In an article honoring Dallas as "The Lavender Heart of Texas," Time writer John Cloud began with an unusually personal story of his political transformation, "trading movement conservatism for gay libertarianism." When you consider how he stereotypes conservatism as all about J.R. Ewing and an "air of profligacy," you could understand why it was easy to leave:
When I was a kid in Arkansas in the 1980s, we viewed Dallas with something approaching reverence. Mine was a fairly conservative family, aspirational. We passionately golfed and occasionally visited Neiman Marcus, the Dallas clothier that taught the South how to wear Versace and an air of profligacy. I wanted to drive a Mercedes and order bourbon and branch the way J.R. Ewing did. I wanted to go out with a Cowboys cheerleader with marcelled blond hair. The summer I was 13, Ronald Reagan was renominated in Dallas, and I signed up to be a young volunteer.
I've changed quite a bit, trading movement conservatism for gay libertarianism, and Dallas would like you to know that it has changed too. The Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau operates a website proclaiming that "Dallas truly is the most liberal city in Texas!"
A real movement conservative might take exception to the idea that being a 13-year-old volunteer for the Republican incumbent president marks you as a movement conservative. (Didn't the Arlen Specter Republicans volunteer for President Reagan's reelection?) But my first thought was "if you'd stayed a conservative, there's no way you'd have this Time gig."
As Cloud celebrated how the city's homosexuals have made the city more Democrat-friendly, you have to wonder why he would proclaim his "libertarianism" instead of "liberalism." The Democrats aren't exactly known for libertarianism. It can certainly be argued that what the gay left is pursuing -- a government-enforced regime of anti-discrimination laws -- isn't live-and-let-live libertarianism. In the most "lavender-friendly" nations, the gay-left agenda has led to crackdowns on free speech, where ministers are not allowed to say homosexuality is a sin. So much for "libertarianism."
Cloud also raved about just how gay Dallas has become: "the Dallas visitors bureau gurgles, "[Dallas] has left behind stereotypes of big-haired women and rowdy cowboys--that is, unless you count sassy drag queens and strapping gay rodeo champs." (It's not the main website, but it's one of four "Diverse Dallas" websites within, glbtdallas.org.) But Cloud's emphasis on the joys of materialism still comes through, despite the story of his grand transformation:
This is not the Texas of the American imagination. Or is it? Ensorcelled by strivers and status, Dallas has always tried hard to be sophisticated. And the city knows a mathematical equation about American city life: urban sophistication requires gay civilization.
Gays who felt insecure in small Southwestern and Southern towns like the one where I grew up have long been drawn to this city of great yearning and ostentation. It was in one of Dallas' busy gay bars, ironically called J.R.'s, that I saw a T shirt that has become popular in a not totally ironic way. KEEP DALLAS PRETENTIOUS, it said. SUPPORT YOUR OWN MATERIALISM. (It's an answer to the capital's unofficial slogan, "Keep Austin weird.")
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
Movement Conservatism?
May 23, 2007 - 06:56 ET by Cool ArrowDoes 'Movement Conservatism' mean anal retentive?
I'm just sayin'
Well, Tim, you can't say &q
May 23, 2007 - 07:30 ET by sarcasmoWell, Tim, you can't say "so much for libertarianism" on one hand and turn a blind eye to unfair ballot access laws on the other (if for no other reason, because I simply won't let you!). If this group had more of a voice in USA politics, the "gay movement" overall might be more-tolerant. They don't have much voice, so the "gay community" as a whole is not very tolerant, and now you complain about it. As ye sow, so shall ye reap...
JMR
More moral confusion? Here'
May 23, 2007 - 08:36 ET by dscottMore moral confusion? Here's a thought Sarc, when you advocate tolerance, then your actions should be consistent with your advocacy. Kind of like Al Gore with his $1000/month electric bills, it's called hypocrisy.
Before you point the finger of blame on ballot access laws you need to acknowledge who does the limiting for the most part - that being Democrats. You also need to acknowledge the faulty reasoning of many civic leaders who in order to keep themselves in power limit potential candidates, it's called self interest. Finally, you need to acknowledge that the elections board should never be in the hands of politicians but especially not political plumb jobs appointed by politicians as the spoils of winning an election.
