Ad Showing 'Homosexual' Newborn Causes Stir in Italy

Being married does NOT automatically mean your not gay, I mean come on.....MANY a gay person has tried to hide under 'The Guise of Marriage' for lets see................as LONG as mankind has recognized a marriage union.

Now Obliv_au I am NOT calling you gay, I am just saying your above reasoning is uber lame.

The Mormon Church even teaches the young men that if they are feeling an 'urge of homosexuality' they should marry ASAP...in order to try and stop such urges......and it does NOT work....what happens is some poor unsuspecting woman winds up in a mess of a marriage to a homosexual who is unwilling to be honest with her about it....

Saying your married does not mean your not gay.........

....................................................just sayin.



[edit on 25-10-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

way to read more deeply into a couple of words than there ever was.
its not "uber lame" reasonings, i was stating a fact about myself.

i was not referring to anyone or anything else but myself, so your long winded post carries no relevance.

way to take one comment i stated about MYSELF, and twist it to suit your needs.

now thats "uber lame" reasoning.

[edit on 25/10/07 by Obliv_au]

I never once meant that as some personal dig at you Obliv_au......and said so in my post.

To be clear I am simply pointing out that line of reasoning has been used for YEARS as some kind of 'proof' that one is not gay.......I truly was not 'reading' anything into it, I simply saw a point to elaborate on and I took it.
If and when you ever see me say something, no matter how small, that you might wish to expound upon, feel free to do so in the spirit of denying ignorance. I won't take it personally.

I did this for the other folks out there that think it IS a reasonable proof.
Those people are wrong and I just used your words as an example for the uninformed masses.
I am truly sorry you took it so to heart and it upset you.
Don't protest to much, or you will look guilty you know..........

Namaste



[edit on 26-10-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

reply to post by uberarcanist

---

i think that is a valid argument. if it was a choice, why does it matter. why should we care why people are gay, whether some believe it's choice or some believe its nurture or nature. people are gay and they deserve the right to be that way. period.

there are many arguments for and against nature/nurture.
NURTURE: most of these arguments are that biologically we, as a species using sexual reproduction, require sex between a male and female. the evolutionary theory is that doing what is natural is heterosexual reproduction. this one cannot really argue against.

NATURE: but the human mind is so complex that when we take into account ATTRACTION, we are adding in biological chemicals (nature, see below) AND emotional conditioning (which occurs outside of biological reactions thus is nurture). humans are different from most (dolphins too) animals in that sex invokes an immense amount of PLEASURE. why is one gay? because one is ATTRACTED to and recieves greater PLEASURE out of homosexual relations.

BELOW: a study done by Lalumeire, Blanchard, and Zucker in 2000 shows that homosexuality is closely related to the hormonal levels during prenatal development. *i am citing Psychology, 7th Edition revised for Ohio State*
there are many other studies done like this.

overall, i believe that it is a persons right to act as they wish. whether this action be involuntary or voluntary. biology most definatly affects sexual orientation, but psychological conditioning plays a key factor. it is a mixture, but it is the perogative of the individual to act as they please as long as it does not affect anyone elses ability to act as they please.

