Politcal-Correctness At It's Finest

[TwistofRKO]

Right. Homosexuality started in the 60's. That's an educated statement.

THIS is what I'm talking about. There is no correlation to what words you put in my mouth and what I actually said. You can play this game all you want, but it doesn't prove anything.

No one would choose to be homosexual. Why would someone choose to go against the grain and be a minority? Why would someone choose to be a member of one of the most hated against groups in human history?

It's hardly an oppressed group. What can I say? People like their freedom.

Don't sit there and act as if in the year 2009 that the overwhelming portion of the population hates gays and lesbians. This entire discussion started because Vince McMahon used "gay" slangly and has been bashed over the duration of this thread.

And here I thought nothing you could say could make me think even less of your opinion, but here you've gone and topped that.

Not too surprising, did you go around and cut 5 random words out that spelled out me being a Hitler fan or something?

Excuse me, BUT WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LIVE AS A HOMOSEXUAL?

You're seriously going to sit here and say "life for homosexuals isn't al that hard"? Are you FUCKING joking me? Seriously, you need to stop posting this bullshit, right now. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about kid. Life is easy for a homosexual? Do you live on the planet Earth? Jesus christ kid the amount of homophobia and hate I see on this forum ALONE is ridiculous, yet alone when you walk out into the real world. Homosexuality is still one of the most taboo things in human civilization, I know people (and members of this forum) who've been thrown out of their homes for being homosexual, I know people who have been denied jobs for being homosexual.

You pull out the random extremes, those go on both sides.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it sure is defended, by nearly everyone in the year 2009. You will always have people who think they are better than others and throw the rocks. That's not something I or anyone else can or even try to defend. Look at the majority. Now I see TV ads, news reports, and almost everyone on this forum openly support the outlined ideas.

When you get into the workforce there are TONS of other things that happen there that go much further than homosexuals and the work force.

I simply cannot believe how ignorant of a statement that was. You've officially proven to us all that you haven't even the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about.

Keep picking and choosing- Whatever is easiest to respond to

 

[X]

THIS is what I'm talking about. There is no correlation to what words you put in my mouth and what I actually said. You can play this game all you want, but it doesn't prove anything.

Oh? Did you not say that the 1960's were a cause for homosexuality becoming more and more accepted and widespread? You did in fact say just that.

It's hardly an oppressed group. What can I say? People like their freedom.

Again, it's painfully obvious you have no understanding of the topic we're discussing, at all. Homosexuals aren't an oppressed group? Did you really just say that? Do you live on the planet Earth? Do you know how many times I hear the words "******" on a daily basis at the high school I work at? Do you realize how many fundamentalist Christians there are in this country?

The fact that you think homosexuals aren't an oppressed group is absolutely laughable. Absolutely laughable. Can homosexuals get married in California? No? But straight people can. That's called oppression.

Don't sit there and act as if in the year 2009 that the overwhelming portion of the population hates gays and lesbians. This entire discussion started because Vince McMahon used "gay" slangly and has been bashed over the duration of this thread.

You seriously underestimate the amount of homophobia in this country and around the globe. People are STILL being executed in countries for being homosexual! EXECUTED!

Not too surprising, did you go around and cut 5 random words out that spelled out me being a Hitler fan or something?

I don't need to edit your posts, you prove yourself a fool better than I ever could hope to embarrass you.

You pull out the random extremes, those go on both sides.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it sure is defended, by nearly everyone in the year 2009. You will always have people who think they are better than others and throw the rocks. That's not something I or anyone else can or even try to defend. Look at the majority. Now I see TV ads, news reports, and almost everyone on this forum openly support the outlined ideas.

When you get into the workforce there are TONS of other things that happen there that go much further than homosexuals and the work force.

Keep picking and choosing- Whatever is easiest to respond to

I pick and choose because the majority of your posts are absolutely pathetic, and simply aren't worthy of my time. There are intelligent people I could be spending time debating with right now.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Nope, and I would hope someone who holds themselves in such high-regard would be able to understand such simple sentence.

