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]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
What exactly is “the homo’s addiction”?[/quote]
He has CHOSEN a deviant sexual behavior. It takes a hold of his life, and he can’t leave it.[/quote]
So why has he chosen it?
I was never tempted.
Why is it that the cawk has a strong allure for some and not for others?[/quote]
Were you ever tempted to try heroin? Not everyone tries, nor is tempted to try every sort of deviant or unhealthy behavior. Perhaps you were tempted to try heroin, but chose not to. I would say there would be a whole host of factors contributing to that decision. And of course not everyone that engages in such behavior a few times becomes addicted. I can use myself as an example of several scenarios- I was never tempted to try heroin, because I was never exposed to it. I was tempted to try cocaine, but chose not to. I tried smoking, but didn’t make a habit of it, and so never became addicted. Many factors were involved in each scenario. I’m sure every habitual homo’s situation is slightly different.
[/quote]
LMFAO. You just compared cock to heroin and cocaine. It’s possible you think of it more highly than I do and I just had some for breakfast.
COCK- Next on the list of controlled substances!
A couple was recently indicted for planning to consume dick on foreign soil. A neighbor is stated to have overheard them planning the elaborate encounter where the controlled substance would be consumed over a webcam with a couple in Germany.
Do you guys support incestual adoption?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
What exactly is “the homo’s addiction”?[/quote]
He has CHOSEN a deviant sexual behavior. It takes a hold of his life, and he can’t leave it.[/quote]
So why has he chosen it?
I was never tempted.
Why is it that the cawk has a strong allure for some and not for others?[/quote]
Were you ever tempted to try heroin? Not everyone tries, nor is tempted to try every sort of deviant or unhealthy behavior. Perhaps you were tempted to try heroin, but chose not to. I would say there would be a whole host of factors contributing to that decision. And of course not everyone that engages in such behavior a few times becomes addicted. I can use myself as an example of several scenarios- I was never tempted to try heroin, because I was never exposed to it. I was tempted to try cocaine, but chose not to. I tried smoking, but didn’t make a habit of it, and so never became addicted. Many factors were involved in each scenario. I’m sure every habitual homo’s situation is slightly different.
[/quote]
So you are saying that gay sex is so awesome that I might get hooked on it !?!
Thats it, I am having a gay orgy asap.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Do you guys support incestual adoption? [/quote]
Like, adopting your nephew or something !?!
No, thats just gross…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
What exactly is “the homo’s addiction”?[/quote]
He has CHOSEN a deviant sexual behavior. It takes a hold of his life, and he can’t leave it.[/quote]
So why has he chosen it?
I was never tempted.
Why is it that the cawk has a strong allure for some and not for others?[/quote]
Were you ever tempted to try heroin? Not everyone tries, nor is tempted to try every sort of deviant or unhealthy behavior. Perhaps you were tempted to try heroin, but chose not to. I would say there would be a whole host of factors contributing to that decision. And of course not everyone that engages in such behavior a few times becomes addicted. I can use myself as an example of several scenarios- I was never tempted to try heroin, because I was never exposed to it. I was tempted to try cocaine, but chose not to. I tried smoking, but didn’t make a habit of it, and so never became addicted. Many factors were involved in each scenario. I’m sure every habitual homo’s situation is slightly different.
[/quote]
So you are saying that gay sex is so awesome that I might get hooked on it !?!
Thats it, I am having a gay orgy asap.
[/quote]
You think it inconceivable? Why would anyone wreck themselves with meth? It just doesn’t make sense.
You can try it. Maybe forlife would show you the ropes. Be sure and use plenty of lube. And doing an enema first might make it less messy.
[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]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]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]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]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]
I don’t think that. We still don’t know what causes homosexuality, but it’s likely that some genetics are involved and that conditions during pregnancy influence sexual preference.
But what I can tell you that it’s not a choice. Why would you think that?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Why would I believe the conclusions of such organizations without looking at the EVIDENCE. Some of us at T-Nation are not so easily brainwashed. If you don’t have the education to evaluate their studies, than maybe you shouldn’t be spouting off. I worked in hospitals for years, and I saw many doctors make stupid mistakes that anyone with a highschool education could pick out. BUT because families trusted their credentials, they were not held responsible. Sorry forlife, credentials don’t impress me.
I should believe the AMA? Do you believe everything they put out? Their theory of cholesterol and heart disease for example. You choose to believe out-of-hand the conclusions of such a conflicted organization because of your own BIAS for their conclusion. The American Academy of Pediatrics? Do you accept their policy on vaccination schedules? If you do you are a fool. You better look at the research before you decide. The National Association of Social Workers? Ba-hah-hah. A jack-booted organization of criminals if there ever was one, and I have firsthand knowledge. And the CDC? Wow, they did a good job helping us with the “Swine Flu epidemic”. I guess I would trust their opinion on homosexuality too.
