It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Being Gay is a Gift from God

page: 22
35
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Dali Deth
Choice or not, I believe homosexuality is akin to mental retardation, only gays are far more protected by the left wing media.


Woops...

with a higher average IQ and income, gay people are "akin to mental retardation"...

... where does that leave straight men exactly?


You're not really a doctor, are you?

Source
edit on 3-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheInterceptor
reply to post by curious7
 


christians see homosexuality as a "sin"


And some see it as sick and nasty.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I see two game plans here.

1. Being gay is genetic and those who 'become gay' are merely realising their sexual orientation which they have no control over. Think of married men who realise too late and turn gay? They just can't avoid it, no matter how sorry they are for the marriage break-up. They don't necessarily follow the 'stereotypical image' of a gay (the walk, the talk, the clothes, the hand movements, etc...), such as George Michael or any others who look 'ungay' when first seen.

2. Being gay is a choice and way of life independently chosen because it is appealing, for an array of reasons.

For 1, I am reminded of Stephen Fry (If you don't know about him, spend the rest of the day watching his YT video interviews, especially in Sydney Opera House - that sums him up well, as does the Q TV one). He is openly gay and, in his own words, explains that he just "doesn't know what to do with those women bits. I am sure that they provide much pleasure to interested males but I can't imagine sticking my penis inside that mushy hole". I mean, the guy is, and says himself, genetically designed to not have an interest in females and is a little sorry that he cannot continue his family's name; but that is what he was dealt.

For 2, these 'gays' enjoy wearing tight clothes, walking in that exagerated way, moving their hands to highlight points, talking with that minor 'lisp'... you know what I mean. They visit clubs and are very visual about their gayness (in contrast to number 1 where they might 'hide' it better and not be such extroverts).

All the posts I have read so far on here subscribe/support one or the other; gay tgenetically or gay through choice (not necessarily genetic, just the lifestyle and male sex is enjoyed for whatever reason).

Perhaps everyone needs to realise that, at the end of the day, a gay man is a gay man and that probably ain't gonna change! That is the first point so get over it. Then it would be necessary to try to identify problems which would reuslt from every man being gay; namely, no reproduction because they don't want to have sex with females.

As for me, I am not gay, but perhaps my way of explaining why will not evoke anger, rather clearer understanding? No offence intended.

To be gay means that you fall into the category of 'not performing your genetic, natural task' - this cannot be counter-argued since in every species (don't talk about asexual reproduction since this discussion is based around reproduction in the male and female sense and a/r occurs in single-celled bacteria), a male and female variant exists. If a female was able to asexually reproduce and was designed this way, men could (and probably would) be 'gay' for a reason - perhaps our own genetics would create us with a code for being attracted to our own gender too (imagine a world like that!).

Unfortunately, and as nature intended, our race evolves through male and female sex, so to be gay puts you outside the zone of reproduction and human evolution/development.

But, don't be offended! A gay was born with no sensotory or physical attraction to a female of our species, so to reproduce for him would be against his genetic design. Of course, we have natural selection which enables us to evolve with our environment, thus making us a better survivor of our world; something which we pass on to our children. Of course, if our child is gay, this continuation will not continue, and so stops a tiny piece of evolution (and the family name!)

If I have offended anybody, sorry about that. I simply wanted to conduce clearer thinking about this subject. If you have a problem with me, then you have a problem with nature and how our species evolves. I have not written any personal opinions in this response so attacking me is utterly futile.

Opinions and facts are not the same. Here, I chose to write about observable and accepted facts. Perhaps people will stop arguing now?

... but probably not.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Nah! I just try to be the best person possible but, I wouldn't take any kind of egotistical stance saying I was a "gift" from a deity lol. At most I was a gift to my mom/pop since I was their first child after being married for a long time.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vrill

Originally posted by TheInterceptor
reply to post by curious7
 


christians see homosexuality as a "sin"


And some see it as sick and nasty.


In which case their judgment over humanity is blasphemous as only God decides one's fate for their actions according to Jesus' teachings.

Why do overtly straight people always go directly from "gay" to "gay sex"? Seriously, bunch of perverts.!


