What do gays really want?

What I mean is men should not be allowed to become step fathers....since child abuse is much higher with that group of ppl.

Quit messin with me!

dukeofbaja said:

I hate to post this, but what Katatawnic said is true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjO1F6oCab8

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that Duke. Me being the baby I am, I cried the first time a listened to the lyrics (how gay is that? lol) . Brad Paisley is a great person and a great musician.

Stoney McFried said:

Because I was addressing him regarding his comment to Rob Roy regarding his son. Because he makes threads about these same subjects ALL the time.He participates in every one of these threads. He comes across as being so much more knowledgeable than the rest of us. I want to know what makes him so. I want to know why he seems to think he can tell other people how to raise their children properly. The comment he made was nothing more than a thinly veiled smear against Rob's parenting.
And when you disagree with him, you get this, in one form or another...an attack against your intelligence. I simply want to know what makes him more qualified to decide on these matters than us. Why his opinions are more profound.
Originally Posted by RickWhite
If we take nothing else to heart, we should come away with the realization that MissMeanGrean and I dare say myself are obviously much better at producing sound arguments and avoiding the use of fallacious logic. I think that speaks to ones wisdom and over all intelligence. Just maybe, the rational individual ought to hold our opinions in higher regard for these reasons alone. If we are clearly superior in this regard, maybe there is reason to have confidance in our judgement more so than in the judgement of one who consistantly demonstrates an inability to reason on a similar level.

Click to expand...

you two should have lunch.

i'm NOT defending hetros.

that's not my argument. post whatever you want. just don't tell me 2 gays won't rape my child, because they just MAY.
as may a straight couple. (just to help you stay focused)

Johnnyorganic said:

If we were to play a little match game where you put up one story of a homosexual couple abusing children and I were to post two separate stories of heterosexual couples abusing children; who would have a mountain of stories to provide long after the other party ran out?

In other words, who would win the game?
http://www.kptv.com/news/22710739/detail.html

Just to rub it in, here's my second story.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7520-Chicago-Crime-Examiner~y2010m1d21-Barrington-married-couple-charged-inrepeated-sexual-assault-of-young-girl

Click to expand...

"just to rub it in"?

like any of this matters. lol

Originally Posted by RickWhite
If we take nothing else to heart, we should come away with the realization that MissMeanGrean and I dare say myself are obviously much better at producing sound arguments and avoiding the use of fallacious logic. I think that speaks to ones wisdom and over all intelligence. Just maybe, the rational individual ought to hold our opinions in higher regard for these reasons alone. If we are clearly superior in this regard, maybe there is reason to have confidance in our judgement more so than in the judgement of one who consistantly demonstrates an inability to reason on a similar level.

upnorth2505 said:

Thanks for posting that Duke. Me being the baby I am, I cried the first time a listened to the lyrics (how gay is that? lol) . Brad Paisley is a great person and a great musician.

Click to expand...

I hate country music but they do put out some good songs. That song got to me today when I was posting the link.

Originally Posted by RickWhite
If we take nothing else to heart, we should come away with the realization that MissMeanGrean and I dare say myself are obviously much better at producing sound arguments and avoiding the use of fallacious logic. I think that speaks to ones wisdom and over all intelligence. Just maybe, the rational individual ought to hold our opinions in higher regard for these reasons alone. If we are clearly superior in this regard, maybe there is reason to have confidance in our judgement more so than in the judgement of one who consistantly demonstrates an inability to reason on a similar level.

judgment, not judgement http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/judgement.html
one's, not ones http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1017
overall, not over all (no citation needed)
confidence, not confidance (no citation needed)
consistently, not consistantly (no citation needed)

What is also funny to note is that some British folks still spell it 'judgement'.
Especially suspicious if you consider MissMeanWeed has shown a propensity towards spelling words the British way.
Did Rick intentionally misspell MissMeanWeed's name (not MissMeanGrean) to try to throw us off the scent of his sock account?

It does make one wonder....

perfect post. thank you for "getting" what i was tryign to say. if this were the "free pipe thread" you would have just won.

i appreciate your point of view and thank you for sharing.

upnorth2505 said:

I have thought about it, though mostly in the past.

I would NOT say the parents have NO influence on whether their child is str8 or gay, but there is really very little serious research here.

Meaningful research is partially limited by ethics. For example, if parents raise a boy in a "girly" way, giving him girl dolls, no masculine toys, etc, etc. will this child be gay? I have read some anecdotal studies and they are far from conclusive. Of course, I think it would be very unethical to raise a male child in this way.

