Maybe gay people are gay because the devil made them gay... :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Printable View
Maybe gay people are gay because the devil made them gay... :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Are they? :confused: Don't laugh guys but I have a theory based completly on junk science that the recent surge in homsexuality across europe and north america is being caused by pollution of our drinking water. Read this entire article http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1041339 At first it seems unrelated, who cares, just a bunch of sick/dying, unisex fish, but consider that the chemicals that are playing havoc with these fish are in our drinking water and are not removed during water purification or even tested for, for that matter. So are an increasing number of people born gay with the chemical inbalance that scientists use to back up the "born gay" theory or is it caused by something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Quote:
Another factor in intersex development could be increased aquatic levels of natural and synthetic hormones, such as those in birth-control pills, which often aren't removed by wastewater treatment plants, Blazer said. Poultry manure, which is used as fertilizer in agricultural fields, is also high in steroids identical to human female and male hormones, although no cause-and-effect evidence linking poultry manure to intersex fish exists, researchers said
:lol:Quote:
I say people are born gay.
Are pedophiles born pedophiles? Murderers born murderers?
I think it's those dang video games and subliminal messages.....Quote:
Are they? Don't laugh guys but I have a theory based completly on junk science that the recent surge in homsexuality across europe and north america is being caused by pollution of our drinking water. Read this entire article http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1041339 At first it seems unrelated, who cares, just a bunch of sick/dying, unisex fish, but consider that the chemicals that are playing havoc with these fish are in our drinking water and are not removed during water purification or even tested for, for that matter. So are an increasing number of people born gay with the chemical inbalance that scientists use to back up the "born gay" theory or is it caused by something else?
Much as I abhor pedophiles, I think at some level they can't help their desires. They CAN help acting on them, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
As for murder...well, we're all human. All equally capable of it. Most of us choose not to.
I don't believe in the devil. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by dclamp
I once read a very interesting interview with a "reformed" paedophile (anonymous, of course). I believe the link might have even been posted on this forum. It was quite eye-opening.
Lumping homos in with them is a bit rich, though. I mean, homosexual activity comes under the same laws of consent that heterosexual activity does. It's either between consenting partners, or it's rape. Paedophilia, on the other hand, involves minors whose consent cannot be legally recognised, and rightfully so since they're children. You can't just equate the two like that.
They're not the same to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I don't think it's a case of lumping homosexuals in with paedophiles, implying that they're both wrong, but that one can be heterosexual,homosexual or a paedophile. It's just something that you are not something that you can change.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I'm not laughing. There's nothing far fetched about that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
The one caveat that should be noted is that there may not actually be a surge in homosexuality, rather there may simply be an increased acceptance. There may be lots of people coming out of the closet, but we don't know how many people lived their whole lives in there in the past.
However, people who say homosexuality is unnatural have one problem. Considered from a rational view, it is heterosexuality which is illogical. Every study I have ever heard of shows that men get along with other men, and women get along with other women, better than either gets along with the other. A study attempting to look at the factors that could predict success of couples, was able to identify several traits that seemed to indicate early on, how well the couple would do. Homosexual couples, male or female, scored well above the best heterosexual couple.
Gee, that's a surprise! There have only been libraries of books, and catalogues of jokes based on the inability of one gender to understand the other.
Furthermore, if there was no preference, then guys would choose guys because they are more compatible, still make more money on average, etc. Women would probably choose other women, as statistically, the most dangerous person in a womans life (most likely to cause deliberate physical harm, or death) is their partner. Choosing someone more physically similar would be a safer bet.
So why do men like women and women like men? Is it reason...no. How about chemical.....well, if it's hormones, perhaps we should be worried about the increasing numbers of synthetic hormone analogues found in the worlds water supplies.
It's natural.Quote:
So why do men like women and women like men?
because god created us that way ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
It's also instinctive.
There has already been a at least 1 case in the UK of a gay (male) couple who adopted kids and then set about sexually abusing them. So soon ?. OK I know this has also happened with heterosexuals, but it would seem the danger to kids is much higher - and it's the kids safety that has to come first, not the law or the adoptive parents. In this case the law is an ass - it's putting the adoption arrangers in the position of being sued if they refuse to allow gays to adopt a child, even if their instincts say there is a danger to the child. They could aso be sued if a child IS abused - a no win situation. Trying to explain that it was an instinctive decision would get you nowhere in a court. The lawyers would have you running round in circles.
I'm not surprised the church wants exemption - or to drop out of adoptions altogether. Money aside, how would you feel if you did this against your instincts, only to find a child had been later abused ?
