BSA and Chick fil A anti-gay

[geoff]

Well over the past week we have seen both the Boy Scouts and Chick Fil A have made public statements that they are anti-gay. Curious to see what opinions there are on this. Discuss...

[bondo]

i love chck-fil-a

[Sinfix_15]

Lots of boy scouts are gay. Old GF's little brother was gay and made eagle scout. Could care less what chick-fil-a thinks of gay people. If gay people want to boycott chick-fil-a, that just means more chicken for me!

People need to grow thicker skin and stop expecting everyone to support everything they do. Quit being fags, this is the united states of america, not france.

[geoff]

^for once we agree on something.

[Sammich]

Lots of boy scouts are gay. Old GF's little brother was gay and made eagle scout. Could care less what chick-fil-a thinks of gay people. If gay people want to boycott chick-fil-a, that just means more chicken for me!

People need to grow thicker skin and stop expecting everyone to support everything they do. Quit being fags, this is the united states of america, not france.

a-fukin-greed this boycott because they dont support something is fukin retarded. numero uno it's wrong in the bible numero dos it's chick fil a's decision to support or not support, so why the fuk you want to care? you want to be gay and you want people to RESPECT your decision, but they want to FORCE chick fil a to RESPECT their decision? hypocrite much?!?!

[.blank cd]

I'm not one for boycotting chick-Fil-a. A boycott only hurts individual franchisees and their employees. Cathy, however, has made it pretty clear he's a jackass though

Sammich, you know gay marriage is not in the bible, right?

[CSquared]

I got me some chick fil-a last weekend. I'm all for gay marriage, but if I boycotted every mother fucker and company in the world for beliefs I didn't agree with, I'd be living alone in an alleyway and eating out of a garbage can.

[Sammich]

homosexuality is frowned upon in the bible, that's what i was getting at. my main thing is the homosexual 'community', for the forefront part, are hypocrites. they boycott everyone who decides not to back them, no pun intended, but it's their decision, just like it's their decision to be homosexual. i mean shit do you as a homosexual, but do not disrespect someone elses decision not to support what you want to do.

[David88vert]

Actually, the news media is not quoting Dan Cathy correctly. He never stated that he was anti-gay. The news media has been fabricating his statements, and outright lying. Read the original interview.

Original interview: http://www.brnow.org/News/July-2012/‘Guilty-as-charged,’-Dan-Cathy-says-of-Chick-fil-A

Dan Cathy has every right to his own opinions. You do not have to agree with them, and you are free to have your own opinions and others are free to disagree. You are protected to speak your opinion by the First Amendment.

The real concern should be the Chicago alderman and the mayor of Boston. They are calling for a ban of a corporation and the denial of building permits to Chick-Fil-A in the areas that they represent. This suggests that you must agree with the government, or you will be denied the ability to expand a corporation. This is completely against the spirit of the law, and the First Amendment. Themere suggestion of it shows that these two do not represent their people, as they would deny the creation of jobs in this economy also.

[Sammich]

chick fil a is supposedly a christian based business anyway, and they are closed on sundays...so why the fuk are they trippin ANYWAY?!?

[David88vert]

chick fil a is supposedly a christian based business anyway, and they are closed on sundays...so why the fuk are they trippin ANYWAY?!?

Controversy sells, plain and simple. If you can't find some, make some up.

These reporters have to come up with stories that the editor will want, in order to keep their jobs. The editor wants stories that get people to buy their paper/website subscription/etc. and they have to fall in line with what the paying advertisers want to see. It's all about money. If you are a company like a news agency, you cater to those that pay you, just like any other company. So, who pays CNN/ABC/NBC/etc? Those who want the media to report what they want you to hear.

[Sammich]

that shit is retarded yo...SMH so glad i have nothing to do w/ the entertainment/famous/etc. i'd snap

[.blank cd]

Actually, the news media is not quoting Dan Cathy correctly. He never stated that he was anti-gay. The news media has been fabricating his statements, and outright lying. Read the original interview.

Original interview: http://www.brnow.org/News/July-2012/‘Guilty-as-charged,’-Dan-Cathy-says-of-Chick-fil-A

The real concern should be the Chicago alderman and the mayor of Boston. They are calling for a ban of a corporation and the denial of building permits to Chick-Fil-A in the areas that they represent. This suggests that you must agree with the government, or you will be denied the ability to expand a corporation. This is completely against the spirit of the law, and the First Amendment. Themere suggestion of it shows that these two do not represent their people, as they would deny the creation of jobs in this economy also.How are you gonna claim Cathy's interview was taken out of context, and then immediately in the next paragraph, take the mayors letter out of context. Lol.

[David88vert]

The Chicago alderman was the one that called for the denial of permits.
Chicago alderman blocks Chick-fil-A expansion (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-07-25/Chik-fil-A-Chicago/56481072/1)

The Boston Mayor vowed to block it.
Boston Mayor Vows To Block Chick-Fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Remarks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/chick-fil-a-gay_n_1689800.html)
His letter just released shows that he has no clue what was actually said, and is only posturing.
Boston Mayor's Letter To Chick-Fil-A President: Anti-Gay Stance Is 'Insult' To City (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/thomas-menino-boston-mayor-chick-fil-a-letter_n_1703770.html)

Show me where Cathy made any derogatory statements against gays in that interview.

I gave you the original source - not taking anything out of context. Read the letter yourself - it's in that link. That letter is clearly shows that the Boston mayor never read the actual interview, or he would know better than to release that statement.

[.blank cd]

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,"

Considering the source, that's pretty derogatory. And I think it's pretty bold that Cathy has the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is about.

[Nerdsrock22]

Chick Fil A didn't come out as anti-gay. I sick and tired of people spreading bullshit around.

Their CEO said, as an individual, "We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family." Chickfila said, as a company, "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

How fucking hard is that to understand? If you want to be a beacon of hope so bad, then fuck off to McDonalds. :goodjob:

Also, for all of you idiots clamoring on about supporting CFA and trying to make this a huge political statement, you fuck off too. Chickfila just wants to sell sandwiches. They don't need your right-wing bullshit to go along with it.

[B18c1Turboed]

I agree 100% with chikfila and wouldn't boycott them. Shit I'm going to eat there all next week to show them my support. And I have a feeling a city is about to get sued, are they not discriminating now? So the mayor is saying we should all go with what society dictates and throw the bibles values out the window?

[Nerdsrock22]

I agree 100% with chikfila and wouldn't boycott them. Shit I'm going to eat there all next week to show them my support. And I have a feeling a city is about to get sued, are they not discriminating now? So the mayor is saying we should all go with what society dictates and throw the bibles values out the window?

The government has no business being anti- or pro-gay. We cannot, and should not, force anyone to live according to biblical principles. The government has a duty to make sure that private individuals and private companies have to right to do whatever they want.

This is coming from a 100% bible-believing Christian and former CFA corporate employee.

[Vteckidd]

Chick Fil A have made public statements that they are anti-gay. Curious to see what opinions there are on this. Discuss...

FALSE, THEY DIDNT SAY THEY WERE ANTI-GAY. They said they agree with the TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE A CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION. I see nothing wrong with that.

ANTI-GAY would mean refusing to serve gay people food.

They have a personal belief that they have a RIGHT to hold. Theres nothing ANTI-GAY about it.

[Vteckidd]

I dont agree with Cathys statements, I have no problem with Gay Marriage, but hes entitled to his opinion. As long as he doesnt instruct his employees to refuse food to openly gay people, i have no problem with his views (although i disagree with him).

I believe Gay Marriage should be legal, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE. Its a state/federal issue, and RELIGION SHOULD BE LEFT OUT OF IT

[Sammich]

family and marriage was instituted by God himself, if people believe in him, and it was between Adam and Eve, male and female. also to mention as well that it's frowned upon in the bible as them being among those not 'inheriting god's kingdom'. so the statement 'nothing to do w/ the bible' i fully disagree with.

my only beef is gay people trying to force people's hands. they are way too sensitive and are acting, well, gay

[Vteckidd]

family and marriage was instituted by God himself, if people believe in him, and it was between Adam and Eve, male and female. also to mention as well that it's frowned upon in the bible as them being among those not 'inheriting god's kingdom'. so the statement 'nothing to do w/ the bible' i fully disagree with.

my only beef is gay people trying to force people's hands. they are way too sensitive and are acting, well, gay


If you agree with the bible, you dont agree with the gay lifestyle
If you dont agree with the bible, you agree with the gay lifestyle

Why does 1 have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER?

Marriage shouldnt be defined by a religious belief because its a STATE ISSUED CONTRACT. Religion only plays into the ACTUAL CEREMONY that is performed to certify the union.

It has nothing to do with the bible. Both sides are wrong of pushing their own agenda on the issue without realizing that neithers actions effect the other.

[B18c1Turboed]

He never said they wouldn't serve gay people so what's all the fuss about anyways? Doesn't the bible say men who lie with men wouldn't inherit gods kingdom? So be it they know the consuquences but don't try to force me to agree with your view when you know it's wrong.

[Vteckidd]

If you believe in GOD and dont believe gay people should be allowed to marry, I RESPECT YOUR VIEW. I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT. But i respect your right to believe that.

I believe in GOD, and i believe in the right for gay people to marry as far as the STATE is concerned. 2 Gay people should be allowed to be "married" in the eyes of the state if the state adopts that practice. It does NOTHING to undermine the bible or religious teachings that you believe in.

If you think it does, then i expect you to be just as upset when Mormons get married, Muslims get married, Indians get married, Jews get married, etc. Basically you are saying "get married as my bible dictates or you are not doing it right"

that is not a view i share

[David88vert]

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,"

Considering the source, that's pretty derogatory. And I think it's pretty bold that Cathy has the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is about.

You need to look up derogatory in the dictionary. Supporting one's belief is not an attack on another's belief. He did not say that homosexuality was wrong. He stated that he believes that marriage should be defined as it has for thousands of years, and stated Biblically. He stated this as an opinion.
Do you think that the First Amendment only applies when someone agrees with your viewpoint?

Also, he is following tradition, and the current legal statutes in his opinion. If you are for gay marriage, then you are part of the group that is attempting to redefine it - not him. Your statement that Cathy is trying to redefine marriage is blatently incorrect.

[David88vert]

I dont agree with Cathys statements, I have no problem with Gay Marriage, but hes entitled to his opinion. As long as he doesnt instruct his employees to refuse food to openly gay people, i have no problem with his views (although i disagree with him).

I believe Gay Marriage should be legal, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE. Its a state/federal issue, and RELIGION SHOULD BE LEFT OUT OF IT

Marriage is state regulated, not federal. The federal government should continue to stay out of it.

[Vteckidd]

He never said they wouldn't serve gay people so what's all the fuss about anyways? Doesn't the bible say men who lie with men wouldn't inherit gods kingdom? So be it they know the consuquences but don't try to force me to agree with your view when you know it's wrong.
Not everyone believes in the "wrath" of god bible stuff. I know churches locally that allow gay people to attend, i dont have a problem with it. Im more tolerant than that.

Its his right, its his company, and i dont think theres anythign wrong with it and i will continue to eat there regardless. Gay people are allowed to eat there too. Theres nothing ANTI GAY about his statements except he doesnt believe (because of his religion) that they should be allowed to be married.

My answer is a ton of people have conflicting religious views, does this mean you wont eat at a Muslim place? or a Greek Place? Or an Italian place?

[Vteckidd]

Marriage is state regulated, not federal. The federal government should continue to stay out of it.

I know, it should stay state regulated. i was stating that its a state/federal issue at most, religion has nothing to do with who should be able to marry who.

It is federal in the fact as regards to tax incentives. So feds play a small role in marriage defintions

[Sammich]

If you agree with the bible, you dont agree with the gay lifestyle
If you dont agree with the bible, you agree with the gay lifestyle

Why does 1 have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER?

Marriage shouldnt be defined by a religious belief because its a STATE ISSUED CONTRACT. Religion only plays into the ACTUAL CEREMONY that is performed to certify the union.

It has nothing to do with the bible. Both sides are wrong of pushing their own agenda on the issue without realizing that neithers actions effect the other.


If you believe in GOD and dont believe gay people should be allowed to marry, I RESPECT YOUR VIEW. I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT. But i respect your right to believe that.

I believe in GOD, and i believe in the right for gay people to marry as far as the STATE is concerned. 2 Gay people should be allowed to be "married" in the eyes of the state if the state adopts that practice. It does NOTHING to undermine the bible or religious teachings that you believe in.

If you think it does, then i expect you to be just as upset when Mormons get married, Muslims get married, Indians get married, Jews get married, etc. Basically you are saying "get married as my bible dictates or you are not doing it right"

that is not a view i share


He never said they wouldn't serve gay people so what's all the fuss about anyways? Doesn't the bible say men who lie with men wouldn't inherit gods kingdom? So be it they know the consuquences but don't try to force me to agree with your view when you know it's wrong.

exactly. gay people are gona do what they are gona do, just like the rest of the world. do i agree with it no, it's their choice and as grown people w/ a mind that i hope has developed to comprehension, they know what the bible says about it, as SOME are so called church goers and believers in the bible. i dont know what those who are atheist, agnostic, etc believe in as far as in the future aspect. i dont think, i know its wrong to sit there and ask someone to respect their view that they should be gay but force the hand of someone who has a different outlook on it. at the end of the day they are trying to tell the person w/ a different conscious 'your conscious is wrong (whatever other obscenties they may add on to it)'

Kidd you can believe what you want to, just like i'm not in support of gay marriage but i know this world is gona do what it wants, it's the same principle i have for anyone else, including you. if you dont want to believe in teh bible that's fine..by..you. it has nothing to do w/ me and wont harm me one bit. but to force my hand to try to 'join forces' with you and share the same beliefs is extreme

[Sinfix_15]

I'm going to eat all 3 meals at chick-fil-a today!

[.blank cd]

Also, he is following tradition, and the current legal statutes in his opinion. If you are for gay marriage, then you are part of the group that is attempting to redefine it - not him. Your statement that Cathy is trying to redefine marriage is blatently incorrect.I think you need to read the bible and look up the many definitions of Christian marriage. Marriage has never been a strictly Christian institution. To say that America should follow this principle is an attempt to define marriage as a strictly Christian contract.

[David88vert]

I think you need to read the bible and look up the many definitions of Christian marriage. Marriage has never been a strictly Christian institution. To say that America should follow this principle is an attempt to define marriage as a strictly Christian contract.

