Gay Agenda?

[forlife]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Where exactly is that right enumerated?[/quote]

In the California and Massachusetts constitutions, for starters.

That’s not the point though. The point is that currently gays are not given the same rights as straights. Saying that gays already have equal rights is simply incorrect.

Let’s just say I am in love with 2 women. Why can’t I be married to both?

Polygamy is a different argument, which has been discussed at length. I can get into it again if you want, but the argument has no bearing on whether or not gays currently enjoy the same rights as straights.

[quote]Yes, it wasn’t a special right for a man to marry a woman regardless of color.

What does that have to do with a man marrying a man?[/quote]

The analogy is pretty straightforward. It illustrates the lack of logic in your statement:

Black men already have the same rights as white men. They can choose to marry a woman of their same race just as white men can.

Gay men already have the same rights as straight men. They can choose to marry a woman just as straight men can.

[makkun]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
[…]

Actually I wouldn’t know. I am impatient, so I downloaded the shows before they were broadcast here. I do know that John Barrowman was up for the part of Will on Will and Grace. But he “wasn’t gay enough”.[/quote]

I lolled at that - not gay enough. Well, without spoiling it too much - if you thought Cpt. Jack was straight (pun intended) forward in his sexual advances in Doctor Who, you’ll see that he has evolved.

[quote][…]
Oh yeah. I think I remember you mentioning that before actually.

You need this:
http://www.german-jokes.com/index.html[/quote]

Haha. I like ‘Win a pig’s head’ option.

Makkun

[rainjack]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Where exactly is that right enumerated?

In the California and Massachusetts constitutions, for starters.
[/quote]

That is where the entire gay debate should be held: at the state level.

Why must every issue now be a national issue?

What the hell happened to States Rights?

[forlife]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Maternal twins do a lot a shit that is not found in fraternal twins. Does that automatically make the differences genetic? I doubt it. [/quote]

The conclusion wasn’t that identical twins are more likely to be gay than fraternal twins. It was that when one of the identical twins was gay, the other identical twin was more likely to also be gay. Likewise when you compare fraternal twins with siblings.

Until you can completely account for the nurturing - you are still left with way more questions than answers.

Let’s look at another example then.

How do you explain that mothers with gay offspring have different X chromosomes than mothers without gay offspring?

But absent from hard proof - the only conclusion one can draw is subjective, and that is precisely what opinion is.

Two decades of scientific research have provided strong evidence for the conclusions reached by the medical and mental health organizations. It makes a lot more sense to place your confidence in conclusions backed up by that level of evidence, vs. conclusions based on purely subjective opinions.

But it is okay for you to tell your story as if it lends credibility to your position? If you are going to play referee, and discount my opinion based on one person - then call it both ways.

I didn’t provide only my personal experience. I said that my personal experience resonated with the conclusions of the scientific organizations.

Moreover, I didn’t generalize my personal experience to all people. I never claimed that everyone is the same as me when it comes to sexual orientation. Your sister-in-law could be bi, but that doesn’t mean all people are bi.

If you can’t see the fact that you did make a choice, there is really not much sense in continuing in this vein.

Why are you implying that my choice to marry a woman has anything to do with whether or not I could enjoy true intimacy with her? Do you not see the difference?

Who you are as a human being, excluding genetic hardwiring, is a choice. No, that choice is not made available to you for some time after you mature, but what you do with your life is absolutely a matter of choice. You proved that with your own experience.

So if a person experiences post-traumatic stress from having been in a war zone, they can simply choose to turn this stress off? Some people suffer from PTSD their entire lives, despite therapy.

And what do you mean I “proved that with my own experience”? Did you not read the part about it being impossible to enjoy true intimacy with my wife, despite being married to her and desperately wanting it to be otherwise?

[forlife]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
That is where the entire gay debate should be held: at the state level.

Why must every issue now be a national issue?

What the hell happened to States Rights? [/quote]

Because the most significant legal responsibilities and benefits associated with marriage are granted at the federal level, not at the state level.

[rainjack]

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
That is where the entire gay debate should be held: at the state level.