What I replied to said nobody ever commits the act on their own, completely disengaged from the rest of the topic, and I said the easiest example to point to where homosexual acts from admittedly straight people in the 1960s.

You confuse oppression with morality. Gay marriage not being legal isn't oppression, by any means.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Freud believed that everyone was born bisexual and it was the way you were brought up that determined your sexuality. I don't agree, but its food for thought.

This is what I am going with. This makes sense to me. I'm not saying that mom says you should be gay, and that's how it happens. I'm just saying that a different confluence of events effects people differently.

To me, homosexuality, or at least the presupposition to homosexuality is almost certainly genetic.

Studies exist on both side. The studies I have seen that suggest a genetic component, however, all seem to draw on the same correlation, that Dr. LaVay, who discovered the correlation, is quick to point out doesn't necessarily prove anything, it just suggests a correlation. Freshman psychology teaches you that correlation does not equal causation.

The studies are there, the fact that, anecdotally, you see a lot of gay people in the same families

That supports the environmental factors just as much as genetic factors.

and the fact that I have never in my life considered shagging a man, whereas I think my open mindedness may have allowed me to think that if capable.

Yeah. I can see this.

I urge both sides to tread carefully on the animal argument. Sure, anumals have been observed as "homosexual" but remember that they are in capable of love, and the vast majority only have sex as a social hierarchy or reproductive exercise. "I'm the alpha male, so bend over".

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd like to think its proven genetic, and that the only people who are homophobic will be completely ******ed, whereas now, its acceptable to be uncomfortable around it. I don't think I'd call someone up for saying a homophobic remark, whereas I would over a racist or sexist one.

Most people are like this. I am starting to get over this, but I still let it slip out sometimes. I'll call something gay when I think it's lame or stupid. I don't equate that with homosexuality. It's just the word I've always used. Like I said, I'm getting over that, but it still slips.

The resident fundamentalists will be destroyed later.

Leave me out of this. I just want to raise some questions and get some answers.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

So FTS and VintageRKO, you guys choose to be straight? It's a choice that pussy is what makes your dick hard and turns you on? You choose that, or does it just happen? If you simply choose it, then you also have to believe that tomorrow you could wake up and say fuck pussy, I want to be gay from this point on. Seriously, with your logic in this thread, you're saying you have the ability within you to MAKE yourself attracted to men; that you can automatically make a man turn you on. That's what you two are basically claiming, and it makes zero sense.

Well, to be fair to VintageRKO, he at least was honest and admitted to me earlier that he "did not choose to be Straight". His exact words were that he "did not vote" on the matter.

However, he is convinced that others who are Gay somehow DID choose their Orientation. He, as a Heterosexual DID NOT choose ... but apparently those who are Gay DID choose their Orientation. See how that works?

 

[info62]

Anyways, there are plenty of non-religious people who say "OMG", it's probably one of the most used phrases in modern language. I'm not going to attack you for your opinion, but it's completely unfounded, and I don't find it well thought out.

I'm sure out there some non-religious people say it too. And back to the original point of my post, no group could be started to try to put an end to that, unless the people who believe that the phrase is offensive managed to somehow stop ALL the other people of faith from saying it. If the only people in the world who said it were people who did not believe in a god then it could be considered offensive.

And that's how (in my opinion anyway) saying that phrase is not a fair comparison to using homosexuality as an insult. If a person calls something "gay" to mean that it is unfavorable, then by their logic it would be a bad thing to be gay. However when a person says God's name in vain, it doesn't mean that they are saying it's bad to believe in God, because what one person may think is saying a person's name in vain may not be the same thing to another person (and in many cases the person saying His name in "vain" worships Him, their self). The person saying God's name in vain might go to church three times a week, yet does not see anything with saying a phrase that somebody else may find disrespectful to God.

I wasn't trying to say that Christians are the only people in the world who say "Oh my God." I was trying to say that it really isn't a "slap in the face" to them whenever His name is said in vain... when there are fellow Christians who say His name in vain just as frequently as anybody else.

They are little green dots, seriously not a big deal. Don't take offense from rep.

