# Breaking News! There is no cure for Gay



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It only took 36 years. 

*Exodus International, anti-gay ministry, shuts down and apologizes for 'causing pain'*


E


> xodus International, one of the world's leading Christian ministries which worked to repress homosexuality through prayer, has closed down and apologized for "years of undue suffering and judgment at the hands of the organization and the church as a whole."
> The group announced its closure Thursday in a letter posted to its website, citing a year-long discussion over its place in the modern Christian world as leading to the decision to shut down.





> âWeâre not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change â and they want to be heard," said Tony Moore, one of the board members responsible for the decision to close the ministry.



http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...xodus-international-anti-gay-ministry-shuts-d


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I think most people who believed in that idea abandoned it long before Exodus International did. They may have run out of money from lack of donations.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Gosh they are slow learners. It is not news to most of the world and certainly not news to the natural world.


----------



## plowhand (Aug 14, 2005)

Oh....there is a cure for everything...even stupid.....but it's sorta a hard cure....even certain cure!


----------



## homefire2007 (Sep 21, 2007)

Gasp......I'm shocked. I wonder how much money they made on other people's pain?!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homefire2007 said:


> Gasp......I'm shocked. I wonder how much money they made on other people's pain?!


Not a drop in the bucket compared to planned parenthood!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Didn't know someone was looking for a "cure". Here , Free cure-just don't have sex.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If that's the deal what was up with those folks that got ungayed?


----------



## Laura (May 10, 2002)

:stirpot:For decades homosexuality was classified as a sexual deviancy. Since it is now officially "Incurable," can we now officially recognize the truly harmful sexual deviants as incurable, lock them up and throw away the key, or euthanize them?

I am darn sick of the so-called treatment programs for pedophiles where they promise they won't do it again is good enough to declare them "cured." After what the kids go through only to get stuck alone with these sick SOBs again, they learn to keep their mouths shut and take the abuse.

Little Richard became a Christian and was healed from his homosexuality. He ended up publicly humiliated and ostracized for it. Hollywood and the music industry was vicious!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Little Richard? Good golly Miss Molly!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> If that's the deal what was up with those folks that got ungayed?


Google "ex gay testimonies", where most of them sound like flat-out kooks.

Many profess, to still have "gay desires" but pray them away , with gods help.

That sounds more like denial, than rediscovered heterosexuality.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Little Richard was straight? 
Hmmm

It must have been the eyeshadow and lipstick that threw me off.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Laura said:


> :stirpot:For decades homosexuality was classified as a sexual deviancy. Since it is now officially "Incurable," can we now officially recognize the truly harmful sexual deviants as incurable, lock them up and throw away the key, or euthanize them?
> 
> I am darn sick of the so-called treatment programs for pedophiles where they promise they won't do it again is good enough to declare them "cured." After what the kids go through only to get stuck alone with these sick SOBs again, they learn to keep their mouths shut and take the abuse.
> 
> Little Richard became a Christian and was healed from his homosexuality. He ended up publicly humiliated and ostracized for it. Hollywood and the music industry was vicious!


You surely aren't saying all gays are pediophiles and. All pediophiles are gay are you?


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

keenataz said:


> You surely aren't saying all gays are pediophiles and. All pediophiles are gay are you?


If you took that from what she wrote you might try reading it again.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2013)

The military at one time had a sure enough cure for gays . It was called friendly fire .


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Just an observation...

Taken as a class, homosexuals are always advocating tolerance, yet viciously attack any one of their class who no longer wishes to be homosexual.

Fascinating...


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

I guess the OP can't tell the difference between saying there is no cure for something and saying the payoff for trying to cure something isn't worth the pain it was causing?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Is there a cure for heterosexuality?

It seems heterosexuality causes a great deal more problems than homosexuality does ... (think of unwanted babies conceived every year, for instance).

:shrug:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Is there a cure for stupid? That would solve so many problems both real and imagined. :rock:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Grandma always said, "What other people think of you is none of your business."

More people need to understand that and stop all the thought control .


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Is there a cure for heterosexuality?


I doubt there is a cure for who we might be attracted to, but even if there is I don't think it can be prayed away. The only way praying the gay away might work is if it is caused by not enough praying. I don't pretend to know what causes same-sex attraction, but I'm as sure as I can be that it's not caused from not praying enough.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

keenataz said:


> You surely aren't saying all gays are pediophiles and. All pediophiles are gay are you?


If being one non-normal sexual desire is not a mental problem then can it not be logically argued all of them are not?

If we say that homosexualism is ok because people are just born that way can we not also say people are born with exhibitionism, coprophili, sadism, voyeurism, et al?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If being one non-normal sexual desire is not a mental problem then can it not be logically argued all of them are not?
> 
> If we say that homosexualism is ok because people are just born that way can we not also say people are born with exhibitionism, coprophili, sadism, voyeurism, et al?


It's true that sexual attraction to young people is probably something they can't do much about, but it's different from homosexuality in that acting on homosexual desires is an act between consenting adults. If someone acts on an attraction to young people it's a crime.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> If being one non-normal sexual desire is not a mental problem then can it not be logically argued all of them are not?
> 
> If we say that homosexualism is ok because people are just born that way can we not also say people are born with exhibitionism, coprophili, sadism, voyeurism, et al?



LOL

"Straight" people do nothing but copulate? 

"non-normal" was probably coined by those, whose interests may have waned, from simply making babies.

Even those who penned the bible, probably enjoyed their "concubines"

It's been determined - some time ago, that human sexuality is just a bit more complicated, than simply the focus on human reproduction.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It's true that sexual attraction to young people is probably something they can't do much about, but it's different from homosexuality in that acting on homosexual desires is an act between consenting adults. If someone acts on an attraction to young people it's a crime.


So lets just say China had a lower age for adults...let say 13, would it still be ok? Who makes it a crime? We make the laws right? Someone somewhere figured 18 was a legal age for an adult? Lets just say we change the law allowing people to have sex with children...it's perfectly legal...does it make it right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wannabechef said:


> So lets just say China had a lower age for adults...let say 13, would it still be ok? Who makes it a crime? We make the laws right? Someone somewhere figured 18 was a legal age for an adult? Lets just say we change the law allowing people to have sex with children...it's perfectly legal...does it make it right?


