt]

He "assures" us??? Niggaplease. Still wondering about your "every single study" allegation. Your citing one study doesn't really do a lot to support that claim does it? I asked you to cite one experiment that was replicated which offered any proof that homosexuality was biologically based and you hand me this "he assures us" crap??? Sorry dude, i am not assured, only more convinced that you don't know whatthefuck you're talking about and are very easily "assured".


Honibaz

Look, there's very obviously nothing that I can say that will make you stop hating queer folk, or believing they'll raise gay kids and destroy America, or some stupid sh*t like that. I mean, I'm trying to sound like I understand you but I'd have to wrap my head in carpet and have the mob beat me in the face with a golf club to fall that far.

Here's what I gave already gave you, as quoted by the others:

The NLLFS follows lesbian mothers and their children who were conceived by donor insemination during the 1980s. The study, which was initiated by Gartrell in 1986, examines the social, psychological, and emotional development of the children as well as the dynamics of planned lesbian families. This is the longest-running and largest prospective investigation of lesbian mothers and their children in the United States.

Here is the host of that study, Dr. Nanette Gartrell's one negative conclusion:

What we know from the studies of children who are older, who were raised by lesbian moms or gay dads, is that the incidents of those children becoming lesbian or gay is no different from the population in general.
By the age of ten, about half of them have experienced what they describe as homophobia.

And that's the goddamn deal. The fact that so many gay couples could raise kids and yet their children have no better or worse odds of becoming gay is a pretty strong indicator that people are born gay, and not raised gay.

I threw Dr. Dean Hammer's name in there is because he's often credited with actually discovering the gay gene, and that happened forever ago. He's written books about it, been featured on magazine covers, been featured in a dozen documentary's, tv programs, and radio. I chose the word "assures" because his discovery today is on shaky ground, due to new understandings of genetics. Even if later generations are able to prove him right or wrong, we still have plenty of other evidence that people are born gay. Evidence like Dr. Nanette Gartrell's study. I'm really flabbergasted that you chose to ignore my entire post and skip to the last sentence. You asked me for one study off of the top of my head, and I had two for you.

Ah yes, here's where we get to the inevitable hissy fits when i fail to accept your lack of backup for your original dogma, i.e. "EVERY SINGLE STUDY" (your caps). Now comes the stream of frustrated vitriol and accusations, "U hate teh gays" , not only bolding but capping your sputtering rants, reminiscent of one of those little fufu dogs that dance around in circles and piss on themselves. Charmed i am <farts loudly>

Still failing to back up your original rant, you resort to the old mouthbreathers trick of bolding and capping - such does not a viable argument make. You cite another study which paints a glowing picture of lesbians as mothers - not done by a lesbian by any chance was it? Doesn't really matter, you're still dodging the main issues - here, let me spoon feed you one more time:

1. I challenged your initial statement that EVERY SINGLE STUDY done on the subject showed that there were no detrimental results to children who were raised by gay parents.
2. I challenged your glibly throwing around the term "gay gene" and asked you to provide record of any replicated experiment that proved there was such a thing.

Do i have to explain replication to you? You say Hammer is "credited with actually discovering the gay gene, and that happened forever ago". Bullshit. I researched the gay gene for my Social Work 101 class in 1998, at which time none of Hammers experiments "proving the existence of a gay gene" had been replicated. This means that at that time (1998, not "forever ago") nothing about the gay gene had even reached a stage where it could, according to the accepted standards of scientific methodology, be considered a hypothesis, much less a theory and certainly not a stone fact as you assert. You can cap and bold all you want but honestly it's just gonna make you look more stoopit, and dogmatically so.


Honibaz

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I'm still unclear as to why "freedom lovers" would care whether someone is "born gay" or "chooses to be gay." Seems irrelevant to the overall discussion.

Score one for greekdog. Who really gives a shit, other than the biological aspects which would be interesting for those in the field?