Are there subtle unconscience "cues" that a parent might give a child that could turn them gay? Maybe, but does really make sense? Again, no real data here.

Somewhat implcit in this concept is that parents often recognize and take "corrective" action. That is, they notice that their boy is acting "femmy" and expose him to a hyper-masculine environment to correct this "defect". I have neither read, nor do I have any annecdotal stories from str8 friends regarding this.

I think that environmental factors are very subtle indeed. More related to how a child conducts themselves and certain behvioral traits.

In addition my personal observation is that certain people "look gay". Why? There is a certain feminization of facial characteristics. This is rarely observed in str8 men. It might be my hyper sensitive "gaydar" but I would say that maybe 20% of gay folks I know or have seen "look" noticeably gay. This is independent of their dress, demeanour, etc.

Of course, I represent the utmost in male masculinity. (Joke here everyone! ).

Anyway, there are randomized studies where people look at photos of str8 and gay guys (only faces, and no make up!) and folks are able to an amazing degree indentify the gay guys. So there are distingushing physical characteristics going on here.

Honestly though, even if being gay was 100% a result of parental upbringing, it would not change my views.

I think it is fair to say that very few people think these days that gay folks "choose" to be gay. In my 30+ years of interacting with gay folk I have never met anyone that said they made a decision to be gay.

Finally Occams Razor: What makes the most sense? That folks choose to be gay? That parents make there kids gay? Or that being gay is a mostly biological deal with some subtle environmental factors? I know what my vote is.

Click to expand...

However, from the comments posted, it's easy to figure out. When I refer to my dad, I'm talking about my step-dad. One Father's Day, I got my dad a T-shirt that said, "Anyone can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a Daddy." He wore that sucker out (holes, stains, the iron on so faded it could barely be read anymore), and he still refused to get rid of it... it was found amongst his most "special" belongings when he died five years ago. He was absolutely the most kind, nurturing, and just plain awesome dad I could have hoped for, and I've always felt extremely lucky to have had him in my life instead of my sperm donor.



Hey Katatawnic,


Thank you so much for sharing that very personal story. It is touching and gives me faith in people and the human race. No fair though you (almost) made me cry! You have to be very proud of him. And miss him very much.

WTF are you idiots prattling on about now? The only similarities between me an MissMeanGreen or what ever her name is is that we are both intelligent, articulate people who are capable of using logic. MMG is clearly British while I clearly am not - and she is more articulate than I am. Our communication styles are really quite different. That is unless you put everyone who uses multisyllabic words all in the same group. The reason my spelling is sometimes off and I sometimes mistakenly use antonyms is because I am dyslexic. I wouldn't know a British spelling if I saw it - I go with what spell check offers.

Getting back to the subject; it appears the conversation has deteriorated into nothing but insults and reiteration of the same arguments ad-infinitum.

Nobody, including those in the social sciences knows for sure what determines personality, much less sexuality. Most theories (and there are many) believe environment is at least on of the key factors. When we are discussing complex behaviors this is almost certain to be the case. Genetics can make someone a nervous person or a lazy person or even a paranoid person, but it just isn't reasonable to assume genetics could be responsible for someone loving golf, acting like a hyper-masculine trucker or wanting to be Mr. Slave. Genes simply do not work that way.

But, if you really want to see where all this "genetic cause" stuff originated read about social Darwinism, a theory that posits that a persons success in life is determined by genetics (the cream always rises to the top). I'm sure you Liberals are going to love being on the side of this theory. BTW, Hitler was a big fan of this thinking which is what also lead to the concept of eugenics - the control of the genetic makeup of society through selective breeding. He also argued that Jews were genetically inferior. Ironic that you Liberals could be arguing for the existence of genetic causes while blissfully unaware of the hideous implications that such thinking has produced in the past.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html


Anyway, I don't believe you want to promote eugenics, just that your logic is very simple and I would like to help you understand it.

You assume that if it can be shown that being gay is natural and not a deviant behavior, this would benefit Gays. You believe it would benefit them with regard to discrimination and that it would reduce hostility toward them. Because nobody should be discriminated against of harassed, and because believing in a natural cause is the best way to achieve that end, you assume it is the correct opinion to have. It is simple - if A produces B and B is good, A must be good. And if anyone suggests that A might be bad, that would imply that B is bad. You can not have that so you attack anyone saying A might be bad. Follow?

The thing is, this logic is over simplified. Homosexuality may be the result of a myriad of reasons. It could be abuse, it could be a failure to connect, it could be the way other kids treat a child who just happens to be effeminate, the list goes on. Now, I have no delusions about opening anyone's mind to these possibilities. At this point I wold settle for convincing people to learn how to think critically and stop being dogmatically defensive to the point where your head is harder to penetrate than a Kevlar coated titanium ball.