Let's face it, the only possible sustainable argument against it religiously these days is "treat your body as a temple". Therefore it is not more sinful, sick, or nasty than eating a chocolate bar, getting laser hair removal, or taking prescription drugs with heavy side-effects as far as God is really concerned...no? Or is it otherwise "because you say so"? God has special places for blasphemers, according to your book. You should really read it some time if you want to claim to subscribe to it. A fool's hope at best, I know.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


Id like to point out that gay being genetic / a choice is a false dichotomy. Homosexuality may be caused by hormones in the womb, psychological influences, or some other factors, and it still would not necessarily be a choice.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DB340
Of course, we have natural selection which enables us to evolve with our environment, thus making us a better survivor of our world; something which we pass on to our children. Of course, if our child is gay, this continuation will not continue, and so stops a tiny piece of evolution (and the family name!)


Tragic.


The woes of heterosexuals -- those poor, misunderstood people.


If you have a problem with me, then you have a problem with nature and how our species evolves.


And the opposite is not true? Homosexuality exists everywhere in nature that heterosexuality exists, and it has been proven to fluctuate with population density in certain species as a natural form of population control. Surely anti-homosexuals have a problem with nature and the way that we humans haven't completely depleted our resources yet?


Here, I chose to write about observable and accepted facts. Perhaps people will stop arguing now?

... but probably not.


Wow, talk about polarization... too bad you never had much of a point in the first place.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I partly agree. The 'choice' refers to how you live 'as a gay' - which you did not have a choice about due to factors beyond your control, rather than being born straight and 'becoming gay because you're sick of girls and fancy some man ass'.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Let's all be gay and create our own man made apocalypse!!
2nd



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Dali Deth
People milking their sexual orientation for special protection/media adoration? Disgusting.


You just had to go and drag Ron Paul and the Pope into this.
edit on 3-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 


'My' point was an agglomeration of what I had read. People so far are either haters (calling them mentally retarded which I do not subscribe to) or, more rightly, speak about gays as either genetic 'errors' or exagerated choice (being very visual and extrovert, unlike Stephen Fry/George Michael, for example).

Yes, polarisation. It's fair to say that in our observable universe and micro-environments, something can only be 'one' or the 'other'. Being gay simply does not allow for the development of a species. I am no expert on animal sexuality, but from the odd documentary I have watched, gay animals are usually separated from their groups - it's only us soft humans who 'accept' it as we have a conscience and accept all kinds of life - that's nice, right?

If you want my opinion, (which is only my opinion to which I am entitled), I tend to avoid gays if I can - but I have known them and have a good laugh with them. I don't turn my back, I don't speak about them behind their backs, I don't joke about them or insult them or hold back vomit when I see them holding hands in the street. I just think to myself how they are genetic misprints and are not part of the human evolution gene pool BUT have a right to live just as I do. It's not about superiority, it's about facts, and the fact is, gay people will not (can, but choose not to) reproduce, thus impeding human evolution in a small way.

I couldn't care less, personally, about the evolution side of things. I am merely stating the obvious.

Again, no offence is intended but the facts cannot be avoided. We, as human beings, are so soft and petted, that we let nonsense occur (in many ways, both conversationally and physically in the world). Those few stronger ones, like me, stand out and get 'attacked' in any way possible, by those who are of the softer, petted group.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by smartbuddy
LOL No-one is born gay. Being gay is a choice. ...... gods gift

edit on 1-6-2011 by smartbuddy because: (no reason given)


WOW

How did this get soo many stars? You really call yourself "smartbuddy"?

It's already been proven for years now that people are born gay. It's not something that people just wake up one day and decide to do. It's there at birth. I got a teen nephew that recently came out. We knew this kid was gay since he was a little kid. Literally, since he was 3 or 4 it was that obvious. He came out like it would be a shock to the family and we already knew lol.

Gay men have the same type of brain waves/patterns as a straight woman and gay women have the same as straight men. That was scientifically proven years ago. Google it to find the facts. Now keep in mind that your "God" chose your destiny and all that good stuff and created you. Meaning "God" chose for you to be gay. I guess this would be when some will shout that its the work of the "Devil", right?

I respect religions, I happen to believe in a higher "being/creator/whatever you want to call it" myself, but some people need to stop living their life through what the bible (or. whatever equivalent) says. That does nothing but prove that you can't think for yourself at all. Something about that irks me. They have a problem in life and instead of thinking for themselves about how to get through it, they go right for that book to see what "God" says to do. I can't respect anyone who doesn't think for themselves and leaves everything up to their "God" or "bible".