-TG

[Juan_Bottom]

You do "literally mean every peer-reviewed study . . ." Now you leave out "aside from those linked to religious groups". Which is it? Every single one or every single one besides those "linked to religious groups"? And how many of these "studies" would you have us believe you've read? No no don't go running for Google to help you out on this one - seriously, you throw out statistics like these and expect anyone to take you seriously? Homosexuality is genetic? Cite me one experiment by name (that has been replicated) that supports this hypothesis.

Unlike you i've actually given time and effort to studying this subject and am not glibly pulling concocted generalities out of my ass. You have no idea what kind of studies have been done in this area and your generic delivery gives this away like a neon casino sign.

Doesn't really matter, you're still dodging the main issues - here, let me spoon feed you one more time:

1. I challenged your initial statement that EVERY SINGLE STUDY done on the subject showed that there were no detrimental results to children who were raised by gay parents.
2. I challenged your glibly throwing around the term "gay gene" and asked you to provide record of any replicated experiment that proved there was such a thing.

Do i have to explain replication to you?

Hey you asked, and you got your answer. If you don't like it, go cry me a river. The NLLFS study is pretty strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic. That's what you asked for. You asked for one study that supports the hypothesis that Homosexuality is genetic, peer-reviewed.
You never asked me for any evidence of the actual Gay Gene, and I don't have any. I don't need any. Like TGD said, what business is it of ours what someone else decides to do in their bedroom?
And also, I SAID DR. DEAN HAMMER'S DISCOVERY RESTS ON SHAKY GROUND. I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WAS "A STONE FACT." You're wrong that the Gay Gene cannot be considered a valid hypothesis. You're confusing Hypothesis with Theory. ANNNNNNNNNND:

In the 1990s Hamer began studies of the role of genes in human behavior. In 1993 he published a paper suggesting the existence of genes that influence homosexuality in males, and presented evidence that one of these genes is associated with the Xq28 marker on the X chromosome.[1] This finding was replicated in two studies in the United States but not in a third in Canada; meta-analysis indicated Xq28 has a significant but not exclusive effect.[2][3][4] Subsequently, several additional linked regions on other chromosomes have been described.[5]

In 1996, Hamer and colleagues investigated the genetic roots of anxiety and found that the gene for the serotonin transporter, which is the target of antidepressant drugs such as Prozac, is partially responsible.[6] This polymorphism has been extensively replicated and its activity has been confirmed by direct brain imaging studies.[7] More recently, Hamer has postulated the existence of a God gene for religious experience. This work, which was featured on the cover of Time magazine, has been controversial.

Controversial or not, there's no way you could have missed Dean Hammer's research if you were doing a good job of your own research. So why are you pretending like it doesn't exist?
"The finding was replicated in two studies in the United States but not a third in Canada."
That sounds replicated to me, buddy.

[b.k. barunt]

So now you've substituted the "gay gene" or proof that homosexuality is biologically based for the genetic roots of anxiety, and you still haven't backed up your dogmatic statement about EVERY SINGLE STUDY. You cite some study on lesbians as parents - this is one study as opposed to EVERY SINGLE STUDY. To continue this exchange would be an exercise in futility. I'm done.


Bored Shitless Honibaz

[thegreekdog]

I'm still unclear as to why "freedom lovers" would care whether someone is "born gay" or "chooses to be gay." Seems irrelevant to the overall discussion.

really?

choice implies acceptance of responsibility for that choice ("you chose to be gay, and gays cant get married so its your own fault you're not allowed to get married!").

In the context of the freedom to engage in activities, the choice to do or not do something is as paramount as being "born that way."

[Woodruff]

I'm still unclear as to why "freedom lovers" would care whether someone is "born gay" or "chooses to be gay." Seems irrelevant to the overall discussion.

really?

choice implies acceptance of responsibility for that choice ("you chose to be gay, and gays cant get married so its your own fault you're not allowed to get married!").