Wouldn't make it right, but would make it legal. I used to live in a country where 12 was considered marrying age.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

wannabechef said:


> So lets just say China had a lower age for adults...let say 13, would it still be ok? Who makes it a crime? We make the laws right? Someone somewhere figured 18 was a legal age for an adult? Lets just say we change the law allowing people to have sex with children...it's perfectly legal...does it make it right?


 Again with the pedophile thing?? Why do you bring that up every time the subject is gay people? 
Does it really need explained that pedophilia is a crime because children are the most vulnerable members of society, and having an adult abuse them causes severe lifelong damage? Really? 
Now, to get back on topic, the 'gay conversion' thing has ONCE AGAIN, been proven to be a sham.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

WV Hillbilly said:


> The military at one time had a sure enough cure for gays . It was called friendly fire .


There is little that is more vile, IMO that wishing a fellow soldier to be killed. It would probably be all right though, if he saved your life.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Again with the pedophile thing?? Why do you bring that up every time the subject is gay people?
> Does it really need explained that pedophilia is a crime because children are the most vulnerable members of society, and having an adult abuse them causes severe lifelong damage? Really?
> Now, to get back on topic, the 'gay conversion' thing has ONCE AGAIN, been proven to be a sham.


Gay=pedophile

It called deflection, since they no longer have an argument, on the main topic.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Logically just because one anti-gay organization throws in the towel doesn't mean squat. If gay was ordained from birth, how come they aren't extinct? Obviously there's much more involved then genetics. The question of so-called IQ is similar. Is it strictly genetic or is there a developmental factor? We now know both play a part. I suspect gayness is similar. For everything thing we'd like to believe is either black or white, it's never that simple.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> Logically just because one anti-gay organization throws in the towel doesn't mean squat. *If gay was ordained from birth, how come they aren't extinct? *Obviously there's much more involved then genetics. The question of so-called IQ is similar. Is it strictly genetic or is there a developmental factor? We now know both play a part. I suspect gayness is similar. For everything thing we'd like to believe is either black or white, it's never that simple.


Uh, because there are heterosexuals reproducing.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Darren said:


> Logically just because one anti-gay organization throws in the towel doesn't mean squat. If gay was ordained from birth, how come they aren't extinct? Obviously there's much more involved then genetics. The question of so-called IQ is similar. Is it strictly genetic or is there a developmental factor? We now know both play a part. I suspect gayness is similar. For everything thing we'd like to believe is either black or white, it's never that simple.


You do know that many gay people have offspring, don't you? They pass their genes on the same way you and I do.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> If gay was ordained from birth, how come they aren't extinct? Obviously there's much more involved then genetics.


I'm not totally predisposed to the idea that same-sex attraction is strictly genetic.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> You do know that many gay people have offspring, don't you? They pass their genes on the same way you and I do.


The same way? How does that work? Artificial means is not "the same way"!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Uh, because there are heterosexuals reproducing.


Have they found the gay gene? I think not. I was chastized for saying previously, I'm aware some folks, Little Richard to be specific, are equal opportunity __________. So obviously they have a chance to pass genetic material to progeny. 

Is gay something to be cured? Depends on your point of view. At this time there doesn't seem to be a scientific basis for any viewpoint.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> The same way? How does that work? Artificial means is not "the same way"!


Do I have to give you a sex ed lesson? They produce offspring by having sex with people of the opposite sex.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> Have they found the gay gene? I think not. I was chastized for saying previously, I'm aware some folks, Little Richard to be specific, are *equal opportunity __________.* So obviously they have a chance to pass genetic material to progeny.
> 
> Is gay something to be cured? Depends on your point of view. At this time there doesn't seem to be a scientific basis for any viewpoint.


What does this even mean?

Many gays live "straight" lives, because that what society told them they should do. I don't know about little Richard. Actually I was only kidding about the makeup, as this thread was the first I had ever heard he was Gay (or "cured"). He was a great entertainer and probably a great person, either way.

Personally I believe that homosexuality, is the result of hormones effecting fetal development, more so than genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> Do I have to give you a sex ed lesson? They produce offspring by having sex with people of the opposite sex.


Then their not gay!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Personally I believe that homosexuality, is the result of hormones effecting fetal development, more so than genetics.


I tend to "go" with this as well, although there may be a genetic link as well. For instance, I recall a study that found extremely fertile women are more likely to produce gay sons. (This also may explain why homosexuals haven't "died out" of the population.)



> A team of Italian researchers led by Andrea Camperio-Ciani had been working on solving the Darwinian paradox of homosexualityâthat is, if being gay is hereditary, and gay people have fewer or no children, homosexuality should have vanished from the gene pool. In 2004, the team studied Italian families and found that the female relatives of gay men were more fertile than average women. After using a series of computer models to analyze that data, the scientists released a study this week saying that homosexuality in men is genetically connected to women who have high fertility. In their model, male homosexuality has to be governed by two genetic lociâparticular fixed positions on a chromosomeâand at least one locus and maybe both must be on the X chromosome, meaning itâs passed down from mother to child.
> 
> Whatâs more, Camperio-Ciani and his team now say male homosexuality is an example of sexually antagonistic selectionâmeaning a trait that gives one of the sexes a reproductive advantage diminishes the reproductive advantages of the other. This shows up all the time in the animal kingdomâfor instance, fruit fly seminal fluid makes females lose interest in mating with other males, and actually shortens their lives. Most of the time itâs males taking the advantage, but in this case the researchers say itâs vice versa: Homosexuality means men will probably have fewer children, but their females relatives will have more, keeping homosexuality in the gene pool.


http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/12363-highly-fertile-women-more-likely-have-gay-sons.html

There's also the interesting "chimera hypothesis," which speculates that some homosexuals may have been affected in utero by absorbing the genetic material of a lost (opposite-sex) twin.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Then their not gay!


Perhaps they're bi?

Everyone always leaves us out ... :grumble:


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I tend to "go" with this as well, although there may be a genetic link as well. For instance, I recall a study that found extremely fertile women are more likely to produce gay sons. (This also may explain why homosexuals haven't "died out" of the population.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Overbearing single mothers have a higher chance at having a gay son.

If you are bi sexual you are gay...Period.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If you are bi sexual you are gay...Period.


I'm going to respectfully disagree. 

