I'm not gay. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Printable View
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.
I'm eating popcorn :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
Some might say that this would be the acid test. I would be interested to see if children brought up in gay households were disposed to pursue gay relationships, or whether their "instincts" would come to the fore. I think this one is actually too close to call - I can see it going either way.
Regardless of what you think of such behaviour, ultimately what two consenting adults choose to do between themselves is up to them, as long as they don't involve me in it. That applies to all styles of sexuality. When it comes to kids, that isn't in the same league and you all know it. Abusing minors, often those for whom you have some responsibility, sometimes those too young to talk, is not even remotely the same.
I can understand people not wanting to think that something as important to them as their choice of partner might be down to "a state of mind", particularly one brought on by chemicals, but at the end of the day much of what we do is a state of mind in one form or another. Besides, we spent our first 9 months in an environment specifically designed to influence us with the right concentrations of chemicals and hormones at the right time to produce a particular output.
Accept that ultimately, what matters is that you have one life and you have the responsibility to live it in the way that you choose, and accept that along the way there are always going to be people who try to bring you down, and you'll be well on the road to making as much sense as we can of this ship of fools.
She's a dudette, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
MD: What you are saying is neither junk, nor necessarily wrong (though nobody yet knows whether it is right). My point was that we know there are chemicals being found in increasing numbers in our environment (mostly water we drink, but I wouldn't rule out other sources, like the food supply), which are functionally similar to hormones. What effect this is having, or will have is unknown. You could be right about the increase in homosexuality, but I'm not ready to say that it couldn't also come from a co-dependent variable.
As for fish, however, they may not be the finest indicator of anything, as there are a few species (look up wrasses....but don't yell "Nice Wrass" at them, you might get slapped) which can change gender as necessary to maximize reproductive potential....hmmm....NoteMe once posted that he did that, too.
SchoolBusDriver: I don't really know the stats on whether the per capita rate of adopted kids being odd when the parents are homo- or hetero- sexual. The only stats I have heard have to do with how emotionally close the different couples are, and homo averages well above hetero in the studies I have seen. Since having a pair of loving parents seems important to creating a well adjusted kid, that seems pretty good, but having parents well outside the norm seems a bit bad. Therefore, I'd want to see some hard data on the subject, as the weight of evidence appears balanced.
By the way, what's the ageist thing? Am I shielding something?
If you mean my asking System Error whether or not he was a teenager, the reason was simply that he sounds like I used to when I was a teenager. There was a right and wrong and damn all people who didn't know that. I wrote down a bunch of that crap, but fortunately, I didn't show anybody, and was able to quietly burn it once I got into my twenties (which was a long time ago, by the way). The only thing I feel so strongly about anymore is that we should try to improve. I won't say that we should try to be good, because there are very few absolutes in that regard, but we can always be better than we currently are, and should strive to be so. Which leads me to:
System Error: Why do you think your opinion, and the opinions of others here have such little value? We are real people, who affect the lives of many other real people around us. Any time we get the opportunity to realize that our own perceptions are not the only ones, we have an opportunity to expand our understanding.
One study of terrorists and fundamentalists showed that they tend to see themselves in a very narrow way. Most of us wear many hats in the course of our days. We see ourselves as parts of many groups. For example, I'm a biologist, law enforcement, programmer, robot builder, extreme hiker, caver, party prankster, etc. As part of the last one, it is my nature to find ways to get nasty pictures secretly onto peoples cameras. However, that would hardly be appropriate when I am working on a robot (biologists deal with nasty photos routinely, so that one is neither here nor there). Fundamentalists identify themselves with only one group....others with the same fundamentalist beliefs. This gives rise to some forms of terrorism, religious extremeism, some communists, nazis, etc.
Therefore, your views here are neither entirely right, nor entirely wrong, but the key is that you recognize that there are other people with other beliefs. Dismissing all other views out of hand will work for a time, but ultimately you either become a bit more open minded, or you end up strapping on a bomb (literally or metaphorically).
As for the bizarre reading of exploration, I can only assume you are joking. I read over that a couple of times, and while both the concept of homosexuality, and the name Columbus did exist in the same post, there's no rational way that I can see how you could connect the two. After all, I mentioned Columbus and the spherical nature of the world as an example of information which was lost when the sum knowledge in the Eurpoean world decreased during the dark ages. It had nothing to do with homosexuality, but only with the imperative that nobody supress the quest for knowledge simply because one group or another wants to keep people from asking questions.