In the context of the freedom to engage in activities, the choice to do or not do something is as paramount as being "born that way."

While I don't disagree with that at all, you have to realize that those who disapprove of homosexual marriage are generally not interested at all in freedom for homosexuals.

[Woodruff]

Rights, Schmights: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20040127/TXMAN.html

(It's a mirror, as the original site was getting Reddit-hugged to death.)

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm still unclear as to why "freedom lovers" would care whether someone is "born gay" or "chooses to be gay." Seems irrelevant to the overall discussion.

really?

choice implies acceptance of responsibility for that choice ("you chose to be gay, and gays cant get married so its your own fault you're not allowed to get married!").

In the context of the freedom to engage in activities, the choice to do or not do something is as paramount as being "born that way."

While I don't disagree with that at all, you have to realize that those who disapprove of homosexual marriage are generally not interested at all in freedom for homosexuals.

Right, so...

@TGD: as a reaction against the 'Oppressors', if one can prove that homosexuals have no choice in their sexual orientation* (i.e. there is a "gay gene"), then (1) the argument of "it ain't natural" falls apart, and (2) since agency plays a lesser role in 'becoming' gay, then one cannot be held responsible for being gay. In other words, it would be like forcing women to not be women.

But I side with TGD and TG (Team TG)'s stance. I don't find the gay gene debate to be as useful. It's simply a mixture among biological, parental upbringing, peer groups, and one's decision-making (e.g. identity formation). *(caveat: I'm generalizing here. The gay gene argument is about pushing the responsibility a meager 10% from human agency into human genetics).

[BigBallinStalin]

So now you've substituted the "gay gene" or proof that homosexuality is biologically based for the genetic roots of anxiety, and you still haven't backed up your dogmatic statement about EVERY SINGLE STUDY. You cite some study on lesbians as parents - this is one study as opposed to EVERY SINGLE STUDY. To continue this exchange would be an exercise in futility. I'm done.


Bored Shitless Honibaz

Bored Shitless Honibaz is correct to point out this shift in JB's argument.

Gentlemen, if I may interject, why do you care about the gay gene argument, bk?

[BigBallinStalin]

1-3% sounds a little low, as Woody says there's likely a bunch of people who are on the fence or gay but have well and truely repressed it (to the point of maybe even not even knowing they are potentially gay).

This is based on talking to a very, er, open gay couple who have regular same-sex threesomes. They said they almost exclusively pick up "straight" (and usually married) guys. I have heard elseware (rumor etc) that this is about right (i.e. theres a lot of repressed potential homosexuals).

I hope you had a fun time, Loot.

[b.k. barunt]

Bored Shitless Honibaz is correct to point out this shift in JB's argument.

Gentlemen, if I may interject, why do you care about the gay gene argument, bk?

My Social Work 101 professor was gay and dogmatically made a statement in class that they had "proved" that homosexuality was biologically based. I didn't think this was true and challenged him. He cited the Gay Twins experiment and the Gay Brain experiment as "proof". I was also taking a scientific methodology class at the same time and i asked him if either of these experiments had been replicated. He offered to give me extra credit if i'd check it out, so i did. At that time (1998) numerous attempts had been made to replicate the twins experiment but none had made it.

The "Gay Brain" experiment guy proposed that the hypothalamus of the brain was larger in gay males. Out of 19 subjects, 6 had enlarged hypothalamuses and he claimed these were all gay. He was indicted for fraud in 1998. When asked how he knew the 6 subjects were gay he replied that he knew this because their hypothalamuses were enlarged. Circular logic anyone?

I wrote an editorial for the school paper on gay propaganda in the classroom and they actually published it. As a result, 3 years later i was denied the opportunity to do my internship in the school sponsored program (my SW101 professor was in charge along with a staunch lesbian) in spite of the fact that i was second in my class with a 3.9 GPA. A year after that i was denied entry into the graduate school there for a masters in counseling. The reason given: "homophobia".


