I can’t imagine anyone who actually knew gay people would be talking about them like they’re deviants and perverts. Honestly, you people are sick.

That’s a pretty durn good definition of “irony” right thar!

Aside the fact that any gay person will confirm: You’re either born gay, or you’re born straight. There’s no “gay in the making” so to speak.

Sombody quick tell that to Anne Heche.

My point in showing that homosexuality is natural was to dispute the idiotic notion of “Homosexuality is unnatural” because obviously it isn’t. It occurs in nature, unlike souls and angels.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:49 PM

I already addressed that ridiculous and predictable argument. earlier, when crr6 pulled it out:

Seriously crr6, by your logic, I should soon be marrying every unfixed male dog I’ve ever encountered… because they humped me, and that obviously means they were “born that way” attracted to human legs, right? Lol.

I even once new a FEMALE chihuahua who would violently rape a stuffed animal penguin… and only the penguin. The family that owned it had to hide the penguin, but would bring it out as a joke to show people who hadn’t seen what happens before. Was that female chihuahua “born that way”? Seriously dude, you’ve really gotta stop commenting here, you get sillier by the day.

RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 8:24 PM

A dog who humps plants and human legs isn’t just expressing his “natural” different type of “sexuality”. It’s an animal that is without self control… but it’s not attracted to those things. Though if you want to compare your own actions to those of animals, I’m not in a hurry to argue with you.

Will you and I ever agree on anything?

I’m doubting that, but we’re both here. Surely someday it’ll happen.

Gotcha. I’m not *that* extreme.

I doubt anyone could be. The character was almost cartoonish, and for a book about a woman with surealistically large thumbs who is a professional hitchhiker, that’s really saying something.

I was referring to my dislike of romantic subplots in movies, not to my dislike of the female sexual organs.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I see now. Looking back, I’m almost confused as to how I thought you meant otherwise. I was probably just thinking too much about the book.

In that case, I’ve yet to meet a man who even pretended to like chick flicks.

I mean, Transformers had a ***ing romantic subplot, for penis’s sake!

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM

I wouldn’t really call that one romantic. He basically thought she was hot, and she decided the arrogant jock-type wasn’t working for her anymore.

But I love how you turned the word penis into a God-like curse word.

Can’t say I’m a fan of football. Then again, I’m not a fan of any game with low scores, which basically leaves me with basketball.

Basketball is repetitive and boring, not to mention replete with thugs. Will you and I ever agree on anything?

There’s a character called the Countess, a homosexual male who has made a living selling feminine hygiene products. He sells them because he finds women completely disgusting, specifically their sexual organs.

I can’t do the character justice, but you just reminded me so much of him.

Gotcha. I’m not *that* extreme. After all, I’ve … ahem … been there! Not a pleasant memory, but I was turned on by the person, not by the anatomy.

I can’t speak for the guys here, but my husband would disagree. That’s not wishful thinking either. I couldn’t care less if he was turned on by my physical anatomy. I personally don’t find it arousing. Then again, I’m not turned on by his either. I find a fit body and a beautiful face far more attractive.

People are different. While some men here might agree with you, there are some who love it more than a lesbian.

Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 10:29 AM

I was referring to my dislike of romantic subplots in movies, not to my dislike of the female sexual organs.

Rape occurs in nature.

Therefore, rape is natural. You’re catching on!

Now, tell me, where did I argue, “That which is natural is moral”?

My point in showing that homosexuality is natural was to dispute the idiotic notion of “Homosexuality is unnatural” because obviously it isn’t. It occurs in nature, unlike souls and angels.

Great Britian has declared that the religion of foster children will be determined by the State, not by the religion of the foster parents, or foster childrens’ natural parents.

The State has declared as a article of faith…

entagor on October 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM

I agree with everything you’re written about Statism in the UK. The UK is NOT an atheistic country. Their religion is Statism and their God is the State. Lots of countries follow this religion. North Korea is presently the best example of this weird and evil religion.

I see your point and think it is better to let legislatures rather than courts figure it out.

As a general rule, I’m instinctively opposed to allowing the courts to change any laws.

I appreciate your comments on the subject. I always find your points interesting.

Thank you. I have very much enjoyed this and our previous conversations. You’ve helped remind me that disagreements don’t have to be uncomfortable or disrespectful.

