BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 08:36 AM

I would guess, frogprince, that it refers to the hypocrisy of religions that preach one thing and practice another. Just my guess though. I am sure Musket will elaborate.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:44 AM

"Love thy neighbour, all equal under God and the rest of the bullshit. Sits nicely with homophobia, misogyny and terrorism in the name of God."

Musket, I must confess that I can't quite tell how you mean that. I can understand that you would consider the "under God" wording to be bullshit. But if that were removed, leaving just "Love your neighbour, all equal and the rest of the bullshit. Sits nicely with homophobia, misogyny and terrorism.", would that wording still express your feelings, or how would your react to it?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:42 AM

Well then ,just 'spank the bishop'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Musket
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:46 AM

Use the same ones Dave. Love thy neighbour, all equal under God and the rest of the bullshit. Sits nicely with homophobia, misogyny and terrorism in the name of God.

At the weekend, a hospital chaplain in Lincoln married his boyfriend and now has a husband.

And a Bishop, who took it upon himself to tell The BBC he called chaplain in before the wedding and warned him of the consequences.

Love and marriage,
Love and marriage,
Go together like a horse and carriage......

Presumably, all are not equal under God. For instance, if God existed and was anywhere near the claims made about him, the bishop would be lower than the chaplain in his opinion.

Or should be...

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:20 AM

I had forgotten This classic.

In fact, I think I will just post Leon Rosselson links on religious threads in future. Any suggestions for any ones we can post on gay-bashing threads?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 02:37 AM

Did you know? This thread was about to fall off the page?

It hasn't done anything wrong, it isn't about any subject and provides the opportunity for our stereotypes to shine through loud and proud.

Support your local boorish thread before you lose it !

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:17 AM

Dear Jack

Your post asking nasty bigoted hate merchants to shut the fuck up too appears to have got lost in the ether.

Or was it the one where you called them old fashioned ?

That said, this is a thread set up to point and laugh at creationists. You are very good at ripping the piss out of them. (Ok. You have to read your posts three times in order to notice but I guess it isn't easy when your God conscious sits on your shoulder.)

Yet hatred and bigotry only gets the old fashioned moniker. You have found recently that your keyboard can construct swear words and you use them to have a go at hones who find bigotry offensive, so why don't you express your humanity and turn your cussing towards those who incite hatred? Why only at those who refuse to see Mudcat polluted by them and their apologists?

Why is that Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 10:51 PM

Correction(typo):
I'm talking to pedantic idiots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 07:27 PM

Get a bloody life, Wacko. Bandwagons do not suit you! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 05:11 PM

>>>My dear Goofus. If you are to go through your posts correcting them , we'll be here all bloody day.<<<

My dear Musket, unless your strategy is to elicit sympathy for those you call "unpalatable" you are failing miserably with your constant stream of whiny insults. You are pissing me off. I do not want to fell sympathy. I just want to ignore the nonsense. Please allow me to do that. Please shut the fuck up!

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:20 AM

Dear Stupid. Someone may be born with predilections that are not genetic as such. That does not make them choices. Geddit?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:48 AM

My dear Goofus. If you are to go through your posts correcting them , we'll be here all bloody day....

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:41 AM

correction(typo):
Second line reads, "You may be confusing my test,..."
Should read: "You may be confusing my text,..."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:33 AM

Goofus worked on the assumption a study says something isn't genetic. He likes that so finds ways of proving the theory. He thinks therefore he is.

A common trait of our less palatable contributors.

It reminds me of what an old college tutor told me. "It says Andrews Liver Salts on the sides of buses but they don't stop at every shit house."

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:35 PM

BTW, If you are referring to my last post on here,
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 12:37 PM,
You may be confusing my test, with the study that I am commenting on, as a response, to a link posted by another poster. Try reading it carefully, to see what the study, from Stanford says, the NIH, and my commentary on them...and time has proven my comments to be accurate. Your really should read it...it is enlightening, in view of the most recent research.
Look, I'm not the one putting a value judgement one way or the other...I've said in the past, "I know what it is, and I know what it isn't".....nor am I responsible for the emotional feelings one may feel, as more data gets out...nor do I feel compelled to lie to you...just a guy who told you the truth, and have been for a long time.

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:16 PM

It says that it is NOT 'genetic'.
The rest is your assumption.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:17 PM

GFS - the study (which you read as asserting that behaviour you hate is a choice) says exactly the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:42 PM

very funny, need a laugh. perhaps you should put it on the joke thread and spread the hilarity.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:53 PM

Children??...Those look more like answers from Professor Don!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,thinks we need a laugh
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:11 PM

Childrens Science Exam Answers. These are real answers given by children.