Why must every issue now be a national issue?

What the hell happened to States Rights?

Because the most significant legal responsibilities and benefits associated with marriage are granted at the federal level, not at the state level.
[/quote]

Bullshit. You know as well as I do that the gay agenda will not be accepted at the local level. Even in California, same sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated when presented to the people as a vote. It was the activist courts system that changed the rules.

[rainjack]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Let’s look at another example then.

How do you explain that mothers with gay offspring have different X chromosomes than mothers without gay offspring?[/quote]

Does that chromosome difference show up in the child? One of the X’s has to come from the mother if she has son’s, and the X can only come from the mother if it is a daughter. If the same difference is not found in the children, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I can understand your desperate need for results to agree with your agenda, but they don’t.

The only thing the difference in the mother’s X chromosome should suggest to a truly objective researcher is that there might be some genetic link to the propensity of having identical twins.

[quote]But absent from hard proof - the only conclusion one can draw is subjective, and that is precisely what opinion is.

Two decades of scientific research have provided strong evidence for the conclusions reached by the medical and mental health organizations. It makes a lot more sense to place your confidence in conclusions backed up by that level of evidence, vs. conclusions based on purely subjective opinions.[/quote]

Whether it makes sense, or not is not the issue. Until there is absolute conclusive proof, you are using the wrong words. The only way your experts can come to a conclusion is if they jump to one.

Deny, and feign confusion all you want. You and your experts are severely lacking in the one thing that would in your argument: proof.

I didn’t provide only my personal experience. I said that my personal experience resonated with the conclusions of the scientific organizations.

And my experience supports millions of others who maintain that homosexuality is a choice. There is no difference. You are being horribly hypocritical, if not downright intellectually dishonest.

Moreover, I didn’t generalize my personal experience to all people. I never claimed that everyone is the same as me when it comes to sexual orientation. Your sister-in-law could be bi, but that doesn’t mean all people are bi.

You damn sure did generalize.

I’m doing my best to maintain a civil discussion, but when you post hypocritical crap like this, how is one supposed to carry on any type of dialogue?

If you can make a point using personal experience, I can to. If we can’t agree on that one simple ground rule, what is the point of continuing?

Why are you implying that my choice to marry a woman has anything to do with whether or not I could enjoy true intimacy with her? Do you not see the difference?

I never made that implication. Why are you assuming?

[quote]So if a person experiences post-traumatic stress from having been in a war zone, they can simply choose to turn this stress off? Some people suffer from PTSD their entire lives, despite therapy.

And what do you mean I “proved that with my own experience”? Did you not read the part about it being impossible to enjoy true intimacy with my wife, despite being married to her and desperately wanting it to be otherwise?[/quote]

We are not talking about PTSD, or any other mental defect/illness/disorder, are we? Well - not unless you are ready to paint yourself into a corner where there is no way out

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Where exactly is that right enumerated?

In the California and Massachusetts constitutions, for starters.

[/quote]

Which passage?

Just because their supreme courts ruled incorrectly does not mean it is in their constitution. After all the USSC upheld slavery. They don’t always get it right.

That’s not the point though. The point is that currently gays are not given the same rights as straights. Saying that gays already have equal rights is simply incorrect.

Let’s just say I am in love with 2 women. Why can’t I be married to both?

Polygamy is a different argument, which has been discussed at length. I can get into it again if you want, but the argument has no bearing on whether or not gays currently enjoy the same rights as straights.

And yet you tried to compare gay relationships to relationships between people of different skin color.

Yes, it wasn’t a special right for a man to marry a woman regardless of color.

What does that have to do with a man marrying a man?

The analogy is pretty straightforward. It illustrates the lack of logic in your statement:

Black men already have the same rights as white men. They can choose to marry a woman of their same race just as white men can.

Did I say gay men can only marry women of their own skin tone?

Do you not see that the differences between men and women are dramatically different than varying shades of color?

[PRCalDude]

Their conclusions are based on hundreds of scientific studies over the course of two decades, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. That is a far cry from your personal opinion.