I’ll humor you though and show you a problem of interpretation with one of your infallible studies:
The conclusion you post of the Schroeder and Shidlo study above is- [quote]the large majority of respondents
reported being left in a poor mental and emotional state after the therapy, and that rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse and suicidal feelings were roughly doubled in those who underwent
reparative therapy.[/quote] I would say their increased misery is not because of the reparative therapy, but precisely because they failed to leave the homo lifestyle via that therapy. Prior to the therapy, they experienced a level of misery high enough to make them attempt to change. At that time, they still had some hope of relief. When their attempt via therapy failed, they lost all hope, and turned to other unhealthy methods for relief. I have seen this type of result in patients with physical conditions when their best hope fails. Some would then argue that they shouldn’t have tried the therapy. Except this is entirely speculation, as it is quite possible their debilitating condition would get worse over time. That is, they would not be better off leaving well enough alone, as the above study concludes.
As far as why the reparative therapy fails- It could be a poorly designed program. The choice to follow a homo lifestyle has deep and complicated effects for the persons psyche, that I’m sure are very difficult to overcome. I think it’s hold on a person’s life is in some ways akin to meth addiction. I’m sure it’s very difficult to beat.
Just because it’s difficult though, does not warrant the Surgeon General’s conclusion- homosexuality is
“not a reversible lifestyle choice.” I have listed enough testimonies to show it can be reversed. You can choose to deny their successes if you want.
[/quote]
As predicted, you disparaged the credentials of every major health organization in favor of your “unbiased” personal interpretation. Who do you think is more likely to be correct in their conclusions on homosexuality? To even have a seat at the table, you would need to:
-
Have an education and research credentials comparable to the collective expertise of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and all the other major health organizations. Obviously, this is impossible for any single individual to do. I have a Ph.D. in psychology, but people would be foolish to take my individual interpretation of the research over the collective consensual conclusions of every major health organization.
-
Conduct a thorough review of 40 years of research, and conduct appropriate statistical analyses (including metaanalyses) to draw reliable and accurate conclusions about this research. Anyone can cherry pick a single study or two and twist it to mean whatever they want. Which is why the major health organizations have conducted comprehensive research spanning four decades, as a reliable basis for their conclusions on homosexuality.
-
Prove that you are completely unbiased when it comes to homosexuality. It’s blatantly obvious that you have an aversion to homosexuality and are disgusted by it, so any conclusions you draw are suspect. As I’ve said many times, AS A GAY MAN I AM OBVIOUSLY BIASED AS WELL. Which is why it is important to look at the major health organizations, whose mission and purpose are to facilitate the mental and physical health of people. Who is more likely to be biased, you and me, or the major health organizations, EVERY ONE OF WHICH HAS INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH AND DRAWN THE SAME CONSENSUAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?
It sucks for you that they all say you are wrong. I learned long ago that no amount of evidence, even 40 years of research and unanimous conclusions by every major health organization, will make any difference to a bigot. They will always find a way to twist the facts in order to confirm their preconceptions about gays.
In a nutshell, either every major health organization is wrong, or you are wrong. Bang your head against the wall all you want, but the tide of public opinion is inexorably moving against you, and your bigoted views are becoming increasingly marginalized. Maybe you can move to Africa or the Middle East, where you will get some reprieve for a few more years, at least.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Why would I believe the conclusions of such organizations without looking at the EVIDENCE. Some of us at T-Nation are not so easily brainwashed. If you don’t have the education to evaluate their studies, than maybe you shouldn’t be spouting off. I worked in hospitals for years, and I saw many doctors make stupid mistakes that anyone with a highschool education could pick out. BUT because families trusted their credentials, they were not held responsible. Sorry forlife, credentials don’t impress me.
I should believe the AMA? Do you believe everything they put out? Their theory of cholesterol and heart disease for example. You choose to believe out-of-hand the conclusions of such a conflicted organization because of your own BIAS for their conclusion. The American Academy of Pediatrics? Do you accept their policy on vaccination schedules? If you do you are a fool. You better look at the research before you decide. The National Association of Social Workers? Ba-hah-hah. A jack-booted organization of criminals if there ever was one, and I have firsthand knowledge. And the CDC? Wow, they did a good job helping us with the “Swine Flu epidemic”. I guess I would trust their opinion on homosexuality too.