Q: Name the four seasons.
A: Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar.

Q: Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink.
A: Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists.

Q: How is dew formed?
A: The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire.

Q: How can you delay milk turning sour?
A: Keep it in the cow.

Q: What causes the tides in the oceans?
A: The tides are a fight between the Earth and the Moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature hates a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins in this fight.

Q: What are steroids?
A: Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs.

Q: What happens to your body as you age?
A: When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental.

Q! : What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty?
A: He says good-bye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery.

Q: Name a major disease associated with cigarettes.
A: Premature death.

Q: What is artificial insemination?
A: When the farmer does it to the bull instead of the cow.

Q: How are the main parts of the body categorized? (e.g., abdomen.)
A: The body is consisted into three parts - the brainium, the borax and the abdominal cavity.
The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs, and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels, A, E, I,O and U.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 12:37 PM

Muskrat: "Sorry Ed but having read it, I still cannot see how this is insightful.
Try reading it again, but where it says homosexual or gay, read it as heterosexual or straight.
If it doesn't read the same, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny."

Of course, if you read it the way it was, you might actually LEARN something....but that might be a 'novel concept' when your political airhead is up your politically brain-locked ass!...OR try reading it WITHOUT thinking of words to change, just to suit your falsely based agenda!....Surprise surprise!..I've only been telling you and that other phony, Don Firth(DF), this for about three years!!!!! ...to which he and you, along with some other idiot airheads, have been accusing me of being 'homophobic'.....maybe instead of changing your mind about things, maybe just apply a new tube of 'Preparation H'....Things might go smoother, and be less painful!
.................................................................................
Ever READ THIS BEFORE????:

Subject: RE: BS: P.E. stops you being gay?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Apr 13 - 03:44 AM

From the Stanford study that you posted:

""Fetal development studies suggest how such a gene might influence such a complex behavior. The development of a fetus into a male is accomplished by the development of the testes, which produce testosterone, which has a wide range of physiological effects. During the perinatal period, a week before and after birth, testosterone has an irreversible organizing effect on the body and brain of males. If the hormone is absent during this period, the individual's anatomy and behavior never can become wholly male. A testosterone surge during puberty activates male sexual development and behavior."

When they get done playing around, they have also found that this 'abnormal development' in "...testosterone has an irreversible organizing effect on the body and brain of males." is caused by the mother's disposition during pregnancy....RECEPTORS!

Stanford study: "Identical twin studies shed additional light on the genetic underpinnings of sexual preference. If there are differences in preference between identical twins, who share the same genes, then that difference cannot be genetic. Here, the research indicates that in cases where one identical male twin is gay, about half the time the other twin is gay as well. "This is way above 4 percent, so it's got to be genetic, but it is nowhere near 100 percent,"

This is Goldstein's OPINION...overlooking that the RECEPTORS, which are from the same mother, are 'nourishing' or setting up the responses and 'needs', which homosexual BEHAVIOR patterns are formed.

Continuing from the Stanford predetermined 'study':
"The results of this survey are supported by studies of "gender non-conforming children." In little girls, this behavior, acting as tomboys, bears no social stigma. In little boys, cross-dressing, playing with dolls and behaving like girls is socially damaging. A larger than average number of such "sissy boys" become gay adults, she said."

So she sums up the study with this little 'gem'...."...In little boys, cross-dressing, playing with dolls and behaving like girls is socially damaging."

So cross dressing is 'genetic'??????...and playing with dolls????
Sounds more CULTURAL to me......which is a response, to appeasing RECEPTORS!

NIH' 'Study':
Read this carefully, (I'll put in capitals the misleading wordage)

"WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Many homosexual men APPEAR to INHERIT a gene FROM THE MOTHERS that influences sexual orientation, a National Cancer Institute researcher reported Thursday."

Why only from the mothers?????.....I know why, and you run from it. The fathers aren't carrying the fetus, which 'SUGGESTS' even LOUDER that the formation of RECEPTORS in the nervous system, has a GREAT deal with the mother/fetal link, than anything 'genetic' from the father.

"The finding -- certain to add fuel to the already heated debate over gay rights -- supports earlier studies which SUGGESTED that inherited genetic factors AT LEAST PLAY A ROLE in determining sexual orientation."

