dang - Raydar & FieroFetish - I covered all of this in my BOOOYA post. but, being a bit long - maybe y'all just skipped it....
you wont find one single source of gays.

To the original thread topic...
Scientists have been messing around with genetics for years. They keep coming up with new and exciting things that they can do by scotch-taping different stuff together.
Doesn't mean that they'll keep doing it, just because they can. Some stuff will prove worthwhile, and will trickle down to the mainstream. Some will be useless (or just not worth the trouble), and will be abandoned just as quickly.

Kind of like the three-assed monkey on Southpark. Why should they keep doing it, just because they can?

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Kind of like the three-assed monkey on Southpark. Why should they keep doing it, just because they can?

Well of course they should. How else are they going to sell all of their three-assed pairs of pants?

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy (8/26/06)

I am sure you read this Raydar..somewhere in there is an explanation as to why I am against homosexuals..they ARE predatory, in my opinion..I don't expect you to wade through this again, and I have no desire to read it all again..
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/045522.html
Nick

quote Originally posted by Raydar: But that's just it! While some persons may be born with more aggressive personality traits than others, I don't think that anyone is necessarily predisposed to being a murderer, rapist, or pedophile. I do think that some people are predisposed to being gay (or a certain degree thereof). And again, homosexuals who respond to their predisposition are not harming anyone else (other than, perhaps, shocking a few people along the way.) Pedophiles, rapists and murderers all have one thing in common. They have victims. They don't just keep it among themselves. (I believe that pedophilia is a learned behavior, based upon adolescent or pre-adolescent experiences, combined with a predatory nature. But that's a topic for a whole different thread.)

Inbreeding just took on a whole new meaning.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Pedophiles, rapists and murderers all have one thing in common. They have victims. They don't just keep it among themselves.

Umm, no.

pe·do·phile /ˈpidəˌfaɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-duh-fahyl] –noun Psychiatry.
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

As soon as they ACT on that sexual attraction, they become a rapist. "Pedophile" does not mean "rapist" any more than "homosexual" does.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I didn't skip it. I just went back and reread to make sure that I didn't miss anything. I'm not sure that I agree with the "heroin vs homosexuality" comparison, among other things. People have a sexual urge (straight or gay) from the onset of puberty. People don't have a physical urge, or need, to do heroin until they've done it at least once. Up until that time they can take it or leave it. (Drug-addicted babies notwithstanding.)

actually, people have sexual urges from birth. babies play with themselves - and like it. parents quickly swat the hand away & say BAD BABY - and sexual oppresion begins.
and, people have "buzz" urges also. spinning themselves to make dizzy, huffing, sugar rushes, caffiene rushes
and, I do have the urge to do heroin. never done it. never will. but, I want it. and, I know I will love it. I am sure I am not alone. maybe I am one of the few who actually knows it tho.
but, yes, it is tough stretch. untill you actually have sex, how do ya know what you want anyways?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I am against homosexuals..they ARE predatory

i'm sure your nice gay friends would just love to know your real opinion of them.

You make sense
Nick

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: actually, people have sexual urges from birth. babies play with themselves - and like it. parents quickly swat the hand away & say BAD BABY - and sexual oppresion begins. and, people have "buzz" urges also. spinning themselves to make dizzy, huffing, sugar rushes, caffiene rushes and, I do have the urge to do heroin. never done it. never will. but, I want it. and, I know I will love it. I am sure I am not alone. maybe I am one of the few who actually knows it tho. but, yes, it is tough stretch. untill you actually have sex, how do ya know what you want anyways?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I am sure you read this Raydar..somewhere in there is an explanation as to why I am against homosexuals..they ARE predatory, in my opinion..

Nick, I would respectfully suggest that your opinion is in error, and that you are biased and unable to see that because of your previous experience. I mean no disrespect to you at all, but I would hope you can at least see that because of the events that have happened in your past you are not in a good position to make an objective observation.

Some homosexuals are predators, no doubt. But some heterosexuals are predators as well. Being a predator has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You may be surprised to find that many male pedophiles that abuse male children identify as heterosexual.

