BS: the demise of the boring thread

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 14 - 03:36 PM

Don, was that your answer to my question, "So, do you believe it is a 'gay gene' or not?"??

Answering the original question is progress,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:21 PM

Goofy, my original premise did not specify a single "gay gene." That's your misconception. I said that sexual orientation is most probably genetic—which does not mean a single gene. Most genetic traits are caused by a combination of genes. And the fact that same-sex orientation tends to run in families (not all members, obviously) further indicates a genetic base.

You have consistently misread, misinterpreted, and misstated what I have written, then tried to throw it back at me.

That's known in logic as "the straw man fallacy." Look it up.

Your obvious purpose here is not to find the truth, but to attempt to put me down.

I will not play that game with you any longer. The truth is not in you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:26 PM

Do you have to insult the good professor Goofus? A bit insensitive given his balls are in a vet's incinerator.

I agree with his comments though. He's got you sussed.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:52 PM

Are you addressing Goofus or me, Musket?

If you are addressing me, I think you've missed something important. Read carefully what I have been writing all along.

For a more complete picture of what's got Goofus's tail in a knot, read what is to be found in the Prop 8 thread, where Goofus revealed something about his own family. When I called him on it, he set out on the vendetta trail. That's why he stalks me on these threads.

Research before you accuse.

Don Firth

P. S. And I am not gratuitously insulting Goofus. I'm telling it like it is.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:38 AM

Err... Don.

I was saying my pet dog has Goofus sussed.

I haven't waded into your discussion with him as a) you are doing a grand job and b) if I hesitated on a technicality, Goofus might seize upon the idea of someone supporting his weird take on life.

You may recall I picked up on his stalking of you a long time ago.

Be good.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 14 - 01:35 PM

Copacetic, Musket.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 01:57 PM

If my dog were a cat, he'd be purrfect.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:03 PM

Well then let me see....Is it really "vile hatred"   to type homosexual " marriage", rather than "gay marriage"?

I don't think so, I never use the word "gay", in respect of sexual orientation, as it is a rather good example of Orwellian newspeak and I am not prepared to be manipulated by a tiny section of society.

I put homosexual "marriage" in inverted commas, as I do not agree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority.
Homosexual "marriage" is completely different in construct to traditional hetero marriage, in that very many homosexual "marriages" and unions are "open relationships" containing large numbers of sexual partners. Also, homosexual "marriage" does not fulfil the function of a secure base for the procreation, nurturing, raising of children and the construction of an extended family structure.

I opposed the law on the criminalising of homosexuals and I reserve the right to oppose legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

No hatred from me, just cool calm reason.

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith in the ethereal myth of equality under a cruel economic system based on greed and exploitation. For this reason, they dismiss all know data on homosexual health rates, male homosexual sexual behaviour patterns and any other facts which contradict their "raison d'etre".

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:15 PM

Sorry, wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:14 PM

Homosexual "marriage" is completely different in construct to traditional hetero marriage, in that very many homosexual "marriages" and unions are "open relationships" containing large numbers of sexual partners. Also, homosexual "marriage" does not fulfil the function of a secure base for the procreation, nurturing, raising of children and the construction of an extended family structure.

Wrong on both counts, Ake! I know of several same-sex marriages, and in NONE of them is the idea to have numerous sexual partners. The whole point of the marriage is to commit to the one partner—as is the case with heterosexual couples.

Otherwise, why do it? It doesn't make sense.

Second, I know of two same-sex married couples with children. One adopted two children from a Chinese orphanage. The kids are thriving, and they certainly have a much better life than they would have had if raised in the orphanage. As I say, the kids are doing very well, thank you, and they are normal, healthy kids. They're going to school, one of them is an acolyte in the church in which their adoptive parents were married, and they refer to their parents as "daddy" and "papa."


The other couple wanted children related to them, so they hired a surrogate mother. Fertilized by artificial insemination by one of the men, she bore him a healthy little boy. Then the other of the pair donate his sperm for artificial insemination of the same woman and she bore triplets!! Three boys!

All of the children are genetically related through the mother, three brothers and one half brother.

All these kids are doing well, thank you, and they have plenty of attention from women who attend the same church the families (yes, families) attend—the church in which the marriages were performed—and from sisters and women friends of the men.

