HYPOCRISY
Check out our new Poster Builder!
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Winnie-Wonka
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous FOR SALE | By popular demand Next »
HYPOCRISY
» 620 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Pail on I’m So Live Razgriz 1, also know… on Game of Thrones Characters as… Grimlock1972 on Gundam Obama Evelyn Smith on Vandals Cashing In itsybit on I’m So Live Gary Jackson on Vandals Cashing In Geary on Has This Certain Ring to … Paul on Gundam Obama Geary on I’m So Live crazny on Has This Certain Ring to … 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Lolcats: go forth tu teh kitchen!
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Basement Cat Dad iz disappoynt
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Bad News
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
He Will Have Revenge
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Paper Bag Cat
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Owl Minding His Own Business
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
High Fashion Bun
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
The Surrealist Alphabet Primer
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Cupcakewurst
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
DAT HAIR
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Wolverine's Class Syllabus Could Use a Little Work
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Wrestler "Edge" Totally Looks Like Matthew Lillard
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Fish Bones Soap
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: Saxon's Ring
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Ample Room For Crap-Stacking
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Of course… that’s just silly
Only long enough to feed da bebe to da whales.
Whales gotta eat too.
What if the fetus is a mass murdering sex offender? The question is silly.
And this is from a pro-choice person.
If it’s born Republican, it’s okay to put it down right away !
or american
Fail?
You forgot the not.
It should read:
Vidar
October 8th, 2008 at
or not american
the problem with this is that republicans think that gays have a choice and are not born gay… so in a republican’s mind: zero hypocrisy
Is that ALL Republicans or just the one’s you know?
Blackup Fail! delusional lol
And this is why Vidars post is valid
hahahahhaha
that was a good one
oh? then you’re going to love this! (shoots Julie in the head) I call it a late abortion.
Someone needs to ban you already. That was F**king nasty of you.
A joke about killing republicans is okay but shooting a liberal isn’t? no, LaFeeVerte (french for dumb-sh1t, undoubtedly) you should be banned, and take your filfy comments with you, you motherf*****.
are people going around advocating that we murder all the homosexuals? the maker of this lol is ‘tarded.
actually, people are.
ever heard of the westboro babtist church?
Westboro babtist church? With what, 50 people involved? Wow, what an impact… 50 people enough to cloud your perception of Christians.
More than 50, homie.
And Westboro Baptist isn’t the only one like that.
There are plenty others.
In the ‘official’ documentary on the group, they had the count of members ar around 85. Speaking of which, if you get a chance, try to find that one-hour documentary – it was by some british dude…
Probably the biggest misrepresentation of Christianity in existence today.
They tried to come out to the funeral of one of my friend’s best
friends and protest – she was one of the girls killed in the VT shooting last year.
Sick.
the documentary is called “Most Hated Family in America” and you can find it at http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00260/atheist/the-most-hated-family-in-america/ . these people frighten me.
asking christians to go to “atheist nation” is like asking liberals to go to conservapedia. they don’t do it.
oh god…im barely making it through the first 5 minutes…
“Plenty of others”. Right
So where are they? Where are these roving packs of gay killers?
Montana comes to mind.
Jesus Christ on a bike… not Montana WYOMING!
Laramie Project geography fail…
Please, I’m from montana…and we never thought about killing homosexuals. That is just sad that you are so narrowminded. Same for everyone’s views about republicans.
If gay-killers claim to be Christians, then they’re not doin’ it right.
And there is proof that being gay is a choice.
Sources, please?
We’ll all be dead before that happens…
Oh, you know — it’s a choice, just like being left-handed! Just because your natural inborn inclination is to use your dominant hand, doesn’t mean you can’t force yourself to use the right and be normal like everyone else!
Probably.
.
I want to hurt people who use “proof” like it’s something that’s in the eye of the beholder.
actually, god destroyed a city because the people in the town wanted to rape angels and the BEST person in the town- the only one god decided was worth saving said, ‘hey, don’t rape angels, here, have my daughters instead’. the sin in this case wasn’t homosexuality. the sin is something that we, as a culture, no longer see as a threat. the problem was that they threatened to kill off guests in their city and treat them discourteously and violently. that was considered a HUGE evil.
homosexuality is NEVER condemned by Jesus, so if you value paul and the old covenant over Christ, you are sadly mistaken in your perception as to what it means to be Christian. if you use that damned verse in Leviticus to justify condemnation of homosexuals, you had better follow the ENTIRE holiness code, as it is one of those all or nothing deals.
and where is that proof?
Sure. My aunt hated men enough that she was lesbian for most of my life. Doesn’t mean she’s not naturally straight (or bi–I never asked which, but yes, she did hate men).
Actually, christians cloud my perception of christians.
Judge not lest ye be judged? Ring any bells?
Moral high ground , from my perspective, seems to be, strangely enough, at the same elevation that the rest of us are standing.
No, actually, the maker of this lol was bi-sexual from the time she hit puberty and had more female lovers than male before she met the man she’d marry…but thanks for your enligtened and intelligent commentary.
thank you. i have asked many of my conservative friends the same question and always end up with very interesting answers.
That’s what you’re assuming. It’s not said or implied. It’s the thought that counts if they find out afterwards. Plus, you can be born gay. Don’t go saying; ‘Are you saying this… Are you saying that..” It’s what you make of it.
I agree.
Are you saying that gay people are at the same level of morality as mass murdering sex offenders?
yeah because being a mass murderer and a homosexual are one in the same good job scott you solved a major issue here! I wish i had your insight!!!!
er… that sounds like you reckon gays are as bad as mass murders, and that the question is ridiculous cos of course and person could turn out to be and evil mass murdering nazi, or, even worse, gay. your point is either absurd or dangerous. and pro-life to one man is anti-rights to another woman. or does pro-life not care / think about the women? scott better not mean you’re a bloke either cos we can think what we like about abortion but, like women should have no say if there was a referendum tomorrow on whether to circumcise all men, men equally have no right throwing around opinions on what women must put up with for the rest of their lives, if they make it through childbirth. whether a woman gives birth or not must be HER choice; not her husbands, not her parents, and certainly not yours. As is the case if she wants to love other women. And screw everyone who thinks otherwise cos guess what, the times are a’changing, the night of ignorance and arrogance is setting and the new sun gets warmer and brighter every day.
sing it loud… woman have been held back by men for centuries and now that we are empowered… they want to take it away. I say outlaw abortions when men no longer beat thier wives or girlfriends, rape women nor treat them like objects. It’s my body and my right to do with it what I feel is best… NOT YOU!!! If you want smaller government, start with our bodies.
Another question to ponder, why is Viagria covered my health insurance and the government but not birth control pills?