``Being gay is not simply a choice or purely a decision. PEOPLE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE GENES THEY INHERIT"

While that is true, it is a blanket statement, as if to tie it into the homosexual 'debate'.....because the trait is not genetically based! EITHER THIS STUDY, WITH IT'S DOUBLE TALK WAS FUNDED BY A HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, OR WHAT THEY WANTED TO SAY WAS PREDETERMINED. You can see it clearly in the wording, and carefully placed 'disclaimers'....LIKE THIS ONE:(but read it carefully, you will see 'RECEPTORS' all over the place!)


"The X chromosome is one of two sex-determining chromosomes; it is ALWAYS INHERITED FROM THE MOTHERS. Genes are arranged along 46 chromosomes, each consisting of tiny coils of DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, WHICH CARRIES THE INSTRUCTIONS TO MANUFACTURE a particular body substance.

There was no such similar sharing in the same region among heterosexual men. The researchers have not yet compared the homosexuals' genetic information to the other group."

WHAT????????????!!!! They come to that conclusion without comparing them to the other group?????????
I've had issues with the NIH before, for being agenda driven phonies, but even you, who are WANTING to hear these results can't buy into that crap!...at least I wouldn't think you were THAT stupid!!!
(but you never know.....)

That 'study'(?) from the NIH, is just so ambiguous, and set up in it's wording just to play into giving people what they want to hear, rather than any serious study!!!

'Scientific American'... OK..I just saw the title..it said enough...AND, I'm aware of that, already. We used to call it, by asking, 'Are you worried?'

Oh, and if that was included as an innuendo, you can shove it!
As I've said quite a few times before..."I know what they are, and I know what they're not"......which, if you could possibly understand what an OBJECTIVE person would say!

...or do you know what objectivity is?...you've rarely shown it!

GfS

P.S. Its behavioral, set up by the mothers, connection during an emotionally stressed pregnancy. BET ON IT!
......and more often than not, because of resentments toward the father!""


THANK YOU ED!!!

P.P.S. SRS, you might want to re-visit all those posts of mine, you so ignorantly deleted!!

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

I'm all for kinky but you'd be a Bridge too far mate...

I've been reading today of a UKIP councillor who used the exact same words as our resident creep in his denouncement of gay men and the "liberal plot" giving them respectability.

Not just sickening but looks like it is more organised than I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 10:49 AM

I mean, we all like a bit of kinky in our sex, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 10:48 AM

Pervection? And one who practices it is pervect?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:38 AM

Dave, I think you know very well who "they" are.....and they are not necessarily homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:28 AM

Sorry Ed but having read it, I still cannot see how this is insightful.

Try reading it again, but where it says homosexual or gay, read it as heterosexual or straight.

If it doesn't read the same, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:52 AM

New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality 

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:35 AM

I prefer it when Goofus says they. Far better than him saying us, regardless of the subject...

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:08 AM

It sounds like 'THEY', to whom you referred, perverted definitions with bias....so, 'THEY' are the 'perverts'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:52 AM

Ideally,they should have had a bit of newspeak available by now to replace "perversion", they managed it pretty quickly with "gay" and "homosexual"

Best so far. The word perversion is interchangeable with gay and homosexual. You really are good with that spade, ake. Keep digging, we could end up never seeing you again.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:12 AM

I too have been counting.

Since my last post, we have had the following comparisons to being gay.

People the worm held in high regard would be sickened by homosexuality.

Like paedophiles

Perversion of the heterosexual practice.

Priests preying on children.

"Liberals" replacing the word pervert with gay.



Says a lot of the carnal desires and mental leaps that go on in the minds of sick puppies if you ask me.

If I hear that Julie and Fred are to marry, I don't sit there thinking of them having sex and letting my mind wander to depravity.

The more they defend themselves, the more they reveal. What is disturbing is those who don't like the idea of challenging them.

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 10:20 PM

DtG

I've been counting angels on the heads of pins, the usual count I get is 24-27 unless the are river dancing then I get nine. I can't tell which ones are perverts. I can't tell which ones are thinking of the others as perverts because no one is asking. Because they are dancing. We, on the other hand, are goofing around on the Internets. do we really to know each person's personal thoughts? Other than the ones they choose to share I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 08:26 PM

Yer' welcome!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:46 PM

Ok, thanks
Will check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:42 PM

Hey Ed, I just posted another post, but on the Transmission' thread. Being as these are pretty closely merged, you might want to check it out.

