(first two paragraphs are targeted at "Zappafan" specifically)

How do you know that homosexuals or bisexuals choose their sexuality? Really that's not a rhetorical question, but a real one I want answered, in detail.

You're entire view of homosexuals is based on that point, so you should be able to make a atleast semi-convincing pluasible reason for your view if anyone is going to take it seriously.

Homosexuality and bisexuality is not cool for "kids" in school either. If you're a gay male and are in high school, expect verbal abuse, exclusion, physical abuse and to an extant a lack of friends. It is maybe slightly cool to a bisexual girl or a lesbian, but only if you are "slutty" and "hot". Have any of the delusional homophobics out there been in a school lately? It can be hell for a gay student socially.

Do not worry Joe six-pack, your children/teenagers are not going to be "turned gay" by society anytime soon. Ridiculous shows such as "Queer eye for the straight guy" are about as representive of homosexuals as desperate housewives is for women. Stop worrying about flambouyant people, there do nowhere near as much harm to society socially as the macho man attitude or the girly-girl attitude does.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by iiiiiiiiiiiii]

Zappafan1:

If you want to establish that being homosexual is a choice, it is not enough to show that there is no hard evidence for a "gay gene." We do not know if homosexuality is caused genetically, we only know that it is caused by something, and is not a choice on the part of the homosexual.

Here are some examples of non-choice events and conditions that are not genetic.

I was born in the U.S.A.

When I was three years old, my ears were lanced for an ear infection.

I am currently 49 years old.

None of these things was genetically caused, but none of them were my choice, either.

If you want to claim that homosexuality is a choice, you need to show that homosexuals were at some point attracted to the opposite gender, and made a decision instead to pursue sex with their own. What gay people say -- and, by comparison with my own experience as a straight guy, what I believe -- is that they were always attracted to their own gender, and not to the opposite one, and had no choice about it.

The so-called "gay gene" is one theory about WHY AND HOW homosexuality occurs in a non-choice manner. To refute this theory is NOT equivalent to refuting the claimed fact that it DOES occur in a non-choice manner. It simply leaves us in need of a new theory, a new explanation. And that alone does nothing to support your position.

It does not usually fall upon the "norm" to explain how those who are different become that way. The Homosexual agenda has done everything to explain their proposal that homosexuality is something they didn't choose, yet they can't explain their condition. If they can't, how can I?

If one pays attention to what is going on, it's not difficult to see that there is indeed an agenda; such as school systems using a book that is based on the accomplishments of homosexuals in history. What's next, a book of the accomplishments of those who prefer beastiality? I'm sure Peter Singer would write the bi-lines. (no pun intended)

Because there is no gay gene, or any other "forced" provacation to become homosexual, that somehow means there must be "some other explanation or theory" for their choices? Really? Other than my finding in an earlier post concerning some homosexuals having a brain defect, why is "some other theory" mandatory or required?
There is much documentation out by those who were "straight", tried being homosexual, then went straight, again. The whole "some other theory" idea brings to mind the "lack of personal responsibility/it's not my fault" mentality so prevalent in our society today.
(Edit for content and syntax.)

[edit on 11-6-2006 by zappafan1]

[edit on 11-6-2006 by zappafan1]

wow 21 pages well I think should be show with the consent of the parent that my .02 and some of you should learn torcent (typo)

Originally posted by zappafan1
The homosexuals (not "gays") have an agenda, all right.

If you're under that impression, you have a lot you need to learn about the world, my friend.

As for the above, no-one knows what they like, relationship or sexually-wise, at 4 years. Puleeeeze.

Ha! Tell the guy that I was in kindergarten with if I had no idea what I liked!!!

Yes, fudge-packing and skin-fluting is not "normal", it's aberrent and abhorrent behaviour that children should not know about until they are old and wise enough to form their own opinion. Notice I haven't mentioned the "moral"/religious viewpoints on this issue.

Well, I don't believe in what I assume is your Christian god, so therefore, nah, there's no use of your viewpoint on that coming in at all, wouldn't make one bit of a difference. Fudge packing??? You speak in derogatory terms, if you want to get your point across, I really suggest that you maybe learn how to use the term "anal sex." Skin fluting??? I honestly don't even know what you're getting at with that one. Is this something you've tried under such a name??? By the way, I'm 23, I have my own opinion.

As for getting beat up: 'ya makes your choices and face whatever comes if you throw it in someones face, or approach someone normal.