Honibaz

[Juan_Bottom]

So now you've substituted the "gay gene" or proof that homosexuality is biologically based for the genetic roots of anxiety, and you still haven't backed up your dogmatic statement about EVERY SINGLE STUDY. You cite some study on lesbians as parents - this is one study as opposed to EVERY SINGLE STUDY. To continue this exchange would be an exercise in futility. I'm done.


Bored Shitless Honibaz

Oh, Boo Hoo for you.
You liar, you asked me to name ONE STUDY off the top of my head. I named TWO STUDIES off the top of my head. See those large bold letters that you quoted me quoting above? Those are your words asking me to cite ONE STUDY. NOT ALL STUDIES.
If you did even a half-assed job of your research, like you're pretending to have done, you'd already know that what I'm saying is true. The APA has long maintained that Gay Couples are just as good as Heterosexual Couples for raising a child. So when I say "every single peer-reviewed study," it's a fact. You've made numerous attacks on homosexuals here, calling it "Neurosis" and other things, and so your ability to honestly discuss the issue is easily called into question. Seriously, check your posting history for the word "gays." But maybe it is some weird form of Neurosis.... I highly-highly doubt it, but I'm not a doctor, what do I know? But for you to call it Neurosis and then somehow pretend to be an excellent researcher who doesn't believe that all studies show homosexuals make fine parents raising children who don't end up being gay is a betrayal of your homophobic motives. You'd either have to be a liar or the world's worst researcher to not know that EVERY SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED STUDY SHOWS THAT GAYS MAKE GOOD PARENTS. THAT'S PRETTY FAIR EVIDENCE THAT BEING GAY IS GENETIC, OR THEY WOULD ALL RAISE GAY CHILDREN. AND THEY DON'T. Even if being gay is a choice, which gays deny, and judging by your posting history you don't believe them, but! There's still no reason to deny them parental rights because they make fine parents.
BTW, if being gay isn't genetic, then it's a choice. But how can it be a choice if it's Neurosis?
I'm sorry you were expecting me to repeat some stupid shit about gay brains being big or something, but science moves on and you need to move on as well. The phrase for what you're experiencing is Cognitive Dissonance. That study, whatever it was, very obviously failed at the "peer-review" stage, so I don't understand why you or anyone would cling to if as evidence for anything but bad partial science. The only study that I cited which rests on shaky ground was the one by Dr. Dean Hammer, and I admitted that from the start. Yet even his study's have held up in the peer-review stage, with some alterations. And that research also predates yours.

Bored Shitless Honibaz is correct to point out this shift in JB's argument.

Gentlemen, if I may interject, why do you care about the gay gene argument, bk?

Taking time off from your "Heil Hitler comedy tour" to try to help B.K. out? By all means babe, roll into the discussion on the side of the Homophobic too.

And how many of these "studies" would you have us believe you've read? Cite me one experiment by name (that has been replicated) that supports this hypothesis.

[BigBallinStalin]

Bored Shitless Honibaz is correct to point out this shift in JB's argument.

Gentlemen, if I may interject, why do you care about the gay gene argument, bk?

Taking time off from your "Heil Hitler comedy tour" to try to help B.K. out? By all means babe, roll into the discussion on the side of the Homophobic too.

Haha, calling me homophobic is amusing, but don't let your ignorance phase you. I'm surprised though! Usually you offer an argument, I counter-argue, and you provide a logical fallacy, but now it's straight to the ad hominem and outright lies. <shrugs>**

I apologize for addressing you as a "gentleman," but do tell: why do you lack such self-respect?


**EDIT: Actually, JB fit the pattern perfectly.

1. JB takes a particular stance.
2. (bk points out a problem).
2. BBS highlights the problem (that JB has shifted the argument).
3. JB counters with an ad hominem.
4. BBS returns the favor.

lol, JB, you're too predictable! I shouldn't have doubted the TGD theorem of J-Bian/Playerian Argumentation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Bored Shitless Honibaz is correct to point out this shift in JB's argument.