I won't try to change your opinion. But I would ask that you not condemn an entire group of people because of sexual orientation.

If you had been attacked by a Mormon, would you say all Mormons are predators?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-09-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I am sure you read this Raydar..somewhere in there is an explanation as to why I am against homosexuals..they ARE predatory, in my opinion..I don't expect you to wade through this again, and I have no desire to read it all again.. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/045522.html

Might as well link to the Complete thread as the one linked to above was closed before it ground to a halt.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Umm, no. pe·do·phile /ˈpidəˌfaɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-duh-fahyl] –noun Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. As soon as they ACT on that sexual attraction, they become a rapist. "Pedophile" does not mean "rapist" any more than "homosexual" does.

Point taken.
But then, if a homosexual acts on his or her sexual attraction, it's called... sex?
The point I was attempting to make is that if it is between consenting persons there are no victims.

Formula88, I hold my hands up..my view is probably biased...but I would like to say this, if I may. My point in this thread is not to slate homosexuals..just to say they chose (IMHO) to go down the road, knowing FULL WELL they can never procreate.Most accept that, and live with it. My feelings are that they should not be helped to produce a child un-naturally. Ryan said it was a joke..maybe it was, but the reality is that Technology and Medical progress could make it a possibility. Now, everybody nowadays is shouting about 'Rights'...what about the Rights of ANY child produced through this obscene possibility? Just suppose a 'normal' ( hetrosexual is my interpretation of normal) child should be produced? Does that child not have the right that the majority of other children have...to have normal, natural parents? I can just imagine that child wanting a Daddy or Mummy..not a Mummy and Mummy, or Daddy and Daddy? There are so many single parent families, who don't provide the natural balance to allow them to progress in Life successfully? You only have to see how many problem children come from single-parent families..what sort of mixed-up message would the fact that their parents, whether together or apart, were not the same as 99.9% of othe other children in their lives? Kids have enough problems to deal with anyway..one more on this major scale would possibly destroy the prospect of a natural life at all? That is wrong...totally wrong..IMHO.
By calling somebody an idiot is insulting,un-neccessary, and extremely immature..I replied in an uncharacteristic fashion..I became insulting and denigrating. Anybody who slings out that kind of baseless opinion, obviously proves they don't have an opinion which they can substantiate. And it isn't worth continuing with..they have nothing of value to further add to the discussion. as has been subsequently proved.I chose to show that I can be insulting too..they don't have a monopoly on it.It is baseless, and worthless rhetoric.Show some maturity, as ALL the others here have, and I will reciprocate in a like fashion.But I will continue to ignore vitriolic rubbish.
Nick

To get back on topic, women will always need us. I mean, after all, who'll squish the spiders?

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy (8/26/06)

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Formula88, I hold my hands up..my view is probably biased...but I would like to say this, if I may. My point in this thread is not to slate homosexuals..just to say they chose (IMHO) to go down the road, knowing FULL WELL they can never procreate.Most accept that, and live with it. My feelings are that they should not be helped to produce a child un-naturally. Ryan said it was a joke..maybe it was, but the reality is that Technology and Medical progress could make it a possibility. Now, everybody nowadays is shouting about 'Rights'...what about the Rights of ANY child produced through this obscene possibility? Just suppose a 'normal' ( hetrosexual is my interpretation of normal) child should be produced? Does that child not have the right that the majority of other children have...to have normal, natural parents? I can just imagine that child wanting a Daddy or Mummy..not a Mummy and Mummy, or Daddy and Daddy? There are so many single parent families, who don't provide the natural balance to allow them to progress in Life successfully? You only have to see how many problem children come from single-parent families..what sort of mixed-up message would the fact that their parents, whether together or apart, were not the same as 99.9% of othe other children in their lives? Kids have enough problems to deal with anyway..one more on this major scale would possibly destroy the prospect of a natural life at all? That is wrong...totally wrong..IMHO. By calling somebody an idiot is insulting,un-neccessary, and extremely immature..I replied in an uncharacteristic fashion..I became insulting and denigrating. Anybody who slings out that kind of baseless opinion, obviously proves they don't have an opinion which they can substantiate. And it isn't worth continuing with..they have nothing of value to further add to the discussion. as has been subsequently proved.I chose to show that I can be insulting too..they don't have a monopoly on it.It is baseless, and worthless rhetoric.Show some maturity, as ALL the others here have, and I will reciprocate in a like fashion.But I will continue to ignore vitriolic rubbish. Nick