I’ll humor you though and show you a problem of interpretation with one of your infallible studies:
The conclusion you post of the Schroeder and Shidlo study above is- [quote]the large majority of respondents
reported being left in a poor mental and emotional state after the therapy, and that rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse and suicidal feelings were roughly doubled in those who underwent
reparative therapy.[/quote] I would say their increased misery is not because of the reparative therapy, but precisely because they failed to leave the homo lifestyle via that therapy. Prior to the therapy, they experienced a level of misery high enough to make them attempt to change. At that time, they still had some hope of relief. When their attempt via therapy failed, they lost all hope, and turned to other unhealthy methods for relief. I have seen this type of result in patients with physical conditions when their best hope fails. Some would then argue that they shouldn’t have tried the therapy. Except this is entirely speculation, as it is quite possible their debilitating condition would get worse over time. That is, they would not be better off leaving well enough alone, as the above study concludes.
As far as why the reparative therapy fails- It could be a poorly designed program. The choice to follow a homo lifestyle has deep and complicated effects for the persons psyche, that I’m sure are very difficult to overcome. I think it’s hold on a person’s life is in some ways akin to meth addiction. I’m sure it’s very difficult to beat.
Just because it’s difficult though, does not warrant the Surgeon General’s conclusion- homosexuality is
“not a reversible lifestyle choice.” I have listed enough testimonies to show it can be reversed. You can choose to deny their successes if you want.
[/quote]
As predicted, you disparaged the credentials of every major health organization in favor of your “unbiased” personal interpretation. Who do you think is more likely to be correct in their conclusions on homosexuality? To even have a seat at the table, you would need to:
-
Have an education and research credentials comparable to the collective expertise of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and all the other major health organizations. Obviously, this is impossible for any single individual to do. I have a Ph.D. in psychology, but people would be foolish to take my individual interpretation of the research over the collective consensual conclusions of every major health organization.
-
Conduct a thorough review of 40 years of research, and conduct appropriate statistical analyses (including metaanalyses) to draw reliable and accurate conclusions about this research. Anyone can cherry pick a single study or two and twist it to mean whatever they want. Which is why the major health organizations have conducted comprehensive research spanning four decades, as a reliable basis for their conclusions on homosexuality.
-
Prove that you are completely unbiased when it comes to homosexuality. It’s blatantly obvious that you have an aversion to homosexuality and are disgusted by it, so any conclusions you draw are suspect. As I’ve said many times, AS A GAY MAN I AM OBVIOUSLY BIASED AS WELL. Which is why it is important to look at the major health organizations, whose mission and purpose are to facilitate the mental and physical health of people. Who is more likely to be biased, you and me, or the major health organizations, EVERY ONE OF WHICH HAS INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH AND DRAWN THE SAME CONSENSUAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?
It sucks for you that they all say you are wrong. I learned long ago that no amount of evidence, even 40 years of research and unanimous conclusions by every major health organization, will make any difference to a bigot. They will always find a way to twist the facts in order to confirm their preconceptions about gays.
In a nutshell, either every major health organization is wrong, or you are wrong. Bang your head against the wall all you want, but the tide of public opinion is inexorably moving against you, and your bigoted views are becoming increasingly marginalized. Maybe you can move to Africa or the Middle East, where you will get some reprieve for a few more years, at least.[/quote]
You keep going on and on and on about “every” major health organization, which by the way you didn’t come anywhere near listing. I commented on the specific ones you mentioned. My comments on the Schroeder and Shidlo study YOU “cherry-picked” are apparently too tough for you to deal with, even with your credentialed brain. What a pitiful state. Come on Ph.D boy, show me your stuff. This is a discussion board, give me some intellectual discussion, save the whining for when you don’t get your way at home. Really, is this the best you can do, list a few organizations. Face it forlife, not everyone is going to bow, no matter how loud and all the other homoevangelists harangue. Like I said if you want to trust them to do your thinking for you, help yourself.
Instead of barking at forlife for answer, how about giving an answer yourself for a change, Chen?
Why do you think homosexuality is a choice, and if you don’t believe that; what causes it?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Why would I believe the conclusions of such organizations without looking at the EVIDENCE. Some of us at T-Nation are not so easily brainwashed. If you don’t have the education to evaluate their studies, than maybe you shouldn’t be spouting off. I worked in hospitals for years, and I saw many doctors make stupid mistakes that anyone with a highschool education could pick out. BUT because families trusted their credentials, they were not held responsible. Sorry forlife, credentials don’t impress me.
I should believe the AMA? Do you believe everything they put out? Their theory of cholesterol and heart disease for example. You choose to believe out-of-hand the conclusions of such a conflicted organization because of your own BIAS for their conclusion. The American Academy of Pediatrics? Do you accept their policy on vaccination schedules? If you do you are a fool. You better look at the research before you decide. The National Association of Social Workers? Ba-hah-hah. A jack-booted organization of criminals if there ever was one, and I have firsthand knowledge. And the CDC? Wow, they did a good job helping us with the “Swine Flu epidemic”. I guess I would trust their opinion on homosexuality too.