Regurgitation alert! This is starting to sound like propaganda because you’ve repeated it so many times.

Can you start by naming a few authors of these studies so that those of us who want to read them can do so? We can branch off from there on our own.

[orion]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Where exactly is that right enumerated?

In the California and Massachusetts constitutions, for starters.

That is where the entire gay debate should be held: at the state level.

Why must every issue now be a national issue?

What the hell happened to States Rights? [/quote]

Got killed 1934.

[zephead4747]

[quote]forlife wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Like, you know when on the second week of freshmen year a gay junior I didn’t know asked me out. That was pretty wierd.

How is that any weirder than a straight guy asking out a girl who he later finds out is a lesbian? How is he supposed to know if she’s interested unless he asks?
[/quote]

It doesn’t that doesn’t make it any less of an awkward wierd situation for the girl either.

[forlife]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bullshit. You know as well as I do that the gay agenda will not be accepted at the local level. Even in California, same sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated when presented to the people as a vote. It was the activist courts system that changed the rules.
[/quote]

You do realize that the California legislature passed a law in favor of gay marriage, right? You know, the appointed representatives of the people you are so convinced would oppose gay marriage?

You also realize that the majority of California voters have said they are opposed to a proposed Constitutional amendment countermanding the Supreme Court sanction of gay marriage?

Educate yourself before calling bullshit.

You also ignored my point, which was that hundreds of legal benefits are available to married couples at the federal level, which would not be available if the marriage was only recognized at the state level.

[forlife]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Does that chromosome difference show up in the child? One of the X’s has to come from the mother if she has son’s, and the X can only come from the mother if it is a daughter. If the same difference is not found in the children, you are barking up the wrong tree.[/quote]

The chromosome difference might show up in the child, but either way it is irrelevant. The point is that there is scientific proof that the mothers of gay children have a different chromosomal makeup than the mothers of straight children.

The only thing the difference in the mother’s X chromosome should suggest to a truly objective researcher is that there might be some genetic link to the propensity of having identical twins.

We’re talking about an entirely different study, not the twin studies referenced earlier. The research on differences in the X chromosome for mothers of gay children has nothing to do with whether or not they have twins.

Again, how do you explain that mothers of gay children have a different chromosomal makeup?

Whether it makes sense, or not is not the issue. Until there is absolute conclusive proof, you are using the wrong words. The only way your experts can come to a conclusion is if they jump to one.

That’s not how science works. The conclusions drawn through the scientific method are almost always conditional, based on the probability of them being correct. It’s not a black and white, all or nothing world. You can draw a conclusion with 99.999% certainty, but very rarely can you say that a particular conclusion is 100% correct.

It would be foolish to look at the evidence for a conclusion that has 99.999% certainty of being correct, and equate the probability of that with a random uninformed opinion to the contrary.

And my experience supports millions of others who maintain that homosexuality is a choice.

How many of those “millions” have conducted peer-reviewed published scientific research?

You are being horribly hypocritical, if not downright intellectually dishonest.

This is starting to verge toward personal attacks. Let’s keep it focused on the topic instead of questioning one another’s motivations and intent. I accept your sincerity, and trust you will show me the same respect.

If you can make a point using personal experience, I can to. If we can’t agree on that one simple ground rule, what is the point of continuing?

I accept your right to make a point using personal experience. The issue is that you were generalizing that point to every situation. Not everyone is bisexual. Your example says nothing about cases where people are toward the extreme ends of the continuum.

I didn’t generalize my example to all mixed orientation marriages. I fully recognize that if someone is bisexual, my difficulty in having an intimate relationship with my wife would probably not apply to them.

[quote]We are not talking about PTSD, or any other mental defect/illness/disorder, are we? Well - not unless you are ready to paint yourself into a corner where there is no way out
[/quote]

The point is that the environment can affect people in ways beyond their control. Just because something is environmentally derived doesn’t mean it is always their choice to change it.

[rainjack]

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Bullshit. You know as well as I do that the gay agenda will not be accepted at the local level. Even in California, same sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated when presented to the people as a vote. It was the activist courts system that changed the rules.