I am married—to a woman—and have been for thirty-seven years, but my wife and I live in an area in which there seems to be a large population of same-sex oriented people(it just happened that way). A talented member of our monthly writers' group (we get together to read our magnum opuses to each other for mutual suggestions and criticism) is gay and was recently married to his long-term partner when Washington State made same-sex marriage legal.

Incidentally, among all of the same-sex oriented men we know, married or unmarried, we don't know anyone with HIV/Aids.

Ake, instead of burying your nose in statistics carefully select to reflect your own prejudices, you need to get out into the real world for a change, open your eyes (and mind), and look around.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 14 - 08:24 PM

Well then let me see....Is it really "vile hatred"   to type homosexual " marriage", rather than "gay marriage"?

I don't think so, I never use the word "gay", in respect of sexual orientation, as it is a rather good example of Orwellian newspeak and I am not prepared to be manipulated by a tiny section of society.

I put homosexual "marriage" in inverted commas, as I do not agree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority.

Well, normally I have little time or patience for your rabid homophobia, but I happen to have a minute or two.

Yes it is vile hatred. You can't accept the way the world has changed, you sad old bugger, and you can't respect the people who, after a bloody long fight and a load of repression, have finally managed to get just a little acceptance. Your Canute-like clinging on to "gay" is as quaint and as outmoded as it gets and represents yet another nail in your intolerant coffin. Gay is a super word that has found a super meaning after a long languish in the realms of rapidly-approaching obscurity. Anyone left on this planet who still gets indignant about the so-called "usurping" of a little word that was in terminal decline is just a prick. To suggest that the current use of gay, now universally acknowledged by just about everybody, including a good few homophobes, except you of course, is "Orwellian newspeak" is just tripe. The word has been cheerfully accepted into popular parlance in the whole of the English-speaking world (and beyond), without any manipulation by rulers. It's just another of those wonderful examples of the evolution and the flexibility of English. And you're not being manipulated by "a tiny minority". I'm as un-gay as it's possible to be (I think), but I'm in that "tiny minority" good and true, which is actually a majority in any case. You may not agree with the "redefinition" (which it isn't) of the "institution" of marriage, but tough shit, bro. There's no going back. Be a troglodytic backwoodsman or adapt. You are increasingly on your own, and please don't think that that will ever make you a hero or martyr. It just makes you a bit of a twat really.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:07 AM

Don Firth: "Goofy, my original premise did not specify a single "gay gene."

Damn, Don, you've been saying it was a gene for a long time...and only on this thread did you decide to back-peddle....so I went back through a BUNCH of other threads, and there were so many of your posts that so emphatically stated that it was 'A gene' and it was all 'genetic' that I FILLED the reply page up, AND it was too big to load...so I'll just stick to some quotes from this thread alone.
It was only after you were choking on your spittle, AFTER I posted,

"So, in light of, "..OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.." perhaps you can scientifically and foolishly spin your way out of what the study says...after all, you posted it!!!

Care to comment on, "...OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.."?????..WITHOUT SPIN!!

What do you NOT understand about the words, "GREATER ROLE"??? "
..that you backed off a little from your preposterous blather about 'a gene'...and are mousing around with 'other factors'....however, the 'other factors play a 'GREATER ROLE', than the gene!!...but you just don't get that, and now are trying to embark on some bullshit tactic of yours to 'negotiate' so compromise, as the truth!!
WHAT BULLSHIT!!....AND then you try to bring up that stupid post from the Prop 8 thread as some sort of intimidation tactic...when you know that post was debunked LONG ago.

The 'genetic rap' as you and your political meat-heads have insisted on is pure crap...and you know what?....To base government policy that is predicated on a KNOWN FABRICATED LIE, puts all of you morons in the shit-can category.
Who can trust anything, party, ideology etc, etc, that promotes a fraud for a foundation????.....

So I just used some of your posts from THIS thread alone....


From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 14 - 03:10 PM

"And what could possibly cause the mother to release hormones at the wrong time if not genetics? Several possible things, but it is quite probable that genetics plays a part. Same sex orientation tends to run in extended families and it has been noted the it is the mother's side of the family. Why would more that one woman in an extended family tend to release hormones at the wrong time during pregnancy? Sounds very much like genetics."

From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:06 PM

"I'm not the one who's trying to ignore modern science.