I think it is a tragedy women have been held back by men, men who beat their wives should have their asses severely kicked and I say that across the board. However, your arguments are fallacious as well. It is illegal to beat or rape women, the women however rarely prosecute. Men should not treat women like objects, but notice how so many women treat themselves as objects to it is all to easy for men to treat them like it (not RIGHT, just easy to think it is ok). Your argument would work (except for the “objects” part because that is too abstract to make laws about) if you had said, “Outlaw abortions when you Outlaw men beating their wives or girlfriends and rape women. A woman has every right to do with her body what she wants or “feels”. However, having sex signifies you are invoking your right to procreate. You can take precautions but the only sure-fire ones are getting your “tubes tied” or abstinence.
Your other question. Health insurance will cover whatever you are willing to have it cover with your premium. besides that I have no proof that the government or health insurance (which is a private ordeal and at the discretion of the provider, it is their company, they decide what to cover–healthcare is not a right) a) does cover viagra, and b) does not cover bcp
You don’t get to blame women for men’s actions. Women rarely prosecute because, in America at least, rape is rarely treated as a serious crime. Not even when the victim is a young female. Notice how often the news refers to the rape of female children as “sex”. male children are of course victims of “rape”.
Secondly, “However, having sex signifies you are invoking your right to procreate.” is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Having sex signifies you want to have sex. That’s it. Simply because a woman is having sex does not mean she is consenting to pregnancy. It doesn’t mean she’s surrendering her autonomy. It means she wants to have sex (presumably, anyway).
The living, breathing women has the right to do with her body what she will. Real human beings matter. These non-existent babies the misogynistic faux-life brigade bleat on about are just a smoke screen. They don’t give a crap about people.
“You can take precautions but the only sure-fire ones are getting your “tubes tied” or abstinence.”
You’re clearly not female. Getting your “tubes tied” is not easy feat unless you have children or over a certain age. Most doctors refuse to do it for younger women, as they believe the women will ‘change their minds’.
And abstinence is a frigging joke. Basically, you’re telling women that unless they live by you celibacy mandate, they should be punished with pregnancy. Excellent morals you got there. really.
All of your points are emotionally defensible, however NONE of them are LOGICALLY defensible. That is ok, except this is a debate, not a feelings showcase. That being said:
I didn’t blame women for men’s actions. Men are completely responsible for their actions, but they cannot be held to their responsibility unless someone (who can do something about it) knows (i.e. the “law”). I will admit that our justice system does not always work so sometimes guilty men get found innocent by the best justice system that can be devised by man. Our justice system sucks, but there is really no better one. However the essential point is that abuse and rape IS ILLEGAL, that however cannot stop people, which is why we have criminals. Every conviction I’ve heard of rape has been relatively serious, though I personally believe that it should be just less than murder, ESPECIALLY when it deals with children. As far as the news, I am not at all convinced that what you say is true. I always hear rape in regards to either boys or girls.
Your second point. I agree sex signifies your desire to have sex, but every kid who’s had the lowest class of biology knows that having sex is how people get pregnant. so when they act on their desire to have sex, they are saying by implication that they are willing to get pregnant because that is a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF SEX, IT IS BIOLOGY, NOT MAN’S LAWS OR NOTIONS. It does mean she is consenting to the idea of sex, even if she is hoping that the odds work in her favor and she does not get pregnant. This is also true about disease if the woman is promiscuous. She knows that if she has sex with random people, she might get a disease, she is consenting to that idea (because in this case she can’t simple “get rid of it” and no, I am not comparing a fetus to a disease, merely illustrating that natural consequences have to be considered) even though she is of course hoping that she won’t get one. Nonetheless she knows that she wants to have sex and that sex may, and will given enough time and partners, lead to disease. She is playing the odds, but she knows that there are consequences for actions.
The argument “They don’t give a crap about people.” is ad hoc and non-sequiter. Why do you think they don’t care about people? These same people who are there to console and care for (even financially) those women who have had abortions and then regret it, sometimes to the point of suicidal tendencies? You won’t get that from “planned parenthood” but you will from a (good) pro-lifer. IN FACT, half of pro-life counseling is for post aborters who are wrought with grief. they care about the women and the potential life.
Yes, tubes tied or abstinence, or even convincing their partner to get a typically reversible vasectomy, that is a good option too. Of course men are scum and assholes so you could never convince them, but you do still want to have sex with them.
I know tube tying is not easy, but it is an option. SOME doctors refuse, but then some doctors refuse to give abortions, which is usually a major surgery as well. In fact, a significant number of abortions render women infertile and unable to conceive later in life. Every abortion causes damage (physically) it just all depends on the severity.
Pregnancy is in no way a punishment, by any definition of the word “pregnancy” or “punishment”. Pregnancy, like it or not, is A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEX ACT. Man did not make it that way. It is not anything but the way the world works. It is the case for every form of animal in the world: Sex is what makes progeny. Not punishment, consequence, NATURAL consequence. jail is not a natural consequence. In nature if you kill someone you don’t run the risk of jail, only in society is that the case. However, pregnancy is a NATURAL consequence of sex.
Thank you, I try to have good morals. Furthermore, I pride myself on my logic and ability to see natural consequences. My “celibacy” idea is not a mandate, it is the only proven and 100% fool proof way of avoiding pregnancy. It has noting to do with my moral views, it is nature. I do, however, think it is immoral to kill a potential autonomous being, especially since by the “autonomous” woman’s actions she became pregnant.
damn. I am really not lolzing any more…
Betyboondoggle, you’re awesome. Although I’m not sure how comments on a rather poor lolnews have turned into profound arguments about personal morality, I applaud your sense and your passion.
Bettyboondoggle said: ” in America at least, rape is rarely treated as a serious crime. Not even when the victim is a young female.”
Nor even when the victim is elderly. The defense (IF the case ever gets to court) will still harp on, “How was she dressed? Why was she out so late, or in that neighborhood?” 20+ years ago, the 80-year old grandmother of a friend was raped in her own home…they never caught the rapist.
My health insurance covers BCP’s but not Viagra or any of the other drugs similar to it, Levitra, Cialis, etc. I think the offering of coverage for these drugs varies, as it is a private choice by a health insurance company. My friend’s health insurance did not cover birth control pills, nor do they offer tubial ligation or vasectomies at their hospitals, but she had Seton insurance, which is a Catholic hospital where she was a nurse, so you would rather expect them to not cover any form of birth control. I think the not covering of bcp’s and the covering of Viagra is a urban legend perpetuated by people angry at private insurance system and overexaggerating the severity of the situation and making it seem like every health insurance company has this senario, where in fact it is most likely quite unusual. There are situations where that senario exists, such as my friend’s Catholic insurance company, but for the most part, I think at least some types of bcp’s are covered. Fortunately for those women, bcp’s can be relatively inexpensive, (depends on which one you’re on, of course) so it usually isn’t that big of a deal anyway. Viagra on the other hand, is quite expensive, and not usually covered. That’s why we get so many spams offering it. I’ve yet to get a spam offering birth control.
Because Viagra restores the natural function of a part of a man’s body, but birth control pills interfere with the natural function of a part of a woman’s body.