America was founded on Christian principles, and one of those was the Biblical viewpoint of marriage. It is in our laws - go read them, then come back and try to make that statement again.

Also - read the law - gaprobate.org :: About Marriage and Firearms Licenses (http://www.gaprobate.org/licenses.php/)

[Vteckidd]

[QUOTE=Sammich;39433502
but to force my hand to try to 'join forces' with you and share the same beliefs is extreme[/QUOTE]

??? where did i do that?

Believe what you want, i dont care, just dont force others to do the same.

the religious RIGHT is just as guilty as the gay rights people. The people boycotting Chick Fila are guilty of the same - "im tolerant as long as you believe what i believe" mantra the religious right uses.

[Vteckidd]

America was founded on Christian principles, and one of those was the Biblical viewpoint of marriage. It is in our laws - go read them, then come back and try to make that statement again.

Also - read the law - gaprobate.org :: About Marriage and Firearms Licenses (http://www.gaprobate.org/licenses.php/)

UH OH

HEAD EXPLODES

While the country was founded on christian principles, and i believe the majority of the fore fathers were christian, the fact is that RELIGIOUS definitions of MARRIAGE should not matter when it comes to STATE views on MARRIAGE.

If you believe it should, then if this country becomes overwhelmingly MUSLIM, you will be forced to recognize that the muslim tradition is the only way. Is that what you want?

Religious ceremonies should be left to religious institutions. MARRIAGE LICENSES should be up to a general population vote to decide the outcome. Just because a Gay couple is granted a marriage license doesnt mean any religious dogma was changED

[masanomi3]

Whay the fuck.. seems like everyone gets butt hurt/ sue happy over stupid shit. If someone is anti gay who cares. Grow some thick skin and move on.

[.blank cd]

America was founded on Christian principles, and one of those was the Biblical viewpoint of marriage. It is in our laws - go read them, then come back and try to make that statement again.

Also - read the law - gaprobate.org :: About Marriage and Firearms Licenses (http://www.gaprobate.org/licenses.php/)

The good ol' "America founded on Christian principles" argument. Never get tired of debunking that one.

Thank you for linking me to where Georgia has adopted this selectively quoted definition of biblical marriage. If I've read this once, I've probably read this 1000 times. Have you read about all the definitions of marriage there are in the bible? Ever wonder why this "one man/one woman" stance was chosen out of all of them?

[.blank cd]

Just looked at that again and it appears that one could marry their own cousin in GA.

Biblical marriage. Hmmm. Just how our forefathers envisioned.

[David88vert]

UH OH

HEAD EXPLODES

While the country was founded on christian principles, and i believe the majority of the fore fathers were christian, the fact is that RELIGIOUS definitions of MARRIAGE should not matter when it comes to STATE views on MARRIAGE.

If you believe it should, then if this country becomes overwhelmingly MUSLIM, you will be forced to recognize that the muslim tradition is the only way. Is that what you want?

Religious ceremonies should be left to religious institutions. MARRIAGE LICENSES should be up to a general population vote to decide the outcome. Just because a Gay couple is granted a marriage license doesnt mean any religious dogma was changED

That's not what I was stating. Our definition of marriage was founded on Christian principles. I am not stating that they cannot change the legal definition of marriage. I am stating that it has been legally and traditionally following the Biblical definition, and anyone wanting to change this is the one re-defining it - not Cathy, as someone previously tried to state.

I agree that the states should be allowed to issue marriage licenses in the way that they see fit. A marriage license should not be tied to a specific religion, but initialy, that is what they based it on when they established marriage laws.

[David88vert]

The good ol' "America founded on Christian principles" argument. Never get tired of debunking that one.

Thank you for linking me to where Georgia has adopted this selectively quoted definition of biblical marriage. If I've read this once, I've probably read this 1000 times. Have you read about all the definitions of marriage there are in the bible? Ever wonder why this "one man/one woman" stance was chosen out of all of them?

You aren't debunking anything. It's a fact that Christians originally sailed and settled here. Our government and laws came from these people's descendants. That does not mean that the government cannot change over time.

As for one man and woman - maybe because more than one wife is just too much trouble to deal with on a daily basis?

[David88vert]

Just looked at that again and it appears that one could marry their own cousin in GA.

Biblical marriage. Hmmm. Just how our forefathers envisioned.

Actually, most states will let you marry your cousin. It was not uncommon in the US or Europe until the mid 1900's. You might be surprised if you traced your ancestry.
The Bible has much worse. Remember Lot and his daughters?

[.blank cd]

You aren't debunking anything. It's a fact that Christians originally sailed and settled here. Our government and laws came from these people's descendants. That does not mean that the government cannot change over time.

As for one man and woman - maybe because more than one wife is just too much trouble to deal with on a daily basis?

It's a fact that some theists came here to get away from.....

Religious oppression.

Some were Christian, others were not. They created a land where every individual was free to worship as they pleased and the government had nothing to do with it. This is called secularity. The statement America was founded on Christian principles is inherently false because there are no principles that exclusively apply to Christianity that don't apply to another religion. So in the same vain, you could say America was founded on Buddhist principles or Muslim principles, it doesn't matter.

Guess what it's called when the government starts making laws to benefit one particular religion....

You guessed it. Religious oppression.

[David88vert]

It's a fact that some theists came here to get away from.....

Religious oppression.

Some were Christian, others were not. They created a land where every individual was free to worship as they pleased and the government had nothing to do with it. This is called secularity. The statement America was founded on Christian principles is inherently false because there are no principles that exclusively apply to Christianity that don't apply to another religion. So in the same vain, you could say America was founded on Buddhist principles or Muslim principles, it doesn't matter.

Guess what it's called when the government starts making laws to benefit one particular religion....

You guessed it. Religious oppression.

We partially agree. On some things though, you are out in left field without a clue. This was founded as a Christian nation. Look it up.

The colony of Plymouth was founded by Pilgrims, English Dissenters or Separatists, Calvinists.
The colonies of Massachusetts Bay, New Haven, and New Hampshire were founded by Puritan, Calvinist, Protestants.
New Netherland was founded by Dutch Reformed Calvinists.
The colonies of New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were officially Church of England.
When New France was transferred to Great Britain in 1763, the Catholic Church remained under toleration, but Huguenots were allowed entrance where they had formerly been banned from settlement by Parisian authorities.
The Colony of Maryland was founded by a charter granted in 1632 to George Calvert, secretary of state to Charles I, and his son Cecil, both recent converts to Catholicism. Under their leadership many English Catholic gentry families settled in Maryland. However, the colonial government was officially neutral in religious affairs, granting toleration to all Christian groups and enjoining them to avoid actions which antagonized the others. On several occasions low-church dissenters led insurrections which temporarily overthrew the Calvert rule. In 1689, when William and Mary came to the English throne, they acceded to demands to revoke the original royal charter. In 1701 the Church of England was proclaimed, and in the course of the eighteenth century Maryland Catholics were first barred from public office, then disenfranchised, although not all of the laws passed against them (notably laws restricting property rights and imposing penalties for sending children to be educated in foreign Catholic institutions) were enforced, and some Catholics even continued to hold public office.
Spanish Florida was ceded to Great Britain in 1763, the British divided Florida into two colonies. Both East and West Florida continued a policy of toleration for the Catholic Residents.
The Province of Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, but the colony never had an established church.
West Jersey, also founded by Quakers, prohibited any establishment.
Delaware Colony had no established church.
The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, founded by religious dissenters forced to flee the Massachusetts Bay colony, is widely regarded as the first polity to grant religious freedom to all its citizens.


Religious oppression was a motivating factor for some individuals - the Pilgrims in 1620 is who you are mostly referring to.

However, a larger amount of people came to Virginia, and not due to religious persecution, but rather for the opportunity to make a life for themselves. Back in Europe, generally the eldest son inherited from his father - the others had to fend for themselves. America was an opportunity for many to escape a poor existance in a crowded area, and to create their own life, and to own their own land. These individuals were Christian generally, and Christian churches sprang up everywhere. These are the people who founded this country, not large groups of Muslims, Buddists, etc.

The First Amendment is there to prevent the government from establising a state religion - remember England? The founders were all to familiar with the Church of England, and that the King of England was the head. Review your history to learn about it's rift with the Catholic Church.
The First Amendment does not state that no religion should be in government. It's not a firewall between religion and government. The founding fathers had no problem with religious beliefs and customs being involved with the government, but they did not want the government to dicate a state religion to all, and wanted everyone to have tolerance to practice their religious beliefs as they saw fit.
There is no such thing as separation of Church and State in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The phrase came from Thomas Jefferson in a letter in 1802. What does it mean? In the words of Justice Hugo Black, it means that "the government cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions". It does not mean that people cannot follow their beliefs in public office, or that no religious activities can be performed on government grounds.

[Sammich]

wall of text...i'm out lol

[geoff]

David88vert: you can put as many facts as you want for blank to read, but he just reads between the lines and copy/pastes from quotes or articles he believes share his views. He will argue with you till the end of time regardless of facts. I agree with pretty mucg everything you said.

If someone wants to be gay or have gay intercourse, I nor anyone can stop it or should be allowed to. God gives us free will to choose how to live our lives. Most outside of the gay community consider this choice or lifestyle a perversion. No straight person would consider a man giving another man a rim job, blow job, ect..."a beautiful act of nature". It's simple fact that the rectum was not meant to be stretched and used for a penis to plow in. Therefore, it's natural use has been perverted. My problem with the gay community is not that they wish to be gay, it's that they wish for their ways to be the norm. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic. Therefore it is a choice. But the gay community would have the populous believe otherwise. They compare their agenda to the battle blacks and women fought for equality...lol. They have no right to teach youth in schools that "gay is normal". They have no right to force their lifestyle to be accepted by everyone. There are people that practice incest and bestiality, you don't see them marching and rallying to gain approval. The gay community is the biggest group of hypocrites. They preach equality yet if you disagree with them then you are a "bigot" and full of "hate". Get a life people.

[nelson9995]

I agree with Geoff. Being gay is not normal. Being gay is not okay either but if they want to do what they do I am noone to stop them or tell them they are wrong. It is my belief and I express it if I want without any consequences.

[geoff]

Nelson9995: you are allowed to have that opinion as long as it doesn't infringe on their beliefs.

[Vteckidd]

God gives us free will to choose how to live our lives. Most outside of the gay community consider this choice or lifestyle a perversion. No straight person would consider a man giving another man a rim job, blow job, ect..."a beautiful act of nature". It's simple fact that the rectum was not meant to be stretched and used for a penis to plow in. Therefore, it's natural use has been perverted. My problem with the gay community is not that they wish to be gay, it's that they wish for their ways to be the norm.

Quoted for LOL

I dont think its a perversion, i think you love who you love. No one knows if its genetic, inherited, a choice, etc. There is evidence everywhere supporting every ones point of view. I tend to think its a little bit of everything. In some cases its personal choice, in others its genetic. I can speak on personal experience for both.

There was a kid on my swim team in High School that everyone KNEW he would eventually come out as gay. I mean theres was no doubt. he had brothers that were :normal: but he was different. Feminine tendencies, talked with a lisp, hung out with girls, i mean there were so many signs, kid was 14. WHY? I dont think thats a CHOICE, i think something in his genetics predisposed him to be that way, and his brothers werent like that.

I also have known people that just said you know what, im attracted to girls, or guys. It was just a much simpler choice.

I dont think about gay consenual sex as being "BEAUTIFUL" anymore than i want to imagine my mom and dad having sex ..............ewwww. What happens behind closed doors, happens.

I dont think 2 dudes going at it is attractive at all, but 2 chicks, HELLO! LOL Thats because im attracted to women. I find their bodies sexy and attractice. I dont think dudes are good looking.

Besides all of that, whatever your GOD teaches you and you follow , isnt the same for others. YOure trying to push your beliefs saying "its not natural" on the gay population, when the gays are saying "WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE".

You guys are in essence making the same argument, that is what is so funny.

[geoff]

Also, I have read up on comments that the gay community has made on these issues. They claim it's ok for these private organizations to voice their opinion, yet call them bigots and hateful. They also don't like how chick fil a donates money to "traditional family/marriage" groups and other organizations that oppose the gay agenda. Since when does ANYBODY have a right to say where someone can give charity? The BSA do not approve of gays in there ranks for a simple reason, no sexual activity is allowed on trips. You put a group of gay curious youth together and they are bound to experiment. They also don't approve of gay leaders for the same reason you don't see men leading girl scout troops. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

Also, incest is illegal, but why? I have mentioned before that there are ways to stop reproduction in incestual relationships therefore tossing out the issue of genetically screwed offspring. But what about this, say gay marriage is allowed, would we then allow incestual homosex between two brothers or sisters? After all, no gay couple can reproduce, so why deny the incestual ones marriage rights? The issue here is to draw a line somewhere. Gays are not persecuted in this country unlike in many others where it is a crime punishable by death. They have every freedom every single individual in this country has. So leave it at that, before we as a nation completely lose all sense of tradition and morality. Next thing you know, the president of the United States will be Jane Doe, that used to be John, who's first man is his brother Steve, whom enjoy f@cking sheep on the side.

Also, let's say that some how sexual orientation is found in genes, and that we could tell before birth if a child was going to be gay or not. Would we then outlaw abortion to parents that dont want gay children? Would it then be considered murder or a hate crime? We allow certain "rights" and all it does is send us down a rabbit hole and open up a can of worms.

[geoff]

Vteckidd: my friend, natures way of showing what is natural and perversion is the ability to reproduce. Atheist or Theist, we all no it to be true. Evolutionists would argue that a "homosexual gene" is not beneficial nor productive in any way shape or form. After all, the strong survive and pass on there traits. Homosexuals would have been phased out in the very beginning. And there is NO evidence what so ever to suggest that sexual orientation is genetic. As far as the guy you mentioned in your example, how do you know what his home life was like? I have two homosexual friends one a lesbian one gay. The guy Jayce was molested by his uncle for years, he grew up thinking it was normal, he now finds himself attracted to men. My lesbian friend Jackie was molested by her father, she now finds all men disgusting. Both these cases are examples of environmental influence. I am not pushing my beliefs on anyone. Marriage has ALWAYS been between men and women regardless of religious alliance. The gays come in and want to redefine it. How about this, we as a nation extend benefits to gay couples that have been together 5 years or more and have had a civil union. But they are not given a marriage license. Would that satisfy them? Are they after the equality to share the same benefits as a married couple(tax breaks, insurance benefits, ect) or are they poised at changing the way we as heterosexuals think?