It's pretty well established that sexual orientation is genetics based, although, like evolution early on, the mechanism hasn't been fully worked out yet. It appears so far that the Xq28 gene is involved, but there is still work to do yet.

It is unscientific—and pretty foolish—to claim that same-sex orientation is NOT genetic simply because YOU DON'T LIKE IT. For whatever your reason might be!"

From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 14 - 09:59 PM

Goofball, ACHTUNG!!

Xq28.

It's on the X chromosome."


From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:23 PM

"There is no proof, no matter how ironclad, that YOU would accept, Goofball.

I'm content to go along with the most authoritative data that geneticist come up with. THEY say that they're sure the gene--or genes--are there, even if positive identification hasn't been made yet."

From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:24 PM

"That geneticists haven't been universal in their agreement that a specific "gay gene" has been located and identified yet doesn't mean there isn't one."

From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 14 - 10:37 PM

"I'm saying that if it is biological, which it most certainly is, it is most probably genetic, and the gene or genes simply haven't been found--YET."

From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 14 - 06:07 PM

"I don't think you understand some things about basic biology. What do you think determines such things as the timely or untimely release of hormones if not genes?
You really should have stayed awake in high school biology class.
And the fact that a specific gene has not been located yet does not mean that it wont be. Most probably it is a number of genes working in combination. Many biological factors are exactly that."
P. S. Argue on if you want to. The matter is settled as most intelligent people accept. AND not every biologist or geneticist agrees that the gene has not been found."

Don Firth: "Goofy, my original premise did not specify a single "gay gene."

Liar!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:29 AM

The worm reckons it surfaced in the wrong thread. Too true.

It shouldn't really surface at all.

There is a difference between laughing at Goofus's weird logic and accommodating Akenaton's hatred as a contribution to debate.

It is obvious that Goofus has a problem that nobody here is qualified to deal with, hence I laugh off his stupidity by getting my dog to deal with him.

Akenaton however, I give him the benefit of assuming he is giving his considered opinion and possibly, though I can't be certain, has the mental capacity to be responsible for his output.

And it is rotten to the fetid carcass.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:04 AM

Who in hell do you think you're fooling?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:52 AM

I shall ask the good professor to field that one.

Ready boy?

Woof!

You tell old Goofus like it is!

Woof! Woof! Woof! Grrrrr...    Woof!

Steady on boy, we don't want to be censured Are you sure?

Woof!

Falsified them you say?

Grrr.... Woof!

Well, I'd have never had thought it. But, if you say so boy.

You have to admit Goofus, that is a bit damning, but I'm sure he found out from the correct sources, professional etiquette and all that...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 10:46 AM

His bark is louder than his bite...and he barks when he doesn't have ANYTHING of relevance to contribute....just a lap dog for phonies, yapping away, between moments of licking his balls.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:45 AM

Goofus, I have said from the start that sexual orientation is genetically determined. I did NOT--get that, dipshit, did NOT--say that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene.

You persist in misrepresenting what I've been saying all along.

That makes you a person with no honesty or integrity. Not worth the time and attention of honest folk.

Hang your head in shame!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:19 PM

Thats twice in as many days that Goofus has had to be told the good professor has no balls.

I suppose its like his argument in general. Say it often enough and it becomes true eh? I certainly hope so. The racing kennels have greyhounds snipped to prevent breeding when they retire them to sanctuaries. After all, the good professor sold for a lot of money when he was a pup.

If I could stud him, we could invite Goofus to a conference in a couple of years. See how their development is influenced by their upbringing. Anything genetic concerning the good professor? Well yes.. He is Irish, born in Kilkenny. He does have a habit of digging holes....




By the way, he does try to lick them. But that underlines my thoughts on religion.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:20 PM

And I'm sure Musket's dog has more important things to pee on than the likes of you!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:23 PM

Cross posted.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:36 PM

Goofus, I read through the post above where you are quoting me copiously by way of claiming that I said that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene--

And NOWHERE do I say that.

Are you adding illiteracy to your growing list of inadequacies?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:05 PM

...from Propaganda Minister Firth on 26 DEC 2009:


"As to the "causes" of same-sex orientation, although a "gay gene" per se has not yet been isolated, the evidence is certainly there that it is a hereditary characteristic has been pretty solidly established by the same methods that Gregor Mendel demonstrated in the mid-1800s. Same-sex orientation appears to run in families, same as eye-color or other hereditary characteristics, and in the case of male homosexuality, there are indications, as Ebbie points out, that the hereditary factor is transmitted by some members of the female side of an extended family.