That's pretty much what I meant, but better said ;)Quote:
because god created us that way
What's abuse is to allow 5% of the people to control the other 95% and allow this kind of crap. Hopefully some politician will have enough common sense to stop this crap. Gays and gay supports are asking for special rights, and they shouldn't get any (no one else does, except for the ........).Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
... church?
hardly. If anything they are on the opposite end of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Yeesh.
I can't say I am surprised by those answers (except the one from Schoolbusdriver, I'd like to hear that explained more). There could hardly be a more anti-intellectual answer than to simply say "that's the way it is, don't question it". So there's no reason for this situation other than the hand of god? Despite that being argued for pretty much everything from disease to inheritance to the sun rising in the East? Ok, let's all stop thinking.
However, leaving that aside: Schoolbusdriver, you seem to be saying that it is somehow expected that homosexuals would be pedophiles, or at least more predisposed in that direction. Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? If I am, please clarify. If I read it right, could you explain where you came up with that, or what it's based on?
Need a room?Quote:
Originally Posted by dclamp
har har har :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
You can't be serious.Quote:
Every study I have ever heard of shows that men get along with other men, and women get along with other women
I have a lot of guy friends and get along with them very well, but that doesn't mean I look at them in the same way as women (and of course, I don't.. I'm normal). For a homo I guess it's the opposite. They look at men as being waaay more than a friend, and as women just friends. It seems we the majority of people in this thread are homosexual, so ask one of them.
They're in the same sick nasty gross freak category.Quote:
expected that homosexuals would be pedophiles, or at least more predisposed
That's all that's needed. Plus you've already got your mind made up and no answer will change it.Quote:
There could hardly be a more anti-intellectual answer than to simply say "that's the way it is, don't question it"
Just out of curiosity, are you a teenager? If you are, I understand where you are coming from (heck, you think there's such a thing as normal in male sexuality, you MUST be a teenager). After a couple years in college, I read some things that I wrote as a teenager, and throwing it out wasn't enough, I burned it. If you aren't a teenager, then I have no idea where you are coming from.Quote:
You can't be serious.
I have a lot of guy friends and get along with them very well, but that doesn't mean I look at them in the same way as women (and of course, I don't.. I'm normal). For a homo I guess it's the opposite. They look at men as being waaay more than a friend, and as women just friends. It seems we the majority of people in this thread are homosexual, so ask one of them.
The studies are real, and I have never heard any that show anything else. Nor would I expect anybody over thirty to doubt those studies (twenties are kind of in the middle, as you haven't had an opportunity to be in a long term relationship, or known people who have been in one).
Of course you don't look at men the same way you look at women. That's true regardless of your orientation. In either case, you are looking at one group or the other with a sexual interest. The point of the studies was to look at those factors that made for lasting relationships. They're talking about relationships that can be measured in decades, while you're talking about relationships that can be measured in minutes.
Where did that statistic come from? I think there is one person who was here a few years ago who was openly gay (just based on his title), but I don't know of any currently who are. Oh, what the heck, where did you get that Freudian slip from, too?Quote:
It seems we the majority of people in this thread are homosexual, so ask one of them
What is my mind made up on? God's will has been the rationale given for everything from the passage of the sun across the sky, to disease, to the color of your hair. Had people been satisfied with such an answer, where would we be now? All advances have come through curious people asking why something is as it is. And all advances have been stauchly resisted by people who have been saying "It's god's will, don't question it." In general, these folks have been dragged into the future with their eyes pressed tightly shut, but not always. There were the dark ages, when the pool of knowledge in Europe actually shrank by noticeable amounts. Understanding of the world we live in was lost, to such an extent that people today think that Columbus had something to do with proving the world was round, a fact known to the ancient greeks two thousand years earlier. The dark ages are never far away, either, because the forces of ignorance beat incessantly on the gates of knowledge while howling their chant of "It's god's will!"Quote:
That's all that's needed. Plus you've already got your mind made up and no answer will change it.
It doesn't matter whoes mind is made up, either mine or yours. If you have arguments to support your position, you should make them. In each one of us, there is some wisdom, and some ignorance. If you are so complacent as to not speak your wisdom, then the portion of ignorance will rise not just in those around you, but in yourself, as well.
