Gay Adoption?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Not much choice involved if gay is what you are. Though even then a person could choose to stay celibate, but why would he or she?

Why would anyone try to change their sexual orientation if it wasn’t for pressure from society or peers?[/quote]

Your problem is you think homosexuality is genetic. Why would you think that?[/quote]

Why would you think cock is comparable to heroin or coke? Do people die by consuming cock? Are they unable to operate large machinery after taking it? Can they become brain-damaged from it? Do people get high off of cock?[/quote]
As you have understood, I am making the comparison concerning the addictive powers of both behaviors. No logic requires the 2 to be alike in all points before I can make the comparison.

Ok, so now answer the question you ignored just now: you think homosexuality is genetic. Why would you think that?
[/quote]

Because our closest animal relatives use it as a normal part of social conduct (we are as related to bonobos as African elephants are to Asian elephants or a fox is to a dog). They all partake in it. No exeptions. It’s also found in literally thousands of other species. Why would you think that it’s NOT genetic?

Also, numerous studies have been performed searching for the actual gene which have turned up evidence that there is reproductive benefit for related sisters and also the gay male helps insure survival of the offspring. I posted those studies earlier in this thread.

You analogy to hard drugs is ridiculous beyond belief and I’m going to tell you why. When a person, any person, experiences a hard drug, they feel euphoria and eventual addiction. That’s any person that tries them. On the other hand, many people have tried experimenting with their same sex and found that they DON’T like it. No only is it not as pleasurable as heterosexual relations for them, but they are often literally unable to become as aroused with someone of their own sex. Everyone can take and become addicted to a drug and drugs are harmful. Not anyone can take a cock and become addicted to it nor are cocks harmful. There is literally NO analogy between gay sex and drugs. My mind is officially blown that anyone could think there was.[/quote]

Yeh, I know some homo animals myself. I hate to admit this, but my own dog tried to lick another dogs peepee just the other day. I told him if he did it again I’d make him eat his own crap. Wouldn’t ya know, the threat didn’t scare him in the least. And sometimes he even tries to hump on ME, and my wife. He can’t even make up his mind. Is that bi, or just confused? Maybe it’s because he’s not a pure bred. We’re thinking of cutting off his balls if he doesn’t shape up though.

Concerning my analogy- I explained already, you can compare 2 things even if they don’t match in all points. The 2 things compared don’t have to match up in all cases either for the analogy to be valid.

I’m sorry to hear that I’m blowing your mind. But you will find that not everyone tows the party line around here.

You’ve really got me confused now. You must mean of the rooster variety. Sadly though, even they are not always safe to eat. If you mean the male organ, I guess it falls to me to tell you, though I feel a little awkward you being a girl an’ all- sometimes they too carry disease. Always require your partner to wear a rubber. You never know where it’s been.

How about this for mind-blowing: The lesbian couple that started their adopted son on hormone therapy to stop him from developing mature masculine characteristics, the OP remember? I think it’s child abuse, and the kid should be taken away from them by the courts. And further, I think homoevangelists like forlife, who are constantly spouting about how they were born that way, despite any conclusive scientific evidence to prove it, has in some small degree contributed to this case of criminal child abuse.

And now you have the rest of the story.

182

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Why do you think homosexuality is a choice,[/quote]
Look between your legs for the answer my little grasshopper. Whatever you see, a ying or a yang, tells you what you are genetically. If you behave differently, it’s because you choose to.

If you can’t show me some solid human science showing unequivocally to the contrary, don’t bother attempting to debate this with me.
[/quote]

So that’s it?

All you have is your opinion yet you demand of me proof to the contrary.

I’d say that’s pathetic, but not uncommon on PWI.

You fit right in, winkwinknotchnotch.

183

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Why do you think homosexuality is a choice,[/quote]
Look between your legs for the answer my little grasshopper. Whatever you see, a ying or a yang, tells you what you are genetically. If you behave differently, it’s because you choose to.

If you can’t show me some solid human science showing unequivocally to the contrary, don’t bother attempting to debate this with me.
[/quote]

So that’s it?

All you have is your opinion yet you demand of me proof to the contrary.

I’d say that’s pathetic, but not uncommon on PWI.

You fit right in, winkwinknotchnotch.[/quote]

You just asked me why I thinks its a choice. If you want to change my opinion, you need to give me some science. I don’t “demand” that you do this. I don’t care if you put time into it or not, and I guess I don’t really care much why you hold your opinion, so you don’t need prove anything to me.

Canst though minister to a mind diseased?

184

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

… my own dog … And sometimes he even tries to hump on ME, and my wife. He can’t even make up his mind. Is that bi, or just confused? Maybe it’s because he’s not a pure bred. We’re thinking of cutting off his balls if he doesn’t shape up though.
[/quote]

Sounds like he knows he’s alpha.