oh, waah. you call my desires obscene, you equate me with a murderer, you assert that anyone like me is a predator, and you manufacture outrage over being called an idiot for it? get a grip.

this isn't about "substantiation". this is about you trying to define me. my "opinion" about my own life and love and nature is not "baseless"... it's my word, against which your repellant assumptions have no weight.

Hahahaha!!!

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Formula88, I hold my hands up..my view is probably biased...but I would like to say this, if I may. My point in this thread is not to slate homosexuals..just to say they chose (IMHO) to go down the road, knowing FULL WELL they can never procreate.Most accept that, and live with it.

And my point was they no more chose to be homosexual than you chose to be heterosexual.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: My feelings are that they should not be helped to produce a child un-naturally. Ryan said it was a joke..maybe it was, but the reality is that Technology and Medical progress could make it a possibility. Now, everybody nowadays is shouting about 'Rights'...what about the Rights of ANY child produced through this obscene possibility? Just suppose a 'normal' ( hetrosexual is my interpretation of normal) child should be produced? Does that child not have the right that the majority of other children have...to have normal, natural parents? I can just imagine that child wanting a Daddy or Mummy..not a Mummy and Mummy, or Daddy and Daddy? There are so many single parent families, who don't provide the natural balance to allow them to progress in Life successfully? You only have to see how many problem children come from single-parent families..what sort of mixed-up message would the fact that their parents, whether together or apart, were not the same as 99.9% of othe other children in their lives? Kids have enough problems to deal with anyway..one more on this major scale would possibly destroy the prospect of a natural life at all? That is wrong...totally wrong..IMHO.

I believe the issue about whether or not medical science should find new ways for humans to procreate is a complex ethical issue. There were similar discussions about "playing God" etc. when in vitro fertilization was being developed. The technique to fertilize an egg and start a pregnancy and any moral and ethical issues associated with it have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the parents. These methods can be used to help single parents have children, as well as heterosexual parents.

There are already many cases of same-sex partners raising children and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is any less healthy than opposite sex parents. If there was, you can believe U.S. Child Protective Services would be all over it here in the U.S. There is evidence to suggest that children raised by same-sex partners may have some advantages in a way. The parents have to be open and honest with their children from a very young age about sexuality because the children will notice the differences between their parents and other kid's parents. Knowledge, trust, and most importantly, love, are the factors here much more than the gender of the parents.

Consider how many unplanned pregnancies there are and how many children grow up with heterosexual parents who didn't intend to have kids (at least not then).
ALL same sex partners wishing to adopt go into it wanting to raise a child. They are scrutinized more than even a regular adoption process. Overall, you may find a larger percentage of same sex partners in stable family units than conventional "normal" parents.

Like I said before, I'm not really trying to change your opinion, but I hope I've given you another perspective to consider. I thank you for the discussion and for sharing your perspective with me.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: The experiment used embryo cells to produce seven baby mice, six of whom lived into adulthood, although the survivors suffered adverse events of the kind seen in cloning experiments.

Geezs, one more Rosie O' Donalds.

Sorry, a homosexual lifestyle IS deviant behavior. At least according to most dictionaries. For instance, Princeton:

Noun
S: (n) pervert, deviant, deviate, degenerate (a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior)
Adjective
S: (adj) aberrant, deviant, deviate (markedly different from an accepted norm) "aberrant behavior"; "deviant ideas"


Since by the most generous estimates much less than 5% of our society lives a homosexual lifestyle, it is a lifestyle that is "markedly different from an accepted norm". That makes a homosexual lifestyle a deviant lifestyle.