Here is a civics lesson for you: On the separate issue of Homosexuality, in a democratic country where the majority rules, the culture of the majority is the standard of behavior. All power is derived from the people, it's called the consent of the governed. When unelected and unaccountable judges engage in social engineering, the result is the minority imposing it's will on the majority - in the history we call this tyranny. Whether you like it or not, Homosexuality has never been acceptable to the majority, the only reason why Mr. Cloud even gets to push his intolerance on others is that he can do so because of judicial tryanny. Sarc, as a Libertarian you should know that all actions are a result of character. Mr. Cloud's actions are a result of his character (defect IMO), not because we have disaproved of his choices.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Here's a civics lesson for
May 23, 2007 - 08:55 ET by sarcasmoHere's a civics lesson for you. We live in a republic, not a democracy, and it's a republic where minorities, even homosexuals, have certain rights. Bigots don't get to dictate any "standard of behavior," even if they want to, because of our court system and the fact that the ACLU isn't always wrong. The habit of bigots ignoring individual rights -- like thuggish political parties ignoring unfair ballot laws, which both Democrats and Republicans have clearly done -- sows what you've now reaped. I stand by all my words.
JMR
A bigot is a person who decid
May 23, 2007 - 09:29 ET by dscottA bigot is a person who decides a person's character or worth by something they can't change like the color of their skin, national origin or gender. You have bought into Sen. Ted drunk Kennedy's false notion of bigotry. Homosexuality is a choice, an action not a unchangable genetic trait. In fact, you are using the liberal tactic of self righteousness to deny the opinions of others.
As another poster pointed out, if sexual orientation was a genetic trait then pedophila, bestiality and a host of other sexual conduct would be as well. We are not buying into such a fallacy. This is just as stupid as saying a person who is the child of a murderer has the genetic traits of being a murderer and therefore they can't help themselves and should be allow to murder people as their genetics spur them to do so.
I will go one step further, if mankind is predisposed to sin (as Christians and Jews say they are), why not just let everyone act on their impulses? As a Libertarian, you are under the mistaken premise that people left to their own devices would leave each other alone and not commit crime. That is a false premise that is demonstrated to be so by rape, stealing and murder that occurs every day. The Police by enforcing the Law do not instigate crime, people commit crime when they insist on interfering with another's daily activities.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Those that believe homosexual
May 23, 2007 - 09:49 ET by LeonThose that believe homosexuality is a choice display a tremendous ignorance. Most likely willful ignorance.
This debate can be solved with one simple question: Did you choose to be straight? Somehow I doubt it was a conscious decision.
"Those that believe ho
May 23, 2007 - 09:54 ET by MightyMouth"Those that believe homosexuality is a choice display a tremendous ignorance."
Really? How in the "science" of evolution do homosexuals survive? The answer, they don't. Therefore, according to evolution, homosexuals are not the norm. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it Leon.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The same way all recessive
May 23, 2007 - 09:59 ET by sarcasmoThe same way all recessive genes survive. By your weird "science," blue eyed blondes should not exist.
JMR
And which "gene"
May 23, 2007 - 10:06 ET by MightyMouthAnd which "gene" are you talking about regarding homos? The great "sarcasmo" is capable of posting something stupid, who would have thought.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sodomite apologists tried in
May 23, 2007 - 10:09 ET by Sergeant ROCKSodomite apologists tried in vain to conjure up this mythical 'gay gene' to no avail. : (
Avail yourself. Please.JMR
May 23, 2007 - 16:34 ET by sarcasmoAvail yourself. Please.
JMR
"WASHINGTON, 93 Jul 16
May 23, 2007 - 17:45 ET by MightyMouth"WASHINGTON, 93 Jul 16"
Sarc, the study was done in 1993? Where is all the corroborative science that supports this? In 14 years there should be mountians of data and entire websites with the gay gene proof. Where is it?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I don't think there ever wi
May 23, 2007 - 17:58 ET by sarcasmoI don't think there ever will be "proof" that genes are anything more than a factor, but where's the proof these repeated studies are wrong?? I doubt many people are studying it -- perhaps because people don't want to know? After all, the author said the first MZ study, done by Kallmann in 1952 -- which may have been flawed, or may have been "luck of the draw" -- had a 100% concordance rate among 37 male MZ twin pairs and a much lower rate of 12% for 26 male DZ twin pairs. Almost 40 years passed before anyone followed it up in the '90s, when there was a flurry of activity, apparently. Science is slow. In this case, it's likely never to be certain, either, but I'm perhaps biased from reading so many twin studies (NOT about sexuality, there's other weird science out there!) in college. Twins can be very similar, in some very strange ways.