185

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Hardly one line. I commented on I think 3 of the organizations you listed, with no response from as to what SPECIFICALLY was wrong with my comments. If I write several lines in a post, you ignore it. I told you in some detail what I thought of the Schroeder and Shidlo study. YOU had brought it up to support your position. I responded, but then all I get from you is whining: the 40 years, all the respected organizations, ad nausaem.

You require me to accept what the AMA says about homos, do YOU accept the AMA’s pronouncements an ALL things. IF you don’t…why do I have to?

Your posts are getting monotonous; I’m losing interest.[/quote]

I don’t require anything from you. I know your ilk well enough to realize that literally no amount of scientific evidence will ever change your mind about gays.

Who is likely to be more correct? The major health organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of trained scientists and health professionals, based on 40 years of corroborative scientific research on homosexuality, or an Internet warrior like you with an obvious personal disgust and bias against homosexuality?

186

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Not much choice involved if gay is what you are. Though even then a person could choose to stay celibate, but why would he or she?

Why would anyone try to change their sexual orientation if it wasn’t for pressure from society or peers?[/quote]

Your problem is you think homosexuality is genetic. Why would you think that?[/quote]

Why would you think cock is comparable to heroin or coke? Do people die by consuming cock? Are they unable to operate large machinery after taking it? Can they become brain-damaged from it? Do people get high off of cock?[/quote]
As you have understood, I am making the comparison concerning the addictive powers of both behaviors. No logic requires the 2 to be alike in all points before I can make the comparison.

Ok, so now answer the question you ignored just now: you think homosexuality is genetic. Why would you think that?
[/quote]

Because our closest animal relatives use it as a normal part of social conduct (we are as related to bonobos as African elephants are to Asian elephants or a fox is to a dog). They all partake in it. No exeptions. It’s also found in literally thousands of other species. Why would you think that it’s NOT genetic?

Also, numerous studies have been performed searching for the actual gene which have turned up evidence that there is reproductive benefit for related sisters and also the gay male helps insure survival of the offspring. I posted those studies earlier in this thread.

You analogy to hard drugs is ridiculous beyond belief and I’m going to tell you why. When a person, any person, experiences a hard drug, they feel euphoria and eventual addiction. That’s any person that tries them. On the other hand, many people have tried experimenting with their same sex and found that they DON’T like it. No only is it not as pleasurable as heterosexual relations for them, but they are often literally unable to become as aroused with someone of their own sex. Everyone can take and become addicted to a drug and drugs are harmful. Not anyone can take a cock and become addicted to it nor are cocks harmful. There is literally NO analogy between gay sex and drugs. My mind is officially blown that anyone could think there was.[/quote]

Yeh, I know some homo animals myself. I hate to admit this, but my own dog tried to lick another dogs peepee just the other day. I told him if he did it again I’d make him eat his own crap. Wouldn’t ya know, the threat didn’t scare him in the least. And sometimes he even tries to hump on ME, and my wife. He can’t even make up his mind. Is that bi, or just confused? Maybe it’s because he’s not a pure bred. We’re thinking of cutting off his balls if he doesn’t shape up though.

Concerning my analogy- I explained already, you can compare 2 things even if they don’t match in all points. The 2 things compared don’t have to match up in all cases either for the analogy to be valid.

I’m sorry to hear that I’m blowing your mind. But you will find that not everyone tows the party line around here.

You’ve really got me confused now. You must mean of the rooster variety. Sadly though, even they are not always safe to eat. If you mean the male organ, I guess it falls to me to tell you, though I feel a little awkward you being a girl an’ all- sometimes they too carry disease. Always require your partner to wear a rubber. You never know where it’s been.

How about this for mind-blowing: The lesbian couple that started their adopted son on hormone therapy to stop him from developing mature masculine characteristics, the OP remember? I think it’s child abuse, and the kid should be taken away from them by the courts. And further, I think homoevangelists like forlife, who are constantly spouting about how they were born that way, despite any conclusive scientific evidence to prove it, has in some small degree contributed to this case of criminal child abuse.

And now you have the rest of the story.
[/quote]

First of all, you admit that animals do carry out homosexual acts, but deny that it’s natural? What? Do you not believe that humans are also animals?

Secondly, you point out that cocks may carry disease and are therefore as dangerous as drugs, once again demonstrating a completely failure to understand what I mean by “dangerous”. When I say dangerous, I mean that continued use of heroin and like drugs will kill anyone eventually when taking in a high enough dose. The same cannot be said for a normal penis.

What level of education are you? I’m concerned about your basic understanding of science and logic. I don’t even mean that as a put down; it’s just clear that 1. You don’t understand how things are related and what is meant by certain terms 2. Biology and evolution are not concepts you’ve spent much time with 3. Your ability to make a well-argued point is far behind what I’ve even seen demonstrated by high schooler’s opposing homosexuality.