Note, *I* don’t agree with this; that is simply the rationale I was given.
Who you choose to love should have no comparison to killing or rape.
so ur jsut going to kill him
Yep. Dumbest LOL yet.
It’s been a particularly dumb day for the lols at PK.
I agree.
Seconded. This one’s especially lame, makes no sense, and will probably start Youtube-ish fights. I’m going to Failblog. Maybe I’ll submit this while I’m there.
What about the opposite? If you support abortion, and they do find a “gay gene,” are you going to whine when gay-hating parents abort their gay children?
One of the major differences between the two camps is Pro-Choice people like to mind their own business. Nobody tries to guilt-trip an abortion into occuring or badgers about why one was made. Unless the abortion-seeking parents covet enough attention to scream out why they want the procedure, I doubt anyone would pry.
Privacy. Respect.
Learn them both.
The difference between the camps is bigger than that.
Pro-lifers believe that killing a fetus is akin to stabbing somebody in the heart.
Pro-choice people believe that it’s the woman’s choice whether out of convenience or for reasons more important.
I can see why one camp would fight harder than the other…
Personally, I’m a pro-dowhateveryouwant type, because in the end, it’ll never be my choice.
Wow. And just how long have you hated women…?
It has nothing to do with hating women; facepalmpojo just assumes that a woman terminating the pregnancy is oblivious to her act and never gives it a moment’s thought.
Hate to burst the bubble, folks, but it’s a serious decision, and these women know it.
Telling people they need to be more responsible about who they sleep means you hate women? Seriously?
facepalmpojo is the first intlligent voice I have heard in this string.
you’re a JACKASS.
not every rape victim goes to court.
Interesting opinions, but for a Christian, I guess you don’t open your Bible much. There are no abortions there. Not for any reason.
Homosexuality is sinful, as are many things in life. The moment we refuse to call sin of any kind what it is, we have chosen sides with the enemy of God. Christ died to save us from sin, not provide arguments for it.
As to those who say “you can’t judge me”: I don’t have to judge you. You already know your problem. I am only saying that it is inexcusable.
He never condoned sinful behavior. When He said “let him who is sinless cast the first stone”…that was a true judgment…under the law they could judge you and kill you. The accusers left….but that did not make the woman innocent. Actually Jesus told her” Where are your accusers?, I do not condemn you, your sins are forgiven,go and SIN no more”…so a capital punishment was not handed down, but she was forgiven and told to change her lifestyle.
Jesus was a friend to sinners, but He did not ever say …it’s ok to steal or to charge more (tax collectors were notorious for that) than you should…He was an example…in life…how he lived a Holy life…and he loved/loves us all…but He died for us too so we don’t have to live in sin…..to forget that is to not know anything about Him.
lol good point
The sad thing is that I can almost see that happening.
I don’t support abortion and you bet I’m going to do more than whine in the scenario you present.
I believe that killing the fetus is a sin. I also do not believe that gays should be married I have no problem with gays having the same rights but marrage itself is one man and one woman. it is a covenant between the man and woman if you want to create you own leagal covenant for gays go ahead but stop stealing others
Dude, what you don’t realize is that, by denying gays the right to get married, you deny them the legal BENEFITS of getting married. It’s a bigger deal than you think…
Civil Unions give “all the rights and benefits of marriage”–that is what the statute says.
the right to live and the ‘right’ to be homosexual are completely different from eachother. i’m not saying that the mal-treatment of homosexuals is a good thing, but even then, the stark contrast between killing someone and mis-treating them makes the LOL one of the most illogical things i have ever seen.
Frag all the foeti you want… but step on ONE spotted owl egg, and the crap really hits the fan!
I use them for omelets!….but thats only because they prey on snail-darters!
Yes
No one is born gay; it’s not in their DNA, it’s not God’s will, it’s not the will of the parents.
Yeah, this poster kinda sux, but hey, a Poster Generator! Sweet!
LOL
THEN WHERE THE HELL DOES IT COME FROM?
I have a male friend who was BORN with a brain that would end up having an attraction to men. Who cares, right? I mean, even with your opinion, him being gay is no skin off your nose.
This boy was so afraid of being gay, he made himself miserable trying to make himself be attracted to women. Needless to say after a few years this didn’t work and he ended up with serious repressions issues as well as anger management issues.
So when he finally came out to his severely right wing parents, they were seconds away from kicking him out of the house and never speaking to him again. Fortunately, his mother had a little more sympathy for him and he was able to stay at home and finally go to college.
In a family like that, what possible reason would he have to just DECIDE to be gay?
Are pedophiles (NOT making a moral comparison here) born that way or do they choose to molest children? If they are born that way, why do we put them in jail?
wait wait wait, so youre saying if people are born gay, they should be in jail? what in gods name are you talking about?
I said I wasn’t making a moral comparison. Please actually read what I typed. I’m making a comparison of being “born” a certain way vs. making a choice. If a pedophile is born attracted to little children, why do we put them in jail? Or is it a choice?
Many would concede that pedophiles are indeed born pedophiles – that it’s a bart of their brain chemistry, essentially.
The same with sociopaths, etc. You’re not made into a sociopath – you simply are one.
So why do we put people in jail for something that’s obviously not their fault?
It’s not that it’s “Obviously not their fault.” Despite having particularly tendancies / genes, you don’t HAVE to do something. You can be gay and still choose to be in a straight marraige. You can be a pedophile and not touch little children.
They are jailed because they have caused damange to another individual.
So in effect, it is a choice? You can be attracted to a certain type of person and not act on those attractions? This is my point.
No, you’re missing the point. You can be gay without acting on the attractions. You’re still fundamentally gay, which is not a choice.
If a person attracted to a kids never acts on those attractions, are they a pedophile? A person defines who they are by their ACTIONS, nothing else. Otherwise they become controlled and defined by something else. For example, my family has a history of alcoholism, but I don’t drink. Do I have the potentil to become an alcoholic? Yes. Am I one? I wouldn’t think so.
You can’t keep making general comparisons like this. They don’t always follow through.
Alcoholics who don’t drink are still alcoholics, just ones in “in recovery.”
Besides which, the alcoholism analogy doesn’t work, because alcoholism is a disease, not “who someone is” (i.e. gay or a pedophile).
Yes, if someone is attracted to kids but doesn’t act on it, they’re STILL a pedophile.
What Matador wants you to admit is that homosexuals can choose to ignore their instincts and life a hetero lifestyle, which they can; the issue, though, is whether they should have to.
In a place like Iran? That would be wise. In a supposedly free nation like America, they shouldn’t have to. Being gay isn’t hurting anyone: unlike pedophiles (who are often hetero, btw) normal gay couples engage in romances with other adults.
Then we disagree, hemcat, and we’ll have to leave it at that. I say a person is not something they consciously make a choice not to be.