I’ll humor you though and show you a problem of interpretation with one of your infallible studies:
The conclusion you post of the Schroeder and Shidlo study above is- [quote]the large majority of respondents
reported being left in a poor mental and emotional state after the therapy, and that rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse and suicidal feelings were roughly doubled in those who underwent
reparative therapy.[/quote] I would say their increased misery is not because of the reparative therapy, but precisely because they failed to leave the homo lifestyle via that therapy. Prior to the therapy, they experienced a level of misery high enough to make them attempt to change. At that time, they still had some hope of relief. When their attempt via therapy failed, they lost all hope, and turned to other unhealthy methods for relief. I have seen this type of result in patients with physical conditions when their best hope fails. Some would then argue that they shouldn’t have tried the therapy. Except this is entirely speculation, as it is quite possible their debilitating condition would get worse over time. That is, they would not be better off leaving well enough alone, as the above study concludes.
As far as why the reparative therapy fails- It could be a poorly designed program. The choice to follow a homo lifestyle has deep and complicated effects for the persons psyche, that I’m sure are very difficult to overcome. I think it’s hold on a person’s life is in some ways akin to meth addiction. I’m sure it’s very difficult to beat.
Just because it’s difficult though, does not warrant the Surgeon General’s conclusion- homosexuality is
“not a reversible lifestyle choice.” I have listed enough testimonies to show it can be reversed. You can choose to deny their successes if you want.
[/quote]
As predicted, you disparaged the credentials of every major health organization in favor of your “unbiased” personal interpretation. Who do you think is more likely to be correct in their conclusions on homosexuality? To even have a seat at the table, you would need to:
-
Have an education and research credentials comparable to the collective expertise of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and all the other major health organizations. Obviously, this is impossible for any single individual to do. I have a Ph.D. in psychology, but people would be foolish to take my individual interpretation of the research over the collective consensual conclusions of every major health organization.
-
Conduct a thorough review of 40 years of research, and conduct appropriate statistical analyses (including metaanalyses) to draw reliable and accurate conclusions about this research. Anyone can cherry pick a single study or two and twist it to mean whatever they want. Which is why the major health organizations have conducted comprehensive research spanning four decades, as a reliable basis for their conclusions on homosexuality.
-
Prove that you are completely unbiased when it comes to homosexuality. It’s blatantly obvious that you have an aversion to homosexuality and are disgusted by it, so any conclusions you draw are suspect. As I’ve said many times, AS A GAY MAN I AM OBVIOUSLY BIASED AS WELL. Which is why it is important to look at the major health organizations, whose mission and purpose are to facilitate the mental and physical health of people. Who is more likely to be biased, you and me, or the major health organizations, EVERY ONE OF WHICH HAS INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH AND DRAWN THE SAME CONSENSUAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?
It sucks for you that they all say you are wrong. I learned long ago that no amount of evidence, even 40 years of research and unanimous conclusions by every major health organization, will make any difference to a bigot. They will always find a way to twist the facts in order to confirm their preconceptions about gays.
In a nutshell, either every major health organization is wrong, or you are wrong. Bang your head against the wall all you want, but the tide of public opinion is inexorably moving against you, and your bigoted views are becoming increasingly marginalized. Maybe you can move to Africa or the Middle East, where you will get some reprieve for a few more years, at least.[/quote]
You keep going on and on and on about “every” major health organization, which by the way you didn’t come anywhere near listing. I commented on the specific ones you mentioned. My comments on the Schroeder and Shidlo study YOU “cherry-picked” are apparently too tough for you to deal with, even with your credentialed brain. What a pitiful state. Come on Ph.D boy, show me your stuff. This is a discussion board, give me some intellectual discussion, save the whining for when you don’t get your way at home. Really, is this the best you can do, list a few organizations. Face it forlife, not everyone is going to bow, no matter how loud and all the other homoevangelists harangue. Like I said if you want to trust them to do your thinking for you, help yourself. [/quote]
It’s pretty hilarious that you think your one-liner dismissals of the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. are going to convince anyone that the major health organizations are so inept and politically corrupt, each and every one without exception, that their independent reviews of 40 years of research, and their identical conclusions based on that research, should be disregarded. Compelling argument there! I bow before your amazing intellect, education, and expertise, which obviously trump the conclusions of every major health organization.
From “Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel”:
[quote]Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual
orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional
organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the
American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the
American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School
Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together
representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the
position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something
that needs to or can be “cured.”[/quote]
Hmmm, 480,0000 mental health professionals vs. you.
If you want to educate yourself, read this:
http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/media/justthefacts.pdf
If you just want to confirm your preexisting bias against gays,
continue to visit NARTH and congratulating yourself on how enlightened
you are.
Bye.
[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.
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]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.