I don't care about amount of rep. I only cared when you did it because it would obviously mean that you disagreed with me, but you didn't give me an explanation as to why you disagreed with me. You just said that I have everything I said backwards. And that kind of angered me because I was actually putting thought into my post, and you basically said the thing was a big pile of shit.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Look back at nearly all of Xfear's posts and you'll see at least 1 use of God's name in vain, and he certainly isn't religious.

Whether done on purpose or out of habit, it proves my point. If he's purposely doing it, that's pathetic and equatable to calling a gay man a "***", while out of habit, using it slangly is no different than me calling my friend gay.

 

[X]

Look back at nearly all of Xfear's posts and you'll see at least 1 use of God's name in vain, and he certainly isn't religious.

Oh I'm not religious? Really? And how the fuck would you know that? Looking into your crystal ball again are we? I'll have you know I've spent many years of my life studying and practicing Buddhism and Daoism. Stop making assumptions when you don't know me at all.

Is the word "God" exclusive to Christianity? No? Then what are you bitching about?

Whether done on purpose or out of habit, it proves my point. If he's purposely doing it, that's pathetic and equatable to calling a gay man a "***", while out of habit, using it slangly is no different than me calling my friend gay.

I'm sorry did you just compare saying "Oh my God" to calling someone a "******"? My goodness I hope you've been taught more common sense than that. Insulting someone because of their sexual preference is very different from using the lord's name in vain. Saying "Oh My God" isn't a negative insult. Right about here is where you'll say "But it's against the bible to take the lord's name in vain!", right, except the word God isn't exclusive to the Christian religion, is it? No, it's used by every religion on the face of the planet. Saying the word "******" IS exclusive to insulting someone for their sexuality.

Use some common sense.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I apologize, I thought I re-called seeing posts in other topics saying you weren't religious, I must have mixed you up with someone else.

Point still stands, it's an attack on religion. It should be politically incorrect to mock one's religion.

And by golly, if God is being used in another term I guess when someone calls a gay man "******" he could just be calling him a bundle of sticks!

Give me a freakin' break. If God's name is used in vain it shouldn't matter the intent if it offends people, just as you sit there and hate Vince McMahon for using the word gay slangly.

Talk about a lack of common sense...

 

[X]

Point still stands, it's an attack on religion. It should be politically incorrect to mock one's religion.

How is saying "Oh my God" an attack on religion? I'd love for you to explain that one to me.

And by golly, if God is being used in another term I guess when someone calls a gay man "******" he could just be calling him a bundle of sticks!

Again, you completely fail at using common sense, or logic, or even a rudimentary understanding of words and their meanings.

Someone says "Oh my God", they aren't saying that as an insult to Christianity. In any shape, way, or form. Explain to me how that's an insult to Christianity. Go on, explain. The word God has been used for thousands of years before Christianity even existed. It's still used to refer to a higher being; not simply a Christian God.

Whereas when someone calls someone a "******", they DO mean that as an insult, and literally the only meaning that that word is used for now is an insult to homosexuals. NOBODY uses the word "******" to describe a bundle of sticks, NO ONE.

Give me a freakin' break. If God's name is used in vain it shouldn't matter the intent if it offends people, just as you sit there and hate Vince McMahon for using the word gay slangly.

Talk about a lack of common sense...

I will talk about a lack of common sense, because you seem absolutely incapable of using any.

"Oh my God" has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Absolutely nothing. If someone were to say "Jesus Christ", then you'd have a point, because that directly applies to Christianity. The word "God" however does not. It's not a fucking trademarked term by the Catholic Church.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Jesus christ kid

How is saying "Oh my God" an attack on religion? I'd love for you to explain that one to me.



Again, you completely fail at using common sense, or logic, or even a rudimentary understanding of words and their meanings.

Someone says "Oh my God", they aren't saying that as an insult to Christianity. In any shape, way, or form. Explain to me how that's an insult to Christianity. Go on, explain. The word God has been used for thousands of years before Christianity even existed. It's still used to refer to a higher being; not simply a Christian God.

