Heil Intolerance

[Apache]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Gay's should be treated no differently than any other minority. They HAVE NO CHOICE in their sexual preference. So intolerence of Gay's is no different than intolerence of Blacks or Hispanics or Eskimos or any other group of people you would like to lump together.

You can limit your argument to a strict definition by Webster if you like Toad, but you are mistaken when you compare the bigots who are obstinant about the need to INCLUDE with those who feel the need to EXCLUDE by calling them both "Intolerant".

Yes I am bigoted FOR Inclusion and Tolerance and Equal Treatment under the law. I Have never seen a decent argument that would make that bigotry go away.

MT, I 've seen you use "they have no chioce" several times. What do you base that statement on?

[Sabre]

Why do gays have a "right" to legal marriage?  More fundimentally, what is the purpose of a legally binding marriage?  Why was the institution created (from a civil, rather than religous POV)?  What positive influences or advantages to society was/is it meant to promote?  What benefits to society would gay marriage promote to offset the cost of giving them the tax advantages and spousal employee benefits (which is what it primarily comes down to) heterosexual couples receive?

Some other questions that come from a somewhat parallel issue: Should obesity be considered a handicap on par with a parapaligic, a deaf person, or a blind person?  There is some research that supports the theory that some very obese people are genetically prone to it.  Yet it is inarguably their behaviour that make them obese.  Should they be legally entitled to disability, or handicap parking, or government healthcare and entitlements?  I'm genetically prone to laziness (or so my dear mother stated more than once while I was growing up:)).  Shouldn't I get all the benifits provided by the state (tax breaks, subsidies, healthcare, wireless phone service) of my medically handicapped fellows?  After all, I'm not happy if I have to work for a living, so why would you be so cruel and heartless to force me to live a life not "natural" to me?  We must have equal rights for lazy people!  There are a lot of us, honest...they're just to lazy to stand up and be counted.

[Stringer]

Sabre,
If you've got the money and the lobbyist, I say go for the Lazy handicap thing!

That's all it takes sometimes

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Apache
MT, I 've seen you use "they have no chioce" several times. What do you base that statement on?

I'm glad you asked....

Scientific studies:   Detection of homosexual propensity in children: Richard Green, a psychiatrist from UCLA has compared effeminate with "masculine" boys.2 Children who grow up to become homosexuals often engage in "gender inappropriate play" in early childhood. 1, Page 116-7 "'Feminine' boys played about four times as much with the doll...a third as much with the truck." By interviewing their child subjects later in life when they were in their teens and early twenties, the researchers found that 75% of the effeminate boys had become gay adult males. It is obvious that these boys were not taught this behavior. They did not copy their behavior from other children in the family; they were often under harsh and severe pressure from their parents to change. One reasonable conclusion is that that they are driven to this type of behavior by an innate trait which is outside of their control and consciousness.
 Cross-cultural study: Whitham and Mathy studied 375 homosexual men in Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and the United States. 3 They consistently found that 25% of homosexual men display highly gender atypical behavior, while 50% showed marked gender atypical behavior as young children. They played with what are normally considered girls' toys and were regarded as sissies. These studies also find the same effect among adult lesbians; however, the percentages are much lower.

and

A number of techniques have been used to try to suppress homosexual feelings and/or create heterosexual feelings in gays and lesbians: 1

 lesbians had their breasts amputated
 lesbians had their perfectly healthy uteri removed
 gays were given aversion therapy; e.g. clients were shown pictures of naked men and simultaneously shocked with electricity
 brain surgery in the form of frontal lobotomies
 castration
 counseling and psychotherapy
 drug therapy: e.g. animal-organ extracts, cocaine, estrogen, testosterone
 positive therapy: e.g. men were asked to masturbate and then were shown pictures of women just before orgasm
 prayer and spiritual counseling
 therapy by tedium: men were shown homoerotic pictures until they became totally bored
 During the Nazi regime in Germany, Himmler attempted to "cure" gays by requiring them to visit the camp brothel at Flossenburg. "Ten Ravensbruck women provided the services with little success. The women [were later]...shipped to Auschwitz" for execution.
 During the recent apartheid regime in South Africa, gays and lesbians were considered deviants. They were sent to a special ward of a military hospital and "rehabilitated." This involved electric shock treatments and chemical castration. Those who could not be "cured" were given sex-change operations. A number of "patients" died.

The success rate of these therapies has been between 0% and something less than 0.1%. Some of these "therapies" can persuade homosexuals to be celibate, either through terror or guilt. They can persuade bisexuals to confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex. They may even be able to train gays to successfully have sex with a woman, while fantasize about making love to another man. But they do not seem to be capable of changing one's feelings (one's sexual orientation). 20

and

Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.

Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects. An Amazon.com reviewer commented: "Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show 'the love that dare not bark its name' in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity."  7 The reviews of this book are well worth reading for their own value.

Whiptail lizards, (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) found in the American southwest, are all females. They reproduce by parthenogenesis. Unfertilized eggs develop, producing an exact clone of its mother. Even though no males exist, the females still exhibit sexual mating behavior. Those that attract a partner have been found to produce more and healthier eggs. 8,9

Another source states that "Homosexuality exists in proven ratios in all mammal species....It is as natural as blue eyes, left-handedness, or the genetic predisposition to walk on two legs." 8

source - http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#norm

[Charon]

MT, I 've seen you use "they have no chioce" several times. What do you base that statement on?