Besides, I wasn’t talking about recovering alcoholics. I was talking about myself who doesn’t drink who has the potential (through heredity) to become addicted to alcohol.
herb I totally agree. Yes, they can repress it, but this causes significant psychological damage that thy should not have to endure because it doesn’t hurt anyone, unlike the other examples give so far like pedophilia, which hurts children, and alcoholism, which hurts the family of the person affectted.
Exactly, Herb. I only take issue with the argument that people are born this way or that. I fully support gay rights because it is a human rights issue and no democratic and free nation like the US for example should deny those rights.
Are you still a male or female? Were you born that way? How are you “acting” male or female? Unless you go into drastically altering surgery, you don’t have a choice but you are still what you are.
Pedophilia is defined by ATTRACTION not action. A pedophile is attracted to children. A child molester is somebody who actually does something about it. I could live in a bubble for YEARS without ever leaving it and still be heterosexual because I want women.
Sexuality is in your head, not in your pants.
One is put in jail for harming another person in some way by committing an illegal action. Child molestation is against the law. It is also against most culture’s moral codes. MOST homosexual individuals do not act against another’s wishes the same as MOST heterosexuals do not act against another’s wishes. A rapist is imprisoned for violating another’s wishes by an act of violence. An actual sexual act between two consenting adults should not even BE against any laws because this type of act is no one else’s business except the people involved.
*sigh* Should I even keep trying?
Do people even read what I post?
Not. A. Moral. Comparison.
Most of us are saying paedophiles ARE born that way. I’m not sure what the rest of the answer can be without you accusing us of making a moral comparison.
Perhaps you could give a sample answer from your point of view.
Nope.
I think the OP (way back when) meant that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore a decision.
Why do you make comparisons between gays and pedophiles. Pedophiles who become child molesters are invading another’s body. Gays are having consensual acts. You made the comparison which is a moral comparison. If you didn’t want the argument, you shouldn’t have made it.
It. Is. Not. A. Comparison. Are you deliberately obtuse or just that obstinate?
Very well, you are trying to go by actions defining a person’s mental state. A pedophile will still be a pedophile until they stop being attracted to kids. It isn’t based on action, it is based on desire and attraction.
If you don’t have sex with anybody for 20 years, are you still heterosexual or are you saying that they take your membership away? I will still want women even if I am not having sex on a regular basis. I mean seriously… Just look at them with their curves and wiggle…
Okay I have to stop. But yes, lack of action does not equal lack of attraction.
But still, saying that you can ignore homosexuality adds little. Where do we go from their? So I can, should I so wish, suppress an inbuilt desire to commit an non-harmful act. What is the link between this and any form of justification of homophobia, or even as a rejection of the “they’re born that way? They are still gay, even if they are in anyway put up to repressing it – they are still “born that way”
I’m gay. I’ve always been gay, as far back as I can remember. It didn’t really dawn on me until puberty, but once it did EVERYTHING made sense.
Also, the whole pedophile thing is a mixture of nature and nurture. Some pedophiles were victims themsleves, and grew up being molested, so they become adults and thier brains – warped from childhood- can’t handle adult emotions and they regress into that state and repeat what was done to them, some of them are just naturally inclined to children, and some of them atre just gross people who find it easier to use kids then have to deal with people thier own age.
Pedophiles creep me out like whoa. I had one interaction with a pedophile when I was younger, luckily I wasn’t young enough for it to really damage me, and it only happened once, but still, it’s a really scary ass thing to go through, I’m curious, anyone else deabting this actually have experience with it or are you all just well researched?
I’m just going on research here.
Experience and more than just once. -_-
People aren’t born gay.
God’s will.
Stupid liberals, sheesh.
Still doesn’t stop one from being gay. Just means they aren’t having sex with their preference.
The point is that people are put in jail for hurting others, not for being something.
I still REALLY don’t get Matador’s argument. Does Matador say that not acting on homosexual attractions makes homosexuality a choice?
Well, let’s go to that example of being in the chess club. Let’s say that you are in the chess club and is being severly beaten up by bullies for it. You quit. You stop playing chess and just dream of it, long for it, wish that you could play chess if people just weren’t so mean… Are you then someone who doesn’t like playing chess because you don’t do it anymore?
And are the homosexuals who are forced to remain closeted and in fake heterosexual relationships actually NOT attracted to the same sex, because they choose not to act on it? If they go around wishing and longing to be themselves, but have sex with someone of the opposite sex, do you mean that they have made the choice not to be gay? I really think that they’ve only made the choice not to act on it, and that means NOTHING in this discussion. You are still homosexual.
I think you’re explaining the argument yourself, but not realizing it.
The chess player has a desire to play chess, but has CHOSEN not to for fear of oppression. Is this person still a chess player? By the definition of a chess player as someone who plays chess, NO, he is no longer a chess player.
It is similar to the way I love to speed when I’m driving. I love the sensation of driving faster than everyone else. Do I act on my urges? No. I am afraid of the oppression of the law when I get caught. So, am I a Speeder? No.
The point I’m trying to make, is that like everything else, being homosexual is ultimately a choice. Granted, this choice is often heavily weighed by psychological factors and physical attractions that the person acquired through their genes or upbringing.
You can’t choose who you are attracted to.
Did you read my comment?
Here’s a shorter version: I like fire. Does that make me a pyromaniac? Not unless I light stuff on fire.
Actually yes. Pyromania can simply be a state of mind. Firestarter or perhaps even arsonists is the word for somebody who actually sets fires.
I love/adore/even worship abit women, I don’t have to have sex with them to be attracted to them. My heterosexuality isn’t defined by having sex with my fiancee’. It is defined by my attraction to her cuddly body.
You are using physical traits as analogies for mental states? in the case of homosexuality, you are not defined by actions but by thoughts: homosexulity is by definition an attraction to the same sex, not intercourse with the same sex – this is a product not a cause. Suppressing the product does not eliminate the cause. If I take a drug that halts the spread of HIV, am I still infected?
As stated earlier, I’m queer. It’s not that I ever made a consious choice, it’s just that one day after dealing with sex, and an attraction to boys I couldn’t figure out, it all just snapped into place. I never said, “hey I think i’ll be gay from now on!” it was more like “oh shit! THAT explains it!”
Also, I was VERY sheltered as a child, I was homeschooled until middle school, and my parents were fundamentalist Baptists, so I didn’t even know what a gay person was, they never even MENTIONED that kind of stuff at home. I had to learn all about sex and sexuality from my peers once I entered public school.
We don’t put people in jail because the wrong they committed was their fault, we do it just because they caused a wrong. Whether or not it’s their fault doesn’t change the fact that a pedophile has demonstrated that they’re a danger to other people.
Being gay, on the other hand, doesn’t demonstrate that someone is a danger to others, so there’s no need to throw them in jail.