JMR
Sarc, homosexual desire is ge
May 23, 2007 - 18:18 ET by TruthMongerSarc, homosexual desire is genetic - it's part of our sinful nature (which we should resist) - science just hasn't found enough evidence to prove it yet - and m not holding my breath...
Probably something near the
May 23, 2007 - 10:09 ET by sarcasmoProbably something near the gene for lisping, but who knows? And prove it, or at least explain why recessive traits like blue eyes and blonde hair survive. MZ twin (clones, genetically, IOW) studies referenced here previously seem to make YOU the stupid one, but honest people can admit the science here is at best incomplete, as I do, while pointing out it's gone from 0 on my side decades ago to something tougher to classify...
JMR
I'm sure if you asked a chi
May 23, 2007 - 10:18 ET by The Wicked ConservativeI'm sure if you asked a child molester, he'd tell you it wasn't his choice either. It's a deviant behavior and choice and environment create behavior...not genetics. The desire to blame genetics for everything is a leftist movement to excuse disgusting behavior of all kinds.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
So homosexuality should be
May 23, 2007 - 10:22 ET by sarcasmoSo homosexuality should be outlawed?? Child molestors have victims, and homosexuals are consenting adults. It's a duh-file fact I need to keep reminding people here...It's not "blaming" genetics to say that genetics is probably somehow involved, it's responding to science which contradicts certain faiths. Tough.
JMR
So homosexuality should be
May 23, 2007 - 10:27 ET by The Wicked ConservativeSo homosexuality should be outlawed??...don't be a clown. Where, oh where did you pull that from. You have the nerve to call "red herrings" and then make a post like this. I'm calling them both deviant behaviors. Homosexuality is simply a disgusting rebellion against God. You don't believe in God, I'm sorry to hear that...then let's just call it a rebellion against nature. It's highly illogical and just plain..........wrong!
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Well said.
May 23, 2007 - 12:07 ET by buddycWell said.
I get "outlawed"
May 23, 2007 - 16:30 ET by sarcasmoI get "outlawed" from pedophilia, which is illegal and which you mentioned, for reasons-unknown. I'm calling them both different things, one's illegal as it should be and the other's controversial despite pages like this, which infuriate the humor-impaired while making a few good religious points. And how you managed to get from what I've said above all the way to "you don't believe in God" is another "logical" leap I can't fathom. I view it more like "God doesn't make mistakes," but whether it's cannabis or homos, when I say those words conservative Christians tend to freak-out like I've gone mad. I haven't, I just view things, including our God, differently than they do. I'd hope we could try to tolerate eachother, instead of making such willfully-clueless accusations.
Also, if homosexuality really "a rebellion against nature," then given the following quote from here: "Sexual behavior between animals of the same sex has been found in invertebrates (fruit flies); birds (certain gulls, geese, ducks, turkeys); (domestic or held captive) mammals (bulls, cows, horses, antelopes, boars, rams, sheep, dogs, cats); and primates (stumptail macaque, pigtail macaque, rhesus monkeys, Catarrhine monkeys, Japanese macaques, Hanuman langurs, vervets, squirrel monkeys, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and mountain gorillas). Keep in mind that this is just a partial list. And that, in certain cases, scientists have only observed same-sex behavior under certain circumstances (in the wild or in captivity) and/or among only females or males of a particular species."
How come Mother Nature seems to be such a lesbo in the case of all these nonhuman species? Is she trying to confuse us or something??
JMR
pathetic
May 23, 2007 - 16:36 ET by LionKingPathetic!!! Justifying perverted human activity based on the activity of soul-less animals.
Pathetic. I'm not justifyin
May 23, 2007 - 17:28 ET by sarcasmoPathetic. I'm not justifying anything by disproving claims it's not natural when it's found all over nature, I'm proving someone wrong. There's a difference.
