Anger at Polish President's gay remarks

[Sagat]

Deleted, doesnt pertain to topic at hand - Bean

And I suppose yours did, Bean?

[DOOM!]

Mind over matter? I can use this exact same thing on you then. Heterosexuals can have homosexual relationships, it's just mind over matter. KNOWING the person is in no way attracted to the same sex.

No, read me again, idiot. Not in "no way", but by conscious choice to like males, over natural choice.

Homosexuals proceeded into heterosexual relationships, because from early 1900's, through the 1980's, it was extremely unpopular and severly looked down upon. So homosexuals would get into a heterosexual relationship to fit to society's standards. They were being someone they weren't.

Must i SPOONFEED you every detail? I ALREADY SAYED THAT! You only gave an example to what i've sayed:"They just didn't have any options at that time."
Get! A! Life!

As with any article, the facts presented are facts, and the opinions and derived theories are just those. You can come up with your own theories that disagree with the author's, based on what the facts are, but the facts remain facts, and still support the idea of it being a result of genetics. Most of all, the facts clearly indicate that, yes, the even slightest genetic anomoly WILL have an effect that you can observe. You would be foolish to argue against that.

This is not a medical report, Mr.Regex, it is a simple resumtious overview, it lacks detail and furtheromre is incomplete, like i've sayed, what about the homosexual gene in women?
In the side note, that wich you have quoted was a just trick question adressed to QuinzeValentine only. Besides, as i've sayed "Nevertheless" i continued my post even taking the article in consideration.

You have your opinion and no, it's not hard to swallow because I hear more ignorance like this than my own point of view, all the time. My problem is that you had no verification to state that "so-called genes" are "too less significant" to determine sexuality. I don't think you have any grounds to say that, at all and I'd like to see your proof.

I don't need no article to prove my very simple point. "too less significant" was my poor choice of words, perhaps; to be more exact, they are effective over an individuals initial, natural prefference, but cannot be fully effective upon the individual's conscious prefference. For instance, one who's initial prefference was females can decide to go for males as well. That, and CONTRAIRE. Simple.
Allright, i'll throw another exampe: 1000 hobbits were born with the need to take the Ring to Mordor in their genes. But not 1000 of them will succeed to bring them there. In some of them, that characteristic gene may be weaker or stronger(it varies), in the weakest, the need won't be as urgent as in those with the stronger written gene. Some of them might want to go against their goal and joind the dark side and some of them may say "screw this!" and give up on their needs. Now, if the way of thinking of these 1000 hobbits was like the animals', and not judge or let anything influence their judgement over their actions, we could estimate that the majority in their number will succeed to bing the ring. But if they think like humans, then the number of those who succeed varies a lot more.

Keep quoting, bring your workmates, bring you brothers, bring your mothers and your sisters too, to quote me. I don't have enough of your quotes.

[Mugetsu]

This thread seems to have gotten really snippy lately.

No matter how many studies are done I doubt that they are going to be able to identify a specific reason why some poeple are homosexuals. You talk to 10 different people and it is possible to get 10 different answers. When you break it all down all of these studies are based on the opinions of the various people polled and the researchers. This does not make their content invalid, but it also does not make what they say an absolute truth.

[Bean Bandit]

No, read me again, idiot.

How bout we stop the name calling right now.

When people resort to name calling it shows they have nothing else to use on their side. So they feel the need to try to hurt or humiliate instead. It shows weakness in what they are debating.

[Piper]

No, read me again, idiot. Not in "no way", but by conscious choice to like males, over natural choice.

"Natural choice"? There is no conscious choice, it's basic instinct to be with the gender that is SEXUAL APPEALING to you. Are you sexually attracted to another MALE? No, correct? So it would be like me saying, despite that fact, you are CHOOSING not to like the same sex.

Are you seriously reading what you are posting? You are making NO sense.

[Regex]

This is not a medical report, Mr.Regex, it is a simple resumtious overview, it lacks detail and furtheromre is incomplete, like i've sayed, what about the homosexual gene in women?
In the side note, that wich you have quoted was a just trick question adressed to QuinzeValentine only. Besides, as i've sayed "Nevertheless" i continued my post even taking the article in consideration.

It shows research and cases where small genetic anomalies have noticeable effects. No, it's not a medical report. It's a document with clear facts to back up his theories. When you can do the same, your arguments will actually hold some merit.
As for the homosexual gene in women, why does that apply? Nobody here has tried to prove that homosexuality is completely genetic yet. The ONLY purpose of this article was to show you that small anomalies ARE significant. So again, stop getting emotional and defensive, and THINK for a brief moment.
Furthermore, if you are willing to concede that people can hypothetically be born homosexual, why do you insist that they have to change? Why should people have to share your view on love and sexuality? What makes you MORE RIGHT (or would you prefer "righter"?) than anyone else when it comes to emotions?

Sorting through your gross grammatical and spelling errors to get to some semblance of an argument has become tiring. Throughout your post, you've basically declared that things that disagree with you don't count. You've turned this debate into what you seem to know best: A mindless flame-fest.
If you want to show research to support your claims, then we can discuss how they do or do not agree with other research, and determine what fits in. But when a noted anthropolgy professor's work is ignored simply because you don't like what it says, all your credibility is out the window.