I do not, however, choose to classify a homosexual as a deviant because, to me, if you're going to make it synonomous with pervert and degenerate, that implies harm to others. A homosexual person, by their homosexuality, does not necessarily wish to harm anyone any more than anyone else does. I do agree with the part that states "a person whose behvior deviates from what is acceptable". That, to me, is a problem in that a deviant group from the norm is trying to make that deviation in some way "normal".

It is not. It never will be.

Don't argue with me, argue with Princeton and nearly every other dictionary out there if you don't like the term.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: by the way, let me state this for those of you who aren't raving lunatics: one - though by no means the only - essential offense in fierofetish's little tantrum is that he seeks to define me according to his prejudices. he is (presumably) not homosexual, and yet from that position of pure ignorance, he thinks he is authorized to make definitive assertions about my motivations and psychology. "idiot" is a very restrained epithet for me to employ, i think, with regard to someone so sure that he can erase me with his foolish bluster. and for what i hope is the very last time: the correct pronoun is "she".

Excellently put. I enjoyed reading your posts, and certainly will not dismiss out of hand your opinions.
[Quote]" ALL same sex partners wishing to adopt go into it wanting to raise a child. They are scrutinized more than even a regular adoption process. Overall, you may find a larger percentage of same sex partners in stable family units than conventional "normal" parents. ] End quote..
I just would like to say this about your above statement: If that same high level of scrutiny could be available for the heterosexual partnerships that so sadly go wrong,, and applied with equal attention, then maybe the heterosexual relationships would be equally more successful, instead of failing? Perhaps it IS that same scrutiny which makes the same-sex relationships/family units more successful? Just a thought..I am in no way condoning failed 'normal' family units, just because they are heterosexual (normal) by nature. There are WAY too many unwanted pregnancies in the World today.That is lamentable, and due to selfishness and ignorance..and lack of self-control. Been there, done it....and 37 years on, I am still ashamed for letting myself get caught out...for the fourth time for her, unbeknownst to me at the time. And I put myself on the firing line by trying to do the right thing.Fortunately, my son has listened, understood and forgiven me. We are very close, and He is here in Spain, and we talk all the time.
Nick
Nick

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Formula88, I hold my hands up..my view is probably biased...but I would like to say this, if I may. My point in this thread is not to slate homosexuals..just to say they chose (IMHO) to go down the road, knowing FULL WELL they can never procreate.Most accept that, and live with it. My feelings are that they should not be helped to produce a child un-naturally. Ryan said it was a joke..maybe it was, but the reality is that Technology and Medical progress could make it a possibility.

No, the "joke" part of it was that we (men) are obsolete now that women have the potential to become asexual. The link shows that it is already possible.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Sorry, a homosexual lifestyle IS deviant behavior. At least according to most dictionaries. For instance, Princeton: Noun S: (n) pervert, deviant, deviate, degenerate (a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior) Adjective S: (adj) aberrant, deviant, deviate (markedly different from an accepted norm) "aberrant behavior"; "deviant ideas" Since by the most generous estimates much less than 5% of our society lives a homosexual lifestyle, it is a lifestyle that is "markedly different from an accepted norm". That makes a homosexual lifestyle a deviant lifestyle. I do not, however, choose to classify a homosexual as a deviant because, to me, if you're going to make it synonomous with pervert and degenerate, that implies harm to others. A homosexual person, by their homosexuality, does not necessarily wish to harm anyone any more than anyone else does. I do agree with the part that states "a person whose behvior deviates from what is acceptable". That, to me, is a problem in that a deviant group from the norm is trying to make that deviation in some way "normal". It is not. It never will be. Don't argue with me, argue with Princeton and nearly every other dictionary out there if you don't like the term. John Stricker

1) argument by dictionary is no argument at all, and i'm surprised you'd employ it.

2) the "most generous" estimates are higher than 5%. add in all the people on the down low, all the "questtioners", and you've got quite a wide and permeable boundary between gay and straight.