[.blank cd]

This is why I cant take any of your arguments seriously. You dont make any sense and you spew what the the rest of your christian conservatives tell you to.

"If you put two gay kids on a bus, they're bound to experiment"

Are you serious right now? Are you saying all gay people lack self control or where are you going with that?

Are you a troll or what? I can kinda believe some christians are a little mis-informed, but not blatantly clueless

Scientific evidence is not on your side, Geoff. Only biblical conjecture. Homosexuality is normal. It is manifested in many species of animals. Is it common? No

[.blank cd]

And the fact that you say there's no scientific evidence to support genetic influence shows how completely ignorant you are

[bu villain]

The whole idea of Boys Scouts is already pretty gay.

As far as Chick Fil-A goes. Both sides are exercising their rights to free speech. Chick Fil-A can support groups fighting against gay marriage and gay proponents can say they think Chick Fil-A are hatemongers and boycott them. I see no problems with either side expressing their views even if I don't agree with them.

[geoff]

Blank: I don't need to believe in God to know two men sticking eachother in the butt is wrong. Many things happen in nature; murder, theft, incest, cannabilsm, ect.... Does not make it normal or ok. Please show me one shred of evidence that supports sexual orientation being genetic. I want a case study that clearly shows this, not an interpretation of what an outcome could mean.

[.blank cd]

Blank: I don't need to believe in God to know two men sticking eachother in the butt is wrong. Many things happen in nature; murder, theft, incest, cannabilsm, ect.... Does not make it normal or ok. Please show me one shred of evidence that supports sexual orientation being genetic. I want a case study that clearly shows this, not an interpretation of what an outcome could mean.Your definition of normal and a scientific definition of normal are two different things. There are case studies that are linking genetic influences all over the damn place. You can't dismiss them because it's not a solid link, but it's enough of a step in that direction to consider it a plausible factor.

Stay away from the anti-reality-Christian-science science blogs and you'll find it.

[nelson9995]

Your definition of normal and a scientific definition of normal are two different things. There are case studies that are linking genetic influences all over the damn place. You can't dismiss them because it's not a solid link, but it's enough of a step in that direction to consider it a plausible factor.

Stay away from the anti-reality-Christian-science science blogs and you'll find it.

I know you wouldn't tell your 20 year old son to be gay and have sex with a guy, but you would tell your son to have sex with girls, or at least it'd be okay with you. That's enough evidence to show that it is not normal.
and
If you say that yes you would, I don't believe you.

[.blank cd]

I know you wouldn't tell your 20 year old son to be gay and have sex with a guy, but you would tell your son to have sex with girls, or at least it'd be okay with you. That's enough evidence to show that it is not normal.
and
If you say that yes you would, I don't believe you.

I would tell my son or my daughter that whoever they love is completely ok with me, provided it was a completely consensual loving relationship.

[geoff]

I've read of the studies of the pioneers behind the study of sexual orientation, there has never been any solid evidence to suggest sexual orientation is in the genes. There are speculations that it could be, but as a student of science you know that facts are what matter, not speculation. Show me evidence that clearly shows I'm wrong and I will conseed.

[nelson9995]

I would tell my son or my daughter that whoever they love is completely ok with me, provided it was a completely consensual loving relationship.

at that point you have no choice but to accept it. If they are gay they will be gay whether you like it or not. Would you tell your son damn look at that guy, like you would tell him damn look at that girl?

[.blank cd]

I've read of the studies of the pioneers behind the study of sexual orientation, there has never been any solid evidence to suggest sexual orientation is in the genes. There are speculations that it could be, but as a student of science you know that facts are what matter, not speculation. Show me evidence that clearly shows I'm wrong and I will conseed.

You are looking for something that hasn't been found yet and dismissing it as fallacy. There was no solid explanation for gravity, but it still worked until the current theory was developed. What we have are studies and scientific theories (this means explanations, not guesses)

Nelson, to finish what I was saying is that it is psychologically damaging to persuade someone otherwise, that it's not ok to be human, and to suppress natural human emotion. That is the problem I have with religion. Their ethos is full of suppression of natural human emotions, no matter how uncommon they are. Homosexuality, in this case, is a natural human emotion, it may be uncommon, it may not be appealing to some, but it doesn't exclude it from being natural.

[.blank cd]

at that point you have no choice but to accept it. If they are gay they will be gay whether you like it or not. Would you tell your son damn look at that guy, like you would tell him damn look at that girl?

I have no problem pointing out attractive physical features in men. I'm getting married to an attractive woman, and I fuck her brains out constantly. I'm not bothered by some people's perception of homosexuality, because I understand it better than most, and I'm above the negativity.

[geoff]

Blank: it's funny how when one presents the same argument for the existence of God, you and your kind dismiss it as irrelevant because a lack of tangible evidence. Yet, you use it to support your beliefs. Hypocritical? There is ZERO evidence to your claim, no tangible evidence whatsoever. Sure a couple scientists, who happen to be homosexuals themselves, have theories that sexual orientation is in the genes. Well no sh*t they would theorize that. What better way to gain support for gay agenda then to say, " being gay is no more of a choice then being black". The funny thing is, color is genetic and the evidence is tangible and irrefutable. Show me the same evidence that sexual orientation is found in the DNA. It's just a wild goose chase. How about this one, show me generic evidence that supports those who have gender confusion and can't help but mutilate themselves because "I was supposed to be born a man/woman".

So according to your beliefs of consent in relationships, what would you say if you had two sons that were in love with eachother and wanted your blessing to be together, or a son that enjoys porking his sister and she likes it too; but it's ok cuz he had a vasectomy and she's on birth control. You sir are twisted and only add to the down fall of moral fiber.

[.blank cd]

Blank: it's funny how when one presents the same argument for the existence of God, you and your kind dismiss it as irrelevant because a lack of tangible evidence. Yes, we're still talking about tangible evidence versus intangible evidence not based in reality whatsoever.


Yet, you use it to support your beliefs. Hypocritical? There is ZERO evidence to your claim, no tangible evidence whatsoever. Sure a couple scientists, who happen to be homosexuals themselves, Once again, another ignorant comment from you


have theories that sexual orientation is in the genes. Well no sh*t they would theorize that. What better way to gain support for gay agenda then to say, " being gay is no more of a choice then being black". The funny thing is, color is genetic and the evidence is tangible and irrefutable.ANOTHER ignorant comment from you. Wanna know something funny? There was a day when there was zero evidence that black skin was genetic. Wanna know the popular opinion at the time? Blacks were inferior people, and people also used the bible to discriminate against them. Guess what happened? Science worked on the answer and proved people differently. Your ignorance on the issue is astounding, but I wouldn't expect less from an evangelical. Why don't you leave the psychology for the psychologists, and stick to what you do best: preaching the dribble that is your version of the bible


So according to your beliefs of consent in relationships, what would you say if you had two sons that were in love with eachother and wanted your blessing to be together, or a son that enjoys porking his sister and she likes it too; but it's ok cuz he had a vasectomy and she's on birth control. You sir are twisted and only add to the down fall of moral fiber.
As a spin artist, you never disappoint. Like I said. Just because you believe it's wrong, doesn't mean it's wrong.

[geoff]

Blank: you call me ignorant as if I'm missing some kind of well known fact. I am not ignorant to these studies that have been conducted. Show me an ounce of proof that refutable shows sexual orientation is genetic. You keep making references to things that we previously could not explain scientifically (skin color and gravity). What you are really saying is that there is no scientific proof for it but it's ok, because maybe some day there will be. Kinda like how Christians believe science cannot disprove God therefore you cant assume He isn't real. Ironic no? Fact, as of this day there is no proof that someone is born gay. That does not mean you can just assume that it might be true. Isn't that what you atheists believe?

You sir are a puppet that swings from the liberal sack. You deny anything that goes against your views, dismiss any opinion against yours as bigotry, and purposely dodge challenges to your beliefs. You sir have challenged my beliefs many times, and I never fail to represent my beliefs with a sound argument with facts, history, ect...you on the other hand simply insult me and say" nuh uh that's not how it is, you're wrong". But you don't actually make any kind of intelligent rebutall. So instead of wasting time and trying to have an intelligent debate with you, I will use your own tactics against you. But I will not sink completely to your level, first I will complement you, you seem to have a strong stance on your views and beliefs which is admirable. Now, I will insult you, you sir are a dumb fuck liberal who is blind, deaf, and dumb. You have not the slightest shroud of intelligence in anything you say and I would wager that I might get more of a sound argument from an 8 year old.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank: you call me ignorant as if I'm missing some kind of well known fact. I am not ignorant to these studies that have been conducted. Show me an ounce of proof that refutable shows sexual orientation is genetic. You keep making references to things that we previously could not explain scientifically (skin color and gravity). What you are really saying is that there is no scientific proof for it but it's ok, because maybe some day there will be. Kinda like how Christians believe science cannot disprove God therefore you cant assume He isn't real. Ironic no? Fact, as of this day there is no proof that someone is born gay. That does not mean you can just assume that it might be true. Isn't that what you atheists believe?

You sir are a puppet that swings from the liberal sack. You deny anything that goes against your views, dismiss any opinion against yours as bigotry, and purposely dodge challenges to your beliefs. You sir have challenged my beliefs many times, and I never fail to represent my beliefs with a sound argument with facts, history, ect...you on the other hand simply insult me and say" nuh uh that's not how it is, you're wrong". But you don't actually make any kind of intelligent rebutall. So instead of wasting time and trying to have an intelligent debate with you, I will use your own tactics against you. But I will not sink completely to your level, first I will complement you, you seem to have a strong stance on your views and beliefs which is admirable. Now, I will insult you, you sir are a dumb fuck liberal who is blind, deaf, and dumb. You have not the slightest shroud of intelligence in anything you say and I would wager that I might get more of a sound argument from an 8 year old.

I agree with blank on a lot of religion/science topics..... but he's so far left he probably thinks the government should wipe his ass for him and tuck him in to sleep at night.

[.blank cd]

Blank: you call me ignorant as if I'm missing some kind of well known fact. I am not ignorant to these studies that have been conducted. Show me an ounce of proof that refutable shows sexual orientation is genetic. You keep making references to things that we previously could not explain scientifically (skin color and gravity).Yes, thats exactly what I meant to do. Just because we havent found the answer doesnt mean its not there. The overwhelming evidence says that we cant dismiss homosexuality as solely an environmental influence.

Read this, but I dont expect you to make it past the first paragraph before you dispel it as leftist gay researcher agenda BS

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation)


What you are really saying is that there is no scientific proof for it but it's ok, because maybe some day there will be. Kinda like how Christians believe science cannot disprove God therefore you cant assume He isn't real. Ironic no? Fact, as of this day there is no proof that someone is born gay. That does not mean you can just assume that it might be true. Isn't that what you atheists believe?Scientists have never tried to disprove "God". This is impossible as you cannot disprove something that does not yet exist within the current laws of physics. You cant hold out your empty hand and tell me to prove theres not a pink leprechaun in it. Science searches for an answer theists think they already know, and day after day they get more and more upset when it turns out that "God" isnt the answer for it.


You sir are a puppet that swings from the liberal sack. You deny anything that goes against your views, dismiss any opinion against yours as bigotry, and purposely dodge challenges to your beliefs.No, I deny and dismiss things that aren't based in reality and classify actions to hate and restrict other peoples freedoms based on this alternate reality as bigotry. Defined as the state of mind of one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. If there is a completely secular reason gay people should not get married, a reason not based on ANYONES religion, Im all ears. But theres not, and there never will be.

You use 'liberal' like you think its a pejorative.

[.blank cd]

I agree with blank on a lot of religion/science topics..... but he's so far left he probably thinks the government should wipe his ass for him and tuck him in to sleep at night.
Why the fuck not? Why should I wipe my own ass and go to sleep by myself? Thats boring

[geoff]

Blank: I will dismiss that article not because a gay biast opinion, I will dismiss it because you seriously tried to use Wikipedia as a legitimate source. You are using the same approach to the "gay gene" as most Christians use for the existence of God. You can't disprove it therefore it must exist. You can not use an argument that your kind automatically dismisses as insufficient to bring to the debate table. You see, you stated the current laws of physics show no evidence for a God. One, my God is not bound by our laws of physics as He alone established them. Two, I don't expect you to just believe or argue that since it can't be proven it must be real. I can give you clear examples of the scientific kind that suggest intent and design, that point to the existence of an almighty being that put forth all that we know. Yet you simply dismiss it because you choose not to believe. As far as the causes of homosexuality, I believe, and so do many students of science that sexual orientation is dependent on many factors, I.e. environment, choice, ect... The human mind is very influential and much more so a child's mind. Look at nazi Germany. One man some how managed to convince an entire nation of peopl and military that the Jews were to be wiped off the face of this earth, and that they were some how inferior.

Further, I don't hate gays. Dont agree with their lifestyle, I don't agree with their over exaggerated plea, I don't agree with them forcing those with opposing views to agree with them, condone their behavior, and applaud them for just taking a shot in the mouth. Their sexual life disgusts me. They wanna be gay, by all means go ahead and do so in the privacy of your own home. They have every human right that an individual in America is given. They want benefits, ok, every gay couple that has been together more than 5 years and has had a civil ceremony should recieve the same tax, insurance, ect benefits as a straight couple. But don't tarnish the tradition of marriage. Don't pollute our Tvs, schools, and society with your choice of sex. Don't parade down the street in assless chaps making out with other men. Don't wear a military uniform as you parade around in a gay pride parade and promote an agenda(which is illegal). Stop indoctrinating the youth that gay is the norm.

This group breaks the values and laws we are all to follow. Freedom of speech, not for those that disagree with GLBT or else it's bigotry and hatred. Freedom to assemble and protest, unless against the gays cuz that's discrimination. Dressing in uniform while supporting the GLBT community when it is prohibited for any member of the military to be in uniform during any public support of any agenda. There are no heterosexual pride parades where straights all but f@ck eachother while walking down the street. They are perverse, they are forceful of their agenda, and they are corrupting traditional American values.

So answer me, if you have a set of gay sons/daughters and they ask for your blessing to be together; what say you? What about trans gender, where is this genetically caused?

[geoff]

Also, you ever hear of NAMBLA? The GLBT community was once a big supporter of this but has recently rejected them so they are not politically damaged. After all, having a group of pedophile lovers is not good for the GLBT image. Funny how the NAMBLA now cries discrimination because they have been dropped from the "movement".