JMR
I'm a fundie sarc and I don't
May 23, 2007 - 16:39 ET by TruthMongerI'm a fundie sarc and I don't find sin or pot to be one of God's mistakes...got anything else to try...?
Y'all sure don't seem to ev
May 23, 2007 - 17:30 ET by sarcasmoY'all sure don't seem to ever vote like it, in Russmo's view or in mine. Russmo's 'toon IMO scores what seems to me like a direct hit on some folks' priorities, and they hate seeing me say that, but it's the truth so I'm saying it.
JMR
This OT shellfish argument i
May 23, 2007 - 17:59 ET by TruthMongerThis OT shellfish argument is so lame it's beyond pathetic - and you said you believed in God - try reading the whole Bible this time...better yet try UNDERSTANDING it...
Perhaps I understand God di
May 23, 2007 - 18:09 ET by sarcasmoPerhaps I understand God differently than you do. Horrors. And if an argument is "beyond pathetic," would it be too much trouble to find an argument against it? In the GodHatesShrimp link the dude says Jesus mentioned homosexuality 0 times and divorce a lot, yet our "moral" leaders seem fixated on the gays to the exclusion of ANY discussion of divorce, and people seem to see nothing wrong with that because religious "leaders" think it should be so. Well, sorry, but I'm my own religious leader, and I think those Elmer Gantry lobby folks are often full of crap. I'm sure they think the same of me, too, and that's a good thing. I'm off to play poker at Hooters, where scantily clad females, beer, and seafood abound.
JMR
Sarc, I don't think you quite
May 23, 2007 - 18:20 ET by TruthMongerSarc, I don't think you quite get it - I'm all for banning shell fish, too...my ideal is something like the Amish lifestyle...
And Jesus does mention homosexuality in the OT and NT - because Jesus and God the Father are one and the same - and the whole Bible is God's word...
Gimme another one to smack out of the park before you head off to "Sarc-likes-to-lust-after-women-as-degraded-sex-objects-and-eat-sinful-shellfish-land...!"
Sorry, Sarc I don't buy it.
May 23, 2007 - 16:44 ET by The Wicked ConservativeSorry, Sarc I don't buy it. I'm going to go ahead and hold humans to a higher standard than fruit flies. I mentioned pedophilia because it is a deviant behavior as is homosexuality and I'd be willing to bet that the pedophile will claim he has no choice either when committing his atrocities. As for the foolish assertion that evangelicals believe that homosexuals are particularly damned let me fill you in a bit more. You're right God doesn't make mistakes beyond that you create a God to suit yourself and that's called idolatry aka commandment #2. You're going to hell just as much as any other liar, adulterer, thief, or murderer unless you put on the Lord Jesus Christ. How's that for intolerance! Leave the homosexuality out of the picture for all I care, you're still dead in your trangressions without Jesus. Repent or perish
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
In the timeless words of Kath
May 23, 2007 - 16:46 ET by dscottIn the timeless words of Katherine Hepburn:
"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put on this earth to rise above."
The one thing that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is we have laws and codes of conduct, without such society devolves and collapses under the weight of passion. It didn't work well for Rome, did it? They were having homosexual marriages before the empire fell. They started out with the Rule of Law and where did it get them when they succombed to their lusts?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Once again, I'm not saying
May 23, 2007 - 17:33 ET by sarcasmoOnce again, I'm not saying humans should act like animals, I'm simply saying that animals apparently sometimes act like homosexual humans, despite earlier unintentionally-funny denials that nature actually works that way. It does work that way. People here need to find a way to deal with it.
JMR
homosexuality is outlawed
May 23, 2007 - 15:17 ET by LionKingHomosexuality is outlawed in many states. The fag supporters of the Supreme Court (before Roberts) stripped Texas of its right to govern itself; violated the Constitutional protection afforded to states.
BTW, you are begging the question asking others to prove the FAG gene does not exist. Get a grip sarcasmo!!!
Homosexuality is outlawed i
May 23, 2007 - 15:25 ET by balboaHomosexuality is outlawed in many states.