You do realize that the California legislature passed a law in favor of gay marriage, right? You know, the appointed representatives of the people you are so convinced would oppose gay marriage?

You also realize that the majority of California voters have said they are opposed to a proposed Constitutional amendment countermanding the Supreme Court sanction of gay marriage?[/quote]

You do realize that when put to the actual citizens of california, same sex marraige was voted down by a 2-1 margin, right?

Quote polling data all you want - they mean dick. The people spoke with their vote, and their will was ignored.

Maybe you should try some of that education shit yourself, huh?

You also ignored my point, which was that hundreds of legal benefits are available to married couples at the federal level, which would not be available if the marriage was only recognized at the state level.

When enough states recognize gay marriage, then you might have room to whine. They don’t so you don’t. Besides, you’d have to find someone who actually thinks you deserve those rights in order to gain sympathy for your plight. That person is not me.

[forlife]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Just because their supreme courts ruled incorrectly does not mean it is in their constitution.[/quote]

By arguing that everything you agree with is supported by the constitution, but everything you don’t agree with is a misinterpretation of the constitution, it is impossible for anyone to contradict any claims you might make about the constitution.

[quote]Did I say gay men can only marry women of their own skin tone?

Do you not see that the differences between men and women are dramatically different than varying shades of color?
[/quote]

You’re missing the point of the analogy. Let’s put it this way. Tell me what is logically wrong with the following argument:

Black men have the right to marry someone of the same race, just as white men do. Therefore black and white men have the same rights. Granting black men the right to marry white women would be a case of “special rights”.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]When enough states recognize gay marriage, then you might have room to whine. They don’t so you don’t. Besides, you’d have to find someone who actually thinks you deserve those rights in order to gain sympathy for your plight. That person is not me.
[/quote]

Whining is precisely what it is.

What they really want is validation of their lifestyle by everyone else and the law, not “rights.” Look at the proselytization forlife is doing right now. Why do gays need the validation? If there’s no problem with what they’re doing, what’s the issue here?

He keeps mentioning “peer reviewed studies,” but has yet to name one. He keeps focusing on the genetic aspect instead of the probable environmental and psychological factors. Aside from that, when did genetic inclination to a certain behavior make it “right”?

[forlife]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Can you start by naming a few authors of these studies so that those of us who want to read them can do so? We can branch off from there on our own. [/quote]

Fair enough. Here are some of the references included in the joint statement from the medical and mental health organizations. This is just a starting point from one publication:

1 Garofalo, R.,Wolf, R. C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J.,
& Du Rant, R. H. (1998). The association
between health risk behaviors and sexual
orientation among a school-based sample
of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101, 895-902.

2 Resnick,M.D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R.W.,
Bauman,K. E.,Harris,K. S., Jones, J., et al.
(1997). Protecting adolescents fromharm:
Findings fromthe National Longitudinal
Study on AdolescentHealth. Journal of the
AmericanMedical Association, 278, 823-832.

3 Garofalo et al. (1998); Remafedi, G., Frendh,
S., Story,M., Resnick,M. D., & Blum, R.
(1998). The relationship between suicide
risk and sexual orientation: Results of a
population-based study. American Journal
of Public Health, 88, 57-60.

4 Garofalo et al. (1998); Resnick et al. (1997).

5 Blake, S.M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T.,
Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T.
(2001). Preventing sexual risk behaviors
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual
adolescents: The benefits of gay-sensitive
HIV instruction in schools. American
Journal of Public Health, 91, 940-946;
Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., &
Westheimer, K. (2006). School support
groups, other school factors, and the
safety of sexual minority adolescents.
Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573-589;
Safren, S. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1999).
Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and
related factors in sexual minority and
heterosexual adolescents. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,
859-866.

6 American Psychiatric Association. (2000).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders, text revision (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.

7 Schroeder,M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). Ethical
issues in sexual orientation conversion
therapies: An empirical study of
consumers. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Psychotherapy, 5, 131-166; Shidlo, A., &
Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual
orientation: A consumer�??s report.
Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 33, 249-259.