3) your own use of the word "deviant" - and your choice not to employ it with respect to gays and lesbians - is my own usage, and the clear usage of fierofetish... and is why (see 1).

4) i don't really care what anyone finds "acceptable". i will not accept any attack on my love for my partner.

5) i have sometimes preferred the term "homo-affectional." love is about love. unless hetero*sexuals* would like to claim that their relationships are solely defined by their method of intercourse.

No, the most generous estimates of those "lives a homosexual lifestyle" of 5% are the highest I've ever seen. Not that are living "on the down low", whatever that means. Not that are "closet" homosexuals. That are living an openly gay lifestyle. I challenge you to provide proof of estimates any higher than that.

My argument with the definition of the word "deviant" is not with the definition itself, but with the words Princeton chooses to use as synonyms. Nothing more. Otherwise I believe the definition as a noun to be as valid as the the definition of the use as an adjective.

Our language, our thought process, our society is ordered by how it is defined. I'm surprised you don't recognize that. You have a vast understanding of statistics so you know what a deviation from the norm means. An openly homosexual lifestyle is, without question or argument, a deviation from the norm in our society. That is not a comment on it's "rightness" or "wrongness", it is a statement of definable and quantifiable fact.

Everyone of us is free to accept whatever definitions we like, even make up new ones. You are free to call water sand, if you choose. Just don't accept society to accept your definition for the same reasons.

You may also use whatever terms you like, makes no difference to me one way or the other.

What does make a difference is the massive push of a deviation of the population trying to redefine itself as a/the norm. It is not. It will never be.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: 1) argument by dictionary is no argument at all, and i'm surprised you'd employ it. 2) the "most generous" estimates are higher than 5%. add in all the people on the down low, all the "questtioners", and you've got quite a wide and permeable boundary between gay and straight. 3) your own use of the word "deviant" - and your choice not to employ it with respect to gays and lesbians - is my own usage, and the clear usage of fierofetish... and is why (see 1). 4) i don't really care what anyone finds "acceptable". i will not accept any attack on my love for my partner. 5) i have sometimes preferred the term "homo-affectional." love is about love. unless hetero*sexuals* would like to claim that their relationships are solely defined by their method of intercourse.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: No, the most generous estimates of those "lives a homosexual lifestyle" of 5% are the highest I've ever seen. Not that are living "on the down low", whatever that means. Not that are "closet" homosexuals. That are living an openly gay lifestyle. I challenge you to provide proof of estimates any higher than that. My argument with the definition of the word "deviant" is not with the definition itself, but with the words Princeton chooses to use as synonyms. Nothing more. Otherwise I believe the definition as a noun to be as valid as the the definition of the use as an adjective. Our language, our thought process, our society is ordered by how it is defined. I'm surprised you don't recognize that. You have a vast understanding of statistics so you know what a deviation from the norm means. An openly homosexual lifestyle is, without question or argument, a deviation from the norm in our society. That is not a comment on it's "rightness" or "wrongness", it is a statement of definable and quantifiable fact. Everyone of us is free to accept whatever definitions we like, even make up new ones. You are free to call water sand, if you choose. Just don't accept society to accept your definition for the same reasons. You may also use whatever terms you like, makes no difference to me one way or the other. What does make a difference is the massive push of a deviation of the population trying to redefine itself as a/the norm. It is not. It will never be. John Stricker

except that the common, quasi-psychological use of the term, as it is employed by most people in discussions like this, has not one whit to do with statistics, as you well know. it is a freighted term. deviation, in its strict sense, is not deviance, in its pejorative sense. i am not making up language, i am observing its implications.

edit: many features of a given person or population could be considered "deviations from the norm", without being subject to word-games about "deviance".

edit: i failed to account for the precise limitation which you were assigning to the term "lifestyle." considering the stigma attached to open expression (which we've seen on display here in grand form), that limitation is not something i set much store by.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-09-2007).]

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: I guess this girl chose to have cerebral palsy?