Regards!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:12 PM

"The best books... are those that tell you what you know already."

 George Orwell quote

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:46 PM

Well Dave, as I do not know, nor wish to know, anything about your sexual preference, I can hardly be expected to provide you with a definition, but if you really have never engaged in sexual intercourse at all, I suppose you would be defined as asexual?

Pete, thank you for the intervention that's it in a nutshell, basically.
The "liberals" are a bit slow from the blocks on this one. Ideally,they should have had a bit of newspeak available by now to replace "perversion", they managed it pretty quickly with "gay" and "homosexual"

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:34 PM

Since the word perversion clearly has a couple of meanings, (see link) why use it in this discussion (and continue to do so),as if could be seen as objectionable by some, could taint the user, and clearly leads to discourse (intended or not).

Surely a more precise alternative description of the concept one intends to get accross could be used, could it not? Would that not be seen as reasonable, to promote civil discourse?

perversion+oxford 

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:11 PM

but to say that the practise of homosexuality is a perversion of the majority heterosexual practise is not to accuse anyone of being a pervert

Pete. What are people who practice perversions called? In case you didn't know, they are called perverts. To say homosexuality is a perversion means that homosexuals practice perversion. If you agree to that you must believe that homosexuals are perverts.

Do you believe homosexuals are perverts?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:05 PM

you might say that creationism is a perversion of science , and of course I might think the opposite.
but were you to say that creationists were perverts,....you would be saying something else entirely !
has ake actually used that emotionally charged word "pervert" in reference to homosexuals ?, at least as encompassing all, or even most of them.
but to say that the practise of homosexuality is a perversion of the majority heterosexual practise is not to accuse anyone of being a pervert, in the usual sense, for eg priests preying on children.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:38 PM

Dave, I actually said, "Homosexuals are defined by who they prefer to have sex with

You did indeed, ake, and I still find it a stupid viewpoint. What do you mead 'defined by'. What am I defined by? What is someone who never has had sex defined by? How on earth can anyone be defined by who they have sex with rather than who they are?

The law is indeed an ass in many cases. That is why they change it. That is why homosexuality was decriminalised. That is why homosexual marriage is now covered under statute law. 2 hurdles out of the way. Now all that needs to happen is for people to stop calling them perverts.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:46 PM

Very interesting article, Ed....what I have posted before, and your article alludes to, is that mother and fetus are joined during pregnancy...AND, that affects the nervous system, hormones through the 'receptors'...and in turn sets up the 'receptors' to be 'conditioned' to receive input that it can 'recognize'...even be programmed to receive....much like some babies are born with addictions to various substances, IF the mother was taking them during her pregnancy.
See if this may shed some light on the subject.....Say the mother, during her pregnancy is very resentful toward the man who impregnated her, and can't get over it, is moody, resentful, and feels like the guy is a 'cruel unloving bastard'...and she carries those emotions and thoughts, instead of 'moving on', and 'getting over it'....she labors it,.....being as the fetus and mother are using the same body, while the child is being formed, don't you think that the receptors, from which the fetus, and later child, gets 'set up' and conditioned to process 'like-input' that its nervous system was formed with???
The answer is YES!...AND in years of counseling there are DEFINITE similarities consistent with homosexuals, emotional and psychological, to how they process information. That is not saying that those who were born with those similarities are 'at fault' by any choice of their own. That being said, there are the MAJORITY of homosexuals who are NOT born with that 'conditioning of incubation'.
The ones that ARE felt that it was 'genetic'....but that was only .2% of them(as of a few years ago)....Other homosexuals heard that, or read that, talked amongst themselves and formed a 'consensus' that homosexuality was therefore 'genetic'...and it applied to ALL of them, which is simply, not true. Political Airheads tried to make it a 'Civil Rights' issue, based on genetics, akin to being born black, which it clearly is not!
The other group, (which was NOT born that way) have bantered that it was, to divert attention the way from the 'stigma' they live with, which is coupled with 'guilt'....because they KNOW, that for them, in particular, it was a 'choice'....and therefore the confusion that leads to such a heated controversy, being held by those who DO NOT KNOW, and have NOT done their homework....and fanned by the political idiot-logues, who know NOTHING about what they spout off about...(quite a few on here).....
...Taking it further, when a child, who WAS born with that condition, has interaction with a 'Father Figure' whether it be his natural father or not, and in that interaction the child gets his feelings hurt, either by abuse, or PERCEIVED abuse, due to correction or anything else, he may develop resentment that extends to 'unforgiveness' toward the 'Father Figure', and BANG, you have the same emotional/hormonal conditions that he is familiar with, from inside the womb.
When the mother is stressed during pregnancy, her hormones are also at play....and have a direct effect on the gene (Xq28) that has the 'Markers' consistent with other homosexuals....and in that, he 'identifies' with the mother EMOTIONALLY....and often feels that he is 'the victim', much like his mother.
Generally speaking, men, DO NOT get their sense of masculinity from their mothers!!!..The get it from their fathers, or a father figure!!! ...AND, if that same child has a 'built in resentment' toward father figures, or even a concept of 'God', then they tend to rely on the instincts that nurtured them in the womb, and has been 'verified', by whatever caused them, being a young child, to 'resent' their father or 'Father Figure'....they will then gravitate toward like minded others, usually during the 'experimentation period' during puberty....and the rest takes its course.
To those who do NOT understand this, and label those who do, (such as myself, who studied 'Psych', and counseled as a marriage and family counselor), as being 'hateful' or 'bigoted toward homosexuals' or 'homophobic'...these are unlearned, politically conditioned idiots!
One more thing, before I finish...I have lost two friends, one a close one, a musical genius and sound engineering mentor, to AIDS.....so I'm not interested in some nitwit barking accusations of which he or she don't know shit about!