8 American Academy of Pediatrics. (2001). Gay,
lesbian and bisexual teens: Facts for teens
and their parents [Pamphlet]. Elk Grove,
IL: Author.

9 Resolution adopted by American Counseling
Association Governing Council,March
1998.

10 Action by American Counseling Association
Governing Council, April 1999.

11 American Counseling Association. (2005).
Code of ethics (pp. 11-12). Alexandria,VA:
Author. See Ethical & Professional Standards
/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2.aspx

12 American Psychiatric Association. (1998).
�??Reparative�?? therapy [Position statement].
Washington, DC: Author.

13 DeLeon, P. H. (1998). Proceedings of the
American Psychological Association, Inc.,
for the legislative year 1997,minutes of
the annual meeting of the Council of
Representatives August 14 and 17, 1997,
Chicago, IL, and minutes of the June,
August, and December 1997 meetings of
the Board of Directors. American
Psychologist, 53, 882-939.

14 American School Counselor Association.
(2007). Position statement: Gay, lesbian,
transgendered, and questioning youth
[Adopted 1995, revised 2000, 2005, 2007].
See www.schoolcounselor.org/
content.asp?contentid=217

15 Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and
ethics of sexual orientation conversion
therapy. Journal of Counseling and Clinical
Psychology, 62, 221-227.

16 Davison, G. C. (1991). Constructionism and
morality in therapy for homosexuality. In
J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D.Weinrich (Eds.),
Homosexuality: Research implications for
public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage;
Gonsiorek, J. C., &Weinrich, J. D. (Eds.).
(1991). Homosexuality: Research
implications for public policy. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage; Haldeman (1994).

17 National Association of SocialWorkers.
(1997). Policy statement: Lesbian, gay, and
bisexual issues [approved by NASW
Delegate Assembly, August 1996]. In
Social work speaks: NASW policy (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.

18 National Association of SocialWorkers.
(2006). Social work speaks: NASW policy
statements 2006�??2009 (7th ed., p. 248).
Washington, DC: Author.

19 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

20 See Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist.,
37 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting
that �??[t]o permit [a public high school
teacher] to discuss his religious beliefs
with students during school time on
school grounds would violate the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment�??).

21 See Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd
County, Ky., 419 F. Supp. 2d 937, 942-46
(E.D. Ky. 2006); Parker v. Hurley, No. 06-
10751-MLW- F. Supp. 2d -, 2007WL
543017 (D.Mass. Feb. 23, 2007).

22 See Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa., 156
F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) (public
schools generally have right to determine
own curriculum); see also Downs v. Los
Angeles Unified School Dist., 228 F.3d
1003, 1014-16 (9th Cir. 2000) (same).

23 See Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier,
484 U.S. 260 (1988).

24 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Flores v.
Morgan Hill Unified School District, 324
F.3d 1130, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2003);
Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.
1996).

25 See Flores v.Morgan Hill, 324 F.3d at 1037-38
(holding that school may be liable).

26 Pogash, C. (2004, Jan. 7). California school
district settles harassment suit by gay
students. The New York Times, p. A19.

27 See GLSEN�??sWeb site at www.glsen.org/cgibin/
iowa/student/student/index.html

28 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-4074 (2007). The act
mandates that whenever a public
secondary school �??grants an offering to or
opportunity for one or more
noncurriculum related student groups to
meet on school premises during
noninstructional time,�?? then the school
may not �??deny equal access or a fair
opportunity to, or discriminate against
any students who wish to conduct a
meeting within that limited open forum
on the basis of the religious, political,
philosophical, or other content of the
speech at such meetings�?? (§ 4071[a], [b]).

29 For example, Straights and Gays for Equality v.
Osseo Area Schools - District No. 279, 471
F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006); Boyd County
High School Gay Straight Alliance v. Board
of Education of Boyd County, Ky., 258 F.
Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Ky. 2003).

[forlife]

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
It doesn’t that doesn’t make it any less of an awkward wierd situation for the girl either.[/quote]

That’s true. Hopefully she wouldn’t accuse him of being weird for asking though (not saying you thought that about the guy that asked you out).