Here is a philosophical question - let's assume that homosexuals are born that way, that it's not a choice. Same for those born with cerebral palsy, blind, etc. Should we find a "cure" for homosexuality, since it is a deviation from the norm/majority? (Call it "abnormal" for the purposes of this discussion.) If not, do we stop trying to cure cerebral palsy or blindness, because those folks are born that way? Does that mean it's wrong to tell those born blind that they are "abnormal", because they are born that way?

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Without quoting any of the above posts, I'll state that I believe that being gay is NOT a choice. I believe it's how one is wired. It's genetic. I also believe that there are varying degrees of "gay" (or "straight" for that matter.) I believe it's a sliding scale with the extremes at both ends, and varying percentages (for lack of a better description) between the two extremes. I also believe (actually *insist*) that being gay has absolutely nothing to do with being a pedophile or any other dangerous deviant behavior. (I define "dangerous" behavior as that which causes one to prey upon another.) Certainly, there are pedophiles that prey on boys, but I'll wager there are just as many who prey on girls. I have a very good gay friend at work. Said friend is actually much more "moral" than many of the folks I run across, day to day. One of the few people that I would trust with the keys to my house, if needed.

Well said...

The pedophile thing is weirdness, it's not about males or females, it's about children. At least with the ones going after non teens. The pedophile is generally a heterosexual male attracted to female adults when not abusing children of either sex. I have to differentiate that from the guy hitting on underage teens, something that I view as totally different from the ones seeking preteens and younger. The ones hitting on the teens are legally wrong but following the 'normal' ingrained program... those teens are prime mating material and it's only been in the last hundred years or so that the stigma has been attached to going for it. It wasn't but 20 years or so ago that it was legal in some states still, I know... I met a sheriff's deputy with a 15 year old wife that had a pack of kids already when picked up for a speeding ticket in the south back about 1984.

That victim thing comes back up... if two people of consenting age decide that they want to have a relationship, that's between them. Leave me and the government out of it. I'd bet just about every 'straight' person on this board has some sexual thing they enjoy that they think/know is weird (and more than likely illegal in a lot of states) and would probably be embarrassed to have put out in public. If not... your really boring as well as strange.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Gotta get rid of those damn redheads also.. they are trying to convince the world that they aren't deviants and have even convinced some brunettes to switch over.

((shudder))

Personally, if I were a woman I wouldn't want to have a baby on my own. Why would I want to pay all the baby's bills straight up? So even if they're lesbian or straight they'll want a partner just to shoulder the baby work and cost. Why would a woman want to even give herself the trouble of having a kid on HER OWN? Now that Mr. Tyson is ludacris.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Here is a philosophical question - let's assume that homosexuals are born that way, that it's not a choice. Same for those born with cerebral palsy, blind, etc. Should we find a "cure" for homosexuality, since it is a deviation from the norm/majority? (Call it "abnormal" for the purposes of this discussion.) If not, do we stop trying to cure cerebral palsy or blindness, because those folks are born that way? Does that mean it's wrong to tell those born blind that they are "abnormal", because they are born that way?

there is no real meaningful comparison between homosexuality and cerebral palsy. statistical abnormality is not the reason that people seek a cure for cerebral palsy.

and, as it happens, many members of some more obviously "abnormal" populations than gays/lesbians - the deaf and the intersexed, for example - have strong identities and reject the idea that their "difference" is something to be cured.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-10-2007).]

Scott-Wa is right...and during medieval times, when lifespans were considerably shorter, a woman unwed by the age of 25 was generally considered an old maid.

Ms. E, I guess everyone has their hot-button issues, and I suspect this is one of yours; I've never seen you come out swinging like that before, you're usually the calm voice of rational thought, and generally use that splendid wit to fillet your opponents without them ever feeling the knife. Someone once told me: (talking about ACM tactics, and the folly of getting low and slow in stallfights) "Don't fight with pigs in the mud, you'll only get dirty, and the pig likes it."
I was heading for a point here...uh, what was I trying to say? (wandering off) Hey, can I have another one of those brownies...?