Really? Which ones?
here is a link
May 23, 2007 - 15:36 ET by LionKingSodomy laws are actually what I was referring.
Lion -- most states rights have been overturned.
May 23, 2007 - 15:44 ET by misterbillLion -- most states rights have been overturned. I asked a state (not Fed) senator about our GA laws on immigration. He told me that the "compromise" if approved would be superior to our state laws.
(Which are pretty good BTW-GSA) I am a very strong states rightist. I want things the way our Founding Fathers tried to build it.
Im with you misterbill. Howev
May 23, 2007 - 15:49 ET by bassndudeIm with you misterbill. However, any stipulations not covered by the federal bill and in your state bill, will remain enforceable. I dont think this fed deal will get very far anyway. Hope not.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I pray you are right--
May 23, 2007 - 15:56 ET by misterbillI pray you are right--I will never understand why so many fellow americans want to give away their birthright. Is the pottage that attractive. Are we Esau who would do such a foolish thing?
Supreme Ct overstepped
May 23, 2007 - 15:49 ET by LionKingThe Supreme Court overstepped their authority in the Lawrence vs Texas case. Since this was not specifically covered in the US Constitution, it became the states right to govern this behavior. The Supreme Court acted contrary to the US Constitution...it should be revisisted.
Outlaw Homos?
May 23, 2007 - 10:28 ET by Cool ArrowYou confuse legality with morality. There is an obvious difference in law, and I would hope you're cognizant of it.
I served with Homosexuals in the Military. It wasn't a problem. Why Clinton came up with his silly twist on the subject is beyond me.
IMHO Gays should be allowed the right and duty to serve like all other law abiding citizens. But don't tell me I have to accept the lifestyle on moral grounds.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
You already did, when you s
May 23, 2007 - 10:33 ET by sarcasmoYou already did, when you served with 'em and "it wasn't a problem." And it's YOUR side that's confusing what's moral with what's legal, I'm the one who wants LESS political & MORE civil society, which means leaving people alone.
JMR
Then get consistent and back
May 23, 2007 - 16:42 ET by TruthMongerThen get consistent and back the peds too, sarc:)...don't be "intolerant" now...
Difference, as usual, is th
May 24, 2007 - 05:33 ET by sarcasmoDifference, as usual, is the existence of an actual victim vs the existence of various uninvolved people who feature a big-government-enhancing kind of perpetual political outrage and desire to spend my tax dollars on their idea of "morality." And as for homosexual desire being "genetic," I simply don't think so when it comes to all people. I've tried to figure out a way to put this delicately, and failed, and maybe I'm weird but...For me, good sex requires an actual erection, and males have never elicited that particular physiological response in my case! This has led me to conclude that I'm hopelessly heterosexual, despite the considerable allure of potentially-upsetting Islamofascists and lots of people here who need upsetting were it not so. Oh well...
Oh, and Hooters (back when I listened to Limbaugh, they bought ads from him, ya know?) was great. Islamofascists and the people who want to politically force me to live an Amish lifestyle should definitely be upset with all my horrible sins last night. Maybe they should join forces and work together to outlaw Hooters (now a worldwide chain) with some sort of combination of US law and "fatwa"?
JMR
Sarc
May 23, 2007 - 10:43 ET by Cool ArrowYou agree with everything the Muslicrats push? Have you always agreed with your party?
I didn't know you belonged to the minority that has no choice but to blindly follow the Muslicrat line.
I'm sorry this is your plight.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
"The same way all rece
May 23, 2007 - 10:20 ET by MightyMouth"The same way all recessive genes survive."
So you admit your statement above is unfounded. Good. BTW "sarcasmo" I am not putting you down for being gay. I just don't appreciate that fact that you insist that being gay is something I must accept as "normal" . To me it's as abnormal as wanting to bugger young boys (which very few actual gay men do btw). And to clairfy my statement above I don't believe in evolution per se, but if one does, I think one would have a hard time harmonizing the two.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It's not about tolerance, it'
May 23, 2007 - 10:25 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt's not about tolerance, it's about acceptance.
Accept or be charged with a hate crime!
And on top of where you're
May 23, 2007 - 10:27 ET by sarcasmoAnd on top of where you're already wrong elsewhere in this thread, I'm against all "hate crime" laws, too. I can get gays sputtering mad just as easily as I can with conservatives. It's a gift...