Not that there's anything wrong with being gay! ound:

But from my conversations with gay people, it seems many have the same aversion to heterosexual sex as most heteros have toward gay sex. 

That isn't the case, obviously, for those of us who are bi. 

Best of both worlds, IMO! :buds:


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Being Gay is a behavior, behaviors are learned. Behaviors can be unlearned. a.k.a "deprogramming"


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I'm going to respectfully disagree.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with being gay! ound:
> 
> ...


I disagree and here's why.

If you sleep with the same sex, man or woman you are gay. A straight person does not sleep with same sex partners. Therefore a heterosexual is neither gay or bi.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

VERN in IL said:


> Being Gay is a behavior, behaviors are learned. Behaviors can be unlearned. a.k.a "deprogramming"


Why do we not have a 'dislike' button?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Being Gay is a behavior, behaviors are learned. Behaviors can be unlearned. a.k.a "deprogramming"


Let me see if I have this right ... You are a heterosexual man, and currently have no attraction toward other men, but could 'unlearn' that 'learn' to be attracted to them?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I disagree and here's why.
> 
> If you sleep with the same sex, man or woman you are gay. A straight person does not sleep with same sex partners.


But a gay person generally doesn't sleep with opposite-sex partners (or doesn't really enjoy it if they do). 

I think you're saying there are only two orientations, gay or straight?

IMO, there are 3 -- gay, straight or bi. 

But I'm not sure how important that distinction is, really.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> Do I have to give you a sex ed lesson? They produce offspring by having sex with people of the opposite sex.





willow_girl said:


> Perhaps they're bi?
> 
> Everyone always leaves us out ... :grumble:


If they are not bi,they are having sex with someone they are not attracted to.Hows that?:grit:


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> But a gay person generally doesn't sleep with opposite-sex partners (or doesn't really enjoy it if they do).
> 
> I think you're saying there are only two orientations, gay or straight?
> 
> ...


Yup, gay or straight is right.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> Then their not gay!


The physical act of heterosexual sex does not make someone heterosexual.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> If they are not bi,they are having sex with someone they are not attracted to.Hows that?:grit:


I'm sure lots of people have sex with people they aren't really attracted to. Sometimes last call is a powerful force.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Or the societal pressure gay people have felt to pretend they were (quote, unquote) "normal" by pairing up with an opposite-sex partner.

Hopefully we'll see less need for that in the future!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Yup, gay or straight is right.


I'm honestly curious as to why you seem to feel bi isn't a valid orientation.

I'm attracted to women, but I'm not a lesbian who has a male partner ... I'm bi. :shrug: 

Again, I'm not really sure the distinction is all that important, but it's puzzling to me that someone would think bisexuality doesn't exist.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Then their not gay!


Having sex with with someone of the opposite gender does not automatically make you straight. It's being sexually oriented toward the opposite gender that makes you straight.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I'm honestly curious as to why you seem to feel bi isn't a valid orientation.
> 
> I'm attracted to women, but I'm not a lesbian who has a male partner ... I'm bi. :shrug:
> 
> Again, I'm not really sure the distinction is all that important, but it's puzzling to me that someone would think bisexuality doesn't exist.


Call it what you want, if you are attracted to the same sex you are gay.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> The physical act of heterosexual sex does not make someone heterosexual.


But gays don't have heterosexual sex, .......because their gay! If they have sex with their opposite, their not gay!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I'm sure lots of people have sex with people they aren't really attracted to. Sometimes last call is a powerful force.


That's called prostitution.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> But gays don't have heterosexual sex, .......because their gay! If they have sex with their opposite, their not gay!


You're hilarious. So people who engage in homosexual sex (and prefer it) are not gay if they also engage in heterosexual sex? That seems like a convenient way to look at it if you like having sex with dudes but don't want to be gay...like on the downlow.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> That's called prostitution.


No it isn't. You're a very confused man. Prostitution is the exchange of money for sex. Sleeping with someone you're not attracted to doesn't require money to change hands. It happens all the time.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> No it isn't. You're a very confused man. Prostitution is the exchange of money for sex. Sleeping with someone you're not attracted to doesn't require money to change hands. It happens all the time.


Not all prostitutes are paid money. You are the confused one. It's really very simple, gay people don't like having sex with their opposites. I keep hearing that over and over again. I can pretty much guarantee that if you didn't by someone a few drinks at a bar, their just not going to go to bed with you.(unless your ubber atractive, or a musician)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> You're hilarious. So people who engage in homosexual sex (and prefer it) are not gay if they also engage in heterosexual sex? That seems like a convenient way to look at it if you like having sex with dudes but don't want to be gay...like on the downlow.


That's bi-sexual, just so you know. I guess you know all about it!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Not all prostitutes are paid money. You are the confused one. It's really very simple, gay people don't like having sex with their opposites. I keep hearing that over and over again. I can pretty much guarantee that if you didn't by someone a few drinks at a bar, their just not going to go to bed with you.(unless your ubber atractive, or a musician)


Not just a musician .. you have to be the lead singer! (Sherman Alexie fans will get the joke here.)


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> Not all prostitutes are paid money. You are the confused one. *It's really very simple, gay people don't like having sex with their opposites.* I keep hearing that over and over again. I can pretty much guarantee that if you didn't by someone a few drinks at a bar, their just not going to go to bed with you.(unless your ubber atractive, or a musician)


I didn't say they like it, but plenty of them do it.

As for the drinks at the bar, back in my day I'd let the insecure guys buy the women the drinks and then I'd take them home without spending a dime.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> That's bi-sexual, just so you know. I guess you know all about it!


Yeah, I know enough about it. Bisexuals aren't gay? They have sex with people of the same sex...that seems pretty gay to me.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

But we also have sex with people of the opposite sex, and we like that, too! Bisexual ... is it really that hard to wrap your brain around the concept?


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Yes, it makes it harder to dislike the group that flipflops back and forth lol



willow_girl said:


> But we also have sex with people of the opposite sex, and we like that, too! Bisexual ... is it really that hard to wrap your brain around the concept?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Even straight guys like bi chicks!  