From merriam-webster.com
Guilty 1: justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime
See “responsible” there?
it say justly charged with OR responsible. or implies that it’s one or the other, not that both are necessary. therefore, in this definition responsibility is not necessary in this definition, it’s one of two possible conditions
let’s also throw the wrench in this discussion that the law and the dictionary don’t usually agree on how words are defined. my husband went to law school. lawyers define words in strange ways and the definitions are altered by the circumstances in which they are used. guilt, in the law, is established by proof of action beyond a reasonable doubt. innocence is no proof. pleading no contest is when the evidence stacks up against you but you can’t proove otherwise, but you didn’t do it.
please, don’t try to define the law with dictionaries (lest they’re legal dictionaries, of course), because it always falls a bit short.
we do if it actually affects other people…like a pedofile…raping children is by no means comprable to being gay..and i understand you werent trying to make a comparison, but it certainly looks that way…its apples and oranges dear…just because your born a certain way does not make anything and everything you do excusable…gay people arent a threat to anyone anywhere and shouldnt be punished for how they were raised/how they were born/the choice they made, whatever you might think is the reason
There is a difference between sexual urge and ACTION – one is nature the other is choice. Just like the difference between looking at your hand, and being a w*nker.
With pedophiles, the choice exploits others. Being in a consensual ADULT relationship (gay or straight or other) doesn’t.
Many would also argue it’s a result of their early childhood experiences.
Early damage to children’s brains can cause a whole host of problems later on.
However, they should be removed from society immediately and permanently on the first offense because the recidivism rate is incredible. They don’t get better, they just harm more people.
I guess what I’m insinuating here is if one type of sexual attraction is choice, why is the other not? I am NOT making any type of statement here about homosexuality being wrong like touching kids is wrong. I am making a general statement about the choice nature of sexual attraction.
Wow I’m jumping in late. Ah, well. I should also mention that any time you bring up pedophilia, people are going to jump on the moral argument bandwagon. It’s a hot topic, and what you’re basically doing is comparing a criminal (an offending pedophile) to a non-criminal (gay person). Next time pick something more innocuous.
What you’re missing is that the attraction itself *is not a choice*. Whether it’s pedophilia, heterosexuality, homosexuality… The attraction is never called into question, because it simply *is*, and it’s the attraction that defines the label.
*Action* is what we prosecute for. A pedophile who has never touched children and receives therapy to keep from becoming an offender wouldn’t be jailed any more than a heterosexual man who’s never raped someone. No action, no crime. Similarly, a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex, have children, never touch a person of the same sex in a sexual fashion and that person will *still* be gay.
Action =/= Orientation
They are put in jail because they acted on their feelings.
The vast majority of children don’t want what a pedophile does to happen to them.
Even those that do (or more often have been convinced into thinking they do) should not be subjected to what their bodies and minds are not really ready for.
Pedophilia hurts people in unnecessary ways, but there is nothing dangerous about a person whom is attracted to children but has half a brain to not do anything to them (or support the CP market).
.
Homosexuality on the other hand is just an action between two consenting adults.
Logic win. Thank you.
Srsly.
Your assuming (again) that I’m making a moral comparison. I’M NOT. I fully support gay rights. Humans are humans and all deserve the right to live their life in what ever legal way they choose.
My argument is against the choice of the matter.
I’m just saying that they are born that way, and but we only put them in jail once/if they act on these feelings. Jenessa covered this fairly well just a little down from this post.
.
Relating to your alcohol analogy above, you are not born an alcoholic. You a born with a tendency for addiction. It doesn’t have to be alcohol, you could becaome addicted to (other) drugs, gambling, the internet or one of many other possibilities.
That is absolutely not true. Alcoholism specifically is linked to heredity. A chemical tendency that becomes chemical addiction that becomes metal addiction.
Addiction is linked to heredity. Alcoholism is only linked by association.
Most likely, the only reason why your family became alcoholics as opposed to anything else is because it is alcohol is more common in society as a readily identifiable addiction.
Do any of your family members also smoke? If not, then my entire argument, in this regard, collapses.
Let alone the fact that Alcoholism requires action while homosexuality requires attraction… Big difference.
Pedophilia is not a state of mind, it is a general term for actions that are inappropriate against children.
Similarly, being gay is not a state of mind, it is a lifestyle. If a person is attracted to the same sex for their entire life, but does not act on those desires, then it was a choice for them not to live a homosexual lifestyle, and for all appearances and purposes, that person is not homosexual.
Until some mind reader is created, we are truly defined by our actions, no matter what our thoughts and desires might be.
No, Pedophilia is a state of mind. Child molestation is the action itself. It is explained in the very word if you examine the Latin roots.
And for the record, we have words to define our mental states just as we have words to define our actions. They don’t necessarily have to sync up.
The lesbian from my previous example was distraught after losing her son. So she attempted to seduce a male friend to conceive. She wasn’t attracted to him, she wanted a baby. That isn’t heterosexuality, that is using sex to get what you want.
To clarify, if you stop having sex with women and you are a man, do you stop being heterosexual? I was unaware my membership could be revoked by inaction…
This is actually a common philosophical discussion. It seems from research that pedophiles are indeed born the way they are. The difference, however, lies in one issue: the harm principle. We have decided in this country that a person cannot consent to sexual relations until they are 18 (in most states). While that particular ages is disputable we can all agree that a 10 year old is not old enough to consent to sex. Therefore, when a pedophile engages in sexual activity with a child we have deemed it illegal because a child cannot consent to this. A pedophile needs to be placed in jail for his or her actions because what they do damages our children who need to be protected. Adult homosexuals can consent to sex (obviously) so this is not something they need to be jailed for.
We put pedophiles in jail once they have non-consensual sex.
We don’t put homosexuals in jail as long as their sex is consensual.
It’s not a moral judgment, it’s a practical one: Hurt someone else, society locks you away so you can’t do it again.
We put them in jail because they ACTED on that attraction. It’s the same thing with people with rape fantasies. They can have them, I don’t care, just don’t hurt anyone else by acting on those impulses.
Your argument means that serial killers shouldn’t be put in jail because they’re wired to have a disrespect/hatred of life or simply a psychological condition.
Pedophiles, in general, are a classic case of arrested development. At some point in their sexual awakening and discovery they are locked into a stage of sexuality normally grown out of in natural maturity. It may have been because of their own exposure to a pederast when they, themselves were young, or a shocking exposure to their parents sexuality. One of the most notable culprits to this arrested development is an over-reacting and moralistic response to normal behavior as with Catholicism towards masturbation or any puritanical histrionics over “playing doctor”. These are natural and important steps in any person’s sexual education. The abject humiliation that usually accompanies such responses can, not only traumatize the person but can easily stress a moment in a person’s life out of proportion and, therefore, making that moment a constant underlying personality identifier.
Because they harm innocent and unconsenting people, that’s why! Two dudes boning each other isn’t a crime. Exploiting minors is. Duh.
Why don’t you think about it for a minute….figured it out yet? Oh alright I’ll make it easy for you, when two gay individuals have a relationship it is consensual. When an adult abuses a child it isn’t, its rape or assault. Paedos are a danger to children; gays are a danger to no one. That is why child abusers are put in prison
We put them in jail because they’re sick freaks that have sex with kids. In comparison, a gay person is (we assume) capable of a relationship with a consenting adult, which hurts NO ONE.