JMR
Admit it, you just enjoy the
May 23, 2007 - 10:44 ET by dscottAdmit it, you just enjoy the rise you get from disagreeing.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I thought I just did, by ca
May 23, 2007 - 16:12 ET by sarcasmoI thought I just did, by calling it "a gift." :)
JMR
Thanks for the clarification,
May 23, 2007 - 16:18 ET by dscottThanks for the clarification, I'd rather not infer unless I have to since some might say I am putting words in their mouth.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Uh, huh? "Admit"?
May 23, 2007 - 10:26 ET by sarcasmoUh, huh? "Admit"??? "Unfounded"??? And once again, you people need to learn to read, I'm NOT gay. If I were, I'd be "out" about it, but I'm simply NOT, and I CAN'T BE, even though I have gay friends!! My mind just wasn't...er...born that way, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. It really worries me when reading comprehension levels are so damn low and at the same time everyone else's votes count the same as mine. No offense, but READ THIS THREAD!!!!!!
JMR
Sarc...I had no idea you were
May 23, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Clear thinkerSarc...
I had no idea you were gay. It does however explain alot.
Help a wounded soldier here...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12877
Reading comprehension: 0.0 (or "good one" - one never knows!)
May 23, 2007 - 16:47 ET by sarcasmoReading comprehension: 0.0 The "lesbian trapped in a man's body" line is a JOKE about being heterosexual and NOT having "a choice" because I find men sexually disgusting to the point that I'm amazed more women aren't lesbos. I'll be honest and admit it -- I wish I didn't sometimes because females can be frustrating, but I'm still attracted to them-not-men sexually and there doesn't seem to be much "choice" involved in the process that could cause me to somehow switch to wanting males. It's not a matter of will, IMO I was born this way. And it still worries me that other people's votes count the same as mine when they can somehow read one thing and immediately manage to think the exact opposite...Unless you were joking, in which case, "good one," but I'm still worried about various others' reading comprehension because of responses to me on this very emotional, and not very logical, NB thread.
JMR
Meh
May 23, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Mr. BishopI always tell my wife I must be a lesbian because I like women... she hits me when I say it.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Heterosexuals do choose to be
May 23, 2007 - 17:02 ET by TruthMongerHeterosexuals do choose to be hetero, sarc...it's an action...not a feeling...
So whattya got next...?
Then why can't I choose to
May 23, 2007 - 18:01 ET by sarcasmoThen why can't I choose to be a homo?? I'm stuck here as a hot young lesbian in an ugly old man's body, and it's like torture sometimes. ;^)
JMR
I have been patiently waiting
May 23, 2007 - 15:10 ET by mulerider24I have been patiently waiting for the word "homozygous" to find its way into this dialogue, but it appears I must cater to my dominant "immature" gene and force the issue.
So are we far enough along to know whether the homesexuality gene is recessive or not? I know just enough about genetics to know that my wife and I, both blonde-haired and blue-eyed, will create a similar Aryan spawn matching our recessive genes. Is it too simple to ask that we fertilize one of Rosie's eggs with a "specimen" from Elton John and see if the horrific by-product results in an extremely dominant homosexual individual?
ah but Rosie met Elton--
May 23, 2007 - 17:13 ET by misterbillaah, but Rosie met Elton--I may get a warning about this, but it's worth it.
--
Rosie while visiting in Khartoum
Invited Elton John to her room
They argued all night
About who had the right
To do what with what to whom.
-
Zo I dont tink your test vill vork.
Homosexuals don't need to rep
May 23, 2007 - 19:52 ET by j. frank wilsonHomosexuals don't need to reproduce to survive. Each generation produces roughly the same percentage as the previous generation. It's nature. It happens. Just as most folks don't choose to be straight most folks don't choose to be gay. A few do, of course. And a few have it thrust upon them (if you will) by years in prison or in the olden days a long sea voyage (see Winnie's "rum, sodomy, and the lash").
Not every straight couple reproduces, either. I believe it's up in Oregon there is a petition drive to void the marriage of any couple what fails to produce a child within five (5) years. After all, if the only purpose of marriage is to protect offspring, why should the state condone marriages that fail to produce?