Now, does that sound like 'homophobia'???...or understanding??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 01:36 PM

Dave, I actually said, "Homosexuals are defined by who they prefer to have sex with"....just as heterosexuals are so defined....just as paedophiles are so defined, or any other sexual grouping.

The definition has nothing to do with "love", I have loved several men, my dear grandfather and uncle (guardian) to mention two, but this love does not make me a homosexual, both of these gentlemen would have been sickened by such a suggestion.

Richard, I'm sure you know that in many cases, the law is an ass.
Did you agree with the law which criminalised homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 01:16 PM

Very good article, Ed. Thanks for posting it. Trouble is that some people, as witnessed on here, genuinely believe that being gay is so wrong that those who 'suffer' from homosexuality cannot be happy. They go on to try to convince us, and probably themselves, that there is no such thing as homosexual love or commitment or romance. They believe it is all about sex. They believe that being 'normal' is the only way to be happy. Sad, but unfortunately true.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM

Anigher perspective. I cant seem tk link this, so will cut and paste it:

Born This Way?1.7k2171Scientists may have found a biological basis for homosexuality. That could be bad news for gay rights.By Mark Joseph Stern

"Baby, you were born this way." As soon as Lady Gaga sang these words on her smash hit "Born This Way," they became a rallying cry for gay people around the world, an anthem for sexual minorities facing discrimination. The shiny, catchy song carries an empowering (if simple) message: Don't be ashamed about being gay, or bi, or trans, or anything—that's just how you were born. Gaga later named her anti-bullying charity after the same truism, and two filmmakers borrowed it for their documentary exposing homophobia in Africa. A popular "Born This Way"blog encourages users to submit reflections on "their innate LGBTQ selves." Need a quick, pithy riposte against anti-gay bigotry? Baby, we were born this way.

MARK JOSEPH STERN

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for . He covers science, the law, and LGBTQ issues.

Follow

But were we? That's the foundational question behind the gay rights movement—and its opponents. If gay people were truly born that way, the old canard of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" (or "sexual preference") is immediately disproven. But if gay people weren't born that way, if scientists were unable to find any biological basis for sexual orientation, then the Family Research Councilcrowd could claim vindication in its fight to label homosexuality unnatural, harmful, and against nature.

In recent years, scientists have proposed various speculative biological bases for homosexuality but never settled on an answer. As researchers draw closer to uncovering an explanation, however, a new question has arisen: What if in some cases sexuality is caused by an identifiable chemical process in the womb? What if, in other words, homosexuality can potentially be prevented? That is one implication of one of the most widely accepted hypotheses thus far proposed. And if it's true, it could turn out to be a blow for the gay rights movement.

Some of the strongest current evidence that some people are born gay is based on a phenomenon called the fraternal birth order effect. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that men with older biological brothers are likelier to be gay than men with older sisters or no older siblings. The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality.

