More gay teens than ever are taking same-sex dates to prom.

Jeeeze. I can't believe there are so many homophobes here. I can't beleive that people have a problem with people who are just attracted to each biologically. I mean scientists have studied all sorts of animals and homosexuality can be found in many species (including badgers )

It's not all psychological though. Gay men have a nervous system slightly less strong than a normal man

The onle people who are slightly less strong here masterp, are the people who are too weak, scared and ignorant to be able handle two guys liking each other.

[Edited on 11-9-2003 by earthtone]

Originally posted by THENEO
You are what you are.

But being gay should not be seen as being 'cool.'

Increasingly this is being promoted as a cool lifestyle.

This is not good for the established order of society, the thing that produced you.

You are so right THENEO - it seems like the "establishment" is trying to make the whole "gay" thing not a lifestyle choice, but a "incroud/outcroud" choice?

Be what you want to be - I won't flaunt what I am, you don't flaunt what you are

Why is that so hard to do, to be, to become?

Perhaps it's the "man's" way to begin the population control mechanisms we all fear is coming.

what do you think - THENEO???

You seem to think that only gay people flaunt their sexuality.

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
You seem to think that only gay people flaunt their sexuality.

Good point. Hets flaunt their sexuality all the time.

Yeah I think that the promotion of gays recently (why now all of a sudden?), is part of the man's control system.

Annother problem we have is disease.

But no need to discuss that one, we all have heard about it.

All I know is this,

the last time sexuality was 'wide open' was during Rome and we all know what happened to them.

and where is all the proof' that animals are homosexual that I am hearing about now all the time by people to justify gay rights?

first of all animals are on a lower plane of existance than humans,

should we equate animals behaviour with that of humans?

if animals engage in this behaviour commonly anyways which I do not know,

and whether people like it or not morality is a big part of human existance, it should not be ignored,

it is not immoral to be gay,

but the 'gay lifestyle' is often immoral.

There is no such thing as gay animals. Humans have a choice, they don't go according to animal instinct or whtever therefore you have people that swing the other way. Notice I said people have a choice? People aren't born gay, it isn't "genetic", it's a choice.

And the whole cow thing, there's not a whole lot of difference between 2 dudes getting it on and a dude enjoying a "cow's company." They're both against nature. To put it delicately same thing with a dude and a girl in the "exit only."

Originally posted by SandMan
There is no such thing as gay animals. Humans have a choice, they don't go according to animal instinct or whtever therefore you have people that swing the other way. Notice I said people have a choice? People aren't born gay, it isn't "genetic", it's a choice.

And the whole cow thing, there's not a whole lot of difference between 2 dudes getting it on and a dude enjoying a "cow's company." They're both against nature. To put it delicately same thing with a dude and a girl in the "exit only."

Sandman, are you gay?

I was aksing that because I was curious as to how you knew that it was a "choice" for gay people the be gay.
Was it a "choice" for you to be straight? If you could would you "choose" to be gay?
I think that when people make those statements they
really need to think about it before they say it.

Mark

The point of the "gay animals" thing (how I see it anyways) is that as humans, being more intelligent then animals, you could say that a person being Gay could derive from some kind of phycological accourance or is in some way influenced in some way by how someone is raised or something like that. These experiments show that creatures alot lower (and alot higher) on the scale of intelligence can also be homosexual. These creatures would have no thought process behind it, they just do it becuase its a naturally occuring thing. Yes it is a minority, but it's still natural.

THENEO
but the 'gay lifestyle' is often immoral.

Why is this then neo??

[Edited on 13-9-2003 by earthtone]

LOL so I *choose* to be a part of some covert population control agenda. Whose behind this S.P.E.C.T.R.E, the NWO or David Ickes reptoids.

I quite agree gay shouldn't be promoted as a cool lifestyle option, it should just be accepted as an alternative to those who *can't* fit into the heterosexual based way of living. As for it being a choice, try being fourteen and gay, you'd rather be a two headed mutant believe me. There is no choice. I find it contradictory also that when the 'it's not natural' argument is refuted by scientific observations of animals, the next objection put forward is that we are higher than the animals and should behave accordingly.

doesn't bother me, homosexuality's old, really old, people should have the right to love

I'm not gay-bashing, I have a few gay friends myself (and lesbians are haaaaaaaaawt! ) but I don't think it's a stretch to associate the sexual deviancy of homosexuality with bestiality. Plenty of people go to proms without dates, and that is perfectly acceptable.

Like others, I am quite disturbed with the exponentially rising portrayal of the gay lifestyle as being "cool." Promoting such lifestyles is totally unnecessary and possibly harmful to society in general. I know that I wouldn't want my little boy seeing two MEN kissing on TV. What kind of values does that instill?