Of course we're homosexual. We're the ones that don't agree with him. :rolleyes:
I'm not gay. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
That's not quite what I meant (It's a context thing). There's no statistical evidence - as there wouldn't be. Adoption agencies will only publicise their successes, not failures, and the media will only report the bad side, so the only evidence says there is more of a risk. ie. There have been documentaries in the UK of homosexual child abuse by catholic priests across the world, and also of homosexuals in positions where they were in charge of kids, such as scout troops etc. There has even been a recent case involving a babysitter - someone the parents knew and thought they could trust. (I don't look for this stuff, it's just what's in the news when I see it). Adding all this mishmash of information together spells "warning" to me. Add it to my instincts (I was born with them, they're part of my genes and immutable) and it spells "Too great a risk". Maybe the adoption agencies vetting process failed in the case of the homosexual couple abusing adoptees I mentioned above. Maybe they were just after the money and couldn't care less about the consequences - things like this just add to my gut feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
What about the child though ? The child's welfare has barely been mentioned here. (It looks more like a flame thread. How many parents have posted here?) How messed up will a child's mind be, being brought up in a homosexual/lesbian household if the child's instincts are heterosexual ? What if the child sees something he/she is not supposed to see ? The child may end up with mental problems - but that's in the future isn't it - long after the politicians have caught the gay vote and probably retired.
Above all else, the child's welfare must come first.
Slightly off topic (and far less seriously), and just to show how ludicrous political correctness has become, last week a gay rights campaigner threatened to prosecute a restaurateur for advertising a dish he'd been selling for years - "f a g g o t s swimming in gravy". Just to make sure we're all understand, in the UK, f a g g o t s are a sort of meatball and "f a g g o t s in gravy" can be bought (frozen) at supermarkets. I resent this hijacking of the word "f a g g o t s" - a term that has been used to describe meatballs for hundreds of years - and then threatening non-gays for using it. (It makes you wonder about the mental condition of this campaigner)
:eek2: I'm astonished :eek2: The forum's software just tried to blank the word :eek2: Is this an indication of just how far political correctness has degenerated our language ? :eek2:
@Shaggy Hiker - you're not ageist, are you ? ;)
Schoolbusdriver:
While I disagree with you about the 'risk' of adopting children to homosexuals, I had a good laugh over the f@ggots in gravy story. Americans are obviously much less likely to use the word 'f@g' or 'f@ggot' except as a slur, so whenever I pass the f@ggots in gravy at the supermarket, I giggle.
You and I both know that this country is insane, and people are just running around looking for an excuse to be offended. America has the same problem. People are turning into gigantic BABIES.
Since when were Homosexuality and Paedophilia the same thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
I'm pretty sure whatever it is that a paedophile like in a young boy is not the same as what a couple of gay guys would like in each other. Don't conflate the two just because there's no gender difference.
edit:
and what about all the f**ked up kids that have been brought up by heterosexual couples - schoolbusdriver, your sweeping brush strokes of prejudice are just incredulous...Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
They're not the same thing, but in the same category.Quote:
Since when were Homosexuality and Paedophilia the same thing?
Most of the arguements here are so stupid and so irrational that a counter arguement is not even needed. This topic is silly and shouldn't need any debating... Not sure exactly how or why you think your posts are so filled with wisdom, because it's just not there.Quote:
In each one of us, there is some wisdom, and some ignorance. If you are so complacent as to not speak your wisdom, then the portion of ignorance will rise not just in those around you, but in yourself, as well.
It's simple, the church is trying to "save our children". :thumb: :thumb:
so you're comparing exploring homosexuality to the exploration columbus did? :lol: :lol: You must also be an all out supporter of incest, beastiality and the other sick things.... They're exploring too!!!!!!Quote:
What is my mind made up on? God's will has been the rationale given for everything from the passage of the sun across the sky, to disease, to the color of your hair. Had people been satisfied with such an answer, where would we be now? All advances have come through curious people asking why something is as it is. And all advances have been stauchly resisted by people who have been saying "It's god's will, don't question it." In general, these folks have been dragged into the future with their eyes pressed tightly shut, but not always. There were the dark ages, when the pool of knowledge in Europe actually shrank by noticeable amounts. Understanding of the world we live in was lost, to such an extent that people today think that Columbus had something to do with proving the world was round, a fact known to the ancient greeks two thousand years earlier. The dark ages are never far away, either, because the forces of ignorance beat incessantly on the gates of knowledge while howling their chant of "It's god's will!"
If you want to be wrong, that's okay. You have the right to be.
'nuff said. no point in arguing over something that doesn't need arguing to a sane person.
In so far as they are both a deviance from the accepted social absolute norm, I guess I agree. In so far as one involves mutual consent between two adults and the other is a form of rape... erm... not so much.Quote:
They're not the same thing, but in the same category
I really don't see how you can equate homosexuality to paedophilia. The argument offered seems to be: "I've seen on the news that a homosexual was also a paedophile, therefore they probably all are"; which is much the same as saying "Grahem Huntley was a heterosexual and a paedophile, therefore they all are". SystemError and SchoolBusDriver, I surmise from your posts that you're hetero, so are you paedolphiles too? I somehow doubt it.