Let's imagine a liberal utopia where no one has to work because the govt provides every basic need, all things are legal as long as it doesn't "harm" anyone, and every religious/spiritual belief is banned. Sounds like your ideal world?

[Sinfix_15]

Further, I don't hate gays. Dont agree with their lifestyle, I don't agree with their over exaggerated plea, I don't agree with them forcing those with opposing views to agree with them, condone their behavior, and applaud them for just taking a shot in the mouth. Their sexual life disgusts me. They wanna be gay, by all means go ahead and do so in the privacy of your own home. They have every human right that an individual in America is given. They want benefits, ok, every gay couple that has been together more than 5 years and has had a civil ceremony should recieve the same tax, insurance, ect benefits as a straight couple. But don't tarnish the tradition of marriage. Don't pollute our Tvs, schools, and society with your choice of sex. Don't parade down the street in assless chaps making out with other men. Don't wear a military uniform as you parade around in a gay pride parade and promote an agenda(which is illegal). Stop indoctrinating the youth that gay is the norm.



lol excellent choice of words.

[quickdodge®]

The same thing I always say about racism and the "why can't whites do this" or "why can blacks have that" crap I can say here, too.

Who cares? Why bother yourself about what other people feel when it doesn't concern you? Seems some people either live perfect, stress-free lives to where they have time to be bothered by frivolous, petty "issues" or they just feel they don't already have enough on their plates. What does someone being gay have to do with you? If you're scared, say so. Do I think being gay is right? My answer is it doesn't matter. I am me and I control only me. If a dude, wants another dude, who am I to stop that or think less of that dude? That's not place.

Geoff, you seem to put yourself out there as a "know-it-all." Coming from an actual "know-it-all," I can say you're not. I know I keep reminding you that knowing something and believing something are two completely different things. And there is not a thing wrong with you having your beliefs. I would be contradictory to myself if I said otherwise. Who are you to say that being gay is not normal? No one. Just like me. Maybe you don't like it and that's fine, but what's normal to you may not be normal for another. You again reaffirm yourself on here as a "Christian" person with your judgmental ways.

Bottom line that most people fail to see is "so what?!?!" I have bills to pay, a family to feed, clothe and house and a job to do to ensure this happens. I have enough on my plate to keep me going without having to inject more into my life that has nothing to do with me or my life. Later, QD.

[David88vert]

blank cd, no gene has been discovered in the mapping of DNA that is related to sexual orientation, and currently, it is not expected to be discovered. Hamer's "discovery" was found to be incorrect and misguided at best. Xq28 is not a "gay" gene.

Being gay is a choice. It is legally allowable, but marriage licenses are regulated by the state, and currently in the state of Georgia, gay marriage is not recognized as a legal union. Those are the facts whether you like them or not.

The issue is that the gay community attempt to push their minority agenda onto the majority of Americans. They want the schools to teach that being gay is normal, when the majority of Americans do not want their kids to be taught that in school. The gay community is not just asking for marriage rights, they are pushing against the beliefs of Americans who do not have the same opinion as them. Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.

[quickdodge®]

Being gay is a choice.

I can't agree or disagree. I agree in a way because I do think that some people do choose to be that way. But I can't affirm or deny that genetics make up any part of a decision because I don't know.


Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.

That's part of the problem, David. If someone doesn't like something, instead of moving past it, they want to confront it. If I don't like something, I tend to move on to something I do like. Not complicate my life with things I don't. If gay people want to get married, let them. Who is it harming? Later, QD.

[.blank cd]

Blank: I will dismiss that article not because a gay biast opinion, I will dismiss it because you seriously tried to use Wikipedia as a legitimate source.Wikipedia cites all of its sources, especially when it comes to case studies. It is a legitimate source of information. Wheres the bibliography on the bible? I'd really like to see its sources...


You are using the same approach to the "gay gene" as most Christians use for the existence of God. You can't disprove it therefore it must exist. You can not use an argument that your kind automatically dismisses as insufficient to bring to the debate table.Disproving the existence of something that doesnt exist is a logical fallacy.


You see, you stated the current laws of physics show no evidence for a God. One, my God is not bound by our laws of physics as He alone established them. Two, I don't expect you to just believe or argue that since it can't be proven it must be real. I can give you clear examples of the scientific kind that suggest intent and design, that point to the existence of an almighty being that put forth all that we know. Yet you simply dismiss it because you choose not to believe.Even if there were evidence for some kind of divine creator, it doesnt mean its the Abrahamic God of the bible.


As far as the causes of homosexuality, I believe, and so do many students of science that sexual orientation is dependent on many factors, I.e. environment, choice, ect... The human mind is very influential and much more so a child's mind. Look at nazi Germany. One man some how managed to convince an entire nation of peopl and military that the Jews were to be wiped off the face of this earth, and that they were some how inferior. Now you're getting it! Environmental influences lead up to choice, but there are other factors such as genetics and hormones that have been studied which lead up to it not being a choice.

This is what your next paragraph would sound like had this been before it was accepted and made legal....


Further, I don't hate BLACKS. Dont agree with their lifestyle, I don't agree with their over exaggerated plea, I don't agree with them forcing those with opposing views to agree with them, condone their behavior, and applaud them for just taking a shot in the mouth. Their BLACK life disgusts me. They wanna be BLACK, by all means go ahead and do so in the privacy of your own home. They have every human right that an individual in America is given. They want benefits, ok, every BLACK, BLACK/WHITE couple that has been together more than 5 years and has had a civil ceremony should recieve the same tax, insurance, ect benefits as a straight couple. But don't tarnish the tradition of marriage. Don't pollute our Tvs, schools, and society with your choice of COLOR. Don't parade down the street EATING FRIED CHICKEN. Don't wear a DASHIKI as you parade around in a BLACK pride parade and promote an agenda(which is illegal). Stop indoctrinating the youth that BLACK is the norm.

You change one term and immediately you sound like an ignorant racist.


This group breaks the values and laws we are all to follow. Freedom of speech, not for those that disagree with GLBT or else it's bigotry and hatred. Freedom to assemble and protest, unless against the gays cuz that's discrimination. Dressing in uniform while supporting the GLBT community when it is prohibited for any member of the military to be in uniform during any public support of any agenda. There are no heterosexual pride parades where straights all but f@ck eachother while walking down the street. They are perverse, they are forceful of their agenda, and they are corrupting traditional American values.Corrupting traditional American values huh? LOL. You pick homosexuality as the bane of traditional American values? Your worldview is as narrow as the pages of the book you base it on.

If you disagree with being gay, thats fine. Thats what you have selectively picked out of the bible out of context to crusade against. Guess what, no one is forcing you to be gay, and no one will ever force you to be gay. Ever. Pushing their agenda would be trying to make you be gay. If you want to hate gays, thats fine, do it within your own home, within your own church. Dont push your hateful agenda and indoctrinate the youth that hating gays is the norm.


So answer me, if you have a set of gay sons/daughters and they ask for your blessing to be together; what say you? What about trans gender, where is this genetically caused?The reason I didnt answer this question the first time is because you lack the cognitive ability to separate fact from beliefs.


Also, you ever hear of NAMBLA? The GLBT community was once a big supporter of this but has recently rejected them so they are not politically damaged. After all, having a group of pedophile lovers is not good for the GLBT image. Funny how the NAMBLA now cries discrimination because they have been dropped from the "movement". Why do evangelicals always use unhealthy sexual relationships between adults and children as their reason to hate gay lifestyle? Older men have sex with underage girls all the time, do we ban heterosexual relationships? While we're on the subject, historically the age of consent has been all over the place. What was once a normal relationship/marriage would be considered pedophilia today. Where do you draw the line and why?


blank cd, no gene has been discovered in the mapping of DNA that is related to sexual orientation, and currently, it is not expected to be discovered. Hamer's "discovery" was found to be incorrect and misguided at best. Xq28 is not a "gay" gene.

Being gay is a choice. It is legally allowable, but marriage licenses are regulated by the state, and currently in the state of Georgia, gay marriage is not recognized as a legal union. Those are the facts whether you like them or not.

The issue is that the gay community attempt to push their minority agenda onto the majority of Americans. They want the schools to teach that being gay is normal, when the majority of Americans do not want their kids to be taught that in school. The gay community is not just asking for marriage rights, they are pushing against the beliefs of Americans who do not have the same opinion as them. Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.Sorry, the overwhelming scientific opinion would not agree with you on it being a choice. Too much evidence that points in the other direction. If homosexuality was a choice, then it wouldnt be expressed in animals without the cognitive ability for choice and reason, but it is. The xq28 study is not the only study to have been performed, and I dont think you understand what a scientific dispute actually means. Its saying that the answer to the question is not this particular answer, not that the question is dismissed. EVEN IF it was a choice, who are you to say its wrong? I'm pretty sure its your CHOICE to own a gun....

Read your last paragraph again. Change ONE term and listen to how it sounds...


The issue is that the BLACK community attempt to push their minority agenda onto the majority of Americans. They want the schools to teach that being BLACK is normal, when the majority of Americans do not want their kids to be taught that in school. The BLACK community is not just asking for marriage rights, they are pushing against the beliefs of Americans who do not have the same opinion as them. Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.

This was EXACTLY what was said back in the 50s when people thought black people were inferior. Intolerance to gays is actually the minority opinion.

[Vteckidd]

I would say the last few years the dominating trend has been in favor of Gay Marriage
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2012)

Most polls nationwide are in favor of some form of legalizing gay marriage. I wouldnt classify it as normal in terms that normal sexual activity from all beings is usually male and female. Species of the same sex do have sexual activity with each other, and theres records of that going back to the beginning of time.

I would disagree with Blanks notion that it is the same as Racism. Sexual orientation is not the same as racial injustice. No one is refusing gay people any rights(they can still get married in several states). No one is forcing them to sit at the back of the bus, drink from different water fountain, etc.

[.blank cd]

I would disagree with Blanks notion that it is the same as Racism. Sexual orientation is not the same as racial injustice. No one is refusing gay people any rights(they can still get married in several states). No one is forcing them to sit at the back of the bus, drink from different water fountain, etc.It's an injustice on a different level. Sure some states allow it and that's great. It needs to be all 50. I think we're one of the only countries in the civilized world that outlaws it, and thats pretty sad seeing as that we're also one of the most advanced. The violent oppression in the mid 20th century wont happen again. What were seeing though is the same kind of ideological divide.

[eraser4g63]

Why does it matter what chick-fil-a or the boy scouts thinks of you? They are privately owned companies and are allowed to have opinions, get off your cross and get the f*ck over it. If you don't like it don't eat there, same reason I don't eat at tacomac they are anti-gun.

[geoff]

QD: man for someone with better/more important things to do, you sure spend a lot of time on these forums. Lol sorry man had to point out the obvious. It's not that it personally effects me. I have two gay friends that are cool people. It becomes my issue when it is forced down my throat, no pun intended. They push homosexual support in the schools under the guise of anti-bullying ( the GLBT community does not deny it). They cry discrimination and inequality yet when someone like BSA or chick fil a voices their opinion, they jump all over it screaming bigotry and hate. You don't see atheists protesting chick fil a or BSA because they are Christian organizations do you? Gays are given every right that an individual in the USA is entitled to under the constitution. So they can do as they wish behind closed doors. Stop forcing Americans to accept and support your lifestyle. Hope that makes sense.

Blank: your argument of science is now null and void as you can not show me any evidence that supports your claim. You also failed to answer my question as to the transgendered. Are you really trying to support the NAMBLA agenda? If so you are more messed up than I previously thought. Yes it happens in heterosexuals as well, but we don't have a movement trying to abolish age of consent laws so we can f@ck preteens. I for one believe in compromise, what about the scenario I stated about gay couples being entitled to rights just no marriage license? Please stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to the gay agenda, they are no where near the same.

[.blank cd]

^ I dont think they all are.

[.blank cd]

Blank: your argument of science is now null and void as you can not show me any evidence that supports your claim.Coming from someone who knows absolutely nothing about science, I'll take that as a compliment. I showed you the case studies, you chose not to read them because they're compiled on Wikipedia. Truly simple minded you are.


Please stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to the gay agenda, they are no where near the same.They are pretty much exactly the same as I pointed out. Sorry you are that far from reality that you don't see the similarities.

[Sinfix_15]

It's an injustice on a different level. Sure some states allow it and that's great. It needs to be all 50. I think we're one of the only countries in the civilized world that outlaws it, and thats pretty sad seeing as that we're also one of the most advanced. The violent oppression in the mid 20th century wont happen again. What were seeing though is the same kind of ideological divide.





Blank: your argument of science is now null and void as you can not show me any evidence that supports your claim. You also failed to answer my question as to the transgendered. Are you really trying to support the NAMBLA agenda? If so you are more messed up than I previously thought. Yes it happens in heterosexuals as well, but we don't have a movement trying to abolish age of consent laws so we can f@ck preteens. I for one believe in compromise, what about the scenario I stated about gay couples being entitled to rights just no marriage license? Please stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to the gay agenda, they are no where near the same.

Agree with this. Civil rights movement has absolutely nothing in common with gay agenda. Unlike black people in the past, gay people do have every other right that everyone else already has. "but, they cant get married?" yes they can, to an opposing gender, just like everyone else has the right to do. Marriage is defined as a union of man and woman, they are seeking to redefine the meaning of this tradition. Theyre not asking for the same legal rights and benefits of married couples, they want to redefine the meaning. It would be the same as atheist trying to legally get the name of christmas changed to xmas. We know what christmas is, we understand the meaning behind it and christmas being a national holiday isnt discrimination against nonreligious people, it's religious people enjoying a celebration. If youre not religious and wish not to participate in it, dont. Gay people, you know what marriage is, if you dont like it, dont participate. If you want to seek similar benefits of marriage union, by all means.... you have my blessing

[Sinfix_15]

They are pretty much exactly the same as I pointed out. Sorry you are that far from reality that you don't see the similarities.

i'm equally as far from reality, i see no similarities.

[nelson9995]

Agree with this. Civil rights movement has absolutely nothing in common with gay agenda. Unlike black people in the past, gay people do have every other right that everyone else already has. "but, they cant get married?" yes they can, to an opposing gender, just like everyone else has the right to do. Marriage is defined as a union of man and woman, they are seeking to redefine the meaning of this tradition. Theyre not asking for the same legal rights and benefits of married couples, they want to redefine the meaning. It would be the same as atheist trying to legally get the name of christmas changed to xmas. We know what christmas is, we understand the meaning behind it and christmas being a national holiday isnt discrimination against nonreligious people, it's religious people enjoying a celebration. If youre not religious and wish not to participate in it, dont. Gay people, you know what marriage is, if you dont like it, dont participate. If you want to seek similar benefits of marriage union, by all means.... you have my blessing


You sure did suprise me here!