That's a difference of opinio
May 23, 2007 - 09:54 ET by dscottThat's a difference of opinion son and engaging in tactics that claim the dissenters are willfully ignorant demonstrates how weak your position is and your failure to be able to argue it. You just lost the argument, thanks for playing.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
It is a choice, doofuss. Sex,
May 23, 2007 - 09:59 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt is a choice, doofuss. Sex, as intended by nature, is for reproduction of a species. Which is why, typically with higher lifeforms, that there is a MALE and FEMALE for each species. Penis + anus = gratification, NOT reproduction. Hopefully this will disuade you from posting your ignorance on the matter.. homophile.
gratification...come out of the cave
May 23, 2007 - 20:30 ET by LionKingPenis + anus = gratification ... ewwwww!!! Does not sound gratifying to me by any stretch of the imagination.
Just like Global Warming and
May 23, 2007 - 10:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberJust like Global Warming and evolution, the cause/source/reason of homosexuality is in the theory stage, with no concrete proof one way or another.
You scorn the religious folks on this website for their views on those topics, while you act just as ignorant when you post comments like above. You are no different. Congratulations, you are what you hate.
Did you choose to be stupid?
Does everyone here choose n
May 23, 2007 - 16:10 ET by sarcasmoDoes everyone here choose not to read? It doesn't give me a lot of hope for your intelligence, frankly... I've said the scientific case, while imperfect, seems to be growing for genetics as a factor, and everyone objects, but now I've found the science to back it up, so I guess just about everyone will howl at me. I wish getting attention about unfair ballot laws was even half this-easy...
JMR
Problem
May 23, 2007 - 16:53 ET by Mr. BishopIf you read that sarcasmo... that "study" you link, is based upon statistics and opinions... which is the biggest problem with this whole homosexuality debate. Those that support homosexuality as genetic, can only use statistics, and opinions, to justify their claim. Those that support it as choice, use biology and the natural order of reproduction, to support theirs.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
sarc...NPR letters as a source
May 23, 2007 - 16:54 ET by LionKingTell me...is NPR Letters like Penthouse Forum?
On not getting attention
May 23, 2007 - 17:33 ET by UnsaneYou can't get attention about "unfair ballot laws" because (with the exception of gerrymandering) they are not unfair. I saw Libertarians all over the place on the ballot here when I voted in the last election.
But it is MUCH easier to cry, scream, howl, and throw tantrums about how unfair ballot laws are, rather than do some serious soul-searching as to why people simply aren't voting for you or your cause.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Hilarious.JMR
May 23, 2007 - 17:40 ET by sarcasmoHilarious.
JMR
Hey, ALL good humor has an el
May 23, 2007 - 19:08 ET by UnsaneHey, ALL good humor has an element of truth. In that case, 100% was true.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Me too stoopid to read. Me du
May 23, 2007 - 20:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberMe too stoopid to read. Me dumb redneck caveman.
Apparently you cannot read, either, because, even though you found a study giving some scientific evidence of "gay genetics", it is still a theory, which is what I said.
Nice attempt at trying to paint me with the same brush you have painted many other here today. I have one of the VERY FEW people on this thread today being rational, open-minded, and not a jackass.
You're not going to like this
May 23, 2007 - 11:00 ET by mattmYou're not going to like this, but...
The idea that homosexuality is not a choice is one of the most cruel lies out there! Humans are heterosexual...there are males and there are females.... This isn't "willful ingnorance", it's basic biology.
The born gay lie is just another method "gays" use to a) ease their consciences, b) recruit children (not consenting adults) into the gay lifestyle, and c) convince society to accept them - they used to merely demand tolerance, now they want acceptance...later it will be dominance...(this is directly related to "a")
This is why they so voilently oppose the ex-gay movement...its mere existence disproves their lies!
Consentual? It wasn't so for the victims of these psychopaths.
Look, if you want to behave how you want to behave in the privacy of your own home - as long as it's between consenting adults, fine. Just don't shove it in my face and tell me that I have to accept it as if it were normal human behavior.
Ba-Da-Bing... Ba-Da-Bang..
May 23, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Sergeant ROCKBa-Da-Bing... Ba-Da-Bang..