Mendel establish what happens, and now, geneticists are establishing the mechanisms by which it happens.

Another connection with the female side is that the expectant mother does not release the necessary hormones to the fetus at the appropriate time in its development. Thus, although the Y chromosome determines the child's physical structure as a male, the mis-timed hormones determines the child's sexual orientation as female.

In short, geneticists looking for a "gay gene" may have been looking in the wrong place. The male homosexual may not carry the gay gene, the gay gene may have been carried by his mother."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:53 PM

All through that, the presupposition is on genes in combination. In any case, sexual orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, as Goofus WANTS it to be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:17 PM

By the way, pdq, where in all of that do I specifically say that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene, as contrasted with genes in combination?

It appears that Goofus is not the only one who flunked remedial reading.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:33 PM

D.F. "Goofus, I have said from the start that sexual orientation is genetically determined. I did NOT--get that, dipshit, did NOT--say that sexual orientation is determined by a single gene.

From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:49 PM

"Not to worry, GfS. Kids these days know what's going on (especially in matters such as this), and they will do what their genes dictate. You seem to be under the impression, as are a lot of people, that the gay lifestyle is a matter of choice rather than genetic predisposition. Scientific evidence in the form of brain research. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's a pretty solidly established fact."

...actually, Don, 'There are other factors that play a greater role'..got that?..GREATER ROLE!....maybe the 'genetic factor' is FAR less, than politically propagandized!...even miniscule??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:59 PM

..and I'll go you one further...If it is caused by the hormonal influences, while in the womb, hormones carry with them BEHAVIORAL influences. If those behavioral influences are present, while the child's nervous system is being formed in the womb, and the receptors are geared to respond to like impulses, then it is indeed behavioral, from the onset....and NOT 'genetic'!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:32 PM

...from the same post by Propaganda Minister Firth:



"In short, geneticists looking for a "gay gene" may have been looking in the wrong place. The male homosexual may not carry the gay gene , the gay gene may have been carried by his mother."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:57 PM

Thank you, PDQ, for helping to 'clarify' Firth's propaganda!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:25 PM

I take it you two are room mates?

The hypothetical gay gene, which, when found, will turn out to be a combination of genes.

It has already been established that there is a difference between the brains of gay and straight men.

There is one brain part, called the anterior commissure, that's bigger in gay men's brains than in those of heterosexual males. It connects two structures together. The amygdala on each side of the brain. And there is a whole potful of other differences in brain structure between gay and straight men.

Comprehensive article HERE.

(Fat lot of good it will do because it's obvious that you two will read into something what you WANT it to say, whether it does or not).

But the nub of the matter is that sexual orientation is not a matter of CHOICE. It is physiologically determined.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: pdq
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:42 PM

...Propaganda Minister Firth sez:



"It has already been established that there is a difference between the brains of gay and straight men."



Is that about the most bigoted statement in the history of Mudcat, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:03 PM

pdq, how do you justify that remark?

What I said is derived from several articles on the comparison of brain structure between heterosexual men and homosexual men.

Science!

In what way is that "bigoted?" Explain yourself!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:48 PM

Pdq, Goofus, cast your eyes on this material:

Clicky #1.

Clicky #2.

Clicky #3

That's just for openers. There is plenty more where those came from.

Now, pdq, if I am a bigot, then a helluva lot of scientists are too. Do you define "bigot" as anyone who doesn't see things the way you do? Looks like it.

I await your retraction and your apology.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 14 - 07:57 PM

I am bemused - NOT amused - by the reasoning of GfS, et al. If there is a hormonal effect that connotes gay-dom, in what way is that different from a gene that does the same? In either case, it leaves the gay person free of 'blame'.

No rational person would choose to be gay. As has been said many times: there are many, many downsides to the 'condition'. Among them there is the ubiquitous threat of violence, the 'stigma' of being thought effeminate, the common denial by authorities of parenthood, whether foster or adoptive no matter how good a parent you might be, the taunts of the uneducated, the suspicions of those who think that practically breathing the same air is a health hazard. There are many others.

By and large I have found my gay friends to be among the most sensitive, talented, loving, brainy people I know.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:10 PM

Exactly so, Ebbie!