[Sinfix_15]

You sure did suprise me here!

I'm ok with gay marriage in the sense that "i dont care", but it's not right for people to seek to change long standing traditions to accommodate their lifestyle. If a tradition does not suit your lifestyle, dont participate. In this particular circumstance, marriage has legal benefits that should be made available to everyone, however, the tradition it'self shouldnt be changed for gay people. If so, i want the bible changed to say that atheist dont go to hell when they die, they spend all of eternity in a hot tub with 6 petite brunettes who dont speak english and know how to make tiramisu.

[geoff]

^ this. They should be entitled to benefits after 5 years together under a civil union, but they will not be given a marriage license. What is wrong with this scenario? The gay community doesn't really care for equal benefits. If they did they would then fight for it. What they are fighting for is to change the definition of marriage and for everyone to accept their lifestyle and for homosexuality to be supported. Well guess what, the majority of America does not accept it nor want it. Whether religious or not no one sees a homosexual relationship in the same view as a heterosexual one. A homosexual as an individual is entitled by law the same rights as a heterosexual, we are not a muslim country that treats homosexuals as inferior and put them to death for their deeds.

Normal: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

By definition, homosexuality is not normal. I don't have to believe in a divine authority or read a book to know that one man sticking his genitalia in a mans rectum is not normal. The anus' sole purpose is to excrete waste, it is not a reproductive organ...fact!

Right: *in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
socially approved, desirable, or influential:

By definition, homosexuality is neither right. It is not good nor proper for a man to have his anus stretched. It is neither socially approved, desirable or influential in the fact that more than half the population disapproves nor cares for it and that homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population.

Wrong: 4.*not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: out of order, awry.

But by definition it is wrong. Gay sex is not proper use of organs(reproductive or not) and it is out of order with what the basic natural intent of sex is; a means for reproduction.

I wish ghosts were real, so that your ancestors might bitch slap you for your stupidity in claiming their struggles for basic human rights is the same as gays pushing to be accepted. Kunta kinte would be ashamed of you.

[.blank cd]

I'm ok with gay marriage in the sense that "i dont care", but it's not right for people to seek to change long standing traditions to accommodate their lifestyle. If a tradition does not suit your lifestyle, dont participate. In this particular circumstance, marriage has legal benefits that should be made available to everyone, however, the tradition it'self shouldnt be changed for gay people.

You're exactly right. What am I thinking. We shouldn't change the long standing 2000 y/o tradition of slavery just to suit the lifestyle of blacks and Jews....I mean marriage to suit the lifestyle of gays and lesbians, sorry. We should remain true to be biblical definition of marriage of paying dowry's to fathers for their daughters and having multiple concubines.

[.blank cd]

Normal: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Right: *in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
socially approved, desirable, or influential:If "socially approved" is more than 50% of the population, then yes, being gay is socially acceptable everywhere


By definition, homosexuality is neither right. It is not good nor proper for a man to have his anus stretched. It is neither socially approved, desirable or influential in the fact that more than half the population disapproves nor cares for it and that homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population.You're right. We need to get this info to legislators. Shitting, suppositories, and anal thermometers should be illegal.

Guess what, if you believe it's not normal, don't have sex with a man! Lol. No one is forcing you, you poor oppressed Christian. Lol


I wish ghosts were real, so that your ancestors might bitch slap you for your stupidity in claiming their struggles for basic human rights is the same as gays pushing to be accepted. Kunta kinte would be ashamed of you.LMAO. I wish god was real an Jesus was around so that they may smite you for twisting scripture to hate against people in their name

[Sinfix_15]

You're exactly right. What am I thinking. We shouldn't change the long standing 2000 y/o tradition of slavery just to suit the lifestyle of blacks and Jews....I mean marriage to suit the lifestyle of gays and lesbians, sorry. We should remain true to be biblical definition of marriage of paying dowry's to fathers for their daughters and having multiple concubines.

Slavery isnt a tradition. Slavery restricted the freedoms of black people. Marriage doesnt restrict anyone's freedom. Gay people can be together, live together, have sex with each other, kiss and hold hands in public, go anywhere they wish and do anything they want. They can seek marital benefits and i hope they get them. They can even come up with a new name for their union and celebrate that, but they dont have to change the current tradition of marriage. Theyre not seeking equal rights, theyre seeking to change something that others hold sacred. Gay people arent asking for their own union ceremony, theyre asking to uproot the current one. If gay people had their own union and the government refused to give it equal rights and benefits of marriage, that would be wrong.

If you want to tomahawk chop, go to Florida State. If you want to Gator chomp, go to Florida. Dont go to Florida and tell them to change their tradition. You dont have to step on someone else's freedom to obtain your own.

The limitation of freedom is when it restricts someone else's freedom.

[.blank cd]

Slavery isnt a tradition.Slavery restricted the freedoms of black people.Slave ownership was a tradition. Practiced for thousands of years. Sometimes it restricted freedoms for black people. But they were far from the only ones. It's not a tradition anymore because society progressed. Which will eventually happen in this case.


If you want to tomahawk chop, go to Florida State. If you want to Gator chomp, go to Florida. Dont go to Florida and tell them to change their tradition. You dont have to step on someone else's freedom to obtain your own.Im free to gator chop all I want to at FSU.


The limitation of freedom is when it restricts someone else's freedom.You're exactly right.

[Sinfix_15]

Slave ownership was a tradition. Practiced for thousands of years. Sometimes it restricted freedoms for black people. But they were far from the only ones. It's not a tradition anymore because society progressed. Which will eventually happen in this case.
What if a white guy decided that black people should no longer be called african americans or (insert any term here that you like) and decided that black people should now be called "previously enslaved negros who were released from captivity" (dont be offended, made it offensive on purpose to make a point)... Why should gay people be allowed to redefine marriage and go completely against what the upholders of marriage have always stood for. If you dont like marriage, create something else and seek rights and benefits for that. There's a compromise to be made without allowing every tradition that doesnt accept everything and everyone, to crumble.


Im free to gator chop all I want to at FSU.
The same way gay people can be themselves anywhere in america. Ask FSU to paint an orange F on the side of their library and see what they say, because that's what gay people want to do to the tradition of marriage.

[BanginJimmy]

Going to make 1 simple comment and leave this thread of the theologists.

Whether you agree and disagree with the comments made by Cathy, I, and everyone else should, have a very serious problem with an Alderman or Mayor having the power to prevent a business from opening based on their personal opinion. Maybe this time you are ok with the reasoning, but what happens next time when the KFC owner decides he doesnt like any competition on that particular corner and lets the Alderman know that campaign cash could be made available if KFC didnt have to compete for customers?

[nelson9995]

I'm ok with gay marriage in the sense that "i dont care", but it's not right for people to seek to change long standing traditions to accommodate their lifestyle. If a tradition does not suit your lifestyle, dont participate. In this particular circumstance, marriage has legal benefits that should be made available to everyone, however, the tradition it'self shouldnt be changed for gay people. If so, i want the bible changed to say that atheist dont go to hell when they die, they spend all of eternity in a hot tub with 6 petite brunettes who dont speak english and know how to make tiramisu.

I agree with you here. I personally don't care either but they are trying too hard to be accepted.

Good one... if the bible said that I would become an atheist! lol

[Echonova]

Chick-Fil-A's chicken has 34% less gay virus than chicken found at any other restaurant.



You can't argue with science.

[David88vert]

I can't agree or disagree. I agree in a way because I do think that some people do choose to be that way. But I can't affirm or deny that genetics make up any part of a decision because I don't know.

That's part of the problem, David. If someone doesn't like something, instead of moving past it, they want to confront it. If I don't like something, I tend to move on to something I do like. Not complicate my life with things I don't. If gay people want to get married, let them. Who is it harming? Later, QD.

It's definitely a choice - as are most things in life. And people should have that choice. Some people choose to be gay, and that's their choice, but let me have my choice as well. Don't push a gay agenda on others and expect them to go along with your choice, when they choose to not to recognize something that disagrees with their beliefs. What makes the beliefs of gays that they should marry legally more important than the majority of Americans who choose to stay with tradition? In other words, a minority group that has special interests wants the majority of America to be deprived of what they have chosen. If you want to change it, put it to a vote in your state, and let the people vote. I can tell you now, it won't pass in GA, and that is why the LGBT groups here want it to be decided in court, rather than put it on the ballot.

[David88vert]

Sorry, the overwhelming scientific opinion would not agree with you on it being a choice. Too much evidence that points in the other direction. If homosexuality was a choice, then it wouldnt be expressed in animals without the cognitive ability for choice and reason, but it is. The xq28 study is not the only study to have been performed, and I dont think you understand what a scientific dispute actually means. Its saying that the answer to the question is not this particular answer, not that the question is dismissed. EVEN IF it was a choice, who are you to say its wrong? I'm pretty sure its your CHOICE to own a gun....

Read your last paragraph again. Change ONE term and listen to how it sounds...
This was EXACTLY what was said back in the 50s when people thought black people were inferior. Intolerance to gays is actually the minority opinion.

1) As others have stated, following an accepted tradition and definition of marriage is not the same as a social injustice. As you have shown, you do not have a grasp of what true social injustice is, nor are you capable of understanding the difference.

2) If you think you have the votes, petition to get a bill written by your state representative, and get the petition put on the state ballot. See if you have enough Georgians (you will need a majority) to vote in favor of changing the definition of marriage. I can tell you already that you will not get enough votes to change it. Go ahead and call your represenative and set an appointment and tell him that you want this bill created. Don't say that it can't be done - California has already put it on the ballot before as Prop. 8.
Now, where is your majority, and who is in the minority?

3) Show me evidence that there is a "gay gene" in humans. You claim there is evidence, yet you have none to show. You claim that it is genetic, and that you have overwhelming scientific opinion? Where are these scientists? Perhaps you are referring to Brian Mustanski's 2005 announcement? You know, the guy who now is director of Northwestern’s IMPACT program, and definitely had an agenda when he made his anouncement of chromosones 7, 8, and 10? Oh yeah, he was a Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a degree in Psychology - and did not have the skills needed to conduct genetic research. He is still one of the main sources for ProCon.org, which is the group that promotes "born gay".
When you dig in and see what the sources are, you see there is no basis in fact for their statements.

If you are going to claim something, you'd better come with some facts, or I will tear apart your statements, as I just did. You have shown that you make unfounded statements all the time on multiple subjects. You're ready to run for Congress as a Democrat!

[quickdodge®]

QD: man for someone with better/more important things to do, you sure spend a lot of time on these forums. Lol sorry man had to point out the obvious.

Point debunked. You pointed out that I spend about an hour a day on here? Good call.


It's not that it personally effects me.

Affects. The word you should have used is affects. Not effects.



I wish ghosts were real,

Lolol @ yet another self-contradiction. Later, QD.

[quickdodge®]

It's definitely a choice - as are most things in life.

Yes I agree that it can be a choice. But to say there is no way it is genetic is not correct. That has been proven or not, so we don't know. Later, QD.

[.blank cd]

1) As others have stated, following an accepted tradition and definition of marriage is not the same as a social injustice. As you have shown, you do not have a grasp of what true social injustice is, nor are you capable of understanding the difference.Right. Because theres only one degree of social injustice. It's violent racial oppression, or nothing at all. Please grab a dictionary, open it to the word social, then flip back to the word injustice.


3) Show me evidence that there is a "gay gene" in humans. You claim there is evidence, yet you have none to show. You claim that it is genetic, and that you have overwhelming scientific opinion? Where are these scientists? Perhaps you are referring to Brian Mustanski's 2005 announcement? You know, the guy who now is director of Northwestern’s IMPACT program, and definitely had an agenda when he made his anouncement of chromosones 7, 8, and 10? Oh yeah, he was a Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a degree in Psychology - and did not have the skills needed to conduct genetic research. He is still one of the main sources for ProCon.org, which is the group that promotes "born gay".
When you dig in and see what the sources are, you see there is no basis in fact for their statements.

If you are going to claim something, you'd better come with some facts, or I will tear apart your statements, as I just did. You have shown that you make unfounded statements all the time on multiple subjects. You're ready to run for Congress as a Democrat!Tear apart my statements? Hardly. You did however, cleverly, try and twist my statement against me. We'll try this again so maybe you can understand it better.

You keep bringing up, what christian apologists and christian gay opponents usually bring up, one specific gene that hasnt been found, and that probably will never be found. This isnt what Im referencing at all. I'm talking about separate genetic and hormonal factors which increase ones chances of being born gay. Hamers study, back in 1993, was never disproven, some scientists challenged his findings (this is encouraged in the field of scientific research) because someone one else couldnt replicate his results the same way. Researchers after him have used the same study with different parameters and come up with different results. Here is his abstract -- Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n3/abs/ng1195-248.html?ref=GoogleYuz.Com)

Yes. we can also cite Mustanskis study, in which he was a co-author, with Michael DuPree, which they theorize (not a guess, but a scientific explanation) a group of genes, in particular, 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26, that contain potential information about sexual orientation. Their research yielded a 60% accuracy rate between their test subjects, which is better than the expected 50% random chance. Are you claiming someone with a doctorate in psychology and a researcher in behavioral genetics is not qualified to co-author a study about behavioral genetics? Lol. Here's their abstract -- A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15645181)

Then theres UCLA geneticist Sven Bocklandt (What the hell would this guy know, right?) who was inspired by Hamers findings. He studied the activation and inactivation of the X chromosomes and found that it wasnt so random in mothers with gay children. Here's his abstract -- Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men [eScholarship] (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/863841tx#page-2)

Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrom, Swedish scientists, found a reaction in the hypothalamus of gay men that was similar to straight women when exposed to a male pheremone. Here's their abstract -- Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129091/)

And for good measure, I'll give a nod to a couple more researchers on the topic who concur with these theories: George Rice, George Ebers and Carol Anderson at the University of Western Ontario, Neil Risch at Stanford Medical School in California, and Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist and geneticist at the University of Chicago. All of the abstracts I've presented can be found in their entire publications.