I guess it's an age-old problem of how to compromise. Now, I don't like or agree with homosexuality but I don't hate the individuals. They have they right to live their lives as they see fit and I have the right to disagree with it.

So, where and how do you compromise? You can't appease everyone. Is it right to force gays to restrict their beliefs in the presence of heterosexuals? No. Is it right to do the same to heterosexuals in the presence of gays? No. Each side has every right to express their beliefs openly...but doing so often offends the other side.

So whats the answer? You could have seperate schools, proms and such for gays and heterosexuals. (The school part is already being done I think) But in doing that we're headed toward a new type of segregation. Thats not the answer. We might as well agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Sanders
I'm not gay-bashing, I have a few gay friends myself (and lesbians are haaaaaaaaawt!

) but I don't think it's a stretch to associate the sexual deviancy of homosexuality with bestiality. Plenty of people go to proms without dates, and that is perfectly acceptable.

Like others, I am quite disturbed with the exponentially rising portrayal of the gay lifestyle as being "cool." Promoting such lifestyles is totally unnecessary and possibly harmful to society in general. I know that I wouldn't want my little boy seeing two MEN kissing on TV. What kind of values does that instill?

Homosexuality isn't all over TV. If I want to see two men kissing, I have to search for it.

No Markos I'm not gay. Silly question. How do I know that it's a choice? Well it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out. There's probably a few homos out there who used to be into the ladies but for whatever reason they changed teams. There's also people out there that used to be gay and are now happily married to a girl with the gay lifestyle waaay behind them.

Originally posted by SandMan
No Markos I'm not gay. Silly question. How do I know that it's a choice? Well it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out. There's probably a few homos out there who used to be into the ladies but for whatever reason they changed teams. There's also people out there that used to be gay and are now happily married to a girl with the gay lifestyle waaay behind them.

What a load of jibberish.

So in other words you dont know. You didnt really answer anything. Thats what I thought.
Do some research on homosexuality before you comment with such ignorant responses.

Mark

"So in other words you dont know. You didnt really answer anything. Thats what I thought.
Do some research on homosexuality before you comment with such ignorant responses."


Jibberish nothing. So in other words I do know. What didn't I answer? More research? Ha ha ha ha, Marcus Aurelius, I think not. Besides, what's to research? Sexual perversion is easy enough to understand, is it not?

Originally posted by SandMan
"So in other words you dont know. You didnt really answer anything. Thats what I thought.
Do some research on homosexuality before you comment with such ignorant responses."


Jibberish nothing. So in other words I do know. What didn't I answer? More research? Ha ha ha ha, Marcus Aurelius, I think not. Besides, what's to research? Sexual perversion is easy enough to understand, is it not?

Dude, obvioulsy you do not know what your talking about so I will refrain from conversing with you about this as I thought you could shed some light into this, apparently you just like to make stupid statements that have no value or basis.
Peace

Mark

Stupid statements.........hmmmmm, aaaah poor Marko.

Originally posted by SandMan
Jibberish nothing. So in other words I do know. What didn't I answer? More research? Ha ha ha ha, Marcus Aurelius, I think not. Besides, what's to research? Sexual perversion is easy enough to understand, is it not?

Maybe you should be a brain surgeon or at least at have some clinical experience in human psychology before you judge another person's "perversion's". And since you didn't deem it necessary to do your own research on the matter, here's a bit of FACTUAL information for you:

Evelyn Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.

Unaware of each subject's sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men's overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents' sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexual and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology (psychopathology means a mental perversion).
Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods.

I also wanted to mention that while everyone is so up in arms over gay MEN, I know very few men who have a problem with lesbians. Is the actual problem, then, with their orientation, or with their sexual actions? If it is only the act of anal sex, how do you feel about the large portion of gay men who don't have sex. Many homosexuals opt for fellatio or masturbation over anal intercourse. Are they also "immoral"? The only religious argument I've heard is that sodomy is blasphemous. There is a lot more to a romantic relationship than sex, and there are a lot more ways to have sex than the "traditional" way. Don't forget that people were jailed in the middle ages for having sex outside of the "missionary" position because the Church deemed it "immoral".

Originally posted by THENEO
You are what you are.

But being gay should not be seen as being 'cool.'

Increasingly this is being promoted as a cool lifestyle.

This is not good for the established order of society, the thing that produced you.

Ya know, I think I've heard this same remark made before somewhere. Oh yeah, every time a minority has tried to gain it's civil rights. I've heard about how the women's sufferage, slave's and black's rights, and labor worker's rights (the union) were all dangerous to society, as well, and should/would not be recognized by those who respected and knew best for "society". Doesn't anyone care that we have been through this same exact situation several times over, and with the same outcome in the end. Or would you still deny women the right to vote, black people the right to freedom, and employees the right to stand up to their employers?