re: My little ones were sitting on the sofa with me while I was watching the draft

Just tell them it's cause the Rams are figs.

You can't use that word on here

It's likely environment and not genetics

quote:

---

In short, it's a choice to act upon any temptations. Temptations are environmental, not natural. People know it's a sin, and everybody sins, but there's a difference in sinning and admitting you're a sinner than sinning and saying "I was born this way."

---

To you. To others, eating pork is "a sin." The list of what other consider to be a sin that you would find laughable would be, I imagine, long and distinguished.

So if sin is NOT an issue for many, those temptations can simply be defined as they really are...the same attraction feeling you have for the opposite sex. But, because you think they are "wrong" they can't BE the same feeling you have. They have to be labeled in such a way so as to diminish their value. In short, they no more chose to be attracted to the same sex than you did to the opposite.

quote:

---

Everybody has sins they struggle with.

---

No, we don't. And more importantly, even those of you who do care about such things as sins can;t agree on what constitutes them or agree on them...so using them as some universal template for morality is insane.

quote:

---

So, what's your point. Dogs also eat shite and hump a lamp shade.

---

My point to SthGADawg was that homosexuality is natural in many mammals, and so apparently is eating shite and humping lamp shades. There are people who have eaten worse and humped worse.

I am still floored by the guy's statement: "People choose to be gay b/c it is the hip and/or cool thing to do"

I am not even sure how to respond to this b/c it is out of this world crazy.

quote:

---

Can you provide links to any of these facts? Here's one about one of several possible "gay genes".

---

Hamer's findings were very dubious, if not completely fabricated.

* See Anne Fausto-Sterling and Evan Balaban, "Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation," Science (September 3, 1993), p. 1257.

They noted:
Despite our praise for aspects of Hamer, et al.’s work, we feel it is also important to recognize some of its weaknesses. The most obvious of these is the lack of an adequate control group. Their study demonstrates cosegregation of a trait (which Hamer, et al. have labeled “homosexuality”) with X chromosome markers and the trait’s concordance in homosexual brothers. This cosegregation is potentially meaningful if the mother is heterozygous for the trait. In this case, segregating chromosomes without the markers should show up in nonhomosexual brothers, but Hamer, et al present no data to that effect (1993, 261:1257, emp. added).
Fausto-Sterling and Balaban continued:

This sensitivity to assumptions about background levels makes Hamer, et al.’s data less robust than the summary in their abstract indicates.... Finally we wish to emphasize a point with which we are sure Hamer, et al would agree: correlation does not necessarily indicate causation (261:1257).
In other words, Hamer’s methodology leaves something to be desired. One also should keep in mind that Hamer’s sampling was not random, and, as a result, his data may not reflect the real population.

George Rice and his colleagues from Canada looked intently at the gene Xq28. They then observed: “Allele and halotype sharing for these markers was not increased over expectation. These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (1999, 284:665, emp. added). Rice, et al., included 182 families in their study. They noted:

It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28 (284:667).
That is a tactful way of saying that any claims of having found a “gay gene” were overblown, if not outright false, and that Hamer’s results are dubious at best. Commenting on the study of Rice and his colleagues, Ingrid Wickelgren remarked: “...the Ontario team found that gay brothers were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance.... Ebers interprets all these results to mean that the X linkage is all but dead” (1999, 284:571, emp. added).


As far as links for things like obesity, addiciton, cancers, etc. etc., you're a big boy and you know how to google. There are plenty of links. Here's one to get you started:

LINK

quote:

---

There is already a thread on this for the homophobes. How would you describe a man kissing a woman? Shouldn't be any different.

---

One is OK, the other isn't

Why is one college football player becoming famous? Because he came out of the closet "I'm gay'. is that a reason to be popular?

Now, somethings should be left private. Now the public wants to chat about it...

It's sick is what it is

In principal, we shouldn't have to worry about this crap watching the NFL draft.

sorry if you disagree but good grief, the man is hugging kissing his boyfriend.

It's not normal, moral, or decent behavior. Do what you do in private.

Two men together doesn't make sense, it's sinful according to Gods' word, that's why these issues blow up ... Because it's not appropriate behavior. No one wants to judge, so politically correct rules the day yet again

quote:

---

it is the hip and/or cool thing to do

---

It actually is in certain circles.

Being gay cool in Monroe, LA? No.

In the East Village in NYC? Pretty much.

quote:

---

I don't want to see men kiss on TV. I don't think it has to be shoved down my throat; it's okay, America, I accept that people are homosexual and I'm okay with it. In fact, I really don't give a shite. Stop making everyone have to be okay with it.

---

Still getting through this thread but this is my stance. I don't give a shite if you're gay but don't act like you want to be a football player first & gay second then turn around and shove it down the country's throat. The cake smearing / make out is counterproductive. You want people to think being gay is normal and then turn around and do things that make people say "What the frick did I just see?" If you want to be treated normal, act normal.