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Just because their supreme courts ruled incorrectly does not mean it is in their constitution.

By arguing that everything you agree with is supported by the constitution, but everything you don’t agree with is a misinterpretation of the constitution, it is impossible for anyone to contradict any claims you might make about the constitution.

[/quote]

Dude, the constitution is pretty self evident. Show me the passages about gay marriage.

Did I say gay men can only marry women of their own skin tone?

Do you not see that the differences between men and women are dramatically different than varying shades of color?

You’re missing the point of the analogy. Let’s put it this way. Tell me what is logically wrong with the following argument:

Black men have the right to marry someone of the same race, just as white men do. Therefore black and white men have the same rights. Granting black men the right to marry white women would be a case of “special rights”.

There you go again making a false comparison. Skin color is not the same as gender.

A man of any color can marry a woman of any color.

A gay man of any color can marry a woman of any color.

There is no discrimination. You can do the exact same thing I can do. Go ahead and marry any woman that will have you. No one is stopping you!

[rainjack]

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Does that chromosome difference show up in the child? One of the X’s has to come from the mother if she has son’s, and the X can only come from the mother if it is a daughter. If the same difference is not found in the children, you are barking up the wrong tree.

The chromosome difference might show up in the child, but either way it is irrelevant. The point is that there is scientific proof that the mothers of gay children have a different chromosomal makeup than the mothers of straight children. [/quote]

No - it shows that the mothers of maternal twins have different genetic information than other mothers.

It either shows up in the child, or it doesn’t. “Might” is the language of subjective opining. That may work for you, but not for those who are waiting on some real proof.

[quote]We’re talking about an entirely different study, not the twin studies referenced earlier. The research on differences in the X chromosome for mothers of gay children has nothing to do with whether or not they have twins.

Again, how do you explain that mothers of gay children have a different chromosomal makeup? [/quote]

Cite the study. You have up till now only mentioned the twins study.

Unless the chromosomal difference is demonstrated in the offspring, you are still barking up the wrong tree.

It is not my responsibility to prove you right. The burden of proof is on the one making the charge - that would be you.

[quote]That’s not how science works. The conclusions drawn through the scientific method are almost always conditional, based on the probability of them being correct. It’s not a black and white, all or nothing world. You can draw a conclusion with 99.999% certainty, but very rarely can you say that a particular conclusion is 100% correct.

It would be foolish to look at the evidence for a conclusion that has 99.999% certainty of being correct, and equate the probability of that with a random uninformed opinion to the contrary. [/quote]

We are looking for genetic proof. It can’t get more black and white than that, scooter.

[quote]And my experience supports millions of others who maintain that homosexuality is a choice.

How many of those “millions” have conducted peer-reviewed published scientific research?[/quote]

I would have no idea - but since the conclusions of the peer reviewed studies are little more than subjective opinion, it is irrelevant.

Your experience supports your opinion. That’s as far as you can take it.

I accept your right to make a point using personal experience. The issue is that you were generalizing that point to every situation. Not everyone is bisexual. Your example says nothing about cases where people are toward the extreme ends of the continuum.

And you weren’t? GO read what you have written. If you can’t see the generalization you make, I’m not going to be able to point them out to you.

I didn’t generalize my example to all mixed orientation marriages. I fully recognize that if someone is bisexual, my difficulty in having an intimate relationship with my wife would probably not apply to them.

I didn’t do anything of the sort, either. I told you exactly what my sister-in-law said to me. You are the one who has prejudged who she is. I never mentioned the word “bisexual”.

The point is that the environment can affect people in ways beyond their control. Just because something is environmentally derived doesn’t mean it is always their choice to change it.

And you would be wrong. Is that not why we have counseling, therapy, and psychotropic drugs? To treat mental and emotional maladies? The vehicles to use these vehicles to overcome these are uniquely a choice of the afflicted.

Like I said - you really don’t want to pursue this avenue. You should exercise a little self-control and let it go.