Assuming...
May 23, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Mr. BishopAssuming, for the instant, that homosexuality is genetic, and not a choice -- there is one, and only one, possible reason: genetic mutation, or birth defect. You can argue this until your face turns blue, but any argument against this, is in vain. Sexual reproduction requires one man, and one woman, to get together sexually, and reproduce. Without this, in the natural stages of evolution, the human sepcies would die out. You cannot reproduce naturally, between two men, or two women. You must have one of each.
Therefor... I propose then, that stem cell research, according to your own line of thought, can then cure homosexuality, or stop it from occurring. Sounds like I need to add that to my signature line now...
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Nonbigots manage to hate th
May 23, 2007 - 09:54 ET by sarcasmoNonbigots manage to hate the sin but love the person they consider a sinner without getting big government involved and once-again spending my taxe$. And interfering with peaceful people is exactly the problem with big government, and it's a moral problem which has effectively made big government a new religion. When there are no victims, people SHOULD be free to "act on their impulses." And as I keep saying, if homosexuality were really "a choice," then frustration with women would have certainly made me choose it by now. I can't because what I think due to my genetic makeup (but nobody's sure, despite your certainty) which has, for better or worse, made me heterosexual so I think guys are disgusting.
JMR
Once again you are mixing iss
May 23, 2007 - 10:06 ET by dscottOnce again you are mixing issues to confuse the argument. Are we arguing about homosexuality or voting or legislation? I'm arguing about Homosexuality specifically. It is a choice and confusing someone's frustration in dealing with the opposite sex is an "excuse" to be a "Libertine" to act upon their impulses. There are plenty of men and women frustrated in dealing with the opposite sex, their problem is they are involved with the wrong kind of person who has a character defect. Not all people have a character defect. I can understand why someone would throw their hands up and say I can't stand a person of the opposite sex. However, that is IMO a "bigoted" stereotype of the opposite sex. You confuse the personal character defect of several bad actors of one group and then apply that character defect as the stereotype to the rest of the group - that is the definition of bigotry. Being a bigot is not a justification for Homosexuality.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
We're going to need to agre
May 23, 2007 - 10:15 ET by sarcasmoWe're going to need to agree to disagree. I showed in the first post how unfair ballot laws combined with a great deal of historical bigotry to lead to what we're seeing today, and I stand by all my words, as usual. People just don't like seeing them, as usual, but that's why I love the interweb...
JMR
Well said!
May 23, 2007 - 12:04 ET by buddycWell said!
Why do you ignore even bold
May 23, 2007 - 09:58 ET by sarcasmoWhy do you ignore even bold? If the ACLU were always wrong, they would not be so strong. They're not, just as I said, and saying something obvious like that in no way references "NAMBLA," although I must admit, the "NAMBLA" red herring is a pretty-good substitute for an actual argument...Nazis in Skokie work, too.
JMR
It's a fact that ACLU defende
May 23, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt's a fact that ACLU defended NAMBLA members in court. How long have you been a sodomite apologist?
How long have you been an idi
May 23, 2007 - 10:12 ET by sarcasmoHow long have you been an idiot?
JMR
Nice try, sodomite.. but you
May 23, 2007 - 10:15 ET by Sergeant ROCKNice try, sodomite.. but you are the idiot devoid of facts. Probably a symptom of your mental illness with regards to your 'choice' of a lifestyle.
Dummy, I already said I'm i
May 23, 2007 - 10:17 ET by sarcasmoDummy, I already said I'm incapable of that lifestyle. I just don't care what other people do sexually because I'm not a "moral" busybody. In fact, I think only idiots are, as your "argument" proves.
JMR
Yo Sgt Rock
May 23, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Cool ArrowHe was born with his eyes open and vowed never to go back there again.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Idiot?
May 23, 2007 - 10:16 ET by Cool ArrowOh, good maneuver. Lose an argument and turn to name calling. Time to walk away with another in the 'W' column.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
So "sodomite apologist&q
May 23, 2007 - 10:18 ET by sarcasmoSo "sodomite apologist" isn't name calling and therefore losing first! Fascinating double-standard here, I wish I could say I was surprised, but it's situation-normal.
JMR