Soooo, the girl that gets raped while she was wearing a skirt deserves it, because, well, she was wearing a short skirt??? How strange life must be for you.

Sorry! Your choices DO harm others in many ways, including what it costs Americans in tax money treating Aids. I linked to that in this thread, I think, but I can link to it, again, if you'd like.

Hmm... I seem to know an awful lot of straight people that have it, but I'm sure you're gonna say they were homo's at one time, eh? I'm sure.

The "changing the diet" thing is rediculous, as I know you agree. What a moron. I hope you told him so.

Unfortunately, after reading the post you just made, I have a feeling that his made a bit more sense than yours. I suggest you do some reading, and stop swallowing every bit of misinfo that is forced down your throat! So, reformed homo or extremist christian?

You have about as much reliable information as a David Icke webpage. Goodluck.

Also, I am pretty sure that we're spending more money on AIDS in Africa, than here. Maybe not. Taking a book out of a school is going to nothing to change that, though, so I really question why you are spewing all this information in the first place. My post was about the breeding of intolerance, and why the book should be there. Yours on the other hand is completely different from the subject at hand, and I have a feeling you are derailing with your "stats" so that you can keep some sense of control over the thread, and live inside the box, instead of trying to think out of it.

I'm really curious to know though, ex homo or religious extremist? I'll be checking back. Have a good one, zappa, and I hope that you really can find peace with your life, and your creator hereafter.

It is a video that promotes tolerance of blacks, gays, jews, muslims, Asians, everyone, why are Christians so hell bent on killing people?

I am Asian, does this mean I hav-e a genetic mutation and should be burnt at the cross? Why I hate religous whack jobs, they will kill anyone for any reason and say "God said I could."

I never once thought "Hey, maybe I like women." No, I, as a Woman, can never be with another woman, I don't find them attractive. So why do these whack jobs think gays and lesbians are any different?

Originally posted by zappafan1
It does not usually fall upon the "norm" to explain how those who are different become that way. The Homosexual agenda has done everything to explain their proposal that homosexuality is something they didn't choose, yet they can't explain their condition. If they can't, how can I?

Well, you HAVE offered an explanation, Zappafan: you say that homosexuals choose to be gay. Since you make this claim, it is up to you do back it up. That is, if you want it taken seriously.

The only support you've offered so far is that a genetic cause for homosexuality has not been identified. But even if we stipulate that the cause of homosexuality is not genetic (which it may not be), that doesn't mean that your explanation is the right one.

Gay people are sexually attracted to their own gender and not to the opposite one. I, being a straight guy, am sexually attracted to women and not to men. I know for certain that I didn't plan it that way, it just happened.

What you're saying, though, is that it's different for gay people, that their attraction to their own gender isn't something that just happened, that they planned it that way. Now, on the surface, this is plain nonsense. Can you give us any reason to believe you?

Because there is no gay gene, or any other "forced" provacation to become homosexual, that somehow means there must be "some other explanation or theory" for their choices? Really? Other than my finding in an earlier post concerning some homosexuals having a brain defect, why is "some other theory" mandatory or required?

You're not making a lot of sense here. If homosexuality is caused by a brain defect, then it isn't a choice, is it? So which are you saying? That it's a choice, or that it's a birth defect? Certainly can't be both!

There is much documentation out by those who were "straight", tried being homosexual, then went straight, again.

And there are two possible explanations for this. 1) These people were experimenting in their youth, and discovered that they were not gay. Or, 2) These people are bisexual, but have chosen to live a straight lifestyle. Actually, I think they have to be somewhat bi even to experiment.

Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are determined by what you feel, not what you do. A homosexual isn't someone who has sex with his/her own gender; a homosexual is someone who feels a desire to have sex with his/her own gender, whether they actually do it or not. And this desire is not something that a person chooses or controls.

It is possible to have sex with someone to whom you are not attracted. But it is not possible to choose to be attracted to someone to whom you are not attracted. Yet that's what you're suggesting that homosexuals do. Why should we believe you, when on the face of it what you're suggesting is perfect nonsense?

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

I've been watching the Homosexual agenda advance for over 35 years. Heterosexuality is "normal", in all species, yet in most all species there is the small percentage, around two to three percent, that are homosexual. Being "normal", it's not up to me to explain why others are the way they are, or why they choose to be that way. Sorry.

Originally posted by zappafan1
I've been watching the Homosexual agenda advance for over 35 years. Heterosexuality is "normal", in all species, yet in most all species there is the small percentage, around two to three percent, that are homosexual. Being "normal", it's not up to me to explain why others are the way they are, or why they choose to be that way. Sorry.