The fraternal birth order effect is a little perverse. It means that a disproportionate number of gay men are born into disproportionately homophobic households. Couples with large numbers of children tend to be religious and belong to denominations that are conservative and more homophobic. Consider the numbers: 1 percent of Unitarians have four or more children, while 3 percent of evangelical Protestants, 4 percent of Catholics, 6 percent of Muslims, and 9 percent of Mormons have families that large. At the same time, 64 percent of Evangelicals, 30 percent of Catholics, 61 percent of Muslims, and 68 percent of Mormons believe homosexuality should be"discouraged by society." (Compare that with 15 percent of Jews.) Big families that disapprove of gay people are likely to have gay people in their own clan.

Perhaps these families would be more accepting if the specific biological basis for the birth order effect were elucidated. We know the effect is biological rather than social—it's entirely absent in men whose older brothers were adopted—but scientists haven't been able to prove much else. One of the leading explanations is called the maternal immunization hypothesis. According to Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto, when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman's immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother's body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual.

Or so Blanchard speculates. Although the hypothesis sounds reasonable enough, it's premised on a number of assumptions that haven't been proven. For instance, no one has shown that there is a particular antigen that controls sexual orientation, let alone one designed to make men straight. And if that antigen does exist, does it control orientation only? Blanchard refers to its antibody attackers as "anti-male," implying that the antigen controls for various aspects of masculinity. But when I asked him about this, he was noncommittal. Moreover, the hypothesis proposes a loose, two-way flow of antigens and antibodies between the fetus (whose antigens spread to the mother) and the mother (whose antibodies spread to the fetus). But this exchange has never been observed—and the antibodies and antigens in question are hypothetical, anyway. If they do exist, there's no assurance that they perform this placental pirouette.

There's a problem with this explanation. Even though the gay rights movement theoretically wants proof that homosexuality is inborn, this particular hypothesis is, unintentionally, a little insulting. "The scientists behind the [maternal immunization] hypothesis talk about it as if they're not making judgments, but there are implicit judgments," says Jack Drescher, former chair of the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. Drescher points out, correctly, that the hypothesis is fundamentally one of pathology. If Blanchard is right, then (at least some) gay people are indeed born gay, but there's still something wrong with them. The hypothesis turns homosexuality into a birth defect, an aberration: Gay people are deviants from the normative mode of heterosexuality. We may have been born this way, the hypothesis implies, but that's not how it was supposed to happen.

Drescher is skeptical that scientists will ever uncover a single biological basis for homosexuality—he suspects the root causes are more varied and complex—and suggests that it's the wrong question to ask in the first place. But the hunt will go on. The gay rights movement, like the black civil rights movement before it, begins with the proposition that we should not discriminate against people because of who they are or how they were born. That's a belief most Americans share, and it explains the success of the "born this way" anthem. If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it's a birth defect, as Blanchard's work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.

That's a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. That would be a tragedy—for society and for science. There's nothing wrong with being gay: You know it; I know it; the Supreme Court knows it. But so long as large swaths of the country believe otherwise—places where homophobic families still ostracize their gay sons and brothers—any research into its biological origins is fraught with peril for the cause of gay rights."

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:32 PM

Where do you want someone to start?

Probably with Goofus's claim that it is choice. Then move to his assertion that it can be cured. Then on to why someone with different choices to reflect their comfort in relationships needs curing in the fucking first place. If the king likes big tits and the knave prefers small ones, is the knave in the wrong? Has the knave had something wrong happen to them early in life?





Give me strength.



Goofus reminds me of the sweet old lady who when hearing I wasn't a Christian wished to know where my parents went wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 11:33 AM

What gfs says about homosexual orientation makes perfect sense to me; men don't freely choose homosexual behavior because they are genetically homosexual; they freely choose homosexual behavior because they are biologically homosexual because of factors in their prenatal development. Why would anyone argue with that ???

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:21 AM

"We think you're homophobic"

I like the way Steve Shaw says we. So full of hope. So full of optimism. That one day he would possibly be able to speak for anyone but himself.

Rephrase it for me, then, Wackers darling. Try not to ditch nuance in so doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:58 AM

Homosexuality is not a choice - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:32 AM

Look, I've covered the definition of marriage. It is a term of law. It is defined by law. Statue governs the common law. All this is stuff that anyone learning any law should know within a week of starting. If parliament defines marriage to include marriage between two men or two women then that is the law and any pretence otherwise is ignorant or bigoted or both.

One might (if one were a homophobe or bigot or in some cases religious maniac - eg many West African sect members) disagree whether that should be the definition, but there is no doubt at all that it is the definition.