I think the add of the childn is a very powerfull statement; ment to cause the over Vaticanized people of Italy, to accept, and indeed, understand. It speaks volumes of the current running through our society, a society that less than 100 years ago faught a war, in whitch a much was learned of how powerfull a few biggitted people can cause the anhileation of an entire race! Yet here we are saying in so many words that we do not beleive that this add should be here. I think anyone who says that has become just as moraly bankrupt as the papal state it's self!
Have we of the "western culture no eyes for the rest of the world? When by getting such powerfull an organization, as the vatican to accept homosexuals may be born, and yes even created that way; would send a message to the third world countries, That it is not a DEATH sentance to be gay, nor wrong, just diffrent. In parts of the world we here in the West know little about, there are people that look for any small way to justify what they do. So I, Think it our resposnibality to, free the world of hate. We must clean our own house first. The " I don't have anything against gay people" saying is just as harmfull and even more loaded a statement, than comming right out and saying you disslike them. First off it is grouping all gay people in one box and, secondly and, worse it is an Enableing statement; the person saying it is just using it to cover thier ass, to then go on and say, nay, spew ignorance forth in an attempt to sound educated.
So lets please remember to use this great resource of the internet and find the whole truth and reasoning; multi layered as that might be before we get offended by an add!
I think it was the Catholic church that in the first Mellinium, started committing mass genocide. Some of the groups included the gnostics. Who amoung other things belived: Souls were what mattered not the body. That is to say they felt that one fell inlove with the soul not the body. The catholic church spurred on by many reasons, not the least of whitch was that they wanted to beleive that they had the only viable route to "GOD", dystroyed them. They also did many other vile things. For almost thier entire history. Untill very recently, It was Okay for them to conduct inquest. Do you know that anything said under torture was takin to be the indesputable truth set on the human soul by god. So if you think for one momment that by saying what somany of you have; that your thinking for your self,think again. Your just doing what the vatican told you for the last two mellennia! Responses will be addressed if you like, through nutter230@lycos.com

Respectfully yours
Dr. Nutter

Well, I'm jumping into a rather popular discussion, it seems. Probably most, or all of what I'm about to say has been said at one point or another, but I still feel the need to get my two cents in.

For what it's worth, I am a bisexual male.

As to the question about whether or not sexuality is biological or functional, I don't know. It's above my pay grade. I'm not qualified to discuss it. Hell, I'm just happy that homosexuality's not classified as a psychological disorder anymore!

What I can say is, judging from my experience, it's not a choice. Maybe my upbringing was a factor, or maybe I was just born that way. I don't know. What I do know is that at about the same time as my classmates were noticing the many wonderful ways that girls were different from boys, I found myself noticing the boys as well.

It's a scary feeling. I had just started high school, and I've always been shy, and suddenly I'm different in a new and interesting way. At first, I was terrified I was gay. I've had a few years to get used to it by now, but back then it was different. When you're a kid, if someone calls you gay, you're honour-bound to blacken his eye for him. It's the code of the playground. At a time when you're doing your best to find out where you fit in, "gay" or "fag" are the ultimate insults. Now picture yourself worrying that there might be a bit of truth to that.

I think that a lot of people, be they homosexual, bisexual, or otherwise, remember that fear and that secret shame, and now they overcompensate for it. They wave their sexuality over their heads like a flag, they raise it up in front of them like a shield, and they use it as a club to batter anyone who disagrees with them into submission. Now, they might take my GLBT union card away for saying this, but I don't think that's right. Other people don't go around introducing themselves by saying "Hi. I'm Leroy, and I'm straight." Why should we do the equivalent?

I find myself thinking of a particular incident where a camera crew from a local TV station was covering Ottawa's Gay Pride parade. They interviewed this gentleman... he was in his forties or fifties, with salt-and-pepper hair and a neatly trimmed goatee. He was very erudite and well-spoken, and if you put him in a suit, he probably would have looked quite respectable. He gave this very passionate, well thought out speech about equality and acceptance, and I doubt that he reached anyone in the TV audience who didn't already agree with him for one specific reason: he was wearing leather bondage gear at the time. I remember thinking "how are we ever going to be taken seriously if this is the public face we give ourselves?"

That brings me back to the advertisement in question. I have the same problem with that ad that I had with that man's speech. Nobody's ever going to take us seriously if all we do is try to shock people. An earlier poster compared the gay rights movement to the black rights movement in the sixties and seventies. Well, when the Reverend Martin Luther King marched on Washington, he didn't do it wearing an African tribal costume. He didn't have his hair in dreadlocks or an Afro. He wore a suit. He kept his mustache and his hair trimmed neatly. He presented a respectable image for the civil rights movement that, combined with his incredible strength of character, could not be ignored. The gay rights movement needs a man, a figure, a leader like him. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be one available.