DBF says I can have a girlfriend if I want one, as long as I don't make him work on her car, too! ound:


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

LOTS of men have long been ok with 2 women together, their nickers get twisted in knots when it's 2 men though.. go figure.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Even straight guys like bi chicks!
> 
> DBF says I can have a girlfriend if I want one, as long as I don't make him work on her car, too! ound:


Not all of them, and much fewer than you may think. People tend to travel in the circles they them selves feel comfortable with. The gay population, and those that like "unusual behavior" are by far the minority, by far! Just because YOU like it doeasn't mean the majority does too!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

primal1 said:


> LOTS of men have long been ok with 2 women together, their nickers get twisted in knots when it's 2 men though.. go figure.


Some, not lot's. There's a difference.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> But we also have sex with people of the opposite sex, and we like that, too! Bisexual ... is it really that hard to wrap your brain around the concept?


Most people would call that confused!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Not all of them, and much fewer than you may think. People tend to travel in the circles they them selves feel comfortable with. The gay population, and those that like "unusual behavior" are by far the minority, by far! Just because YOU like it doeasn't mean the majority does too!


Enough seem to enjoy it that the men's magazine industry has been making hay from it for a long time.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Don't kid yourself, the straight porn and magazine industry is thriving on lesbian imagery.



JeffreyD said:


> Some, not lot's. There's a difference.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Most people?? In the 80's that may have been true with people talking about picking a side and sticking with it, those days are long gone lol



JeffreyD said:


> Most people would call that confused!


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Even straight guys like bi chicks!
> 
> DBF says I can have a girlfriend if I want one, as long as I don't make him work on her car, too! ound:


I can understand women's attraction to women.

I can't understand why anyone would be attracted to a man - we're disgusting creatures. Maybe it's the wallet.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> But we also have sex with people of the opposite sex, and we like that, too! Bisexual ... is it really that hard to wrap your brain around the concept?


Oh I get it. I'm just trying to get it through somebody's head that some gay people pass on their genes the same as straight people do. He seems confused as to how they manage to have offspring without "artificial" means. And he just wants to put everybody in his neat little categories..."gay people don't have sex with the opposite sex." Well, some don't but plenty do. And not just those who are bi...many non-bisexuals also have sex with the opposite sex, usually when they are young and not sure how to handle being gay in a gay-unfriendly society. And in times past it was even quite common for gay people to marry the opposite sex and have a family. Fortunately it is becoming less common as people are becoming more accepting.

ETA: Just for clarity, do you not like being considered gay because you are bisexual?


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

jtbrandt said:


> Yeah, I know enough about it. Bisexuals aren't gay? They have sex with people of the same sex...that seems pretty gay to me.


Lol...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> No it isn't. You're a very confused man. Prostitution is the exchange of money for sex. Sleeping with someone you're not attracted to doesn't require money to change hands. It happens all the time.


Sometimes it's called marriage.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> ETA: Just for clarity, do you not like being considered gay because you are bisexual?


I don't consider the term insulting or anything (oh heck no!) but for accuracy's sake, I prefer to be referred to as bi. For instance, I don't presume to speak for homosexuals, because I'm not -- I'm bi, and there is a difference. I can only speak authoritatively from my own personal experience.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's true that sexual attraction to young people is probably something they can't do much about, but it's different from homosexuality in that acting on homosexual desires is an act between consenting adults. If someone acts on an attraction to young people it's a crime.


In some places adults acting on homosexual desires is a crime. Therefore your logic fails.

Also you failed to address other sexual desires.


Please try again


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> "Straight" people do nothing but copulate?


Logic failure twice. 

1) You failed to answer the question.

2) Of the paraphilia listed none of them are limited to either homosexuals or heterosexuals. 

Please try again.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not totally predisposed to the idea that same-sex attraction is strictly genetic.


So you are saying you think there maybe the ability to change the cognitive process which leads some to prefer their own gender?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> What does this even mean?
> 
> Many gays live "straight" lives, because that what society told them they should do. I don't know about little Richard. Actually I was only kidding about the makeup, as this thread was the first I had ever heard he was Gay (or "cured"). He was a great entertainer and probably a great person, either way.
> 
> ...


Raises a very interesting point doesn't it. If the are capable of being aroused by a member of the opposite gender does that not support the theory that it is not genetic but rather mental?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I tend to "go" with this as well, although there may be a genetic link as well. For instance, I recall a study that found extremely fertile women are more likely to produce gay sons. (This also may explain why homosexuals haven't "died out" of the population.)


There are also many studies out there which find that blacks are less intelligent than other races, do you also accept those?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Let me see if I have this right ... You are a heterosexual man, and currently have no attraction toward other men, but could 'unlearn' that 'learn' to be attracted to them?


Yes. Ask anyone who works in the prison system.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Wow. There are some confused folks out there, and it ain't the gay people.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

or the Bi's


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

You may see it that way but the reality is the anger is not directed at the person but society in general for convincing them they should go against what is natural to them.
Once I came to terms with being gay(and it was not easy at all), i also came to terms with how natural it is for me... just as natural for a straight person to be attracted to the opposite sex.
You tell me if you heard a straight person say i want to be gay so i am going for reprogramming at a gay run facility, you'd be fine with that?
Thats how pride became such a huge word in the gay community.. having pride in who you are as a person and not breaking because of what the rest of society thinks.



Jolly said:


> Just an observation...
> 
> Taken as a class, homosexuals are always advocating tolerance, yet viciously attack any one of their class who no longer wishes to be homosexual.
> 
> Fascinating...


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

watcher said:


> There are also many studies out there which find that blacks are less intelligent than other races, do you also accept those?


That's a ridiculous comparison. 

Sure, it was shown in studies of decades and decades ago. But if you actually look at them, you will see they are biased and littered with flaws of how the study was done. Not scientific at all. 

Those that are recent and scientific found that the reason for a lack of intelligence was not genetic at all, rather that it was because of inferior education and/or expectations. The conclusion of every recent study is that it isn't a lack of intelligence ability at all. 

The gay studies are recent and scientific. Therefore, your comparison of gay studies vs. black studies it's not a valid comparison whatsoever to the topic at hand.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Ask them what watcher, how social animals behave when they are confined with only memebers of the same sex? this situation has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.



watcher said:


> Yes. Ask anyone who works in the prison system.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Ask them what watcher, how social animals behave when they are confined with only memebers of the same sex? this situation has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.


You have some strange definitions. IIRC, the definition of homosexual sex is to engage in sexual activities with a partner of the same gender. 