Also, I never read “Cowgirls” but did read “Still Life with Woodpecker” about 25 years ago. I really liked reading Robbins and McGuane back then.

dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Cowgirls is the first of his I’ve ever read all the way through. I’ve read pieces of others, but I can’t remember exactly which ones.

I can’t say he’s my favorite author, but he’s definitely got a clear voice that is impossible to ignore. My husband loves his work, which really says something since he’s more mathematically than literally inclined.

though I hesitate to discuss whether or not we should legalize homosexual marriage.

I see your point and think it is better to let legislatures rather than courts figure it out. Acceptance of gay marriage is more prevalent among the young. A lot has changed in the past 20 years and likely will during the next 20 years. I appreciate your comments on the subject. I always find your points interesting.

Also, I never read “Cowgirls” but did read “Still Life with Woodpecker” about 25 years ago. I really liked reading Robbins and McGuane back then.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural.

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Rape occurs in nature. Natural law is the survival of the fittest if one believes Darwin.

Where did I bash “all Christians”? That sounds suspiciously like “You have offended 1.5 billion Muslims!” Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Life, liberty, property. Apply. Think. Hard for a Christian, I know, since it doesn’t come from some weird ancient text that has a obsession with describing ritual animal sacrifices in luscious detail….

Anti-gay arguments are so retarded!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Well said.

Great Britian has declared that the religion of foster children will be determined by the State, not by the religion of the foster parents, or foster childrens’ natural parents.

The State has declared as a article of faith that gay partnerships are just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages. The State believes this so strongly is is requiring this article of faith to be included in catechisms.

Currently this State controls only the catechisms of foster children. This is a form of discrimination. Eventually lawyers will prove the discrimination must end and catechisms must be standardized for all groups.

The State must normalize beliefs or some children will be raised with false beliefs.

Much thought is dangerous and leads to hate speech. Hate speech is speech that disputes the catechism.

Only the State has the impartiality to avoid the hate speech of lesser catechisms.

The State, being impartial, is the ultimate protector so decisions of morality must originate from the State, not the religions.

Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Can’t say I’m a fan of football. Then again, I’m not a fan of any game with low scores, which basically leaves me with basketball.

Is that girl fiction?

And no, I certainly wouldn’t call that book a girl book. You just really remind me of one of the characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even_Cowgirls_Get_the_Blues

There’s a character called the Countess, a homosexual male who has made a living selling feminine hygiene products. He sells them because he finds women completely disgusting, specifically their sexual organs.

I can’t do the character justice, but you just reminded me so much of him.

Have you noticed how all movies nowadays have to have have romantic subplots to captivate the vagina-possessing members of the audience?

I’d call this book literal porn before I’d call it a romance book. There’s a massive amount of sex in the book, but the only love I saw was love I’d describe more as the strong bond of a friendship that had sexual benefits.

The other guys here probably think it but they can’t say it out loud for fear of womanly reprisal.

I can’t speak for the guys here, but my husband would disagree. That’s not wishful thinking either. I couldn’t care less if he was turned on by my physical anatomy. I personally don’t find it arousing. Then again, I’m not turned on by his either. I find a fit body and a beautiful face far more attractive.

People are different. While some men here might agree with you, there are some who love it more than a lesbian.

I don’t suppose you’ve ever read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.

Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 7:49 PM

I don’t know what that is. Is that girl fiction? I despise girl stuff. Have you noticed how all movies nowadays have to have have romantic subplots to captivate the vagina-possessing members of the audience? Disgusting! The movie “Next” was 80% “romantic comedy” (read: chick movie) sprinkled with some Michael Bay special effects.

And I can get away with writing that because my significant other isn’t a woman and agrees with me completely. The other guys here probably think it but they can’t say it out loud for fear of womanly reprisal. Now if only I can get my partner to start liking football*…

(* SEC football. Football is neither faggy nor retarded. That’s why we call the other sport “soccer”.)

I knew you’d come around one day. Welcome to the club.

How could I resist? Christians are always so kind and loving to me that I am convinced that their religion must be true! Will you pray with me right now to accept Jesus Christ into my heart?

Why do you have to be so mean to Christians in your arguments?

It’s called “an eye for an eye”. Didn’t you see where Gregor said that my love was nothing more than a “physical addiction”? I suppose that’s a step up from “abomination” for which I should be executed (a sentiment held my many Christians), but would you like your love for your wife to be denigrated to nothing more than the appreciation that a meth-mouth junkie has for his fix?