Gentlemen, if I may interject, why do you care about the gay gene argument, bk?

My Social Work 101 professor was gay and dogmatically made a statement in class that they had "proved" that homosexuality was biologically based. I didn't think this was true and challenged him. He cited the Gay Twins experiment and the Gay Brain experiment as "proof". I was also taking a scientific methodology class at the same time and i asked him if either of these experiments had been replicated. He offered to give me extra credit if i'd check it out, so i did. At that time (1998) numerous attempts had been made to replicate the twins experiment but none had made it.

The "Gay Brain" experiment guy proposed that the hypothalamus of the brain was larger in gay males. Out of 19 subjects, 6 had enlarged hypothalamuses and he claimed these were all gay. He was indicted for fraud in 1998. When asked how he knew the 6 subjects were gay he replied that he knew this because their hypothalamuses were enlarged. Circular logic anyone?

I wrote an editorial for the school paper on gay propaganda in the classroom and they actually published it. As a result, 3 years later i was denied the opportunity to do my internship in the school sponsored program (my SW101 professor was in charge along with a staunch lesbian) in spite of the fact that i was second in my class with a 3.9 GPA. A year after that i was denied entry into the graduate school there for a masters in counseling. The reason given: "homophobia".

Honibaz

I admire your adherence to verification, and whether or not one is homophobic, discussing gay propaganda can be off-limits, which is a shame--assuming of course the work is credible and scientific. For example, people who research IQ/intelligence and race, who are not at all racist, catch similar shit. All people are susceptible to their cognitive bias, so there's nothing wrong with addressing a particular controversy (and its response) on the 'gay gene'.

Unfortunately, there are many who consider themselves liberal (as in pro-freedom) and intellectual yet are unwilling to be consistent with their beliefs and methodologies (here and 'the real world').

B.K. "Honibaz" Barunt, do you consider yourself to be homophobic? If yes/no, how do you know?

[saxitoxin]

JB's behavior has become increasingly erratic.

[Juan_Bottom]

Bored Shitless Honibaz is correct to point out this shift in JB's argument.

Gentlemen, if I may interject, why do you care about the gay gene argument, bk?

Taking time off from your "Heil Hitler comedy tour" to try to help B.K. out? By all means babe, roll into the discussion on the side of the Homophobic too.

Haha, calling me homophobic is amusing, but don't let your ignorance phase you. I'm surprised though! Usually you offer an argument, I counter-argue, and you provide a logical fallacy, but now it's straight to the ad hominem and outright lies. <shrugs>**

I apologize for addressing you as a "gentleman," but do tell: why do you lack such self-respect?


**EDIT: Actually, JB fit the pattern perfectly.

1. JB takes a particular stance.
2. (bk points out a problem).
2. BBS highlights the problem (that JB has shifted the argument).
3. JB counters with an ad hominem.
4. BBS returns the favor.

lol, JB, you're too predictable! I shouldn't have doubted the TGD theorem of J-Bian/Playerian Argumentation.

Well, as I pointed out, B K has along history of Homophobic posts on this website. And here above he's discounting any evidence that hasn't already been proven a forgery, adding great weight to the idea that he's just a homophobic.
While on the other hand you have a history of making fun of burning Jewish babies in a private forum, then chickening out about discussing it in public where people can see who you really are. What did we get out of you BBS?

"I stand by my statements that I made in private but I do not care to repeat them at this time."

You're just another coward on the internet. Put up or shut up. If you're not ashamed of making fun of the Holocaust you shouldn't be hiding it. And your persona isn't even the real you; I watched you get your ass handed to you in that modern economics discussion, so I know with great certainty that you're a troll. So, since you are a troll, I can't understand why you are trying to distance yourself from the words you spoke mocking the dead Jews?
And pretty much everything else you do is just attempts to rub these jokes in my face, knowing that the public will never see the multitude of horrific posts you made concerning joke-mining the Holocaust.