The sexual activity in prisons shows that people can choose to be sexually aroused by members of their own gender. I may not be an expert but it seems to me its a bit tough for there to be male homosexual activity without at least one of them being aroused. If there was way I'd think the sell of Viagra would not be quite so brisk.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

uh ever heard of rape? I don't think i am the one with strange definitions here lol

EDIT: Just to clarify what i mean by this is, not every sexual act is based on a physical attraction!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Most people?? In the 80's that may have been true with people talking about picking a side and sticking with it, those days are long gone lol


California, one of the most liberal states, passed prop 8. Overwhelmingly! Sure it wasn't defended by our AG(which IS her job) and is being challenged, but it still passed.

Long gone, hardly.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Oh come on, it's quite well known that immigrants were targeted for that vote and most of them are social conservatives.. do you think it would have a chance to ever pass again?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> uh ever heard of rape? I don't think i am the one with strange definitions here lol


You'll note I said ONE of them, not both.





primal1 said:


> EDIT: Just to clarify what i mean by this is, not every sexual act is based on a physical attraction!


More evidence that the act of sex is more of a choice, at least on one of the actors part.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

only as far as choosing to have it or not! They are horny and acting on it and it has nothing to do with attraction or who the other person is.. again the situation has nothing to do with homosexuality!!


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

You know, 95% of the people on HT I think are great warm-hearted people with good intentions. However, the ignorance and judgemental attitudes of some on this thread make me want to vomit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

tlrnnp67 said:


> You know, 95% of the people on HT I think are great warm-hearted people with good intentions. However, the ignorance and judgemental attitudes of some on this thread make me want to vomit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.


Just one of those things we don't agree with.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

This goes way beyond not agreeing. It doesn't effect anything in your lives, so to take it so calmly while attempting to destroy other peoples lives by perpetuating this unfounded dislike is pathetic.
I have even heard you refer to a 'friend' of yours as a dirty *** who happens to be HIV+. Comparing gays to 'dumb animals' just because you don't agree? sorry but don't minimize the depth of this with a we don't agree.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> only as far as choosing to have it or not! They are horny and acting on it and it has nothing to do with attraction or who the other person is.. again the situation has nothing to do with homosexuality!!


So if you were heterosexual and horny and struck out at the bar your heterosexual roommate should keep a close eye on you?

But again having sex with the same gender is homosexual no matter WHY you have it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

tlrnnp67 said:


> You know, 95% of the people on HT I think are great warm-hearted people with good intentions. However, the ignorance and judgemental attitudes of some on this thread make me want to vomit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.


Being a big judgmental aren't you?


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Having had sex with several str8 men while i was younger, could you call them homosexual if they are married with kids some 20 years later?



watcher said:


> So if you were heterosexual and horny and struck out at the bar your heterosexual roommate should keep a close eye on you?
> 
> But again having sex with the same gender is homosexual no matter WHY you have it.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> No it isn't. You're a very confused man. Prostitution is the exchange of money for sex. Sleeping with someone you're not attracted to doesn't require money to change hands. It happens all the time.


It's called marriage.:hysterical:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> It's called marriage.:hysterical:


Once in awhile my DH mentions he should have just paid for one cause it would have been cheaper. Usually when he's having to empty his wallet. I then remind him the best always costs more.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Yes. Ask anyone who works in the prison system.


Not really a good example, because prisoners don't have a choice as to the gender of their partners. 

Most people wouldn't freely choose to be cannibals, either, but if they were starving ... :teehee:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Raises a very interesting point doesn't it. If the are capable of being aroused by a member of the opposite gender does that not support the theory that it is not genetic but rather mental?


Actors in adult porn movies, can do whatever the director tells them to do.

Maybe, the same is true, with what "god" tells them they must do.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You'll note I said ONE of them, not both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, it's more an assertion of power over another through a violent act.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Having had sex with several str8 men while i was younger, could you call them homosexual if they are married with kids some 20 years later?


Isn't one of the things people say are many homosexual men get married and have families? Isn't that one of the reasons they give for there being more homosexuals even though they claim its genetic, gays are "pressured" to live straight lives?

But look at it this way, you bend a water hose then straighten it out does that mean it wasn't bent? Or does it mean it was bent but you chose to unbend it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Not really a good example, because prisoners don't have a choice as to the gender of their partners.


Ok, so you are saying people are unable to control themselves sexually? If that's so then I guess you have to excuse rape, after all the rapist had no ability to control his sexual desires.

Your argument sounds silly when you look at it that doesn't it.




willow_girl said:


> Most people wouldn't freely choose to be cannibals, either, but if they were starving ... :teehee:


So now you die if you don't have sex. What a great pick up line. "You HAVE to have sex with me, if not I'll be dead by the morning!"

I've heard people say for them it was a misdemeanor because the more they miss it the meaner they got. But never heard it was fatal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Actors in adult porn movies, can do whatever the director tells them to do.
> 
> Maybe, the same is true, with what "god" tells them they must do.


So if someone tells you to get aroused by and have sex with that dead body you'd be able to do so?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Actually, it's more an assertion of power over another through a violent act.


OK but what does that have to do with what I said?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> OK but what does that have to do with what I said?


You seem to want to equate the fact that someone rapes another in prison as evidence that homosexuality can come and go. Many of these acts are not about the desire to have sex with another male. They are to assert control over another through a violent act. What fantasies are going through the rapists mind to allow him to achieve the ability to act, I can only speculate on. Some may be homosexual fantasies, some may picture a female supermodel. The mind is a powerful sexual instrument.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> So if someone tells you to get aroused by and have sex with that dead body you'd be able to do so?


No, but if that's your thing, go for it. 

You won't hear any complaints.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

tlrnnp67 said:


> You know, 95% of the people on HT I think are great warm-hearted people with good intentions. However, the ignorance and judgemental attitudes of some on this thread make me want to vomit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.



People want to express opinions (some rather harshly), that differ from other's.

So what?

Gay people. straight people. Liberals. Conservatives. (moderates) religious non religious.

If we are not old enough, that we cannot take an occasional "bashing" and therefore have "hurt feelings", maybe we should be elsewhere.

Often one gets bashed, when they are right.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Well since 2 of them are still my best friends and i do know for a fact they are not cheating, but this is all irrelevant because you are the one trying to squeeze everybody into the same box.