That’s like comparing the gene that turn people into sociopaths to the gene that make people like sweets. The sociopath is hurting people and is bad, while the sweet toothed person is only gaining a few pounds and is okay. One is a jailable offense. One is not.
He was made gay by the biased liberal media, and didn’t have enough red meat and violence growing up. Me, I had a steady diet of shame and roast beef. Now I’m straight as an arrow, fat, and unhappy with myself on so many levels.
did you read that in “i dont know what the hell im talking about” magazine? People are just born gay dude, just f’ing accept it and stop being so narrow minded.
Where is your scientific evidence for that? You can’t just blurt it out and say “Yup. That’s just how it is and you’re ignorant if you don’t accept it”. Yes, there is typically more grey matter in a homosexuals brain, however we often control subconsciously what goes on. Just because they’re gay, does that mean that they’re horrible people? Absolutely not. And having a desire for the same sex isn’t what’s considered sinful, it’s acting upon it that’s considered sinful. I have a lesbian cousin and I strongly think she chose it. I don’t think that she just woke up one day and decided to be a lesbian, but I do think that it was more of a subconscious decision. For example she had a single mother who still tried to date, but ended up being hurt emotionally by multiple men. Her mother was a very strong and hard-headed woman. My cousin was a tom-boy, and hard-headed as her mother was, naturally, young boys want feminine, attractive, soft girls. My cousin wasn’t one of them; however, other homosexual women readily welcomed her.
While this personal example seems to offer evidence for subconscious forces, there are lots of other little girls who were in her position who didn’t become lesbians and there are lots of girls who are not in these situations who did NOT grow up in these situations and they DID turn out gay.
The situation you described often leads to sexual promiscuity in young girls. She saw men using her mother which leads to lowered self-esteemed and the idea that she needs to make men love her; that it won’t happen for her naturally. Most girls see sex as the simplest way to make men love them. So in reality, the situation you described should have led to more sexual activity with men, not less/none.
I’m sorry but I have to butt in. My mother was a hard-headed woman. I am a hard-headed woman. I was a tom-boy in my youth and in most regards I still am. And I am straight. Here’s the point: Just because a woman is physically capable or more aggressive than the ‘average’ (and what does average mean, anyway?) woman does not make her a lesbian. I am a jujitsu black belt. I have been punched in the face, thrown across rooms, and dented a couple of walls Guess what? I’m still straight. And I was still found to be attractive by young men, just for the record, even though I was a what I suspect you would call a ‘un-feminine, unattractive, hard girl’.
And why, exactly, must a person be denied a loving relationship because they happen to share the same sex chromosomes as the one they love? God just made them that way so they could suffer the pangs of attraction but never get to act on them? The logic just doesn’t penetrate my thick tom-boy skull.
There are no “hard women.” Only soft men.
Amen to that
Wow, that is disturbing. There are hard women and soft men just as there are hard men and soft women. Let’s not get into more stereotyping when you are already fighting one.
This is very true. Everyone has their own personality and preference, as they absolutely should. I just tend to be deemed ‘unnatural’ by virtue of who I am and my indifference to what some people consider the ‘proper way’ for women to behave. Ultimately I wish that we could just shove all this ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ stuff into the dustbin where it belongs, but I don’t know that we ever will given that there are people who still believe the tripe put forward in the statement that started all this.
I found myself to be a hard man with soft tendencies. I have an aggressive and almost good old boy personality but I like to write, have a very passionate side, and try to consider others as part of my “good old boy” collective. So I have some conservative viewpoints for what I would like in my neighborhood but I try not to be a prat about who can be my neighbor. Long as you don’t mess with my yard or steal my stuff, we’re cool. If we get along real good, we can hang out, grill, etc.
I’ve known too many good people from all walks of life to say that somebody shouldn’t be around over something as petty as who they want to sleep with.
…oh, that’s not sexist at all.
So what you’re saying is, women have to be perfectly femme and pretty to be straight? Otherwise, they’re liable to turn lesbian?
I’ll get the word out for you. I’m sure my hardcase, tattooed friend who’s been in a committed relationship with a male for three years would love to hear that. Ditto the girl who’s beauty pageant material and has been dating females since middle school. They should get with the program and act right.
Actually, it may in fact be in their DNA.
There is a professor at my school (University of New England) that is studying homosexuality in fruit flies.
Not humans, fruit flies.
Are you telling me now that fruit flies have the brain capacity to make the choice that they are gay? I don’t think so. It’s a chemical imbalance and they are attracted to males and not females (or visa versa).
Don’t talk about things having to do with biology when there is no evidence AGAINST it. Yes, at this time there is no evidence that sexual choice is in our DNA, but at the same time there is no evidence that it is NOT in our DNA.
Also, all these people talking about choice? If being gay is a choice I want to see all you straight people wake up tomorrow and decide you are now gay. See how well it works. Well, that’s basically how gay people are when they try to repress it and be straight.
i had a mental picture of a gay fruit fly and i laughed
SO would that make it a ‘fruity fly’?
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Gay fruit flies like the Pet Shop Boys.
and Flashdance.
“Are you telling me now that fruit flies have the brain capacity to make the choice that they are gay?”
Obviously they’ve been watching sick filth in fruit fly cinemas by those godless hollywood fruit flies that want to spread the gay-fly agenda.
WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE LARVAE?
I don’t support homosexuality, but this made me lol.
At the age of 5, I smelled a man and touched his whiskers and thought “I want this”. I have never been given this sensation from a woman. In fact, every time I have been “with” a woman, the nausea and the certainty that it was WRONG WRONG WRONG was enough to make it clear. God does NOT want me to be with a woman and makes me taste a little bit of Heaven when I am with the man I love. Of course, that is all HORSES**T. There is no God, or rather, if there is a GOD it is a sick, sadistic, and unworthy thing. And why on EARTH did Dick Cheney raise his daughter to be gay? Is he as sick, sadistic and unworthy as ‘GOD”? oh yeah he is.
I am Christian too and I’m telling you the Genetics Jury is still out on the “born gay” thing. There *may* be something in it. God created the world perfect, but anyone can see Chaos theory at work here – everything degrades, including our DNA, this is the basis of ageing and all our genetic differences. Being gay might have a genetic basis, but practising gay is still a choice.
Breathing is a “choice”. Please reconsider your choice.
What if ‘God” decided that a very useful way to make sure that none of “his” creations would overpopulate, insanely, and destroy his creation would be to make sure that overpopulation increased the homosexuality trait “he” programmed into the genome? Why do you question “his” perfect design? Do you know what “he” was thinking?
I was raised in a strongly christian household – church four times a week, daily family prayer time at home, steeped in catechism and immersed in bible lore…so when I first experienced an attraction to other girls I prayed my ass off for god to take it away because I’d been taught it was sinful. The attraction continued, and does to this day. So, I can either say that I was born this way, or it was Jehovah’s will that I continue to feel this way as he chose not to answer my prayers.