That advertisement, whether you agree with it or not, strikes me as being in poor taste. Babies are not and should not be sexualized. They are no more than they are: little miracles full of potential. Using one in this way was crass, whatever the intentions behind it might have been.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Cante]

reply to post by SimiusDei

---

as you asked :

girl murdered for being " goth "

"goths" beaten and chased by mob

those are just headline making cases - from a very small corner of the UK

For liberty, tolerance and decency


Oh, I'm expected to sit quiet while the haters run amok, am I? This thread is swollen and seeping with homophobia; it's fairly bursting out of the fetid poultice of socially acceptable phraseology in which it is so inadequately wrapped. Somebody needs to draw the poison.

And your question to me presupposes that only people with sexual 'issues' need to discuss this issue. That may reflect somebody's personal experience, for all I know; but believe me, your presupposition is wrong.

And now look:


I wonder if people realize quite how revealing such statements are - especially when combined with the rest of the material in their posts.

* * *

And so it is with much lightening of heart that we turn to...


There you have it, and quite right too. Amazing how the very thought that it might be otherwise riles some people.

* * *

And now to our august friend the Moderator.


Good question, if I may make so bold. There are actually two answers to it, one historical, the other ethical.

The historical answer is that Western society, at least from the Reformation onward and possibly for centuries before, has given near-complete credence to the concept of free will. In particular, the idea of the self as undetermined causal agent is widespread in Western philosophy both religious and secular. After Descartes it was for long the dominant paradigm.

We are now learning that the paradigm is false: that there is no such thing as free will because there is no such thing as a willing self. It is just an illusion, a side-effect of brain function.

Yet history is with us still (not least in this thread, with its mealymouthings about sexual 'choice'), and that is why we still have prisons. It's pretty clear that they don't work, either to reduce crime or rehabilitate criminals, but we continue to build and fill them all the same.

The ethical answer is simple. There is no free will. People who do wicked or thoughtless things cannot (to a first approximation) help themselves. But this does not make their actions any less wicked or thoughtless; and since other people need to be protected from their actions, we restrict their capacity to act. Alternatively, we create conditions under which antisocial people are caused to change their actions, thus becoming less antisocial. Some form of sequestration may well be among those conditions we need to create.

If you want to read a fuller discussion on the illusory nature of the self, with plenty of links to trustworthy scientific and philosophical sources, check out the debate between Skyfloating and me on the thread A Challenge to all Sceptics. The post linked to is the one which commences the debate; read on from there.


As you will see from the foregoing, this is a meaningless example.


Sorry, but this is the reality. All that guff about will and choice and the Almighty First Cause is idealism. In fact, that is precisely what it's called in philosophy: Idealism.

I had the opportunity to witness a friend of my kids, grow up from about the age of 8. He was always feminine. He loved to play barbie dolls with my daughter, even moreso than playing sports or gi. joe. We all suspected something was a bit different, but were still surprised to find out when he was an 18 year old, that he was indeed gay. He's a great guy, though. He's thoughtful, remembers birthdays, maintains his friendships even when separated by hundreds of miles (he's in college now but still makes a point to take my daughter out for her birthdays, to dinner or to the movies).

We suspected it from the beginning. If you pay attention, you can tell. But no one with common sense would mention it to him in fear of making him feel ostracized or implant suggestions that were not there to begin with. Perhaps some of his other acquaintances picked up on it and bugged him about it, I don't know, but we were always careful not to single him out as being different, even if he did seem to be out of the norm for the hetero male child.

I agree that this is a bit too much to swallow.

I do believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice, but I don't think that it is purely innate.