So you want to call it a bent hose?



watcher said:


> Isn't one of the things people say are many homosexual men get married and have families? Isn't that one of the reasons they give for there being more homosexuals even though they claim its genetic, gays are "pressured" to live straight lives?
> 
> But look at it this way, you bend a water hose then straighten it out does that mean it wasn't bent? Or does it mean it was bent but you chose to unbend it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> No, but if that's your thing, go for it.
> 
> You won't hear any complaints.



I thought you were saying just because a director told someone to do something they could do it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Well since 2 of them are still my best friends and i do know for a fact they are not cheating, but this is all irrelevant because you are the one trying to squeeze everybody into the same box.
> 
> So you want to call it a bent hose?


You are the one who seems to be saying having sex with someone of the same gender isn't homosexual.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

No, this all started because you wanted to compare prisoners to homosexuals and calling them homosexual.



watcher said:


> You are the one who seems to be saying having sex with someone of the same gender isn't homosexual.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> I thought you were saying just because a director told someone to do something they could do it.


I'm not a porn actor, but it may be possible. They are professionals.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I should have got into porn, i'd have the illusive dream farm all paid off by now


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> The sexual activity in prisons shows that people can choose to be sexually aroused by members of their own gender. I may not be an expert but it seems to me its a bit tough for there to be male homosexual activity without at least one of them being aroused. If there was way I'd think the sell of Viagra would not be quite so brisk.


One does not necessarily have to be aroused by the person they are WITH to have sex with that person. They can think about someone else.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Ok, so you are saying people are unable to control themselves sexually?


No, I'm simply saying that desperate times call for desperate measures.

The same applies to cannibalism.



> I thought you were saying just because a director told someone to do something they could do it.


I think that's what "fluffers" are for. ound:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Having had sex with several str8 men while i was younger, could you call them homosexual if they are married with kids some 20 years later?


You cured them! And they said it couldn't be done!


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

primal1 said:


> Having had sex with several str8 men while i was younger, could you call them homosexual if they are married with kids some 20 years later?


Sounds more like you had sex with gay or bi men when you were younger who then chose a heterosexual lifestyle. That sounds an awful lot like their sexual orientation was a choice.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

LOL funny.
But ya it happens all the time that gay and bi people decide str8 is easier, so it really must be a choice


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Well since 2 of them are still my best friends and i do know for a fact they are not cheating, but this is all irrelevant because you are the one trying to squeeze everybody into the same box.
> 
> So you want to call it a bent hose?


BTW, thank you for adding more evidence to the "its a choice" side of the argument.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> No, this all started because you wanted to compare prisoners to homosexuals and calling them homosexual.


I think if you check I said they make the choice of having homosexual relationships.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I'm not a porn actor, but it may be possible. They are professionals.


But do you play one on TV?

Anyone else remember that line?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> No, I'm simply saying that desperate times call for desperate measures.



But as I have pointed out they have to CHOOSE to do it. That clearly makes it a choice.




willow_girl said:


> I think that's what "fluffers" are for. ound:


You can only fluff so far.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

ok call it whatever you like it really doesn't change anything, but to me the vast majority are just getting off.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Yes watcher people can chose to explore and experiment


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> But as I have pointed out they have to CHOOSE to do it. That clearly makes it a choice.
> .


You are out of touch, if you think, that either homosexuality, _or_ heterosexuality, is defined, only by a particular sex act, with a particular partner

A tad bit more to it than that. 



> *Heterosexuality* is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary. As a sexual orientation, heterosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, physical or romantic attractions to persons of the opposite sex"; it also refers to "an individualâs sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them".[1][2] The term is usually applied to humans, but it is also observed in all mammals.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexuality



> *Homosexuality* is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. "It also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Thank you for posting that plowjockey, wish i had thought of that about 4 pages ago


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> But as I have pointed out they have to CHOOSE to do it. That clearly makes it a choice.


I don't think people choose their orientation. Someone in desperate circumstances (i.e., prison) might "make do" with a same-sex partner, but if they're really heterosexual, they're probably fantasizing about a woman all the while, and certainly would prefer a female partner if one were available.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> BTW, thank you for adding more evidence to the "its a choice" side of the argument.


 That is NOT what he was saying.... anyone can choose to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex.... that is NOT the same thing as being attracted to that person on a basic level.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Yes watcher people can chose to explore and experiment


Then they CHOOSE what they want to do. Which is anecdotal evidence that it is a life style choice.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> You are out of touch, if you think, that either homosexuality, _or_ heterosexuality, is defined, only by a particular sex act, with a particular partner
> 
> A tad bit more to it than that.


The point we are discussing is if it is a choice, a mental condition or genetic.

Use a food item as an example. 

You can choose to eat it or not. 

That choice could be based on nothing more than your personal preference. You may just not be 'in the mood' for that item right now. You don't really like it neither do you really dislike it you just don't want to eat it right now, maybe later you will.

Or the choice could be based on mental conditioning. If when you were a kid you had bad experences with that food you might have learned to not like it. The conditioning could be so great eating it could make you physically ill even though there is no physical medical reason, its based on your mental conditioning. If this is the case you can recondition your brain and you could then eat it w/o harm.

[As an aside I have a friend who has this problem with tuna casserole of all things. He's fine with grilled tuna, tuna salad or any other way you fix it but put tuna casserole on the table and he'll almost vomit.]

Or you could be allergic to it which means your body is genetically programed to react when you eat it. In this case there's nothing you can do to allow you to eat the food w/o problems.


Currently there is nothing showing homosexuality is either one of these and there is evidence which can be used to support each of them. Which means anyone who says it is one or the other is only stating their opinion, not fact. Its my opinion it is most likely a combination of the first two.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> That is NOT what he was saying.... anyone can choose to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex.... that is NOT the same thing as being attracted to that person on a basic level.


Sure he did. He pointed out there were men who had tried both types and chose to go with women. If they were not attracted to him why did they choose to have sex with him?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Yes watcher people can chose to explore and experiment


After which they chose which they like. They explored and experimented and then chose which they liked better. More support for the choice argument.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Then they CHOOSE what they want to do. Which is anecdotal evidence that it is a life style choice.


Having sex with someone of the same sex does not make you gay. Ever heard the phrase "gay for pay".