And look, what did I do as a response? I quite the fora that you were making fun of massacred Jews in, your "therapy," and I put you on foe. Ever since then you've been smugly commenting on anything that I post as an attempt to make a jab at my refusal to join you in internet bullying and Holocaust mocking. You never did any of that until after I quit the "haha dead jews" forum.

Also, you're always using the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly because you are not smart. It's not a blanket defense to cover your ass. I attacked you as a human being directly, because you are a bully and a cad. And I'll say it to your face, I wont make stupid bullet points and be all passive aggressive like you. I did not attack any evidence you provided for the discussion, because you don't add anything to the discussion. That's not an ad hominem attack, silly.

[BigBallinStalin]

I can't justify the expenditure of resources in dealing with your nonsense and lies, JB. Again, I apologize for calling you a gentleman. Carry on, dear ideologue, with your fanatical hatred and unwillingness to think.

[AAFitz]

I always wonder about the motivations of posters in these kinds of threads. I just for the life of me cant care that much and cant imagine why someone would put so much time and energy into hating how someone else chooses to live, especially since no one gets hurt, and arguably the world is a better place.

More importantly, what strikes me is how often that those that many that fight these things the most vocally, sometimes turn out to be "guilty" of the very thing they pretend to be fighting against. Certainly many straight people simply hate homosexuals, not to mention lots of other people they consider different for whatever reason....

I can only imagine that most other people, cant fathom the reasoning behind this seemingly hateful passion, and I have to assume, like me suspect ulterior motives, if subconscious ones at that.

As far as evidence of biological vs environment...it is out there.

Im not about to waste any time trying to educate baboons, but there is direct evidence that many gay males tend to process directions the same way women do, ie, their brains work differently when navigating and are attracted to males, and the evidence for this correlation is strong enough not to discount. I suppose one could argue that navigating is an environmentally influenced behavior and that gay males ended up being attracted to men, and process directions when driving for the same reasons, but I dont know...it seems pretty convoluted.

In any case, I kind of envy anyone who has enough time to waste hating other peoples choices in life so much, and kind of wish I had the time to do the same.

On the other hand, thank god, Im not that pathetic.

[Woodruff]

EVERY SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED STUDY SHOWS THAT GAYS MAKE GOOD PARENTS. THAT'S PRETTY FAIR EVIDENCE THAT BEING GAY IS GENETIC, OR THEY WOULD ALL RAISE GAY CHILDREN. AND THEY DON'T.

You and your "peer reviewed" bullshit. Everyone knows that peer-review is unnecessary, a waste of time and, after all, it doesn't create jobs:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/29/sopa-creators-latest-bill-proposes-stripping-peer-review-from-science-funding/

Seriously...Texas, could you do something about this guy, please?

[BigBallinStalin]

Im not about to waste any time trying to educate baboons, but there is direct evidence that many gay males tend to process directions the same way women do, ie, their brains work differently when navigating and are attracted to males, and the evidence for this correlation is strong enough not to discount. I suppose one could argue that navigating is an environmentally influenced behavior and that gay males ended up being attracted to men, and process directions when driving for the same reasons, but I dont know...it seems pretty convoluted.

Agreed with the rest, but what's your source? Cuz I've never heard that before, and it looks suspicious.

[b.k. barunt]

B.K. "Honibaz" Barunt, do you consider yourself to be homophobic? If yes/no, how do you know?

The word "homophobic" is a silly, misleading word concocted by the gays to imply that anyone who considers homosexuality to be unnatural is actually afraid of homosexuals. I believe it to be unnatural but i certainly don't fear them. I have friends who are openly gay and they know how i feel. The fact that they remain my friends speaks for itself. Because i believe it to be unnatural i don't believe a gay couple should raise children. For me to be denied schooling or anything else because of my beliefs is wrong - just as wrong as if a homosexual would be denied the same rights.


Honibaz