So yes, scientific studies point to genetic and hormonal influences over environmental ones. Nature versus nurture. Do some choose to be gay? Maybe. Is it an across the board choice for every homosexual person? No. The mere fact that its expressed in animals that don't have the capacity for reasoning is proof enough. Other than that, science is overwhelmingly clear on the issue.

Nice try on the unfounded statements thing though! We might need to get you a job at Faux News. Geoff is too easy, at least you gave me a challenge. That was fun. I think we're done here.

[geoff]

^ You ignorant pompous moron. The gay agenda is nowhere near the civil rights movement. Before the rights were given to blacks, they were treated like animals. Use different fountains/toilets, no right to vote, no right to protest, no rights what so ever. The gay community is a bunch of pansies crying to change the definition of marriage and force heterosexuals to accept them. They have every right individually as every one else. They don't want equal benefits, they want attention and to force straights to support them. Simple, read a book man.

Yes David tore your argument apart. FACT, there is no gay gene nor any evidence that sexual orientation is genetically influenced. Sure I believe a gay man was turned on by another mans pheromones, he's gay. He has probably licked the sweat off another guys sack, of course it turns him on. These studies were conducted on mature adults that have practiced homosexuality for quite some time. Sure a study of their brains with show differing results then in straight men. They are gay, they will react differently than straight men. Study children who have no concept of sexual orientation, who are not yet attracted to either sex. Follow them for a few years and see what happens. Don't study a gay man and straight man in adolescence and say "eurieka!!!! These men have different patterns in their brains when it comes to attraction." we'll no kidding they are different. Further more, I can give you names of scientists as well that have conducted studies to show their might be a creator. You expect me to accept yours while you dismiss mine as irrelevant?

Sure animals practice homosexuality, but they react on instinct and impulse. They are not cognitive nor capable of rational thought, they are driven by primal instinct. They get horny and screw anything that moves. Sure compare that to gays, the irrationally and without logic react to a primal urge to mate. That helps your case a lot. Science is not overwhelmingly clear on $hit. It is not the generally accepted opinion of science that gays have no choice in the matter. The general consensus is that there is no proof that genetics dictate whether someone is straight or gay. Why don't straight men have gay DNA? Why is it just inactive? What about transgendered, where is the evidence to show their changing of sex and self mutilation is based on genetics?

Also, I can show you Biblical evidence that God allows gays to be gay, He even allows them to believe they are doing the right thing. That their choice is Gods will. Did you know that was in my Bible?

[geoff]

Do you honestly believe that anyone that disagrees with you is a primitive, ancient outdated textbook following, closed minded Christian? I may be wrong and if I am I apologize, but I don't think David is a Christian and I know for sure that Sinfix is not. It must be that only far left, gay supporting, big government, God hating, fag loving, black, Obama supporting , ant gun extreme leftists like you are correct in every statement, every thought, and every belief. Every one else are bigots, close minded, hateful, stupid, blind and irrational people. Is that about right? For one that is enlightened, you sure are a dumb ass.

[quickdodge®]

Lolol. That was too easy. More people should be like you. Just back away when they know they've been bested. Later, QD.

[.blank cd]

Do you honestly believe that anyone that disagrees with you is a primitive, ancient outdated textbook following, closed minded Christian? I may be wrong and if I am I apologize, but I don't think David is a Christian and I know for sure that Sinfix is not. It must be that only far left, gay supporting, big government, God hating, fag loving, black, Obama supporting , ant gun extreme leftists like you are correct in every statement, every thought, and every belief. Every one else are bigots, close minded, hateful, stupid, blind and irrational people. Is that about right? For one that is enlightened, you sure are a dumb ass.You can believe being gay is wrong all you want. I don't care. Its when you disagree with facts that makes you look like a moron. Throughout this thread, all you've done is disagree with facts. You can argue against facts all you want, but facts will still be facts. Sorry

[David88vert]

Right. Because theres only one degree of social injustice. It's violent racial oppression, or nothing at all. Please grab a dictionary, open it to the word social, then flip back to the word injustice.

Tear apart my statements? Hardly. You did however, cleverly, try and twist my statement against me. We'll try this again so maybe you can understand it better.

You keep bringing up, what christian apologists and christian gay opponents usually bring up, one specific gene that hasnt been found, and that probably will never be found. This isnt what Im referencing at all. I'm talking about separate genetic and hormonal factors which increase ones chances of being born gay. Hamers study, back in 1993, was never disproven, some scientists challenged his findings (this is encouraged in the field of scientific research) because someone one else couldnt replicate his results the same way. Researchers after him have used the same study with different parameters and come up with different results. Here is his abstract -- Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n3/abs/ng1195-248.html?ref=GoogleYuz.Com)

Yes. we can also cite Mustanskis study, in which he was a co-author, with Michael DuPree, which they theorize (not a guess, but a scientific explanation) a group of genes, in particular, 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26, that contain potential information about sexual orientation. Their research yielded a 60% accuracy rate between their test subjects, which is better than the expected 50% random chance. Are you claiming someone with a doctorate in psychology and a researcher in behavioral genetics is not qualified to co-author a study about behavioral genetics? Lol. Here's their abstract -- A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15645181)

Then theres UCLA geneticist Sven Bocklandt (What the hell would this guy know, right?) who was inspired by Hamers findings. He studied the activation and inactivation of the X chromosomes and found that it wasnt so random in mothers with gay children. Here's his abstract -- Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men [eScholarship] (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/863841tx#page-2)

Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrom, Swedish scientists, found a reaction in the hypothalamus of gay men that was similar to straight women when exposed to a male pheremone. Here's their abstract -- Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129091/)

And for good measure, I'll give a nod to a couple more researchers on the topic who concur with these theories: George Rice, George Ebers and Carol Anderson at the University of Western Ontario, Neil Risch at Stanford Medical School in California, and Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist and geneticist at the University of Chicago. All of the abstracts I've presented can be found in their entire publications.

So yes, scientific studies point to genetic and hormonal influences over environmental ones. Nature versus nurture. Do some choose to be gay? Maybe. Is it an across the board choice for every homosexual person? No. The mere fact that its expressed in animals that don't have the capacity for reasoning is proof enough. Other than that, science is overwhelmingly clear on the issue.

Nice try on the unfounded statements thing though! We might need to get you a job at Faux News. Geoff is too easy, at least you gave me a challenge. That was fun. I think we're done here.





1) Again, comparing gays to black in their struggles is not appropriate, and really a poor card to try to play. You really need to drop that one. Its not even close to the same. If you don't understand that by now, then you probably never will.

2) Yes, I agree that science test and retest and compares results. Yes, this is common in the field of genetics. These studies are not conclusive until confirmed, and the fact is that no one has been able to reproduce and confirm anything in regards to a gay gene. You cannot take something as conclusive evidence when others contradict it, and there is no confirmation from separate, unrelated sources. The fact is that many researchers (in multiple fields) start with an agenda funded to find a specific result, and they are quick to reject any results that do not agree with what they are looking to find. Mustanskis specifically was looking to reject data that did not fall in line with his goal, and that is why no one has been able to confirm his work. And no, he was not qualified to be an author on that paper anymore than you or I would be.

3) I have not read the papers of the links that you have posted - yet. I will read them when I have a chance to. This is the best post that you have produced in any thread so far though. At least you have something to finally base some statements on. Please continue to do this in the future on other topics.
Here is a question for you though. If evolution is to be believed, why on earth would a gay gene even come into existence? In other word, since survival of the fittest is the rule of the day in genetics, how would a gene not be weeded out that pushes away from biological reproduction? If you believe in a gay gene, then you are saying that evolution is failing, as it has not led to a reduction inthe numnber of people who will not reproduce. Just something to think about.
On the other hand, if you look at it as a choice only, then it makes perfect sense, and fits the world that we see today. Again, let me state that everyone has the freedom to make their choice as long as it does impact others in a negative way. Pushing an agenda from a minority group over the majority, and changing the majority's definition is not a freedom though.

Now, as to genetic or choice - neither makes any difference in regards to the legality of marriage licensing, or to how society defines marriage, so this tangent has no bearing on the initial situation of this thread.

[David88vert]

Yes I agree that it can be a choice. But to say there is no way it is genetic is not correct. That has been proven or not, so we don't know. Later, QD.

Correct. I am saying that you cannot assume and teach that it is genetic without proof. If they can prove it, then by all means, teach it. Until then, it is pure choice, as we know people can choose to be gay.

[David88vert]

... but I don't think David is a Christian ....

You are mistaken.


You can believe being gay is wrong all you want. I don't care.

He believes it is wrong, you believe it is normal. Both of you are entitled to the freedom to believe what you wish, and to voice that opinion.

Again, no one is stopping gays from being gay. They are not legally allowed to marry though, as they are not opposite genders, and the legal definition in GA requires.

[quickdodge®]

Correct. I am saying that you cannot assume and teach that it is genetic without proof. If they can prove it, then by all means, teach it. Until then, it is pure choice, as we know people can choose to be gay.

I agree, sir. You can't teach what isn't known. And there is no reason to really get into beyond letting people know there are studies on it.


You are mistaken.



He believes it is wrong, you believe it is normal. Both of you are entitled to the freedom to believe what you wish, and to voice that opinion.

Again, no one is stopping gays from being gay. They are not legally allowed to marry though, as they are not opposite genders, and the legal definition in GA requires.

Yeah, David is a Christian. But I can see why he would not be seen as one. And the beliefs each person has is spot on. No one is right or wrong. Normalities I don't care about.

I didn't address the "like black oppression" discussion. blankcd, I can see what you're saying to a point. Gay people are frowned on, looked down on and such. But not nearly to the level that black people were. Gay people have never been subjected to the ridicule and social stresses that black people were. Now I can think of one thing that might have helped this last fact. Gay people can hide their sexuality whereas black folks can't hide their skin color. If gay people couldn't hide their choice, they might have had a rougher time than they do now. Lots of Hollywood and sports celebrities were gay, but they never let it out because they felt (with good reason) that they would have been pushed right out. But gays are not nearly as "unequal" as blacks were. Later, QD.

[.blank cd]

I didn't address the "like black oppression" discussion. blankcd, I can see what you're saying to a point. Gay people are frowned on, looked down on and such. But not nearly to the level that black people were. Gay people have never been subjected to the ridicule and social stresses that black people were. Now I can think of one thing that might have helped this last fact. Gay people can hide their sexuality whereas black folks can't hide their skin color. If gay people couldn't hide their choice, they might have had a rougher time than they do now. Lots of Hollywood and sports celebrities were gay, but they never let it out because they felt (with good reason) that they would have been pushed right out. But gays are not nearly as "unequal" as blacks were. Later, QD.And that's fine. I totally agree. I've never said once gay people have been subject to violent oppression, and I doubt they will be. But there are varying degrees of social injustice. To say that gays are not experiencing some degree of injustice is simply irresponsible.

[quickdodge®]

To say that gays are not experiencing some degree of injustice is simply irresponsible.

They are, but they aren't. It's quite a small degree, I'd say. There's not much they can't do. The only main issues is getting legally married and ridicule. The getting married part is slowly disappearing. And the ridicule? Who doesn't get ridiculed? Who doesn't get made fun of? Who isn't the butt of jokes? Later, QD.

[geoff]

David: I apologize for assuming you might not be Christian. My point was to say that this is not just an issue between the Church and gay community. I have seen comments made by people of other faiths and those with no faith. One just needs to look at any article about the "gay agenda" to see this.

QD and david nailed the point I have been trying to make all along. There is no fact or conclusive evidence that one is born gay. So why does the gay community "preach" that it is fact and that they have no more choice over their sexual orientation that their skin color? QD said it best, " you can't teach something that isn't known".

Sure gays get ridiculed and mocked. So do those with faith or overweight people. But the gay community can not compare their "struggle" to the civil rights movement. They are on different levels and and degrees. No one is taking any civil rights from them. Marriage is not a civil right Guaranteed in the constitution. Therefore, every gay individual is given every single right that a heterosexual individual gets. They are 100% equal in terms of legality. I would like to point out what happened in California. The issue was put to vote and the people voted to ban gay marriage. This judge Vaughn Walker comes in and overturns it. Is it not the duty of the courts to judge on legality rather than personal morals or political views? How can he take away the voice of those who voted on it. That would be like tossing out the elections this year and keeping Obama in office simply because some might vote against him because he is black. Since when does the vote, voice and opinion of the American people get disregarded like it is meaningless? You can not push the agenda of a minority on the majority. Put it on ballet in every state and let the people speak. If it passes it passes, if it doesn't it doesn't. Then the true opinion of this nation will be known. Like what happened in NC, the people spoke and now the gays are having a hissy fit. Get over it. This is not a civil rights issue, as no civil rights under the law of the land are being taken. This is a personal choice issue. What's next, protesting and suing religious institutions for not placing gays in the roles of leadership?

[98blackcivic]

no wonder chick fila tastes soo good...they have the right ideas!

[BanginJimmy]

Correct. I am saying that you cannot assume and teach that it is genetic without proof. If they can prove it, then by all means, teach it. Until then, it is pure choice, as we know people can choose to be gay.


If you believe it is simply a choice, do you know when you chose to be straight? What were your influences in making that decision?


I cannot think of when I made that decision, I just know I am attracted to women. I am absolutely positive it was the same for you.

[David88vert]

If you believe it is simply a choice, do you know when you chose to be straight? What were your influences in making that decision?
I cannot think of when I made that decision, I just know I am attracted to women. I am absolutely positive it was the same for you.

Yes, I know exactly when - when I hit puberty. :-p

The society that I grew up in (here in the south) teaches that male-female relationships are normal. It is something that has been taught, and you choose to follow your teachings.
If I had been born in some "fantasy" land where people are taught to have relationships with their own gender, then I probably would have been influenced to think that was correct, and would have been inclinded to follow that path - and probably would have incorrectly said that I was born that way also. The truth is that a society like that would have only made it one generation though, as reproduction would have been impossible - and yes, I said impossible intentionally. You cannot find a case where one male human impregnated another male human, and that had a successful birth to propetuate the species. That makes it pretty clear that it is not "normal".

[.blank cd]

2) Yes, I agree that science test and retest and compares results. Yes, this is common in the field of genetics. These studies are not conclusive until confirmed, and the fact is that no one has been able to reproduce and confirm anything in regards to a gay gene. You cannot take something as conclusive evidence when others contradict it, and there is no confirmation from separate, unrelated sources. The fact is that many researchers (in multiple fields) start with an agenda funded to find a specific result, and they are quick to reject any results that do not agree with what they are looking to find. Mustanskis specifically was looking to reject data that did not fall in line with his goal, and that is why no one has been able to confirm his work. And no, he was not qualified to be an author on that paper anymore than you or I would be.Yep....