Being attracted physically and emotionally to the same sex is the basis for the word being Gay or bisexual. Gay would be exclusively being attracted to the same sex.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Sure he did. He pointed out there were men who had tried both types and chose to go with women. If they were not attracted to him why did they choose to have sex with him?


 No, I do not believe that was what he was saying. And to answer your question, they were most likely BISEXUAL.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> The point we are discussing is if it is a choice, a mental condition or genetic.
> 
> Use a food item as an example.
> 
> ...


To discount your third option without evidense is a bit selective. You forgot to take into account that some people have different configurations of taste buds than others. It affects what foods they eat. I figure that, just as with many human behaviors, all three factors come into play when it comes to sexual behavior. Some are totally hard wired straight. Some gay. Probably the vast majority fall somewhere on a bell curve in between the two. Societal pressures and norms likely shape behavior for most in the middle. You can make any moral judgement you like on these people. I figure most of us can't control who we fall in love with and i'd rather spend my days celebrating love.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

The question of is it 'by choice', seems rather voyeuristic. All heterosexuals are not voyeuristic but this recent conversation is. There is no need to know whether it's nature or nurture. It's like the thought-police have decided you can be given benefits or not based on your intention.

You can be left handed, right handed or ambidextrous. If the government said you can have benefits if you are right handed but not if you are left handed or ambidextrous, you can bet there would be a lot of people making choices to be right handed and faking being right handed.

If the government said instead, you can have benefits, if you can write (or communicate), we wouldn't need a definition of what 'write' or 'communicate' means. It would allow for all people that are right handed, left handed, ambidextrous, writing with feet, or with mouths, computer aided writing through voice or other, and people that type and text.

It's a law for all people regardless of sex (or right or left handedness).


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> The question of is it 'by choice', seems rather voyeuristic. All heterosexuals are not voyeuristic but this recent conversation is. There is no need to know whether it's nature or nurture. It's like the thought-police have decided you can be given benefits or not based on your intention.
> 
> You can be left handed, right handed or ambidextrous. If the government said you can have benefits if you are right handed but not if you are left handed or ambidextrous, you can bet there would be a lot of people making choices to be right handed and faking being right handed.
> 
> ...


So then that should extend to plural marriages, incestual marriages, etc?


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Lazaryss said:


> So then that should extend to plural marriages, incestual marriages, etc?


No, just a union between two people, no animals, no incest, no underage, no plural--for the purposes of a union defined by law.
There are already laws against a union between people and animals, underage, incest, and plural with regard to receiving gov't benefits--they aren't considered by law to be in a union.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

You know it might be a choice for some, and not a choice for others. Just like the guys who go into prison and go 'gay for the stay' because there are no women around. I have a cousin who announced to his parents that he is gay. He never seemed effeminate or gave any indication of being gay before...but he was not popular with the girls being heavy and not too good looking. He started watching this show where they all dance and sing, and the message is very pro-gay. I can't remember what its called. Anyway, it didnt take long for him to start acting gay and he found a bunch of gays at school who accepted him and he basically IMO made the choice between being a lonely fat kid with no girlfriends, to being gay and at least having some social life.

On the other hand, one of my best friends and the best man at my wedding was obviously gay from a small child. Maybe some are born that way, and maybe some choose it. The world is rarely black and white.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> No, just a union between two people, no animals, no incest, no underage, no plural--for the purposes of a union defined by law.
> There are already laws against a union between people and animals, underage, incest, and plural with regard to receiving gov't benefits--they aren't considered by law to be in a union.


But why not? Surely the ambidextrious and people that write with their feet should be afforded the same rights as those that write with their left and right hands per your previous example? Who are you to say they are doing it wrong?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Personally I don't see why plural marriage should be wrong if two members of the same sex can get married. What about the old Mormon definition of union? The issue is allowing people to define their own relationships, it not just about accepting gays and closing the door on everyone else.

I say as long as you have two or more consenting adults, they should be able to define their own relationship. Gays, polygamy, incest, all of it must be left to the moral judgement of the individuals.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Lazaryss said:


> But why not? Surely the ambidextrious and people that write with their feet should be afforded the same rights as those that write with their left and right hands per your previous example? Who are you to say they are doing it wrong?


Well, this is how I see it.
Plural marriages, right now, are not recognized as civil unions with gov't benefits, and some would say it is a crime. Only the first union is legal.
Underage children, cannot give consent and it would be statutory rape is sex is involved.
Incest--that is questionable, though, 2nd cousins are allowed to marry and it is not a crime.
Animals cannot give consent--peta among others would consider it a crime.

Most of those are considered a crime.
Unions are civil and not criminal.

I'm not *anybody* to say these things. These are my opinions.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darntootin, our gov't isn't that generous to allow more than one wife/husband/SO in a union of 2 and provide benefits.
They allow for serial unions, but not plural unions--at this time.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Darntootin, our gov't isn't that generous to allow more than one wife/husband/SO in a union of 2 and provide benefits.
> They allow for serial unions, but not plural unions--at this time.


 I know they don't I'm suggesting that they should. Ultimately, the government should have no hand in any marriage what-so-ever. I find it absurd that we have to report the status of our personal relationships to the government, who then condones it with a piece of paper and a tax break.

Marriage should be a personal, religious or secular decision between adults. The rest of us dont need to be involved. Every person should file taxes as an individual.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darntootin said:


> I know they don't I'm suggesting that they should. Ultimately, the government should have no hand in any marriage what-so-ever. I find it absurd that we have to report the status of our personal relationships to the government, who then condones it with a piece of paper and a tax break.
> 
> Marriage should be a personal, religious or secular decision between adults. The rest of us dont need to be involved. Every person should file taxes as an individual.


I can't argue against what you've said--I believe what you are saying is correct.
And those people that have married to save money, get tax breaks, have a more stable life by sharing a life together (two can live cheaper together), will have to reconsider if it was right to marry in the first place--should the laws change to reflect what you've said. (every person should file taxes as individuals) It would financially hurt a majority of married people if the law changed that way. That is why I don't see us at that point right now but we are moving in that direction (with health care).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> No, just a union between two people, no animals, no incest, no underage, no plural--for the purposes of a union defined by law.
> There are already laws against a union between people and animals, underage, incest, and plural with regard to receiving gov't benefits--they aren't considered by law to be in a union.