And around and around in circles they go . . .

For I think about the third time, Zappafan, I am not asking you to explain how homosexuals become homosexuals. I am asking you to offer any evidence that homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexual.

That's really not all that hard to understand. If you again offer the side-step you did above, I'm going to conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by zappafan1
I've been watching the Homosexual agenda advance for over 35 years. Heterosexuality is "normal", in all species, yet in most all species there is the small percentage, around two to three percent, that are homosexual. Being "normal", it's not up to me to explain why others are the way they are, or why they choose to be that way. Sorry.

And around and around in circles they go . . .

For I think about the third time, Zappafan, I am not asking you to explain how homosexuals become homosexuals. I am asking you to offer any evidence that homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexual.

That's really not all that hard to understand. If you again offer the side-step you did above, I'm going to conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.

REPLY: What's so hard to understand..I'm not the one who started the whole "choice" issue, and since others have said it's NOT a choice, it's up to them to prove why it's not.
This has gotten way off topic, so here's new information that DOES pertain to the thread, and also to the Homosexual agenda in schools:

".... The mainstream media has ignored a major news story out of Massachusetts involving a first grader who was dragged and beaten on the playground at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington. His crime? He is the son of David Parker, a concerned parent who objects to his son being taught about homosexuality. School officials have admitted that the attack on his son was planned and premeditated!"

"Estabrook Elementary School’s leadership is apparently captive to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which sets up programs to make schools “safe” for students who think they are homosexuals. While GLSEN may make schools “safe” for homosexual recruitment programs, it obviously does not make schools safe for children who do not wish to be indoctrinated into thinking that homosexual conduct is normal or healthy. David Parker’s son is a chilling example of what may happen to other children whose parents oppose the normalization of homosexual sex among kids. Are schools to become unsafe places for these children?"

If much of the issue is about "tolerance", it seems to be rather one-sided.

why dont we actually do something about this and make a petition.

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: What's so hard to understand..I'm not the one who started the whole "choice" issue

Yes, you are. You asserted that it is a choice.

and since others have said it's NOT a choice, it's up to them to prove why it's not.

Wrong, but never mind. The evidence for homosexuality not being a choice is twofold:

1) Heterosexuality is certainly not a choice -- I never made a choice to be straight. I am attracted to women, not attracted to men, and that's just how it is, just how I'm wired. I see no reason not to believe it's exactly the same for gay people as it is for me.

2) Gay people have repeatedly asserted that they never made any decision to be gay. What's more, given the oppression gay people suffer in this society, it makes no sense whatsoever that anyone who freely choose to be gay if they had that choice.

Given the above, it seems very likely that homosexuals did not choose to be homosexual. If you want us to believe differently, you are going to need to present evidence in favor of your position sufficient to overcome the two points above. Mere absence of an identified "gay gene" doesn't cut the mustard.

".... The mainstream media has ignored a major news story out of Massachusetts involving a first grader who was dragged and beaten on the playground at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington. His crime? He is the son of David Parker, a concerned parent who objects to his son being taught about homosexuality. School officials have admitted that the attack on his son was planned and premeditated!"

Well, that's awful. The kids who did it should be severely punished, of course. Even though I am highly skeptical of the reason given for the beating. Much more likely, he said something insulting to them, perhaps calling them fags or homos, and they decided to take a piece out of his hide. Not that that's any excuse, of course.

If much of the issue is about "tolerance", it seems to be rather one-sided.

Let me get this straight.

An objection is raised to oppression of and violence against homosexuals. A film encouraging acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is shown in schools to attempt to raise people's awareness of the problem and change attitudes.

In response, you present a beating, which may or may not have been committed by gay students, of a boy whose father was an anti-gay activist, for reasons that are asserted to be connected with that (without any evidence of that assertion being presented).

No one who has advocated tolerance for gay people is identified as having anything to do with the beating.

Yet on this basis you claim the call for tolerance is one-sided?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: What's so hard to understand..I'm not the one who started the whole "choice" issue

Yes, you are. You asserted that it is a choice.

and since others have said it's NOT a choice, it's up to them to prove why it's not.

Wrong, but never mind. The evidence for homosexuality not being a choice is twofold:

1) Heterosexuality is certainly not a choice -- I never made a choice to be straight. I am attracted to women, not attracted to men, and that's just how it is, just how I'm wired. I see no reason not to believe it's exactly the same for gay people as it is for me.