(oh if it helps for case study: he has no brothers, but he does have 2 sisters. he has a mom and a dad, who were his original birth parents. his mom is a happy drunk. his dad is a grumpy military guy. at the age of 1 or thereabouts, he was run over by a car in the driveway of their home. he survived it but it actually ran over part of his skull, which is slightly misshapen to this day. but he's otherwise, attractive. he has decidedly pretty facial features. now, at the age of 20, he's still cute rather than handsome, i guess you could say. not that being cute automatically qualifies you as gay, but in his case, it does. )

Post removed.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by sanctum]

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO START HAVING STRAIGHT PARADES??????
YA KNOW, WHY NOT??? I THINK WE SHOULD GET RID OF ALL GAY PARADES!!!! CUZ ITS REALLY NOT NECESSARYS TO EXPRESS ONES SEXUAL OREITATION WITH A PARADE. DOESNT NEED TO BE PUBLICLY DISPLAYED

reply to post by S.O.Blilbobby

---

...HEY YOU BILIBOB, first let me tell you on a board you never use upper case for an entire post. You're overall style makes me suggest you read terms & condition (link at buttom of page) while time be.

Gotta remind you this thread is not about sexual orientation or gay parades, it's about an ad supposely presuming homosexuality at birth.

[EDIT: to remove suggestion in response to post now removed.]



[edit on 26/10/2007 by khunmoon]

I most certainly agree. But what 'manipulative attempts' at shaping a child are you referring to exactly? - I can think of a few, most would be harmless social conditioning like dressing boys in blue and girls in pink. Anything more taxing would surely go over the child's head?




I'll say this, I am not 100% certain sexuality is purely down to biology, it could just as easily also be partly attributed to conditions during those same formative 18-24 months of life you referred to. I don't know, I don't think any body knows will unwavering certainty.

What I do know with unwavering certainty, is that I have never, ever come across a gay man or woman who would say sexuality is a conscious choice. No-one I have ever conversed with has ever stated anything other than it was not their decision.

Further more, most people relay the same experiences - that they have known they were different in some respect for as long as they can remember, before they had the language to express what they felt - That they had known usually from very young childhood around 5 or 6 years of age, and romantic or sexual feelings for those of the same gender usually kicked in around puberty - much like it does for heterosexual children -- Except we are ALL conditioned to be heterosexual, so no-one batter an eyelid at younger children engaging in mild 'romantic' situations such as school crushes, or first boyfriends and girlsfriends having an innocent peck on the lips in the playground.

The same cannot be said for homosexual children. Because of this social conditioning, these innocent and natural situations wouldn't be looked upon with such fondness - which is not to say they don't happen - they do.

The only decision one ever has to really make regarding ones sexuality is whether to act on it or not - One may remain a virgin their entire life, but this would not alter sexual orientation one way or another - Heterosexuals never have to make this decision to evaluate this fundamental characteristic of their very being, because they are set to default, society constantly and unconsciously re-affirms their sexuality, so they never need consider or ponder on it.

It would be nice in some distant utopia, if homosexual children, as they blossom into young adults, are also afforded this same luxury.

I'm uncertain as to how much of that post was directed at me, but i'll gladly discuss my 'presupposition' for what it's worth.

My question to you didn't nessecarily have to be 'sexual' whatsoever, it's just that it seems the context of this discussion seems to have lead you to that conclusion.

Also, i recognise that at various parts of this thread people have denied me the idea that people can come to the decision of being gay by themselves, without any chemical or nuerological imbalance.

If anything, if there WERE a chemical imbalance, then that would be something wrong with you - as in, 'out of the ordinary' (although what 'ordinary' is can also be discussed as a matter of opinion).

I'm not trying to stir up the hate or anything like that, i just want to open up discussion - granted, my mannerisms are a little blunt.





Well it depends on whether or not you agree with certain societal values on what children should not be exposed to - like porn, for example.

I recall that quite a few callboys back in the 80's revealed themselves to be gay and claimed it was 'as a result of their ordeals'.

Social conditioning is fine, infact - i'd say that social conditioning will ultimately contradict the norm, so go for it!



Like i said, how can you answer truthfully if the choice was made in the early part of your life, when you cannot remember?

I'll draw your attention to the entry i made about the differences between developed humans thought process and that of an infant.*

Ever wonder why we forget so much?