Once again we're on common ground, Scott. Those redheads are coming for us all, I tell you. If you have one, take it to the stock tank and hold it under till the bubbles stop. It's a moral imperative.



John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Gotta get rid of those damn redheads also.. they are trying to convince the world that they aren't deviants and have even convinced some brunettes to switch over.

quote Originally posted by Vonov: Scott-Wa is right...and during medieval times, when lifespans were considerably shorter, a woman unwed by the age of 25 was generally considered an old maid.

yep. at the moment of her first period, a girl was considered a woman. marriages at 12 were normal... today, a sexual advance by an adult on a person of that age would be considered not only rape, but perverse.

quote Ms. E, I guess everyone has their hot-button issues, and I suspect this is one of yours; I've never seen you come out swinging like that before

you're right. it is that kind of issue for me. normally, i can take mean-spirited ignorance in stride. but when that malice and ignorance reflects on the nature of my relationship, and therefore on the character of the one person left in this life whom i love unconditionally, i have no tolerance whatever, and will go to no less lengths than any man here would, to defend their own relationship, and the character of their wives.

edit: it's also about erasure. by replacing my experience of myself with his prejudice - by trying to tell me what i "am" in contradiction to my own knowledge - fierofetish reduces me to the constraints of his own fear and ignorance. similarly, he is comfortable with his supposed "gay friends" only because they almost completely hide their nature from him, and allow him to call it "discretion." i've fought hard to be exactly who i am. i will not be erased, or hidden, or "tolerated".

quote "Don't fight with pigs in the mud, you'll only get dirty, and the pig likes it."

sound advice. thank you. i can't promise to follow it, but i will certainly bear it in mind.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-10-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Here is a philosophical question - let's assume that homosexuals are born that way, that it's not a choice. Same for those born with cerebral palsy, blind, etc. Should we find a "cure" for homosexuality, since it is a deviation from the norm/majority? (Call it "abnormal" for the purposes of this discussion.) If not, do we stop trying to cure cerebral palsy or blindness, because those folks are born that way? Does that mean it's wrong to tell those born blind that they are "abnormal", because they are born that way?

It's an ethical and moral question that goes far deeper than someone with CP or blindness. It in effect is defining any characteristic that is outside the statistical norm as an abnormality to be cured, even if that characteristic doesn't affect the person's ability to lead a full life.

Blindness and CP are pretty easy. Like paralysis, they hinder a person's ability to function in daily society.
But, what about other conditions?
Drawfism?

If we extrapolate the "norm" then do we cure minority races by changing them to the majority? Blacks, Hispanics and others might complain about that, but if they're not the majority, aren't they too abnormal?

The question then becomes at what point do you declare a charactistic that differentiates one group of people from another an abnormality or just an identifying characteristic?

Don't forget albinos. By some of the definitions above, they too could be considered deviants. Beware of the albinos!

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Beware of the albinos!

aaah!! Q-tip!

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Gotta get rid of those damn redheads also.. they are trying to convince the world that they aren't deviants and have even convinced some brunettes to switch over.

hmpf...I married a redhead.....I guess I'm a sicky too....I like her deviantness....

anyways - gay is NOT WRONG
but it is also not normal. deviant? yes. deviant being rooted in diverse & deviation. the word carries backage. just like retard. just like ****** .

being gay does not need a cure. it is not contagous, it is not dangerous. and, in fact, some enjoy being gay.
there is actualy no reason to actually discuss the reasons/causes of being gay. it doesnt actually matter. we already know there is not once definite thing you can point to, and say "that made him/her gay". and, there will never be a thing you can point to and say "this will keep you from being gay".

so, your not gonna have gay sex. good for you. so, you have gay sex. good for you. the people who really need the help & discussion - are the ones NOT having sex. These are the REAL deviants. these people have the REAL problems.

watch what you say about other people, it can bite you in the rear.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15226738/
I also would like to say that gay people are not predators. That statement is totally wrong. Why can't we accept people for who they really are and not their beliefs? A good person is still a good person even if they are gay or even from a different religion.
Diversity is the spice of life.