If I recall correctly, don’t you read the Bible so you can do a better job of bashing Christians?

You don’t recall correctly.

You’re obviously a bright person, so I don’t get why you have to use such nasty tactics. Bashing all Christians based off of Gregor’s views is like Gregor bashing all homosexuals off of one homosexual’s views.

Where did I bash “all Christians”? That sounds suspiciously like “You have offended 1.5 billion Muslims!”

Most Christians don’t care if you’re gay or not. As long as you’re providing a stable and loving home for your child I say more power to you.

BadgerHawk on October 24, 2007 at 7:09 PM

I appreciate that. I wish you would reserve your criticism for your brethren in the “Body of Christ” who abuse me instead of me for choosing to defend myself from said abuse.

Let children learn the basics of reading, writing, critical thinking, and the rest of objective scholastics, and they can then aim toward whatever interests them -intimately and privately- as their desires unfold, naturally.

When the State decrees what sexual orientation is “good” or “bad”, to kids, it becomes a damaging tool of whatever the reigning flavor of the month psychobabble proclaims.

It’s boorish, crude and presumptuous.

Leave kids out of adult sexual problems.

They get they on their own soon enough.

Big Brother needs to zip up.

Innocence spoiling seems to be the latest kick of the Nanny Staters.

A sublimated form of anal-sadistic crypto-pedophilia, in itself.

Here is a site that disputes the “born that way” feelings of some.

God’s Word is true. There is no gay gene, except maybe Dockers :-) However, it’s because gays don’t want to hear what God has to say on the issue (just like I may not like what God says about my desire to sleep around with women) that the Bible is being labeled hate speech. Many Democrats are trying different ways to outlaw it. (Hate speech amendment attached to Defense Spending Bill by the Senate, Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA currently being considered by the House) This craziness is headed to this side of the pond if we don’t wake up and stand up.

These guys don’t know their constitution so I guess asking them to actually read the Bible is out of the question.

If it’s a choice why does it occur in the animalkingdom?

crr6 on October 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Lol, these are the times it’s fun to argue with liberals. There liberalism renders their brain incapacitated, they begin to make the most ridiculous arguments imaginable… it’s almost unbelievable that you’re serious.

I’ll give you my take in a minute, but Gregor did take it to you here as well:

It happens in animal Kingdom because it feels good and they are animals. They don’t know any better and do whatever feels good.

Are you saying you’re an animal and have no control over your urges? If it feels good, it must be okay.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Seriously crr6, by your logic, I should soon be marrying every unfixed male dog I’ve ever encountered… because they humped me, and that obviously means they were “born that way” attracted to human legs, right? Lol.

I even once new a FEMALE chihuahua who would violently rape a stuffed animal penguin… and only the penguin. The family that owned it had to hide the penguin, but would bring it out as a joke to show people who hadn’t seen what happens before. Was that female chihuahua “born that way”? Seriously dude, you’ve really gotta stop commenting here, you get sillier by the day.

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Again though, what does that say about bisexuals? If a person is attracted to both sexes, then they do get to choose which one they get into relationships with.

The blatant truth is that it is a choice for some people.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 5:06 PM

I can’t really disagree with much of anything you’ve written there, though I hesitate to discuss whether or not we should legalize homosexual marriage.

My personal belief is that if we’re going to change something about marriage so fundamental, then we should just change it completely, making it no different than a business partnership, legal for all who can legally sign contracts and legal for as many consenting partners who wish to be involved.

Basically, why just change it to allow for same sex marriage when there are other groups who want the same distinction who are involved in consenting relationships with other adults?

Maybe I’m missing what you mean by “definition”. I was thinking a state enacting a law governing who can and can’t get married were doing that. The Constitution doesn’t address the matter, and leaves it up to the states. If you are referring to something cultural, beyond the law, then I’d say that marriage very definitely hasn’t been one-man-one-woman throughout history.

dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 5:31 PM

I literally just meant definition, like what you’d find in Webster.

Yes, I get *severe* physical pleasure when we balance the checkbook together.

Masochist

I fall into this category, despite how gross the female organ is.

I don’t suppose you’ve ever read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.