REPLY: Why would being "normal" have to be a choice? My whole point is that up until a few years ago being homosexual was a physical or mental disorder, then was changed by pressure against the American Psycological Association. Only, maybe, three percent of our population is attracted to the same sex, yet their agenda is being forced upon our children as early as pre-school, before they have enough knowledge or intelligence to make a rational decision. The American Teachers Association is pushing for books depicting how homosexuals have played a part in American history; what's next? books about those who believe in and practice beastiality? About the same percentage of Americans practice that, so is it "normal" ..... would you not think that they had a choice? Have you heard of NAMBLA? Is pedophilia a choice, or "normal?

".... The mainstream media has ignored a major news story out of Massachusetts involving a first grader who was dragged and beaten on the playground at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington. His crime? He is the son of David Parker, a concerned parent who objects to his son being taught about homosexuality. School officials have admitted that the attack on his son was planned and premeditated!"

Well, that's awful. The kids who did it should be severely punished, of course. Even though I am highly skeptical of the reason given for the beating. Much more likely, he said something insulting to them, perhaps calling them fags or homos, and they decided to take a piece out of his hide. Not that that's any excuse, of course.

REPLY: I agree.

If much of the issue is about "tolerance", it seems to be rather one-sided.

Let me get this straight.

An objection is raised to oppression of and violence against homosexuals. A film encouraging acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is shown in schools to attempt to raise people's awareness of the problem and change attitudes.

REPLY: .... to "change attitudes" to make kids believe it's "normal". THAT'S the problem. The school systems gorget who the parents are, and it should be up to the parents to decide what their kids are taught in school. Unfortunately, that's changed over tha past 30+ years. I saw the agenda of the Nat'l Teachers Assoc. from last year; an entire weekend, and nothing was mentioned about how to get our kids a better education, it was all about politics and "gender related" issues. THAT'S the problem. It's bad enough that most of the books used to teach science, history, etc, are rife with errors.

In response, you present a beating, which may or may not have been committed by gay students, of a boy whose father was an anti-gay activist, for reasons that are asserted to be connected with that (without any evidence of that assertion being presented).

No one who has advocated tolerance for gay people is identified as having anything to do with the beating.

Yet on this basis you claim the call for tolerance is one-sided?

REPLY: I didn't say the father was anti-gay (to be "discriminating" was once a good thing), he just didn't want his kid learning it at that age, and he should have that choice. If the kids doing the beating thought they were homosexual, then it would be a "hate crime" wouldn't it?

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: I didn't say the father was anti-gay

No, I said that. I also said it didn't make your case.

If the kids doing the beating thought they were homosexual, then it would be a "hate crime" wouldn't it?

You mean if they thought HE was homosexual, right? There was only one victim. Yes, it would be, but what I imagine happened is that they kicked the snot out of him because he insulted them, not because they thought he was gay.

I can just see it. Dad's an anti-gay activist, son absorbs some of his attitudes, son goes around calling other kids fags and homos, some of those kids took offense and beat him up. I don't know that's what happened, but it's the most likely scenario. MUCH more likely than that a bunch of school bullies were part of some turnip-ghost "gay agenda."

Hell, I doubt the bullies were even gay. School kids call each other fags and homos all the time when everyone involved is straight. At least that happened when I was in school.

Two Steps Forward: This obvilously needs more research as to events, but it isn't really relevant to the thread. My whole gripe is that the school systems spend too much time forcing their agenda on our kids, and parents need more power to control the school systems, and what their kids are exposed to, no matter what the issue.

I find this thred discusting and the post who posted this should be band from here.
Another way of exspessing HATRED againce GAYS!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!

Originally posted by cashlink
I find this thred discusting and the post who posted this should be band from here.
Another way of exspessing HATRED againce GAYS!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!

So....... no free speech for you, because you don't agree with it? Should we start burning books, too, if you don't agree with them?

It's not hatred at all, merely being discriminating which, even considering all the PC crap out there, is still a good thing. And, sorry, there is no "right" to not be offended.

About 3% percent of people in America are homosexual, or think they are. The same low percentage believe in beastiality. Do you want the schools to teach your kids about beastuality in elementary school?

thread
banned
expressing

[edit on 24-6-2006 by zappafan1]

"....I'll ask again... How would you people that support this idea feel if your tax money went to promote religious toleration at school?

It is happening already. many schools have classes on Islam; but have a class on Cristianity, and there's hell to pay.