I like how quick some people are to accuse this church of pulling a stunt just to draw in more money though. They act as if there's absolutely no possible way they could just be a new type of church that doesn't give a damn about people being gay or not and are more open-minded. Nope, not possible. They just want more money. Maybe put the bible down for a little while and take a small break from your church and go visit some others and see how many are actually out there and are very open to everyone and don't care about money. You might be surprised.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by virraszto
 


This poster misreads a lot of posts. He accused me of saying something I didn't say as well.
edit on 3-6-2011 by aero56 because: typo



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Soldier of God
 


I don't believe you.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DB340
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 

Being gay simply does not allow for the development of a species.


Yet, here we are still are, after 200,000 years, with 4% less soft-compounding population growth... already beginning to use up our natural resources... Are you even listening to me...? Oh right... I'm wrong and you're right because you said so. Polarization is a good thing.


I am no expert on animal sexuality, but from the odd documentary I have watched, gay animals are usually separated from their groups - it's only us soft humans who 'accept' it as we have a conscience and accept all kinds of life - that's nice, right?


I liked your little "fact" there, but I am not finding any evidence of homosexual animals being separated "from a pack" because they are gay... anywhere. So I'm going to have to... now this may be hard since you expect a polarized argument... ask you for a source..

not that it matters, unlike almost all undomesticated animal species, humans also interact with people that they don't intend have sex with.


If you want my opinion, (which is only my opinion to which I am entitled),


This is always followed by something nonsensical... oh well, here we go again



I tend to avoid gays if I can


In other words, "I don't know what I'm talking about, (but everyone else is wrong)."


I just think to myself how they are genetic misprints and are not part of the human evolution gene pool BUT have a right to live just as I do.


Again, very much part of the progress of the species, not to mention the raising of abandoned children from holy procreators. Who told you that reproduction is a boundless, wonderful thing?


I couldn't care less, personally, about the evolution side of things. I am merely stating the obvious.


Hence why you don't have a point.


Again, no offence is intended but the facts cannot be avoided. We, as human beings, are so soft and petted, that we let nonsense occur (in many ways, both conversationally and physically in the world). Those few stronger ones, like me, stand out and get 'attacked' in any way possible, by those who are of the softer, petted group.


You seem pretty insecure about: A. Your 'legitimate' knowledge, and B. your masculinity -- since you have to keep repeating them as if they are relevant. If you're not, you should be. Just facts here, don't bother arguing, 'arguing is futile'
. And, please
. The most offensive thing you've said so far is that I am offended by any of this.
edit on 3-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


People generally have certain preferences to physical characteristics, but we have no control over who we fall in love with.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Codered88
Let's all be gay and create our own man made apocalypse!!
2nd


Or we could listen to 'population enthusiasts' as I will label this type since you folks keep popping up as if you have a point..

..And overpopulate the planet and completely exhaust all of our natural resources. Hooray for shallow thinking!

We are much closer to one of these dangers than the other. I'll let you guess which one it is. Know what? Nevermind. Here you go.

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by speakthetruth
 


Thank you for sharing your story. Well stated.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JudasIscariot
 


Good point, friend. It's like stoning to death a rebellious child; how many would do that?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 


A conversation is not arguing.

Sources: 1. Roughgarden, J. (2005). Evolution's rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2. Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). Evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41, 385-413.

You seem to like to highlight weaker parts of my argument and avoid the more accurate parts, namely about my own opinion, and how it will be nonsense like is always the case when someone says such a sentence. Is that the best you can do?

The fact of the matter is, I am a decent guy doing pretty alright in life with various skills. I'm not a troll and I don't have 'enemies' in life. In fact, my life's work revolves around human interaction and I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. But you seem to want to 'pick a fight' with anything I write. Is that how you behave in life? Pick the weakest of the crowd and have a good, easy go at them?

Genetics causes homosexuality in a lot of species (over 1500 - source: Biological Exuberance, Bruce Bagemihl, 1999). For each case, it is a genetic 'error'. The reasons for this 'error' are yet to be confirmed but it doesn't change what I have written since my very first response: gays are gay whether you like it or not; so accept it (like I do). I may find the sexual behaviour revolting (male sexual acts, man-on-man kissing, holding hands) but that doesn't and won't change anything because I know that they cannot help it, or change their genetics.

Why do you have such a problem with me when I am simply stating facts?

(and yes, it seems one reason is to control a population... but that just goes in favour of my factual comment that gays stop evolution of a species!)
edit on 3-6-2011 by DB340 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join