And that should send Goofus and pdq running toward the horizon with their asses on fire.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:49 PM

Between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Motto of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 12:41 AM

Oh! Not at all....matter of fact, now YOU have to answer something, at least to yourself.....As noted, 'other factors play a greater role'...so, being as hormonal influences, in the womb during the formation of the nervous system, where the receptors receive the chemical impulses, that programs the development of the nervous system, and being as the nervous system sends to and from the brain, which is also being formed, is it 'genetic'...or 'other factors'??

Don't be too surprised, I told you this for years, now.....so which is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:18 AM

between the devil and the deep blue sea...
Motto of Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:33 AM

.....so which is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:46 AM

I suspect that GfS will some fine day be entitled to a red face, whether or not he claims it.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:30 AM

Not at all, Ebbie...this isn't about 'winning an argument'....it's about learning something accurately, and doing it by, not learning WHAT to think (about it), but HOW to think(about it)...and BTW, I was going to get to your post, after this part...you might even be pleasantly surprised, as well.

..but in the meantime.....which is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:00 PM

musing...

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:06 PM

Well, we seem to be making some progress. Now Goofus seems to be willing to admit that there are, indeed, physiological factors that determine sexual orientation.

That's a far cry from his claim on earlier threads that sexual orientation is strictly a matter of choice.

A guy wakes up one morning and says to himself, "I think I'll switch to being gay! That sounds like a lot of fun!!"

No . . . I don't think it happens that way. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:09 PM

You're the one who interpreted(spun) what I said, as being strictly 'choice'......and physiologically, rooted in behavior, from the womb..otherwise the hormones would not have been geared to cause the effect that they did/do....being as is/was not 'genetic', as some political exploiters would have us believe......correct??
The choice has always been in regard to who (or what) we decide to have sex with...correct??.....except for most victims of rape...correct??

..in your court...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:30 PM

Whether one is heterosexual OR homosexual, and assuming a willing partner, one always has the choice of whether to have sex or not.

THAT is not the kind of choice we're talking about.

YOU are the one who is spinning, Goofball.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: frogprince
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:32 PM

Gfs is obviously right, as usual; there is nothing really wrong with having same-sex orientation, so long as you choose to marry a member of the opposite sex and reproduce anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 04:52 PM

Some years ago, Indonesia had become so overpopulated that the government launched a campaign to promote homosexuality in hopes of reducing the skyrocketing birth rate.

One cannot simply "choose" to change one's sexual orientation. The program was a dismal failure.

It did encourage homosexuals from other countries to immigrate there, where they would be honored instead of viewed with contempt, but that raised the population somewhat.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 05:29 PM

D.F.: "Whether one is heterosexual OR homosexual, and assuming a willing partner, one always has the choice of whether to have sex or not.
THAT is not the kind of choice we're talking about."

That is NOT a spin. To illustrate that further, some people have sex, for sex sake, and not because they particularly 'love' that person...correct??

Come on now, we're blowing the lid off some pretty huge misconceptions(no pun intended).

As far as choice, how about 'inclinations of attraction'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:18 PM

"Inclinations of attraction." Alfred Kinsey covered that pretty thoroughly back in the mid-1950s. What, precisely, are you getting at, Goofus?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 11:34 PM

Goofus:   "……some people have sex, for sex sake, and not because they particularly 'love' that person...correct??"

Some people do, I suppose. Perhaps that's your way. Not mine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:20 AM

Well, it wasn't a ploy...it was straightforward, as a response to your post. People are attracted to each other for a number of reasons..that's all, and in that, it is up to each individual whether to act upon that, wouldn't you say? Nobody is forcing them to act upon it, nobody is forcing a choice one way or the other...and sometimes, or often, those people have their inclinations.
Fair enough? (If I'm not, tell me where you're having reservations). I'm not 'luring' you into anything..I think we've moved into another level of dialogue...and based on what you've put out there, we got enough....now we just got to sift through it, and confirm the consistencies, and hopefully discard what is not needed. OK?...and, as long as we're at this juncture, we have enough history of bias vs facts vs consensus vs popular nonsense to be able to kick ass for everyone's benefit, wouldn't you say?

GfS

P.S....unless politics keeps everyone stuck in mid-air...which it tends to do, but that is another subject for another time....