The truth is you're showing a staggering level of prejudice and bigotry.
One word, boobies :thumb:Quote:
So why do men like women?
All my guy friends look at women and they're like "Oooh, check the boobs on her" or "I'd like to poke that". My women friends look at a guy and are like "Meh," then someone says "he's a doctor" and they're all cooing and purring.
Men <3 ( . ) ( . )
Women <3 ££££$$$$$
Me, I married a guy who makes me laugh. Am I nuts or what.
ok, so they're in the same category, they're both sexual deviances (and by deviance, I mean not-the-norm, no -ve cogitations intended), but they're still different.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Human's and dogs come under the same category, mammals - but we're still different. Manslaughter and brutal murder come under the same category, but are still different.
I can't really see the reason for your statement, are you suggesting that whilst homosexuality & paedophilia are different they should still be treated the same, is that correct?
I never said they were the same. What gets reported in the media though, seems to indicate a high incidence of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmobile
At least they made up their own minds, without a biased upbringing. Call me a boring old Luddite if you want, but they are my personal opinions, and instincts.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmobile
you guys should take it easy and stop flaming eachother.
If you want to debate about topics such as this, then fine, but keep it clean, and remember that a lot of what you are all saying is opinion based.
How very true :thumb: And now I'm too old to emigrate to Australia... :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
:confused: Seriously. None of my post(s) in this thread are intended as a flame, but as part of a serious discussion. On a humerous note, perhaps you should look at the quote from disruptivehair, above. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
I wasn't singling you out. I was talking about the entire thread.
i'm sorry, but I've never seen a single article where an individuals sexuality was given as a major contributing factor in whether they became a paedophile or not...Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
if paedophiles were allowed to adopt children then it's the measures in place to stop them that have failed - what relevance does the sexual orientation of the adopters have once they have passed those tests?
well, I wasn't talking about sexuality when I was talking about parents messing up children, I wouldn't saying having a gay son/daughter was messing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
But anyhoo, what is an unbiased upbringing? - it doesn't exist. Say you grow up in a family of homophobes, isn't that just as 'biased' as growing up with two gay parents? Or how about growing up in a religious family?
all upbringing is biased - Larkin put it better than I could
Neither have I, but that's not what I wrote either... ;) And I never meant to infer that homosexuals are pre-disposed to become paedophiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmobile
WRT both of the above points: Foster carers jailed over abuse (My original statements about the gay couple who abused their kids was slightly in error. They were fostering. I blame my age for this :o )Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmobile
Perhaps I should have put "unbiased environment" ??Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmobile
ok, so two paedophiles (who were also gay) sexually abused some children, what relevance does this have to non-paedophile gay couples?Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
here's one about a heterosexual couple who abused children, the man was a paedophile - should this affect our opinion on whether heterosexual couples should adopt/foster?
:confused: what's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
I would argue that there is a surge. Pretty much every city has a huge section that is predominantly sexually confused. That was not true 20 years ago. I think you're right that acceptance is a part of it, but a large number people in the past who would be considered sexually confused today, had the ability to and did live traditional lives in the closet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I'm not saying drinking water will make someone gay but it may be the difference between somone being "sorta gay" and "Marching naked on a unicycle in the rainbow parade flaming gay".
Mixed sexing in fish(or any species) is a natural occurance, extremly rare, but natural nonetheless. The hormones in the water appear to be triggering this as well as confusing properly sexed natural spawners. if it's happening to animals in the water It's more than likley doing "something" to humans drinking the water as well. Like I said, It's all just junk and a guess but It seems possible. I'd be interested to see some sort of study done on the effects of these chemicals on adolecent male humans.
I'm beginning to wish I hadn't posted this; I apologize for any problems it has caused.
Nah, it's about par for this section.
OK, I can take a hint. But before I go, and just for you, I found this at the "Human Genome Project" ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Quote:
ctggttgatc ctggcggagg ctactgctat ihatepubli ctransport caagttgaat gaatttagat tcatggcgta
Dude, you haven't caused any problems. Just because there's disagreement doesn't mean you'll meet retaliation in a non-debate thread or something like that. People here just won't stoop to that level, and besides, we're on the internet! It's not like we get done posting and think, "man I want to kill that...". Nobodies going to hold grudges or hate you because of your opinions here. If anyone has to worry about that, it's me :DQuote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Anyways, this thread is nothing compared to what we've had in the past. Debates are fun, and mudslinging makes then entertaining.