I thought that was JR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It couldn't have been JR, because I shot him.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
By "junk" science I mean I have no conclusive scientific data to support my theory. One of the largest sources for these hormones in the water comes from farm runoff. Cows-chickens..... are given these hormones, they urinate and it ends up in the local water supply. People eat the cows chickens, they urinate and it ends up in us and in the local water supply. Vegitable farmers use manure from the tainted cows and it ends up in the vegetables ect ect... Bottom line, ultimatly it all ends up in our bodies. and is being recycled through us over and over again in increasing quantities. Don't even get me started on the antibiotics that are piggybacking along as well making bacteria and the like stronger and stronger faster. Next thing you know humans are all going to be running around in black leather assless chaps with a cold. What a bright future. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yes but that is a normal occurance in that species and it may well be normal for the wrass species as well :lol: It is not even close to normal in Small Mouth Bass or rainbow trout.Quote:
As for fish, however, they may not be the finest indicator of anything, as there are a few species (look up wrasses....but don't yell "Nice Wrass" at them, you might get slapped) which can change gender as necessary to maximize reproductive potential....hmmm....NoteMe once posted that he did that, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Actually, I had written JR in there first, but then I remember a thread from NoteMe from a couple years back when he mentioned a party strategy along the lines of:
"If I don't get some female action within x amount of time, I turn gay."
I thought it was a pretty funny comment. He was basically saying that he tried all the women at a party, and if none of them were interested, he started in on the men. Noteme is a party type of animal.
MB: Amen brother! Preach it! (can't believe I'm saying that to you, but the antibiotics bit will be the death of us all).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Some people think that the increases in precocious puberty (some girls are starting to menstruate as early as 6-7 years old) and breast cancer are coming from the vast amounts of hormones given to livestock in the western world. We're certainly not doing ourselves any favors by giving them prophylactic antibiotics; all we're doing is creating resistant bugs.
Breast cancer maybe, but I think the precocial development has other causes. I would expect that early development is a result of a rich diet during early growth....oddly, that is also true in salmonids, however, leaving lights on at night seems to increase precocity in steelhead, while I don't think that's the case in humans.
I'm not a biologist, but I would assume that not exposing children to artificial hormones is healthier than exposing them to artificial hormones, right? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That's the problem, the Biologists don't even know. The majority of the water treatment facilities do not test for these substances so no one knows how much we're ingesting in the first place, let alone what it is doing to us and espically our kids. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Yes, but part of that rich diet is artificial hormones. I have read studies regarding steriods in the food supply adding to the overall size of children. 40 years ago 6'6' 350 pound guys built like a brick sheithouse were a rarity. No true any more. I don't see why the reason for accelared growth of pre to adolecent males would skip females.Quote:
but I think the precocial development has other causes. I would expect that early development is a result of a rich diet during early growth....oddly, that is also true in salmonids, however, leaving lights on at night seems to increase precocity in steelhead, while I don't think that's the case in humans.
Right on all counts. We really don't know what those hormones will do, or even whether or not they CAN do anything (proteins ingested orally tend to be digested). This issue has only really been identified recently (in scientific terms), and hasn't been well studied.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Rich food alone can account for early development and large size. It is not necessary to add hormones, steriods, etc.....but it might help.
True, but we've switched to organic meats and dairy products to try to avoid exposure to the hormones and antibiotics used to raise them. Better safe than sorry I say. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
It wouldn't, I just think it would affect them differently. I've read that high-fat diets can alter your hormone balance anyway...if someone has a lot of adipose tissue doesn't that stimulate estrogen production? Hence manboobs...Quote:
Yes, but part of that rich diet is artificial hormones. I have read studies regarding steriods in the food supply adding to the overall size of children. 40 years ago 6'6' 350 pound guys built like a brick sheithouse were a rarity. No true any more. I don't see why the reason for accelared growth of pre to adolecent males would skip females.
I always thought manboobs were just one example of the variations between how fat is laid down on different people.
Mebbe, but men who have a lot of fat on their bodies make more estrogen which promotes breast growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Well they aren't really the same shape, or men with them would never leave the house because they'd be too preoccupied.