But if you love two (or more) people shouldn't you be able to marry them all and let them get benefits as well?

And why should the government have the ability to tell a 14 y.o. that they can't marry if they are in love?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Well, this is how I see it.
> Plural marriages, right now, are not recognized as civil unions with gov't benefits, and some would say it is a crime. Only the first union is legal.
> Underage children, cannot give consent and it would be statutory rape is sex is involved.
> Incest--that is questionable, though, 2nd cousins are allowed to marry and it is not a crime.
> ...


These things are only illegal because the government makes them so. If you are going to change the definition of marriage why not change it to include EVERYONE?


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

They can decide whether or not a baby they made has a right to live but can't decide whether or not to marry. 


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> But if you love two (or more) people shouldn't you be able to marry them all and let them get benefits as well?
> 
> And why should the government have the ability to tell a 14 y.o. that they can't marry if they are in love?


Not answering for anyone else, my opinion only. I don't care how many people want to enter into a marriage. The issue of benefits is easily resolved. Every person comes with one set of benefits. That benefit can be split in any way the participants of the marriage agree to. Your mythical 14 year old is not allowed to marry for the same reason they are not allowed to enter into contracts or partake of many "adult" behaviors.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> ....It would financially hurt a majority of married people if the law changed that way.....


Well right now it is hurting people who choose to remain single. It's easy to think about giving a tax break to married people, but when you do that you are actually penalizing one behavior in favor of another. In our current situation, the government is penalizing people who remain single with a higher tax rate.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darntootin said:


> Well right now it is hurting people who choose to remain single. It's easy to think about giving a tax break to married people, but when you do that you are actually penalizing one behavior in favor of another. In our current situation, the government is penalizing people who remain single with a higher tax rate.


True: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/cost-of-living/financial-benefits-marriage-162452516.html This is an article about the financial benefits of marriage.

There is also a marriage penalty in our tax code: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/Marriage-Penalty.cfm They call it a marriage subsidy.

And for health care, the gov't will not require companies to carry insurance for spouses in the future, so many will be dropped, and subsidized health care will be available for singles if their income is low enough, but married people will only qualify if their income is even lower (less than double the single rate), which is also a penalty.

Married people save money on shared living expenses and take the risk that if they or their spouse gets very ill, they can lose everything and live in poverty.

Divorce is often driven by these and other financial considerations.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Not answering for anyone else, my opinion only. I don't care how many people want to enter into a marriage. The issue of benefits is easily resolved. Every person comes with one set of benefits. That benefit can be split in any way the participants of the marriage agree to.


So if you are in the hospital only one of your husbands and/or wives are allowed to visit you?




mmoetc said:


> Your mythical 14 year old is not allowed to marry for the same reason they are not allowed to enter into contracts or partake of many "adult" behaviors.


And that reason is? I seem to remember governments have ruled 14 y.o. can be treated as adults. Put _14 year old charged as an adult_ into any search engine and see how many hits you get. If the state can say a 14 y.o. is old enough to be treated as an adult in one legal procedure why not another? After all isn't the reason for allowing gay marriage is because everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the government?


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Please everyone, let's keep things on track in this discussion, respectful, not get ridiculous or off on other tangents so the thread ends up being locked.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So if you are in the hospital only one of your husbands and/or wives are allowed to visit you?
> 
> Visitation would more properly be classified as a right or priviledge, not a benefit. And if you want to take it to the absurd, the marriage contract can just as easily divide up visitation time and order as it can any monetary benefits. An issue best decided among those in the marriage.
> 
> ...


Nice try but they are treated equally. It is up to a court to decide whether they are charged as an adult. They are all eligible to be charged but because some are not does not mean they were treated unequally.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> After all isn't the reason for allowing gay marriage is because everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the government?


No, not at all.

It's _Adult _gay males, that are to be married, not minors. You are just clouding the issue, IMO. Maybe a person should be able to marry a hamster. 

Your "14 year old girl" point is also moot, since up through the 18th century, 13-14 year old girls _*did*_ get married, because lifespans were much shorter.then, so if one was going to have a family, they better get moving. It's not physically necessary any more and it was determined that younger girls (and boys), are best to mature a few more years, so that is one reason minor laws are put in place.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Nice try but they are treated equally. It is up to a court to decide whether they are charged as an adult. They are all eligible to be charged but because some are not does not mean they were treated unequally.


Really? I though you had a problem with the courts deciding who is allow or not allowed to do something. Seems to me that JUST what the courts are doing with marriage. Some people are allowed to marry and others are not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> It's _Adult _gay males, that are to be married, not minors. You are just clouding the issue, IMO. Maybe a person should be able to marry a hamster.


No, I'm just expanding your logic to other things.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Really? I though you had a problem with the courts deciding who is allow or not allowed to do something. Seems to me that JUST what the courts are doing with marriage. Some people are allowed to marry and others are not.


I have no problem with the courts deciding legal issues. The DOMA decision made no judgement on who is allowed to be married. The decision only said that those legally married are entitled to the same federal benefits regardless of the sexual makeup of the marriage. The courts seem amenable to allowing all to marry. Some people and legislatures seem to feel differently. That would be the crux of what is happening in California.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

watcher said:


> After which they chose which they like. They explored and experimented and then chose which they liked better. More support for the choice argument.


Perhaps they simply fell in love with an individual, who just happened to be female?


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

On the subject of 14 year olds, I believe up until recently the age of consent in Canada was 14.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

LOL @ watcher, why are you trying so hard... what about all the gay's and str8 who never had to experiment or explore to know. I know plenty of gay men and women who have never tried the opposite sex and don't need to.. kind of hard to call that choosing when there was never any question.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

Folks,

Please be cognizant of the effect your words and actions have on other people. If you are gay, being compared to pedophiles or people who engage in beastiality (really?) is really insulting and despite you saying you "hate the sin but love the sinner", it makes gay people think you hate & despise them. That may be true or not. 

People raised in the Christian faith who happen to be gay are particularly conflicted about your words and actions. They either turn their backs altogether on Christianity or often spiral into depression and self-destructive behavior because of the derision and scorn heaped upon them by supposedly Godly people. 

If you dare, please read and watch this and be a bit gentler with those with whom you don't agree in the future:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda...-gay-son_b_3478971.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices


----------