Whereas when someone calls someone a "******", they DO mean that as an insult, and literally the only meaning that that word is used for now is an insult to homosexuals. NOBODY uses the word "******" to describe a bundle of sticks, NO ONE.



I will talk about a lack of common sense, because you seem absolutely incapable of using any.

"Oh my God" has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Absolutely nothing. If someone were to say "Jesus Christ", then you'd have a point, because that directly applies to Christianity. The word "God" however does not. It's not a fucking trademarked term by the Catholic Church.

Well there's a start.

Anyways, while it may not be used as an attack on Christianity, it still is. It's not something I'm simply making up. I'm not sitting here saying people eating Cheet-Os upsets me.

You never countered my point about the use of gay. Don't you have one? No. Most people who say "that call was gay" after their football team is flagged for holding isn't attacking homosexuality, it's slang. Vince McMahon wasn't going up to a homosexual man and pissing in his face when he said "that was gay".

Flip/flop flip/flop flip/flop

Continue.

 

[X]

Well there's a start.

See, that might make sense, if I were a Christian. Which I am not. The rule is for Christians not to take Jesus' name in vain, correct? That doesn't apply to me. Trying to force the rules of a religion on EVERYONE is something that this country was started in opposition of.

Besides which, are the words "Jesus Christ" used for anything other than referring to him? Are they slang? No.

Anyways, while it may not be used as an attack on Christianity, it still is.

Anyone else as dumbfounded by that statement as I am?

Talk about flip-flopping...

You never countered my point about the use of gay. Don't you have one? No. Most people who say "that call was gay" after their football team is flagged for holding isn't attacking homosexuality, it's slang. Vince McMahon wasn't going up to a homosexual man and pissing in his face when he said "that was gay".

Are you asking me if I use the word gay to describe something negatively as a slang word? No, I don't. And I haven't since I was 13. Because unlike some people, at one point in time I began to mature, and realize that part of becoming an adult is not being willfully ignorant like you are every time you use the word gay with negative connotations. You should try the maturity thing some time.

Flip/flop flip/flop flip/flop

Really? What am I flip-flopping on? Show me ONE example of me saying something and contradicting it later in this thread. You won't.

Continue.

Continue what? Embarrassing you? Are you really that masochistic?

 

[TwistofRKO]

See, that might make sense, if I were a Christian. Which I am not. The rule is for Christians not to take Jesus' name in vain, correct? That doesn't apply to me. Trying to force the rules of a religion on EVERYONE is something that this country was started in opposition of.

Hmm, good point. I'm not gay so I can walk around and say ****** without it being wrong.

Besides which, are the words "Jesus Christ" used for anything other than referring to him? Are they slang? No.

So when you (people in general) sit there and say "J fing C" you are simply referring to the Son of God? You got me again.

Anyone else as dumbfounded by that statement as I am?

Talk about flip-flopping...

That's where reading in context comes into play.. this may help.

http://esl.about.com/od/readinglessonplans/a/l_readcontext.htm

If I'm saying that it may not be intended in response to what you said, but still say it's offensive, then by golly we should be getting the point by now.

Don't want to hold your hand through the entire post.

Are you asking me if I use the word gay to describe something negatively as a slang word? No, I don't. And I haven't since I was 13. Because unlike some people, at one point in time I began to mature, and realize that part of becoming an adult is not being willfully ignorant like you are every time you use the word gay with negative connotations. You should try the maturity thing some time.

Hmm, of course you don't, you choose to use other offense speech, that doesn't offend you.

Really? What am I flip-flopping on? Show me ONE example of me saying something and contradicting it later in this thread. You won't.

Well, if you support one side of "slang" but disapprove of an identical situation just because it directly involves you, I'm marking that down as flip-flopping.

Continue what? Embarrassing you? Are you really that masochistic?

For someone with such a high opinion of yourself, you don't seem to be fitting the bill. Highly let down.

 

[X]

Hmm, good point. I'm not gay so I can walk around and say ****** without it being wrong.