187
  1. You are not interested in looking at studies that conflict with your beliefs.

Mr Chen, you are about as scientifically minded as a 12th century religious figure.

188

Chen would prefer this, I guess.

189

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Do you guys support incestual adoption? [/quote]

Like, adopting your nephew or something !?!

No, thats just gross…[/quote]

Actually thats not what I meant, but since you brought something up…

Why? Why is it gross? If an incestual couple at least has the decency to prevent a potential birth defect from their disgusting ways, why is it wrong to adopt a family member, whom is healthy and say…has no mother or father?[/quote]

An incestuous couple who doesn’t have kids isn’t hurting anyone.

190
191

My story about my dog was a humorous way of me telling you studying animal behavior to determine what is natural for humans is ridiculous.

Of course I understood what you meant, and it appears that my explanation of what is appropriate when drawing analogues was lost on you. I’m guessing it’s a lack of training on your part.

Actually, you have approved on my analogy: Continued promiscuous unsafe sex among homos can result in eventual death. I bet even you are capable of looking up that fact.

Well let’s do this then- since this thread is getting so lopsided in favor of the homoevangelists, you pick out one of those especially persuasive highschooler arguements against homos, and systematically dismantle it, as I’m sure this would be easy for you. Then, if I think there’s hope, and I have the ability, I’ll attempt to add something to the highschooler argument.

192

Must be some nasty pictures you guys are putting up. They are blocked where I’m at.

193

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Hardly one line. I commented on I think 3 of the organizations you listed, with no response from as to what SPECIFICALLY was wrong with my comments. If I write several lines in a post, you ignore it. I told you in some detail what I thought of the Schroeder and Shidlo study. YOU had brought it up to support your position. I responded, but then all I get from you is whining: the 40 years, all the respected organizations, ad nausaem.

You require me to accept what the AMA says about homos, do YOU accept the AMA’s pronouncements an ALL things. IF you don’t…why do I have to?

Your posts are getting monotonous; I’m losing interest.[/quote]

I don’t require anything from you. I know your ilk well enough to realize that literally no amount of scientific evidence will ever change your mind about gays.

Who is likely to be more correct? The major health organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of trained scientists and health professionals, based on 40 years of corroborative scientific research on homosexuality, or an Internet warrior like you with an obvious personal disgust and bias against homosexuality?[/quote]

So you do trust the AMA for everything, is that correct?

I see you don’t want to discuss the validity of the Schroeder and Shidlo study. How about the twin study?

194

[quote]ironcross wrote:
4. You are not interested in looking at studies that conflict with your beliefs.

Mr Chen, you are about as scientifically minded as a 12th century religious figure.[/quote]
I just don’t get how he gets through life without knowing that he’s a dumbass. I’ve only read a few of his posts and I’ve already figured that out.

195

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Actually, you have approved on my analogy: Continued promiscuous unsafe sex among homos can result in eventual death. I bet even you are capable of looking up that fact.[/quote]

Continued promiscuous sex between anyone can result in eventual death.

196

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Actually, you have approved on my analogy: Continued promiscuous unsafe sex among homos can result in eventual death. I bet even you are capable of looking up that fact.[/quote]

Continued promiscuous sex between anyone can result in eventual death.[/quote]
You know the incidence of AIDS has always been higher in the promiscuous homo population.

197

[quote]lemonman456 wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
4. You are not interested in looking at studies that conflict with your beliefs.

Mr Chen, you are about as scientifically minded as a 12th century religious figure.[/quote]
I just don’t get how he gets through life without knowing that he’s a dumbass. I’ve only read a few of his posts and I’ve already figured that out.[/quote]
After 8 pages you enter this thread with a personal attack.

What a cowardly little smartass.

198

I just thought of something-

What is the other major AIDS population besides promiscuous homos…intravenous DRUG USERS.

Ironcross, the wisdom of our analogy is becoming more and more apparent!

Isn’t it cool how the intellectual discussion, with it’s free and respectful exchange of ideas that T-Nation’s Politics and Life forum encourages, is able to foster new insights like this?

I wouldn’t have thought of it without you guys.

199

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Actually, you have approved on my analogy: Continued promiscuous unsafe sex among homos can result in eventual death. I bet even you are capable of looking up that fact.[/quote]

Continued promiscuous sex between anyone can result in eventual death.[/quote]

Live is 100% fatal.

200

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Actually, you have approved on my analogy: Continued promiscuous unsafe sex among homos can result in eventual death. I bet even you are capable of looking up that fact.[/quote]

Continued promiscuous sex between anyone can result in eventual death.[/quote]

Live is 100% fatal.[/quote]
Yes, but I choose not to die of AIDS/GRID.