3) I have not read the papers of the links that you have posted - yet. I will read them when I have a chance to. This is the best post that you have produced in any thread so far though. At least you have something to finally base some statements on. Please continue to do this in the future on other topics.
Here is a question for you though. If evolution is to be believed, why on earth would a gay gene even come into existence? In other word, since survival of the fittest is the rule of the day in genetics, how would a gene not be weeded out that pushes away from biological reproduction? If you believe in a gay gene, then you are saying that evolution is failing, as it has not led to a reduction in the numnber of people who will not reproduce. Just something to think about.I've based everything Ive ever said on that same information. I don't like doing christian apologetics research work for them because thats what keeps them in the intellectual hole they're in in the first place. Read more, and stay away from anti-science-christian-blogs for scientific answers.

[BanginJimmy]

Yes, I know exactly when - when I hit puberty. :-p

The society that I grew up in (here in the south) teaches that male-female relationships are normal. It is something that has been taught, and you choose to follow your teachings.
If I had been born in some "fantasy" land where people are taught to have relationships with their own gender, then I probably would have been influenced to think that was correct, and would have been inclinded to follow that path - and probably would have incorrectly said that I was born that way also. The truth is that a society like that would have only made it one generation though, as reproduction would have been impossible - and yes, I said impossible intentionally. You cannot find a case where one male human impregnated another male human, and that had a successful birth to propetuate the species. That makes it pretty clear that it is not "normal".

I agree with you that homosexuality is not normal and is a deviation from biological tendencies. I completely disagree that it is a choice. It is a defect in their natural programming. If it was a choice those 'sexual rehab' courses created by the church would have worked. If it was a case of nurture you would never see a gay black or a gay from a religious family.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[geoff]

^ I disagree. I was watching a documentary on the study of sex and attraction. They described how pheromones come into play, how facial symmetry influences attraction, the significance of big breasts, ect...Basically it was saying how humans are programmed to find certain things attractive, in it's most primal state; a basic blue print for individuals to find a "perfect" mate to reproduce wIth. That really throws a wrench in the whole gays not having a choice theory. it seems that we are all wired by nature to find a mate of the opposite sex to reproduce the healthiest offspring possible. But something peculiar happens. Women who are considered very beautiful and desirable are choosing men who are the opposite. Like when you see that bomb shell blonde with the tall goofy awkward looking guy and you wonder how a guy like that managed to pull a girl like her. Surely she could have any man she wants, so why him? CHOICE! Maybe she was hurt and this guy is the "safe" choice. Maybe she is with him because he treats her good and makes her laugh...who knows. The fact is that she CHOSE that man and not the "best" candidate to reproduce with. It seems that we in our most primitive state of mind choose sexual partners based on what will be genetically probable for genes being passed on. Watch the video, it's pretty informative. It's called, The Science of Sex Appeal.

Many factors come into play when it comes to sexual attraction. But it all comes down to personal choice. If there ever was a gay gene, it would have been bred out through evolution. I also have a Biblical view, but that doesn't interest you guys, so here is the science approach.

[BanginJimmy]

So like I just said. Homosexuality is not normal, but a deviation. That doesnt make it a choice, it makes it abnormal.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[David88vert]

Yep....

I've based everything Ive ever said on that same information. I don't like doing christian apologetics research work for them because thats what keeps them in the intellectual hole they're in in the first place. Read more, and stay away from anti-science-christian-blogs for scientific answers.

I don't read Christian blogs. I read scientific research papers. I also actually research the background of the researchers, and of the studies that researchers base their studies on. You should try it some time.

[David88vert]

I agree with you that homosexuality is not normal and is a deviation from biological tendencies. I completely disagree that it is a choice. It is a defect in their natural programming. If it was a choice those 'sexual rehab' courses created by the church would have worked. If it was a case of nurture you would never see a gay black or a gay from a religious family.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

You base your disagreement only on your own opinion, which does not have any basis in current facts. We do know for a fact that someone can choose to be gay. We do know that education and training at a formulative age can produce any results that we desire. We do not have any proof of any gay gene, and definitely not that it is a "defective" gene. In fact, I think most gays would probably take that offensively to say that it is a "defect in their natural programming".

Let's look at human behavior for a minute. A lot of kids are taught that they should be conservative by their parents when they are young, and if you ask them questions, they will repeat the answers that their parents have taught. Once they get older, they see a lot of TV, and the media starts to influence them. Additionally, they start to get to get to make their own choices and engage in risker activities, and tend to have more liberal tendencies. The media's influence usually showswhen they are in their 20s-30s. Once they get older, many tend to drift back towards what their parents originally taught, and are more conservative, and more traditional.
Look atfter any major media event, such as a serial killer, we see copycats, even though they know it is wrong. This is pure choice. People see repetitive media, and they begin to copy it.
Now, as to the media, do you see more new promoting the gay agenda, or against it? Watch the news, and it promotes it. Watch TV shows, and they promote it. It is rare that they give the majority of Americans a voice on anything.

The only way to put this to bed is to put it to a vote, let the public determine if the definition of marriage should be modified to include same sex relationships. Georgia has already had a voted related to gay marriage - back in 2004, in the GA Marriage Amendment. Georgia Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2004) - Ballotpedia (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Georgia_Marriage_Amendment,_Question_1_(2004))

GA voted overwhelmingly change the state constitution to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. 76% voted for it, and make no mistake, this sealed the chance of gay marriage being approved anytime soon.

[.blank cd]

^ I disagree. I was watching a documentary on the study of sex and attraction. They described how pheromones come into play, how facial symmetry influences attraction, the significance of big breasts, ect...Basically it was saying how humans are programmed to find certain things attractive, in it's most primal state; a basic blue print for individuals to find a "perfect" mate to reproduce wIth. That really throws a wrench in the whole gays not having a choice theory. it seems that we are all wired by nature to find a mate of the opposite sex to reproduce the healthiest offspring possible. But something peculiar happens. Women who are considered very beautiful and desirable are choosing men who are the opposite. Like when you see that bomb shell blonde with the tall goofy awkward looking guy and you wonder how a guy like that managed to pull a girl like her. Surely she could have any man she wants, so why him? CHOICE! Maybe she was hurt and this guy is the "safe" choice. Maybe she is with him because he treats her good and makes her laugh...who knows. The fact is that she CHOSE that man and not the "best" candidate to reproduce with. It seems that we in our most primitive state of mind choose sexual partners based on what will be genetically probable for genes being passed on. Watch the video, it's pretty informative. It's called, The Science of Sex Appeal.

Many factors come into play when it comes to sexual attraction. But it all comes down to personal choice. If there ever was a gay gene, it would have been bred out through evolution. I also have a Biblical view, but that doesn't interest you guys, so here is the science approach.This is solid scientific research right here ladies and gentlemen.


You base your disagreement only on your own opinion, which does not have any basis in current facts.You've been doing this throughout the thread.

[.blank cd]

The only way to put this to bed is to put it to a vote, let the public determine if the definition of marriage should be modified to include same sex relationships. Georgia has already had a voted related to gay marriage - back in 2004, in the GA Marriage Amendment. Georgia Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2004) - Ballotpedia (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Georgia_Marriage_Amendment,_Question_1_(2004))

GA voted overwhelmingly change the state constitution to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. 76% voted for it, and make no mistake, this sealed the chance of gay marriage being approved anytime soon.If we put to vote that evolution was a myth, 76% of Georgia would vote yes. That doesnt mean that evolution is a myth, that means that 76% of Georgia voters are stupid.

[BanginJimmy]

You base your disagreement only on your own opinion, which does not have any basis in current facts. We do know for a fact that someone can choose to be gay. We do know that education and training at a formulative age can produce any results that we desire. We do not have any proof of any gay gene, and definitely not that it is a "defective" gene. In fact, I think most gays would probably take that offensively to say that it is a "defect in their natural programming"

Sure someone can choose to be gay. They can just make the decision that they feel more comfortable with people of the same sex. That is not the truth for the vast majority of gays though. Most simply do not feel an attraction to the opposite sex.

You bring up social programming that that was exactly why I brought up blacks and the church. These are 2 of the most anti gay demographics in the US. If it was simple programming, you wouldnt find any gays in those demographics. Obviously that isnt the case.

[Vteckidd]

LOL

I posted the polls saying that overwhelmingly its 50+ that gay marriage should be legal. Those that oppose it are falling into the minority at a fast pace. The whole gay debate at its core is stupid.

Being gay doesnt effect anyone elses life anymore than being black. (thats about as far as the civil rights argument goes with me FYI blank :P) Being gay doesnt unravel anyones religious beliefs anymore than another religious beliefs does.

Gay people are gay, period. Whether its right or wrong is an individuals opinion, but it doesnt change anyones personal beliefs. If Chic Fil A supports THEIR RELIGIONS DEFINITION of MARRIAGE which is between a MAN AND A WOMAN, theres nothing wrong with that. Thats no big deal. its not ANTI GAY at all.

Its no different than if i eat at a Chinese place that believes in Buhdism. Am i going to boycott chin chin because they dont believe in the same God i do? NO.

Chic Fil A isnt denying Gay people the right to eat or refusing service to them. Its stating its opinion that they choose to believe that Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Thats it.

[.blank cd]

^ So that settles it. I'm still gonna eat spicy CFA sandwiches, and Dan Cathy is still a jackass.

[Vteckidd]

^ So that settles it. I'm still gonna eat spicy CFA sandwiches, and Dan Cathy is still a jackass.

doesnt settle it, people have a RIGHT to boycott them for their beliefs and i 100% support that right.

:)

[.blank cd]

doesnt settle it, people have a RIGHT to boycott them for their beliefs and i 100% support that right.

:)

I'll tell ya why people should boycott chick Fil a...all the fucking MSGs

Thisiswhyimfat.com

[Vteckidd]

I prefer Jimmy Johns personally if i end up eating fast food haha

[geoff]

Blank: the documentary I sourced is full of scientific evidence and study. And better yet, it is unbiased. They did not set out to prove or disprove a "gay" gene. They wanted to know exactly what happens when someone feels attracted to another person. I see how you could dismiss it though, it doesn't support your kinds beliefs. That's fine though, dismiss it. It does not change facts. We as humans, being a more "evolved" species of animal; are programmed from before birth to find the most suitable mate to pass along our genes. This is practiced by every single animal species in the world, therefore it is the norm and suitable behavior. What is interesting in the study though, is that the subjects chose mates that fit their socially accepted level of attraction...I.e. a 4 with a 4, 10 with 10 ect...this proves that when choosing a mate, environmental influences take place, most dominantly, societies view of what's "beautiful" and what's not.

So it's not a choice, what about trans genders, or bisexuals? After all, bis like a little bit of both in their sexual life. Maybe there is a half gay gene as well?

[.blank cd]

Keep spreading the good word, Geoff. Lol

Since its a choice now, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

[Vteckidd]

the first time i entered that warm warm vagina. CHanged me for life.

[nelson9995]

the first time i entered that warm warm vagina. CHanged me for life.

so you were gay?

[Vteckidd]

so you were gay?

Clearly you missed the joke.

Blank stated that if geoff thought being gay was a choice, he asked when did he choose to be straight.

I responded in a manner that suggests that if it was a choice, then how do you really know..........

Im not gay, i dont believe in most cases that being gay is a choice. I believe its more genetic, product of environment, raising, social influence, etc.

[nelson9995]

Clearly you missed the joke.

Blank stated that if geoff thought being gay was a choice, he asked when did he choose to be straight.

I responded in a manner that suggests that if it was a choice, then how do you really know..........

Im not gay, i dont believe in most cases that being gay is a choice. I believe its more genetic, product of environment, raising, social influence, etc.

the part that confused me was the changed me forever part. lol.

IMO being gay is not a choice nor genetics. I believe it's everything else you mentioned.

[geoff]

Blank: as you are a self proclaimed "student of science" how do you pick in choose which science to dismiss and which too accept? This study was not about gay or straight, but to study how the body and brain react to attraction. The conclusion, we are wired to seek out that which has the highest probability of success for reproduction. This is the foundation for evolution. You reject faith and now science, you are lost sir. Science seeks truth no matter where it leads, you seek only that which fits your beliefs. Everything in life involves choice, from the moment your are cognitively aware to the last breath you take. Sexuality is just another one of them. I can not tell you when I "chose to be straight". But science suggest that as a part of the natural evolution of humanity and the continuance of our race, that I was born this way. My faith confirms it. Science nor faith show one is "born" gay. There are men, Brad Pitt for example, that I see as an attractive man. That I wish I could look like so that I myself would be more attractive to women. Does that mean I'm going sexually attracted to him, no. The evidence shows that "gay" is not genetic, but rather influenced by other factors, possibly many others. One thing is clear, it does not make biological "sense".

Answer me one question, bisexuals, is it choice that they sleep with men and women? Is it instinct? Is it a genetic malfunction? And are they "happier" or more "in love" with men or women? Is there really such thing as "love" or is it an emotion induced by chemicals so that our offspring have a better chance at survival with two parents instead of one? Is "love" a choice? What about falling out of love?

[.blank cd]

Blank: as you are a self proclaimed "student of science" how do you pick in choose which science to dismiss and which too accept?I dont pick and choose what science to dismiss. I haven't dismissed any actual scientific facts. Ever. I will dismiss, however, your attempt to stretch science to fit your regressive worldview. The continuation of a species is not always the goal of evolutionary biology.

[.blank cd]

Furthermore, there are many scientific explanations for the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality.

[geoff]

Please enlighten me. How is the continuation of life not always the purpose of evolution? And what are the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality?

I am not twisting science to fit anything. Watch the documentary. It speaks for itself.

[geoff]

Also, why did you dodge my questions?

[Sinfix_15]

I prefer Jimmy Johns personally if i end up eating fast food haha

they piss me off with how little avacado they put on the sandwich though.

[Vteckidd]

they piss me off with how little avacado they put on the sandwich though.

Italian Nights sammich doe, no avocado

[David88vert]

If we put to vote that evolution was a myth, 76% of Georgia would vote yes. That doesnt mean that evolution is a myth, that means that 76% of Georgia voters are stupid.

Once again, you make up your statistics just like your "facts" by randomly pulling them from your ass.
I can do that too.
99.999% of the time, you are completely retarded. 100% of the time you are unable to address a point directed to you.