Nothing gets through that thick skull of yours, does it? I sit here, I explain to you why these two words are so different, and not only do you not respond to it, you continue with your ridiculous proclamation that the words "******" and "Jesus Christ" are the same. Do you REALLY not see the huge fucking flaw in logic right there? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

So when you (people in general) sit there and say "J fing C" you are simply referring to the Son of God? You got me again.

...Uh, yeah, what the fuck else would we be referring to? Jesus Christ is simply used to convey a feeling of frustration or anger often times when that person feels the situation is serious enough to use it. Jesus Christ isn't an insult, are you seriously trying to tell me that it is?

That's where reading in context comes into play.. this may help.

http://esl.about.com/od/readinglessonplans/a/l_readcontext.htm

If I'm saying that it may not be intended in response to what you said, but still say it's offensive, then by golly we should be getting the point by now.

You should take a look at that link yourself, you could use it. I'm sorry, it's just hard for some of us to understand the bullshit you spew from your mouth (or fingers), or the completely grammatically incorrect statements you make (such as the statement in question).

Hmm, of course you don't, you choose to use other offense speech, that doesn't offend you.

Jesus Christ is not a word used to demean someone for their sexuality. Do you consider someone saying "Jesus Christ!" to be the same thing as someone calling a black person a "******"? Because that's the logic you're using right now. Nobody CALLS someone a "Jesus Christ" as an insult, they use it as a proclamation that the situation they are in is serious enough to warrant using Jesus' name in vain. It isn't an insult. How the fuck do you not understand this?

Well, if you support one side of "slang" but disapprove of an identical situation just because it directly involves you, I'm marking that down as flip-flopping.

Identical situations? Really? So again, using your logic, someone who says "Jesus Christ" after stubbing their toe and someone who screams "******!" at the top of their lungs to a black person is exactly the same thing. Do I SERIOUSLY need to explain to you how incorrect of a statement that is? Or are you simply that deluded?

 

[jmt225]

Even though comparing "Jesus Christ" to racist and homophobic terms IS ridiculous, it's still understandable X how Christians get offended by the term. For example, I can say ANYTHING in front of my mom, except for "Jesus Christ" or "God Damn". If those words come out my mouth, I'll get yelled at for it. And there are plenty of other people like my mom in that aspect. Not much offends them, except a slight against God because Christians are raised to believe that if you curse God's name, then it's an unforgivable sin.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Nothing gets through that thick skull of yours, does it? I sit here, I explain to you why these two words are so different, and not only do you not respond to it, you continue with your ridiculous proclamation that the words "******" and "Jesus Christ" are the same. Do you REALLY not see the huge fucking flaw in logic right there? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

Your communication experience seems limited to that.



.

..Uh, yeah, what the fuck else would we be referring to? Jesus Christ is simply used to convey a feeling of frustration or anger often times when that person feels the situation is serious enough to use it. Jesus Christ isn't an insult, are you seriously trying to tell me that it is?

Hmm, we're getting SOMEWHERE. It's used to vent frustration, that seems like exactly what you are describing it as. It's being used in a blasphemous manner. You don't want to equate the two because only one of the have an impact on you. Time to grow up. Yes, it is an insult to both Jesus himself and His followers.

You should take a look at that link yourself, you could use it. I'm sorry, it's just hard for some of us to understand the bullshit you spew from your mouth (or fingers), or the completely grammatically incorrect statements you make (such as the statement in question).

It's cute you want me to hold your hand, but I'll once again decline. Even after I clarified it, for the 6th time, you weasel around it with a bunch blabbering and don't address it. If you don't have an answer for something, ADMIT IT.

Jesus Christ is not a word used to demean someone for their sexuality. Do you consider someone saying "Jesus Christ!" to be the same thing as someone calling a black person a "******"? Because that's the logic you're using right now. Nobody CALLS someone a "Jesus Christ" as an insult, they use it as a proclamation that the situation they are in is serious enough to warrant using Jesus' name in vain. It isn't an insult. How the fuck do you not understand this?

That's NOT what I said. I'm saying in this world of political correctness it needs to cover all bases. Hate speech is hate speech. If you know something offends someone, and still say it over and over then yes, it is equatable.