It's called 'growing up'.




EDIT: * And for God's sake, i'm not alluding to the idea that the choice is somehow naive because of the un-developed mind.

No one is telling anyone what the best way of living their life is.

Infact, if anything i'm telling you to choose for yourself.



[edit on 26-10-2007 by Throbber]

Respectfully, I will try to do this as painlessly as possible, without insulting either of you intentionally. I am entitled to this opinion as much as you are yours.

I am sure that there was more to it, especially given the fact that you are admittedly gay. As a man, and 100% straight individual, if I caught you glimpsing at my ass you'd get kicked in the teeth, PRONTO!

When you make a pass on someone of the same genetic makeup as you, and you get your ass beat for it, it should go as no surprise that not every is gay, nor appreciates someone of the same sex lusting after their flesh like a humping dog.

Furthermore, I cannot digest how gay people compare their plight to that of African Americans at any point in their history as a part of this nation, and before. They were hated on because of their color, but you are dispised because you lust after your own sex.

Being gay is as simple as waking up one morning with a can missing from your six pack and deciding to be gay. Nothing more, no "gay since birth" defense can stand up to it. Your choice to be a homosexual is YOUR own, and CHILDREN shouldn't be used as your shield to hide from your own sickness.

I have many gay friends, and not once have they ever said they were gay since birth. OF course, none of my friends are so self-dilluted to make such a silly and obviously biased assumption.

Back to the topic at hand;

Dont make passes on people with the same parts as you if you dont want a trip to the dentist and the luxury of paying for attorney fees.

'Nuff said.

People don't care about your orientation, but they DO care when you try to force-feed it to them. Keep it to yourself to live a "happy" life, and leave more honies for the rest of us.

-Knight

P.S. Keep the kids out of this.






[edit on 26-10-2007 by Knightshadowz]

reply to post by Knightshadowz

---

I think you'll find the topic at hand is about a controversial Italian advert, not about your made up gay friends, not about gays lusting after you like "humping dogs", not about gays being deservedly despised, not about how gays are sick and certainly not about how some gays deserve a right good kicking.

If you're going to "keep to topic" an occasional look at the thread title and first post might help.

First off, I do have gay friends.

Second, Gays DO lust after me like a humping dog. I got it from my mothers side, though.

Third: Gay's ARE dispised.

Fourth: Gay's ARE sick if they thing being gay isnt a concious choice.

Fifth: The one that grabs/slaps/looks at my ass and makes a pass on me is an not only insulting me and my beliefs, but violating my rights as an individual.

As it seems to have struck a nerve, I'll leave my post as it stands with one addition:

Your post was a pointless attack, while mine was constuctive criticism from a straight, god-fearing, compassionate individual who doesnt discriminate.

Sure, I don't agree with it, and yes you would get hit for making a pass on me AFTER I have stated my orientation and you push it. Would you disagree that it wouldn't be justified after the facts were established?

I was quick to say I'd punch someone in the face for being gay, without stating that I would first remind them that not everyone is that way and to keep it to themselves when they are around me if they want friendship without personal opinions ruining a conversation.

All of that said, retract your insults because it was a pointless attempt to downsize my post. I was responding to not only your posts, but the few others that try to tout the claim that being gay isnt a concious choice, because it is. Denile IS NOT a river in EGYPT!

Using CHILDREN as a shield to support your lifestyle is SICK, plain and simple. It's all in how you were raised, and your own personal choice to be gay. THAT is the point of my post, and I most definitely have read the title as I had to click it as a link to get to this soapbox.



At hand, not the OT. The post has come a LONG way since the OT.

-Knight

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Knightshadowz]

I'm bi-sexual, slightly leaning towards lesbian, and i dont neccessarily agree with this ad myself. I hope they do not think that babies could be labeled gay or straight at birth, wether or not you are born gay, you should not be labeled or have your sexuality predetermined by a doctor. but i know this is just an ad and it doesnt offend me