Sure someone can choose to be gay. They can just make the decision that they feel more comfortable with people of the same sex. That is not the truth for the vast majority of gays though. Most simply do not feel an attraction to the opposite sex.

You bring up social programming that that was exactly why I brought up blacks and the church. These are 2 of the most anti gay demographics in the US. If it was simple programming, you wouldnt find any gays in those demographics. Obviously that isnt the case.

I disagree. You are assuming that the black community and the church are the only factors that are influencing people. They aren't even the majority of the influence that people in these groups face anymore.

[David88vert]

LOL

I posted the polls saying that overwhelmingly its 50+ that gay marriage should be legal. Those that oppose it are falling into the minority at a fast pace. The whole gay debate at its core is stupid.

Being gay doesnt effect anyone elses life anymore than being black. (thats about as far as the civil rights argument goes with me FYI blank :P) Being gay doesnt unravel anyones religious beliefs anymore than another religious beliefs does.

Gay people are gay, period. Whether its right or wrong is an individuals opinion, but it doesnt change anyones personal beliefs. If Chic Fil A supports THEIR RELIGIONS DEFINITION of MARRIAGE which is between a MAN AND A WOMAN, theres nothing wrong with that. Thats no big deal. its not ANTI GAY at all.

Its no different than if i eat at a Chinese place that believes in Buhdism. Am i going to boycott chin chin because they dont believe in the same God i do? NO.

Chic Fil A isnt denying Gay people the right to eat or refusing service to them. Its stating its opinion that they choose to believe that Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Thats it.



I agree. If the gays can get the majority of a state to vote in favor of changing the marriage definition, then by all means change it. But you can't just change it without a vote.

[.blank cd]

Once again, you make up your statistics just like your "facts" by randomly pulling them from your ass.
I can do that too.
99.999% of the time, you are completely retarded. 100% of the time you are unable to address a point directed to you.Further proof that you lack reading comprehension skills. Do you know what hyperbole is?

It's time for you to face facts. The country as a whole is progressive, and becoming more progressive day after day. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but just like anti-miscegenation laws were squashed by the public, so too will the regressive anti-gay marriage laws, and all of the rest of the antiquated biblical laws

[David88vert]

You're an idiot who does not understand how our system works, and you continue to not answer real questions and instead just make up BS. I understand that you want to claim jokes, hyperbole, etc, and take discussions off on tangents because you have no real facts that you can use to defend your view on the initial argument on any subject.

Laws will change, and perhaps the legal definition of marriage will eventually change, but you clearly have no clue as to how to affect that change, nor do you understand the legal process obviously.

Study history - every society changes, that is inevitable; however, eventally all civilizations reach a peak and then regress. History will later determine the US tipping point.

[geoff]

You are probably right blank. What's next on the agenda after that? Abolish religious institutions because the Bible says being gay is a sin? Or suing churches because they "discriminate" against gays and won't put them into positions of leadership? Let's do away with all laws because a group of people may not agree with them.

[David88vert]

You are probably right blank. What's next on the agenda after that? Abolish religious institutions because the Bible says being gay is a sin? Or suing churches because they "discriminate" against gays and won't put them into positions of leadership? Let's do away with all laws because a group of people may not agree with them.

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to remove that post. Only blank_cd is allowed to be sarcastic.

[.blank cd]

You're an idiot who does not understand how our system works, and you continue to not answer real questions and instead just make up BS. I understand that you want to claim jokes, hyperbole, etc, and take discussions off on tangents because you have no real facts that you can use to defend your view on the initial argument on any subject.If by "facts", you mean bible passages, then no, you will never see "facts" from me. Like I said before, I'm tired of doing Christian apologetics research for them. I've sat through the biology classes and the science classes and I've done the research. You still think being gay is solely a choice when the overwhelming scientific consensus says thats not the case. That's your belief, but your belief is not always fact. If you wanna know what the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality, or the evolutionary function of love and attraction is, go read a biology book and stop spouting misinformation, hate, and being an overall imbecile.

Class dismissed.

[geoff]

The not so funny thing David, is that people like blank view that as a "utopian" society. Man kind can not have complete freedom to do as we wish. We are civilized because of restriction and tradition. There is still innocence and purity in the world because someone, somewhere, didn't bend to the "progressive" society and their children were spared from the tainted desires of man. To me, a person who wishes to remain a virgin until marriage is beautiful, virtuous, and honorable. Today's society would call that person a fool and one who practices primitive beliefs. An upside down world we live in.

[.blank cd]

Someone holler at me when we're ready to discuss reality and not why America should live by one god's handbook

[geoff]

So what is reality blank? What is this perfect Godless reality you so wish to live on? This is reality sir. This life is not all there is. There are too many phenomenon that occur every day that can't be "explained" by science. I don't expect you to understand, your eyes are shut to the spiritual.

[geoff]

It's funny how the world denies Biblical truth and mocks religion; yet it doesn't surprise those with faith. It was foretold thousands of years ago. One thing remains a fact though. 2000 years ago a man named Jesus walked the earth and did something great. His life and his teachings made such an impact that even to this day it has an effect. How foolish of man to think he is alone in this vast universe, how foolish he is to think he is the perfection of creation, how foolish to think man is the author of his own destiny. One thing neither atheist or theist can escape is death. On the other side of this life is when we alone for sure can know what happens.

[David88vert]

If by "facts", you mean bible passages, then no, you will never see "facts" from me. Like I said before, I'm tired of doing Christian apologetics research for them. I've sat through the biology classes and the science classes and I've done the research. You still think being gay is solely a choice when the overwhelming scientific consensus says thats not the case. That's your belief, but your belief is not always fact. If you wanna know what the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality, or the evolutionary function of love and attraction is, go read a biology book and stop spouting misinformation, hate, and being an overall imbecile.

Class dismissed.


You have no clue as to the stupidity of what you type.
Again, you have no proof of a gene that impacts sexuality. That is fact, not conjecture. If/When it is proven that there is gay gene, then state that you have proof. Until then, you have nothing but your guess/opinion.
People do choose to be gay, that is fact, and is proven. So, what I have stated is factual, and you have claimed facts that do not currently exist.

Please enlighten us on how evolution is benefited by the non-reproductive capabilites for gay humans.

I would love to know what scientific research you've done, because you clearly have no clue about how scientific fact is researched and determined. What research papers have you published? I'll read them with an open mind if you post a link to their publication.

[David88vert]

Someone holler at me when we're ready to discuss reality and not why America should live by one god's handbook

I haven't used a single Biblical reference - you are the one that keeps bringing up the Bible.

Unfortunately, we can't discuss reality, as you have yet to learn what it is.

[.blank cd]

You have no clue as to the stupidity of what you type.
Again, you have no proof of a gene that impacts sexuality. That is fact, not conjecture. If/When it is proven that there is gay gene, then state that you have proof. Until then, you have nothing but your guess/opinion.
People do choose to be gay, that is fact, and is proven. So, what I have stated is factual, and you have claimed facts that do not currently exist.Still stuck on the gay gene? Even after I've said and scientists said they havent found one yet? Lol. Let's break this down to a five year old level

Let's say instead of gay, we'll call them purple. You keep saying a purple gene doesn't exist. Scientists havent found it either, what they HAVE found, as I have shown you previously, are parts of genes that are blue, and parts of genes that are red, they've found some hormones that are very dark purple, almost black, they've found some hormones that are very light purple, almost white. MULTIPLE GENETIC FACTORS DOES NOT MEAN ONE SPECIFIC GAY GENE.

Make sense yet?

SCIENTIFIC FACT: Science has found genetic and hormonal factors that increase the likelihood of someone being gay. Homosexuality is NOT ALWAYS a choice. End of discussion

Anyone else need something broken down to a 5 year old level? Lol.

[geoff]

Show we where the majority of the science community is in agreement with these findings or beliefs, as you said, the evidence is overwhelming. The fact remains that no one has been able to reproduce the results, something which is required to be scientific FACT. Show me also where it is scientific fact supported by a majority of the scientific community that sexual orientation is genetically dependent...and let me break this down to a 5 year old level for you. Let's say there are only 1000 genetic researchers in the world, 501 or more of them would have to be in agreement for it to be the majority. Don't show me some BS studies done by 10 biased men set out to show they have no choice in sexual orientation. The fact is this, there are MANY theories as to where sexual orientation comes from proposed by many independent individuals. Another fact, there is not a sufficient amount of research done on the subject. Therefore, don't take one possibly theory or school of thought and present it as the general consensus or fact. Another reality check, neither you, I, or David are genetic researchers. None of us have ever conducted a study on the subject. Therefore we are all just googling "gay gene" or "genetic sexual orientation" or what have you and taking the results on faith. You choose to believe those who support the gay agenda as we do not. So don't talk down to us like we are stupid, when in reality, you have no more insight into genetic research than a 9th grader using Wikipedia to research a subject. Make us out to be ignorant, when you yourself are in the same boat. The truth is, we are all taking someone's word for it, I for one rely on my faith to guide me. Science is ever changing. For example, there was an article published recently of 4 groups of stars that were orbiting so close together that previously it was thought they would merge. It was thought "impossible" with our current knowledge of natural laws and physics. Today's scientific fact, is tommorows mythology.

[.blank cd]

::facepalm::

[geoff]

Face palm all you want. Everything I said was true. You don't answer simple questions and keep making yourself our to be a genetic biologist while the rest of us are simpletons. You're a joke man. Arguing with you is like arguing with a gay man about the beauty of a woman's body.

[David88vert]

Still stuck on the gay gene? Even after I've said and scientists said they havent found one yet? Lol. Let's break this down to a five year old level

Let's say instead of gay, we'll call them purple. You keep saying a purple gene doesn't exist. Scientists havent found it either, what they HAVE found, as I have shown you previously, are parts of genes that are blue, and parts of genes that are red, they've found some hormones that are very dark purple, almost black, they've found some hormones that are very light purple, almost white. MULTIPLE GENETIC FACTORS DOES NOT MEAN ONE SPECIFIC GAY GENE.

Make sense yet?

SCIENTIFIC FACT: Science has found genetic and hormonal factors that increase the likelihood of someone being gay. Homosexuality is NOT ALWAYS a choice. End of discussion

Anyone else need something broken down to a 5 year old level? Lol.

Wrong. Science has not proven that homosexuality is genetic derived in any manner repeatedly, and has not been accepted as true by the published scientific community, therefore, it cannot be a scientific fact. It is a theory, which is not a scientific fact. Look it up.

The American Psychological Association's assertion is "most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." Note that they did not say genetics.

Dr. Joel Gelernter of Yale University ( Joel Gelernter, MD > Psychiatry | Yale School of Medicine (http://psychiatry.yale.edu/people/joel_gelernter.profile) ): "Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ... All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

“On July 16, 1993, it was reported in Science (pp. 291, 321) that geneticist Dean Hamer and his team at the National Cancer Institute had reported on a study involving 40 pairs of brothers both of whom were gay that had led them to conclude that they had discovered a factor on the X chromosome through which gayness was genetically transmitted to them from their mothers. This was hailed as proof that homosexuality in men is biological in origin. Two years later, however, Eliot Marshall reported in Science (June 30, 1995, p.268) George Ebers and George Rice of the University of Western Ontario had unsuccessfully attempted to replicate Hamer's findings and had "found no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son" genetically. He also reported that the Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services was investigating Hamer's work." - Martin A. Silverman, M.D.

And before you brush off my comments concerning homosexuality, genetics, and evolution, my comments were based on other's published work:
Professor Miron Baron, M.D. ( Columbia Psychiatry (http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=mb17&DepAffil=Psychiatry) ), medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in 1993 in the British Medical Journal that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. "...from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction."


Now, go back to class and go learn something - 'cause you didn't get anything from it last time obviously.

[geoff]

David, didn't you know blank is a highly regarded geneticist and that all studies that don't show the same results as his are automatically hateful, full of bigotry, and false? His word alone is the final word on this subject. In fact, blank is the Greek god of homosexuality. He thought it would be funny to play a trick on man and tweak the x chromosome so that some would be gay. In the ancient world, blow jobs were exchanged by men in his name and to his honor. The butt plug is in fact a copy of an ancient relic used in homosexual worship to blank.

[.blank cd]

Wrong. Science has not proven that homosexuality is genetic derived in any manner repeatedly, and has not been accepted as true by the published scientific community, therefore, it cannot be a scientific fact. It is a theory, which is not a scientific fact. Look it up.

The American Psychological Association's assertion is "most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." Note that they did not say genetics.Before I address the rest of the shit you've attempted to spin to confer with your belief, let me ask you something: What do you think a "biological factor" is? Hmmm? Take your time, I know you're slow....

[David88vert]

Before I address the rest of the shit you've attempted to spin to confer with your belief, let me ask you something: What do you think a "biological factor" is? Hmmm? Take your time, I know you're slow....

Read their report. I only listed a brief quote on here for you.
Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality (http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx)
Here is a simple disertation on it - LifeSiteNews Mobile | Commentary: American Psychological Association Changes Tune on Genetic Nature of Homosexuality (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/commentary-american-psychological-association-changes-tune-on-genetic-natur)


I've been busy working on my new house. I don't have time right now to stand around all day and explain basics to someone who doesn't want to believe the truth. Believe what you want, it's your right to be wrong.

On the original topic, many people packed Chick-Fil-A today, but to be perfectly honest, many of them were still supporters for the gay community, and stated that they were supporting Chick-Fil-A's ability to state and stand for an opinion - not the content of the opinion itself. In other words, many supporters still many support the possibility of gay marriage, but were standing up against the notion that governments would openly attempt to block Chick-Fil-A from opening stores, due to the opinion of an individual.

[ahabion]

It's time for you to face facts. The country as a whole is progressive, and becoming more progressive day after day. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but just like anti-miscegenation laws were squashed by the public, so too will the regressive anti-gay marriage laws, and all of the rest of the antiquated biblical laws

Actually, many of the Biblical laws are what Progressives/Libs/Dems are ultimately striving for. The great thing about Conservatism is that the values fall more inline with Christianity (from my POV) and so it makes the decision for me easy. That being said, not all Conservatives are "Christians" and rightly so, they don't have to be in order to be Conservative. (the opposite can also be said, Christianity falls into Conservatism)

IMO, Conservatism is the recipe for a successful life. Progressives attempt to redefine what success means because if you were successful, you didn't build that.