And so you understand this, I'll simplify it further. By me saying "equatable" (I know, big word- just sound it out and try your best) I'm not saying that using Jesus' name in a blasphemous matter is verbally the exact same audible noise as saying "******" or "******", I'm saying if you are made aware it impacts people and still use it, it's of the same accord and you are as wrong as the man who calls people **** or ******s.

Identical situations? Really? So again, using your logic, someone who says "Jesus Christ" after stubbing their toe and someone who screams "******!" at the top of their lungs to a black person is exactly the same thing. Do I SERIOUSLY need to explain to you how incorrect of a statement that is? Or are you simply that deluded?

 

[X]

Hmm, we're getting SOMEWHERE. It's used to vent frustration, that seems like exactly what you are describing it as. It's being used in a blasphemous manner. You don't want to equate the two because only one of the have an impact on you. Time to grow up. Yes, it is an insult to both Jesus himself and His followers.

I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't have given two shits if people thousands of years later were using his name.

But here is the heart of the difference between these two cases; the only reason someone is offended by the words "Jesus Christ" is if they choose to follow a religion like Christianity. A homosexual person doesn't choose anything, just like a black person doesn't choose the color of their skin, or a person doesn't control their ethnicity. The reason these racist/sexist/homophobic words are so offensive is because it's an insult to someone for something they had no choice in, and something they shouldn't be ashamed of in any way.

I'm not sure I can accentuate the differences between the two any better than that. If you still don't understand it, then I think we're done here. It's obvious that you've thrown reason into the trash bin a long time ago.

It's cute you want me to hold your hand, but I'll once again decline. Even after I clarified it, for the 6th time, you weasel around it with a bunch blabbering and don't address it. If you don't have an answer for something, ADMIT IT.

What am I not answering?

Go on, right now, show me what question of yours I'm not answering, and I'll gladly answer it. Stop wasting time and discuss the actual fucking issue at hand.

Go on, question away.

That's NOT what I said. I'm saying in this world of political correctness it needs to cover all bases. Hate speech is hate speech. If you know something offends someone, and still say it over and over then yes, it is equatable.

And BOOM, there we go, there's your problem. You think that anything that's offensive is equatable to hate speech. It isn't. If I were to say "America sucks", that would obviously offend some people. Doesn't make it hate speech. You know god damn well that hate speech is a word used to describe racism/sexism/homophobia. You're not very good with these connotations things are you?

And so you understand this, I'll simplify it further. By me saying "equatable" (I know, big word- just sound it out and try your best) I'm not saying that using Jesus' name in a blasphemous matter is verbally the exact same audible noise as saying "******" or "******", I'm saying if you are made aware it impacts people and still use it, it's of the same accord and you are as wrong as the man who calls people **** or ******s.

I'm going to answer this once again with the same response as before:

But here is the heart of the difference between these two cases; the only reason someone is offended by the words "Jesus Christ" is if they choose to follow a religion like Christianity. A homosexual person doesn't choose anything, just like a black person doesn't choose the color of their skin, or a person doesn't control their ethnicity. The reason these racist/sexist/homophobic words are so offensive is because it's an insult to someone for something they had no choice in, and something they shouldn't be ashamed of in any way.

If I were you I'd be disappointed in myself as well. The sophomoric effort you've made to debate here doesn't speak wonders for your intelligence.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Even though comparing "Jesus Christ" to racist and homophobic terms IS ridiculous, it's still understandable X how Christians get offended by the term. For example, I can say ANYTHING in front of my mom, except for "Jesus Christ" or "God Damn". If those words come out my mouth, I'll get yelled at for it. And there are plenty of other people like my mom in that aspect. Not much offends them, except a slight against God because Christians are raised to believe that if you curse God's name, then it's an unforgivable sin.

Still not sure who is doing that...

Anyways, i'm glad we have someone else who can get the idea that just because something doesn't offend them, or isn't sure how it offends others, doesn't mean it won't offend other people.