[pfftlecakes]

This is not a medical report ...

Ah, but it's a scientific theory. One that this man has been working on for a long period of time (among a handful of other things). So he hasn't proven that homosexuality is or isn't caused by genetics, but it's still possible. I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat that part. You didn't address my point [the smallest anomaly in genetics can cause large abnormalities, why not determine sexuality?] AT ALL.

I don't need no article to prove my very simple point ...

Allright, i'll throw another exampe:

Basic examples are not what I need to see. Sure, you don't need an article (or do you? huh?), but it'd be nice to see some fact. Just because you can put what you think into dumbed terms doesn't mean that you have an argument; what you have is an opinion with little to back it up. You continue to say the same thing in less and less complicated words, as though nobody understood your intellect before. Could it have been the typos.. or bad grammar?

What I'd like to see you prove is that you can change your sexual preferance.. you know, considering it's a choice. Although you may not want to, by living this lifestyle it would prove to the rest of us that sexuality is indeed something an individual chooses (whether homo or hetero, you can't just have it swing one way) and you'd be doing the world a great service. You'd have to take months, maybe years to study and prove this using a scientific theory (documenting everything from simple dates to intercourse, the physical to the emotional) so that it'd be a bullet proof argument, but I think we can wait for these results. After proving it with yourself, you ought to take it public so you can continue your studies on other subjects. Just think, it'll be your life's work and you'll be doing so much good.

There is no conscious choice, it's basic instinct to be with the gender that is SEXUAL APPEALING to you. Are you sexually attracted to another MALE? No, correct? So it would be like me saying, despite that fact, you are CHOOSING not to like the same sex.

We'll see about that in three years when McDoom comes back with his findings.

[Capernicus]

Allright, i'll throw another exampe: 1000 hobbits were born with the need to take the Ring to Mordor in their genes. But not 1000 of them will succeed to bring them there. In some of them, that characteristic gene may be weaker or stronger(it varies), in the weakest, the need won't be as urgent as in those with the stronger written gene. Some of them might want to go against their goal and joind the dark side and some of them may say "screw this!" and give up on their needs. Now, if the way of thinking of these 1000 hobbits was like the animals', and not judge or let anything influence their judgement over their actions, we could estimate that the majority in their number will succeed to bing the ring. But if they think like humans, then the number of those who succeed varies a lot more.

Did you purposely just compare homosexuals to hobbits, imaginary beings? I dunno if you are trying to make this situation seem like a joke but I assure you it is not. No, I don't have any choice, I like women. I couldn't love a man if I tried (and I did try for years). And I love women so easily. Maybe you will think that just means I'm a man hater, or that I have a strong preference to the same sex, but I assure you that's not the case. My best friend is male, I've known him most of my life.

[Ollie]

McDoom, and all those who believe that homosexuality is a choice - it's not. The fact that we have GAY MEMBERS here saying they never wanted to be gay and just turned out like that should be proof enough that you're wrong. I don't see why there's even a discussion about this right now, because there really isn't anything left to talk about concerning that subject.

And as for the genes part, I've heard that the gay gene can only be passed on through the mother, and gay people have been having kids for a long time before now - remember that it wasn't always as socially acceptable or tolerated in many cultures, and people who WERE gay got married and had children (mostly out of duty, I think).

Maybe you will think that just means I'm a man hater, or that I have a strong preference to the same sex, but I assure you that's not the case.

... having seen you complain strongly about how arrogant men are, I find that easy to believe that it IS the case.

[bethanime]

Well nice topic here...^^ I think that the Polish guy was in the wrong for "discrimihating" (lol safer not to ask!). But a lot of people (especially older generations...) don't like the gay or lesbian people...They're gonna be around whether we like it or not so get over it....( not talking to anyone in general!..or would that be specifically?) I also think that an apology that means nothing, well...means nothing...@_@ That Polish guy was wrong to discriminate and we're back at square one!

[Capernicus]

... having seen you complain strongly about how arrogant men are, I find that easy to believe that it IS the case.

I understand how you could see that, I really do, but I am well aware that not all men are like that (just the vast majority!). And I certainly know some extremly arrogant women. Hell, I've been hurt by women a hundred times more than by men. ^^; Maybe that's just because I don't feel as strongly for them, but bleh. Anyway, the point is I'm not as much of a stereotypical lesbian as you may think.

[Regex]

Anyway, the point is I'm not as much of a stereotypical lesbian as you may think.

So that's all an act you put on for our benefit?

[Buruku]

And as for the genes part, I've heard that the gay gene can only be passed on through the mother, and gay people have been having kids for a long time before now - remember that it wasn't always as socially acceptable or tolerated in many cultures, and people who WERE gay got married and had children (mostly out of duty, I think).

Yeah there may be some truth to that, I actually have a lesbian friend whos brother is gay, shes also convinced that her mom is secretely a lesbian (due to some of her behavior or something like that) who just supressed her homosexual urges and got married and had kids. *shrugs* just thought it was interesting.

[Ollie]

Why the mom and not the father?

[Buruku]

Why the mom and not the father?

I'm assuming thats directed at me...

She hasn't talked to me about her father that much, she was just telling me about some things her mom has said and done that made her think shes a lesbian. I guess if you want more details I could ask. o.0