Lots of people have issues. Just because Gays might be among them doesn't make them bad people and nobody is suggesting that they be treated unfairly either in law or in life. Maybe, just maybe, if you could put aside your closed minded, knee jerk dogma long enough to listen to what others say, you just might find that what they are saying really isn't all that objectionable or unreasonable.

i read a couple pages of this tripe. what's the point of threads like this? nothing will be accomplished, and no one will change their minds on whatever the subject. who cares if you're gay? who cares if you're not?

I'm bout sick of this thread!!! who gives a shit what "they" want !!!! nobody givs a fuck what i want !!!!!!

RickWhite said:

WTF are you idiots prattling on about now? The only similarities between me an MissMeanGreen or what ever her name is is that we are both intelligent, articulate people who are capable of using logic. MMG is clearly British while I clearly am not - and she is more articulate than I am. Our communication styles are really quite different. That is unless you put everyone who uses multisyllabic words all in the same group. The reason my spelling is sometimes off and I sometimes mistakenly use antonyms is because I am dyslexic. I wouldn't know a British spelling if I saw it - I go with what spell check offers.

Getting back to the subject; it appears the conversation has deteriorated into nothing but insults and reiteration of the same arguments ad-infinitum.

Nobody, including those in the social sciences knows for sure what determines personality, much less sexuality. Most theories (and there are many) believe environment is at least on of the key factors. When we are discussing complex behaviors this is almost certain to be the case. Genetics can make someone a nervous person or a lazy person or even a paranoid person, but it just isn't reasonable to assume genetics could be responsible for someone loving golf, acting like a hyper-masculine trucker or wanting to be Mr. Slave. Genes simply do not work that way.

But, if you really want to see where all this "genetic cause" stuff originated read about social Darwinism, a theory that posits that a persons success in life is determined by genetics (the cream always rises to the top). I'm sure you Liberals are going to love being on the side of this theory. BTW, Hitler was a big fan of this thinking which is what also lead to the concept of eugenics - the control of the genetic makeup of society through selective breeding. He also argued that Jews were genetically inferior. Ironic that you Liberals could be arguing for the existence of genetic causes while blissfully unaware of the hideous implications that such thinking has produced in the past.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html


Anyway, I don't believe you want to promote eugenics, just that your logic is very simple and I would like to help you understand it.

You assume that if it can be shown that being gay is natural and not a deviant behavior, this would benefit Gays. You believe it would benefit them with regard to discrimination and that it would reduce hostility toward them. Because nobody should be discriminated against of harassed, and because believing in a natural cause is the best way to achieve that end, you assume it is the correct opinion to have. It is simple - if A produces B and B is good, A must be good. And if anyone suggests that A might be bad, that would imply that B is bad. You can not have that so you attack anyone saying A might be bad. Follow?

The thing is, this logic is over simplified. Homosexuality may be the result of a myriad of reasons. It could be abuse, it could be a failure to connect, it could be the way other kids treat a child who just happens to be effeminate, the list goes on. Now, I have no delusions about opening anyone's mind to these possibilities. At this point I wold settle for convincing people to learn how to think critically and stop being dogmatically defensive to the point where your head is harder to penetrate than a Kevlar coated titanium ball.

Lots of people have issues. Just because Gays might be among them doesn't make them bad people and nobody is suggesting that they be treated unfairly either in law or in life. Maybe, just maybe, if you could put aside your closed minded, knee jerk dogma long enough to listen to what others say, you just might find that what they are saying really isn't all that objectionable or unreasonable.

Click to expand...

sorry rick but you spend way to much time typin and nobody is gunna read it !!

Katatawnic said:

Yeah? Oh, yeah?! Well, maybe I'll just go ahead and rep you, just because your signature asks that you not be repped! Whadduya thinka that?

Click to expand...

lol, who cares... we're all just wastin time here anyway....

RickWhite said:

WTF are you idiots prattling on about now? The only similarities between me an MissMeanGreen or what ever her name is is that we are both intelligent, articulate people who are capable of using logic. MMG is clearly British while I clearly am not - and she is more articulate than I am. Our communication styles are really quite different. That is unless you put everyone who uses multisyllabic words all in the same group. The reason my spelling is sometimes off and I sometimes mistakenly use antonyms is because I am dyslexic. I wouldn't know a British spelling if I saw it - I go with what spell check offers.

Click to expand...

I call BULLSHIT.

You know how easy it would be to check?

Or are you so old you don't know what an IP address is?