It's not that it's an unforgivable sin, nothing is unforgivable, it's just completely and utterly disrespectful, and it's often taken as a personal attack would be.

edit- Xfear, black skin isn't an act, homosexuality is. Don't feel like re-treading 10 pages worth on that.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Just remember this:

In Vintage TwistofRKO's world, Heterosexuals Do Not choose their Orientation. They have no say in it whatsoever ... it just happens.

However, also in Vintage TwistofRKO's world, Homosexuals and Bisexuals DO choose their Orientation and it is somehow a clear conscious choice in who they are attracted to.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Just remember this:

In Vintage TwistofRKO's world, Heterosexuals Do Not choose their Orientation. They have no say in it whatsoever ... it just happens.

However, also in Vintage TwistofRKO's world, Homosexuals and Bisexuals DO choose their Orientation and it is somehow a clear conscious choice in who they are attracted to.

And in your world, everything requires scientific, layed-upon-a-table, indisputable proof, yet here? Not a requirement. Be consistent.

Something that not only I have brought up has been the fact that humans have to reproduce to survive, so why would someone naturally be inclined to resist that? Or resist to eat? There's no proof supporting people are naturally resistant to eating or heterosexual behavior.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

And in your world, everything requires scientific, layed-upon-a-table, indisputable proof, yet here? Not a requirement. Be consistent.

Well, you see, now you are clearly showing that you aren't interested in having a logical discussion.

In formulating your opinion of it being a choice for Gays and Bisexuals, I am just curious how many you sat down with and spoke to about their lives and how they came to be that way ... to better inform yourself?

 

[Spaceman Spif]

Still not sure who is doing that...

Anyways, i'm glad we have someone else who can get the idea that just because something doesn't offend them, or isn't sure how it offends others, doesn't mean it won't offend other people.

It's not that it's an unforgivable sin, nothing is unforgivable, it's just completely and utterly disrespectful, and it's often taken as a personal attack would be.

edit- Xfear, black skin isn't an act, homosexuality is. Don't feel like re-treading 10 pages worth on that.

Uhhh there is one unforgivable sin for those who follw and believe in Christianity... it's blashphemy against the holy spirit. However while some people so get offended by hearing others take the lord's name in vain, it not a direct insult to those people, it is a exclamation. I admit I say "Jesus Christ" all the time when I am frustrated, pissed off or injure myself. I do not use it as a insult because it can't be. You don't go up to someone and say... "you are a Jesus Christ, you are." So your point about it usage being equal to another person calling someone gay or a ****** is a moot point and can be discarded.

It can be ofensive to hear that, but those who take offense to it, do not do so because it was said in front of them and their feelings are hurt. People take offense to people taking the lord's name in vain, because they feel it is an insult to the one they worship. BIG difference. Find another arguement my good man, because you are beating a dead horse with those discardable rebuttal.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Something that not only I have brought up has been the fact that humans have to reproduce to survive, so why would someone naturally be inclined to resist that? Or resist to eat? There's no proof supporting people are naturally resistant to eating or heterosexual behavior.

Well, you see, now you are clearly showing that you aren't interested in having a logical discussion.

In formulating your opinion of it being a choice for Gays and Bisexuals, I am just curious how many you sat down with and spoke to about their lives and how they came to be that way ... to better inform yourself?

A reply, FINALLY would be nice.

Anyways, it's not a common thing that comes up, "Hey gay man, let me pick your homosexual brain", doesn't work, ya' know?

The common cop-out answer is that it's natural, and is generally accepted by society as is having a doctor tell you your trouble-making son is that way because of a disorder, rather than letting the parents know that they had a lack of discipline and order with their child, so he just continued on in rebellion. That's how society works. Not a popular, feel-good answer, but that's how it goes. A self-proclaimed "tell it how it is" individual should live up to self-empowering, yet hollowed out nicknames.

 

[CH David]

Jeesum Fucking Crows.

There, I didn't say Jesus Christ, for those on the religious topic, happy now? Fucking A. You have to change this from a gay stand point to religion? What the fuck is that? But now it is the Political-Correctness and not just the "Oh shit Vince said 'Gay'" thread, so it may be in the parameters.