Ehhh, doesn’t the whole religion rest around an OMNISCIENT god? If He, in all his wisdom, is incapable of seeing such detestable flaws in His perfect creation, why do we worship him? Where do His other mistakes lie?
He didn’t created man to be perfect. He created him as a flawed being with Free Will to show why He is needed. No one can follow the laws set forth by God exactly, because it’s impossible unless you ARE God. Since none of us is perfect, and the only way into Heaven is to BE perfect, then God gave us an out by allowing His Son to take the blame for us. The whole set up of laws in the Old Testament is to show man why he needs a Saviour in the first place. (I’m speaking as though you are familiar with the Bible, I’m not trying to force my views on you.)
O_O
Sometimes I am just frustrated with how convoluted God’s will seems to be…
Again, the whole sick concept that the “creator” made sure that one of his other creations could make it worse for all others for eternity. Sick, Sadistic and deeply unworthy of any sort of worship much less an ounce of my time to contemplate.
I am not going to take the written word of man, handed down from the pulpit of power as an insight to the workings of the unfathomable and incomprehensible mind of a “creator” that would program his creations to fail just before the finish line just so “he’ could have the pleasure of punishing all of them for eternity.
SICK SICK SICK
See some of my posts on organized religion on recent pics.
So, like, one day you were looking at your buddy, and thought, “Hmm, I could really go for some of that! Wait, though, that would be wrong. Oh well, I guess I’ll just stick to the women!”
Just a hint, if that’s you, you have a little of “the gay” in you.
I’m not bragging, here, this doesn’t make me better than anyone else, but I’m straight. I’ve always been straight. Even when I was four years old I was trying to get the girls to play doctor.
It was never a choice.
Men never stood a chance.
My gay friends tell me their experiences are similar; except for the bisexuals who settled on one gender or the other, they all knew from childhood they were gay.
I’d be interested in your input.
If you sincerely believe that people are not born gay or straight, then you might want to google “xq28.” This is a genetic marker that’s more common in gay than straight people. TRUST me, it would’ve been much easier for me to “choose” heterosexuality. This is not a “choice” issue, like choosing what to eat for lunch.
YES, pple are born gay. How do you explain me wanting to kiss only girls all my kindergarten through today? C’mon. This is place of politics. Get your wackjob god out of it.
Debating on behalf of an imaginary dude in the sky will get you nowhere.
Wow. Just….. you…. um, wow.
soooo… the will of the parents determines who and what you’re born as?
By the logic of your statement, then all parents who give birth to a child with a defect, disease or deformity WANTED their child to be that way?
and… if God is supposedly the supreme creator… wouldn’t everything He creates be His will?
Also, you cannot definitively say something “is” or “is not” where DNA is concerned. How do we know? We haven’t unlocked all of the secrets of human genetics yet. How do you know for sure?
Besides, all the factual reports I have heard on the matter–as in actual articles with quotes from geneticists who have studied this, NOT from people just hammering away at each other on the internet–point to the fact that it is very likely that our genetic structure is involved in determining our sexuality.
(sorry, no, I do not have actual sources on hand, but I would LOVE to find them again for you if you want)
biologically, people are born with certain traits that make them unique, and being homosexual is one of them
Take your nose out of the Bible (and out of other people’s business for that matter) and put it into a science textbook for a second.
You might learn something
Nobody is born gay. It’s a choice.
Yes because people choose to be berated and hated over who they love. Some choice…
No, we move to a place where we are accepted as good neighbors and we go to our loving family’s homes for the holidays. You are the one who goes out of their way to find someone to hate. Can you please tell me how filling your heart with hatred serves your faith in any way?
Grrr I hate this comment feed format. It keeps dumping my comments in the wrong places. I am also quite fired up because of the lolnathans on this site who will gladly tell you about how good their “God” is and then turn around and make the same excuse that were used to defend the “good Christian boys” who murdered a highschool friend of mine with a tire iron because he was gay.
Ya, you had me confused for a second there cuz I never advocated hate. :/
And you know this for sure?
It’s NOT a choice. No one would choose a life full of belittlement and constant
hatred simply because they love the “wrong” person (according to ill-thinking asshats). Get your head outta yours.
Reductio ad absurdum. So by your logic, no one would ever make a choice to do something that would make them ridiculed? Male cheerleader? Chess Club? Even rooting for the visiting team at a sports event? What people PREFER to do is always a choice, however likely the person is to choose that action IN SPITE of resistance.
Agreed. Plenty of people choose a way of life that leads to hatred or fear, in spite of the consequences. Cookies argument isn’t even remotely valid or logical.
Wow! When was the last time you bashed the chessclub geek’s head in with a tire iron? Were you the guy who took the shotgun into the Unitarian Church during a children’s service and murdered those people?
Don’t deny it! You are a murderous sociopath and you feel it is okay to torture and terrorize anyone who doesn’t meet your standard of society. Your attitude is the same as the KKK and the Nazi’s and you can’t possibly defend yourself against that accusation. You state quite clearly that ANYONE that you decide is less perfect than you is fair game for murder.
Are there a good chunk of people who openly declare that male cheerleaders, chess club members, and visiting team rooters are going to hell? Are those people unable to enjoy all the rights that come with marrying those that they love? Are those people rejected by their friends or kicked out of their families? Are those people hated or beaten, sometimes to death, because of what they “chose”?
OK. There are plenty of people that choose a religion and are told they are going to hell because they chose the wrong one. They are unable to enjoy all the rights as human beings. They are rejected by their friend and kicked out of their families. They are hated beaten, sometimes to death. Do they still choose that religion? The argument is absurd. People WILL make a choice in spite of any amount of pain and suffering.
Personally, I don’t feel that I chose my religion. It took me a lot of time to realize it, but I am simply incapable of believing in any god or religious views. And I’ve tried, a lot.
For me, being an atheist is not a choice, it’s just the way I am. I doubt it’s genetic, but I can’t change the effects my upbringing had on me any more than I can change my genetics.
I forgot to add, because of this view of my religious capabilities, (or lack thereof), I can sympathize with the GLBT community. It unfortunately took me a while to realize that, and I very much regret some of the comments I’ve made over the course of my life.
Thank you, anon for admitting to your previous actions & becoming a bigger person. I’m glad I’m gay. I’m sure I’d still be the same giving, loving person, generally, but I’d never change one iota of who I am.
Mike
I agree. What you believe is not a choice, it’s how you personally think is the truth of the world. Nothing but absolute proof of god could make me believe in him, but for some people nothing but conclusive proof that he/she/it does NOT exist could destroy their faith in it.
Thank you anon, for being a conscientious and mature human being.
Mmm, religion is a choice. It is what they feel is right and what they believe. They still chose it. They don’t sit there and try for years to deny the feelings or beliefs. They have them, they choose to have them.