Not to speak for MT, but I do have a lesbian sister-n-law who has stated to me that about the time most girls were developing an interest in boys, she felt no interest and instead began feeling an attraction to other females. Personally, it has never been a choice for me so I find it hard to understand those who think it is... unless their heterosexuality happens actually to be more of a conscious choice for them If it is, please share. It must be a daily struggle and it might help to let it out.

When I was about six or seven I came across a playboy and had a "funny" reaction down below. I had absolutely no concept of sexuality at the time and was so innocent I actually went and asked my mother what was happening:) I have never had that reaction looking at a male or any pictures of males. That tells me that sexual orientation, gay straight or open to both, is something you have an instinctive predisposition to. I could not change that instinct if I wanted to.

As for my sister-in-law, her difference became so uncomfortable in high school, undoubtedly helped by the growing realization among her peers that she was different (she’s not exactly a girly girl), that she tried to kill herself. I doubt she would have consciously chosen a path that would lead to that much confusion and misery. Her girlfriend has lost all contact with her family because of her "choice." There is a part of me that feels uncomfortable seeing them hold hands or otherwise have normal, casual shows of affection -- but that's my problem. If I were hateful and vindictive, I suppose I would want them to avoid having a personal sex life and loving affection if they couldn't control their "urges." But what a horrible thing to deny two consenting adults whose abnormal behavior is not abnormal to them, and that happens behind closed doors.

BTW, how many of you Christian moralists eat ham or bacon? Since you're so Old Testament vs New Testament, I assume you all keep Kosher? Or do you just pick and choose the parts of the Bible that support your prejudices like the Southern Baptists with their past support for slavery and the European Catholics with their past centuries of Jewish pogroms?

Charon

[SOB]

300!

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Toad
Oh?

So you didn't say all this? You didn't say Bush was doing it?

Bush isn't imposing anything on anyone, he is just saying he does have a problem with them having marriage.

So, he's just doing exactly what you are doing here. But it's OK for you to do it but not for him to do it because the Constitution says that everyone gets the right of free speech except for the folks that don't agree with you, correct?

Again, remember US Presidents DON'T make laws. The Congress does. All you need do is review how many things Presidents have proposed that the Congress either totally ignores or simply disapproves.

I said if which means in the event of.

So stop trying to twist my words or read it a few times before commenting.
If your not sure then you can ask what I meant instead of twisting everything.

Once again I am not trying to force you to do anything.
If religions have the right to do it or not then they are not forced.
Which means you can still call it immoral if you want.
How is that limiting your choice?

Being forced means you have no choice, in this case you do.

Get that?


Not everyone on these boards uses english everyday as I am sure you are aware.

One other stupid word twisting post from you and I will put you on my ignore list.


AVRO out.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Stringer
Sabre,
If you've got the money and the lobbyist, I say go for the Lazy handicap thing!

That's all it takes sometimes

I would, Stringer, but I keep putting it off...too much work:D.

[Toad]

Originally posted by AVRO1
So stop trying to twist my words or read it a few times before commenting.

[/b]


Those are direct quotes and they aren't taken out of context.

Pretty hard to twist a direct quote.

If that's not what you meant to say, then just admit you phrased it extremely poorly and be done with it.

Originally posted by AVRO1
Once again I am not trying to force you to do anything.

[/b]


I know. And Bush is doing exactly the same thing you are, except you seem to be unable to see that. Or, if you DO see that, you don't think he has the same "rights" to speak that you have.

Get THAT yet?

Originally posted by AVRO1
One other stupid word twisting post from you and I will put you on my ignore list..

[/b]

Like if I quote you directly again?

[Toad]

MT...

lemme get this straight...

"Bigotry used in the war against bigotry is no vice, it's a virtue!"

Is that what you're driving at?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Gay's should be treated no differently than any other minority. They HAVE NO CHOICE in their sexual preference. So intolerence of Gay's is no different than intolerence of Blacks or Hispanics or Eskimos or any other group of people you would like to lump together.

I think the key is to not confuse the behavior with the predisposition. Some people do indeed engage in homosexual behavior and they aren't gay. Still... I'm inclined to believe that many if not most truly don't have a choice.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Toad
MT...

lemme get this straight...

"Bigotry used in the war against bigotry is no vice, it's a virtue!"

Is that what you're driving at?

Almost got it right Toad... and on the 1st try too!


"Bigotry (by the definition you provided) used in the war against intolerance is no vice, it's a virtue!"

[The_Shocker]

I blame the Palestinians!!

[AVRO1]

I dont use english everyday ok so stop telling me what I am saying. I know exactly what I am saying and you dont.

This is what I was trying to say:

If you make a law that says something is wrong because of your religious beliefs then others that believe otherwise are limited by your beliefs.
Which I believe to be against freedom of religion.

I never said I had a problem with Bush's opinion.
He as the right to hate gays if he wants to.


So what is wrong with letting religions decide?
If they are against gay marriage then they dont have to do it.
If they are for it then they can do it.

I fail to see how that limits anyone.
Maybe you can enlighten me since you seem to know all.


Im out of here. This thread is pointless.

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target
"Bigotry (by the definition you provided) used in the war against intolerance is no vice, it's a virtue!"

Bigotry IS intolerance. Intolerance IS bigotry, MT.

Ouroboros.