Let me start out by saying this. Vince was wrong in saying "Thats kinda gay". No matter the situation, you have to be very touchy about how you say shit nowadays. Especially on tv or radio, you can't just say that shit without there being any backlash. So whatever Vince has coming to him from GLAAD or whoever else then so be it. Whats done is done. It shouldn't have been said, but it was, and now it sparks a whole fucking debate about how being gay is genetic or a choice or whatever the fuck else people have said on here. I am not reading all the posts, just a few, so if I repeat then so be it.

Now I don't know about biochemistry or any of that stuff. In my opinion I don't think that being gay is genetic. I don't think that anyone is born genetically predetermined to be gay or straight. I also don't think it is a matter of choice. As others have stated, you don't choose to be straight, why isn't it the same for gay people? I believe it is how a person's childhood is, and things that affect it. But I also think that it is how said person is affected by it. Personally, when I was younger, I had an "incident". If you make fun of that then you go fuck yourself for being a cunt. But I am straight. So to say that a traumatic event such as rape or molestation will cause people to be gay, no. It is how things affect a child and their mindset. I didn't know what the fuck happened. But I'm not gay, and I'm not saying anything is wrong with being gay. My point that I don't think I stated is that a person will develop how they feel through their affections of childhood. Hell on True Life on MTV they have had episodes where kids have gay parents, but they are straight. Genetic? No. Choice? Wrong again. How you are brought up throughout your childhood and into your adolescence is when you are most influential, as your mind is still developing.

I'm not saying that someone will be gay from adolescence on. And as this ties into another part, gay people have a lot of adversity to go through even today. It is still a rough taboo to live with, so to choose to go through that ordeal just to say you did it is fucked up. People still get hate mail from fundamentalists because of who they are. My mom's friend used to be married for I think 10 years. He had come out and said he was a homosexual, got divorced from his wife, and has gone on with his life. But the fucked up part of that whole thing. His dad disowned him, and literally tried to kill him, all for being gay. How the fuck is that not wrong? They want to be equal but there are still people out there that say it is wrong and an abomination to the Lord and what not. If people were truly understanding of the Lord and his will, they would be tolerant of other people, religions, races, and sexual orientations all included, because that is God, or how he is supposed to be described. The tolerant and almight being.

On the note of "Oh my God". Everyone uses the same fucking phrase. Get over yourself to claim that it offends everyone. I am Catholic and I say it. My mom says it. Hell my religious grandmothers say it too. It isn't offensive to anyone, and it isn't derogatory. If I were to start this post with "Jesus Fucking Christ" it would be offensive to a lot of people because it is specific to Christianity. "Oh my God" isn't just Christian specific. Also Judaism, Islam I know for sure, but others such as Daoism and Buddhism I don't. I could go to school tomorrow, say "Oh my God" right in the middle of class, no one is offended. If I were to say "Jesus Christ" or any racial or derogatory remark, it would cause a hell of an uproar and I'd be kicked out of my class.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

A reply, FINALLY would be nice.

Anyways, it's not a common thing that comes up, "Hey gay man, let me pick your homosexual brain", doesn't work, ya' know?

The common cop-out answer is that it's natural, and is generally accepted by society as is having a doctor tell you your trouble-making son is that way because of a disorder, rather than letting the parents know that they had a lack of discipline and order with their child, so he just continued on in rebellion. That's how society works. Not a popular, feel-good answer, but that's how it goes. A self-proclaimed "tell it how it is" individual should live up to self-empowering, yet hollowed out nicknames.

Okay, so you admit that you have never sat down and spoken to a Gay or Bisexual person to allow them to tell you how they feel they came to be ... not to mention the 99% of Gays and Lesbians that are adamant about not choosing their Orientation, and given all of that, you turn your back on these people and dismiss them without not even talking to one Gay or Lesbian, and yet you have the audacity to suggest that you are more of an expert on their kind then they are?

Let me ask you something. If you are a scientist and your job is to work towards uncovering the cause of Homosexuality, do you feel you could do so without even talking to one Homosexual?