You know what, Gregor? You’ve convinced me to accept Jesus Christ into my heart! I’m going to do that right now, because I can tell that you really, truly love me!

Loundry on October 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM

I knew you’d come around one day. Welcome to the club.

Why do you have to be so mean to Christians in your arguments? If I recall correctly, don’t you read the Bible so you can do a better job of bashing Christians? You’re obviously a bright person, so I don’t get why you have to use such nasty tactics. Bashing all Christians based off of Gregor’s views is like Gregor bashing all homosexuals off of one homosexual’s views.

Most Christians don’t care if you’re gay or not. As long as you’re providing a stable and loving home for your child I say more power to you.

This is pushing an agenda. Plain and simple.

I was born liking hooters. No choice in the matter.
Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Link?

But yeah, the rest of them are probably faking it.

Professor Blather on October 24, 2007 at 4:57 PM

“Gay” is an invention used to preclude not only the possibility of a psychological problem, but even the mention of any other possibility. Same-sex relations are timeless, of course.

If HA commenters were rated, I would give you the highest. But on this one topic I think you have drank the Kool-Aid.

You’re going to tell us that homosexuals don’t ask that question? So why are they always telling us how “confused” the poor children are? Why do some people date the opposite sex, have normal lives, get married, have children, and suddenly turn around and start doing the same gender? Are we to believe that these people were able to con their opposite sex lovers and even manage to perform to the point of having children, all while not even being attracted to their spouse? Right.

Absolutely they can, and they have done so for decades.

1. The reason that men who are attracted to men say that they are “confused” or “bi-curious” is because they usually like men (and not women) but don’t want to face the ramifcations of accepting that they are gay.

2. The reason that a man can “fake it” with a woman is that he may be attracted to women, even a little bit, enough so that he can get an erection and perform. I fall into this category, despite how gross the female organ is.

3. Even if a man has NO attraction to a woman, he can still “fake it” by fantasizing about a man while he has sex with a woman.

4. Why would a man choose to do this? Because the societal pressures to both A) be “normal” by having a wife and kids and B) not be gay and thus face the abuse that you like to dish out are both very, very strong.

Face it. It doesn’t add up. There is no gay gene. It’s simply an addiction to physical pleasure, regardless of the origin.

Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM

In other words, the love that my partner and I have shared for the past ten years, where we plan for the future, deal with money problems, arrange child care for our son, enjoy making memories togehter, all of that is just “an addiction to physical pleasure”. Yes, I get *severe* physical pleasure when we balance the checkbook together.

You know what, Gregor? You’ve convinced me to accept Jesus Christ into my heart! I’m going to do that right now, because I can tell that you really, truly love me!

The definition of marriage is (and has always been) the union of one man and one woman. Laws were put in place to keep that union between people of the same race, but that was never a part of the definition of marriage. It was the norm and thus the unspoken understanding of the definition, but it was never expressly stated that way.

Maybe I’m missing what you mean by “definition”. I was thinking a state enacting a law governing who can and can’t get married were doing that. The Constitution doesn’t address the matter, and leaves it up to the states. If you are referring to something cultural, beyond the law, then I’d say that marriage very definitely hasn’t been one-man-one-woman throughout history.

I guess pedophiles are just born that way too? So, why not let them have their way with children?

Because children cannot consent to sex, particularly in light of the power that an adult usually has over an impressionable child. Hence, it deprives a child of life and/or liberty and thus is immoral.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Do Christians turn off their brains once they get outside of their cozy bubble of Biblical mandates (they they so frequently ignore)?

There is nothing natural about homosexuality.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural.

What things do NOT appear in nature? Gods, angels, demons, souls, heaven, and hell. That’s why they are called supernatural. As in, outside of nature. In other words, unnatural.

It’s a perversion plain and simple.

Argument by assertion. I think vaginal sex is perverted.

If we condone homosexual behavior as okay, there is no reason not to condone polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Life, liberty, property. Apply. Think. Hard for a Christian, I know, since it doesn’t come from some weird ancient text that has a obsession with describing ritual animal sacrifices in luscious detail.

If homosexuality were natural, you all could reproduce and you wouldn’t have to spend so much time recruiting children because without recruitment, you all die out.

wytammic on October 24, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Therefore, a marriage in which the wife is post-menopausal is unnatural, since they can’t reproduce.

Anti-gay arguments are so retarded!