Sexual orientation isn’t a choice. It is simply how you and what you are attracted to. There is nothing to gain by stating a sexual choice.
Stating a religious choice, you are going for a system of beliefs. If I believe that I am going to get into heaven regardless of torture, sure why not. I will keep my religion as I have rewards later.
What exactly is the reward for being gay again?
Being with the person you believe that you love and loves you in return? Lots of people, gay or straight, would go through anything and even die for that alone.
A lot of gays that I met didn’t come out to be with anybody in particular so your reasoning still isn’t there. Yes, a lot of us would die for the name of love. So what about the gays who come out because it is the truth of who they are. I know you can say what you want about that statement but I know a lot of gay guys who honestly wish things were different but they aren’t.
What else is a homosexual than a person that is attracted to the same sex? Same goes for heterosexual. The words are meaningless to consider someone coming out just for the sake of coming out. They are doing so for the sole purpose of seeking a mate of some form, or they might just be desperate for attention.
Or to simply be honest with who they are. Being gay is considered a problem so coming out is traumatic. They aren’t coming out necessarily because they are in love. They might just be coming out because their parents keep trying to hook them up with a group of people who have no appeal to them.
And unless you are gay or actually talk to gays, which is becoming very apparent, I wouldn’t state a Definitive reason for coming out. Unless you are saying you’re gay and thus speak from experience.
I highly disagree. I tried for years as a child to force myself to be christian in order to avoid hell but eventually I just had to accept the fact that no matter what i did I simply could not believe in god. I received all the sacraments adn went to Catholic school and was brought up catholic and it didn’t help
You know what’s odd? I know of a few people who became atheist after they were raised catholic. You’re at least the third person I’ve heard say that within the past year.
I know a ton of people who were raised Catholic and became atheist.
It’s because the Catholic religion and religion as a whole consists of a set of rules or guidelines you MUST live by. Spirituality shouldn’t be a set of rules but a relationship with a loving God, naturally making you a better person who shows people love no matter what gender race or sexual orientation.
Half the ex-catholics I know refer to themselves as recovering catholics, myself included. I’m not an atheist now, but I can’t believe in the god I was raised to believe in after watching two close relatives die from cancer (and other issues I have)
being gay or a lesbian doesnt come with a f’ing choice. Its just the way you are. Being a male cheerleader is WAY different than being attracted to the same sex. Get your logic straight , PLEASE.
I fail to see any competing logic in your statement. Please tell us how you came by this information that “It’s just they way you are.” How is it “WAY different” hmm? Please prove your point.
I didn’t choose to be attracted to men.
But I am.
Is that enough proof?
Woes of a male cheerleader/chess club vs being gay… One gets you some minor harassment and perhaps some bullying. The other… Well people have been shot for being gay, tortured for being gay, hanged for being gay, there are laws that inhibit gays, etc etc.
I am sorry, you do not understand the scope of what is being compared. Please come back when you actually understand the repercussions of gay as a “choice.”
See my earlier post on the repercussions of choosing a religion. Tibet and China maybe?
And you can read my response to your earlier post.
Don’t forget what’s been going on in India by toward the Christians as well. People were getting their houses burned down, kids were getting killed, & my friend was threatened if he preached on sabbath.
Funny thing though. He decided to preach anyway & there were police that actually offered them protection so nobody was harmed that day. That’s awesome.
Being Christian is a choice. How many Christians have been beaten, tortured, slaughtered, had laws that inhibit them, hell, fed to lions………all for a choice……..
……
(not disagreeing, but pointing out another side)
How many have had this done to them in what are supposed to be liberal, accepting countries?
I hate to say it, love, but Torlek has a point. You also have to remember that Christians are technically fighting for a reward in the afterlife. Gays are pretty much coming out because they simply are gay and don’t want to hide it. There isn’t really much to gain by living out in the open. Least Christians have Christ waiting for them right? Hell, according to a painfully large number of Christians, God hates gays.
So in all reality, it behooves a gay person to not be gay but… They just can’t be any other way without severe damage of some kind.
I’m honestly not disagreeing with you, DWM, I just want people to understand my view on it too. My best friend is gay, didn’t choose it, and I don’t think he’s going to hell. But the amount of intolerance that is heaped on gay people is more than heaped on Christians as a whole. That doesn’t make any of it right. (one of these days you’ll have to ask me about my views on Paul’s ‘thorn in his side’ as told by the New Testament
You’ll get a kick out of it 
)
Safe to say that there is more than enough intolerance to go around?
Just the other day I received a copy of “Obsession”, the anti-Muslim DVD sent out to voters in swing states. The idea is to fuel intolerance towards Islam and its followers. Same shit, different day.
(Chimps and humans solve their differences by violence. Bonobos settle theirs by mass orgies. I think the wrong primate dominated the planet.)
LOL, political views aside, I think you and I are in total agreement here!
Bonobos are also known for choosing to engage in bisexual relationships.
That is clearly why they aren’t the dominate primate and are going to burn in hell for all eternity.
If the FSM really did want his favorites to be gay or bi, why wouldn’t the Bonobos be the dominant primate?
You’re saying bisexuals are going to burn in hell?
That’s kind of harsh.
Sarcasm. She has it. You needs it.
I love it when we agree, closest thing to make up sex one can have here
When did you start making up sex? *thoughtful*
I know I started in Junior High.
Not telling, that would be ungentleman-like.
Liberal, accepting countries tend to view any religion EXCEPT for Christianity to be ok. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been shouted down and essentially persecuted in this tolerant nation simply because I hold a mainstream belief that people refuse to take as valid. Apparently it’s ok to be Muslim, Hindu, or anything else, but if you’re a Christian you’re automatically viewed through some really disapproving and judgemental eyes. You wonder why a lot of Christians in Hollywood, for example, won’t ‘come out’ as Christian.
Oh you’ve been persecuted? Ever been shot for being a Christian? Ever been beaten up by a gang for being a Christian? Have you been disowned by your parents for being a Christian? Ever been denied the opportunity to worship how you choose because you’re Christian? Ever been prohibited from seeing a person you want to because you’re a Christian?
Come back with a yes on one of those and then we can talk about you being persecuted.
Lot’s of times, micropenis ! Ever heard of Northern Ireland ? Did you know you can buy a Christian slave in the Sudan ? Open your eyes, Douchebag !
I don’t think we were talking about either Sudan or Northern Ireland. Also allow me to point out that the war in NI has been conducted BETWEEN CHRISTIANS. Also by and large it is not a specifically religion driven conflict, lots of ethnicity and “nationality” in there too.
I have been denied the opportunity to worship as I choose simply because I am a Christian, yes. And yes, I have been prohibited from seeing a person I choose simply because I’m a Christian and he wasn’t. I have never personally been shot at, disowned, or beaten up by a gang because of it, but just because I haven’t doesn’t mean plenty of people haven’t as well. I just live in a part of the country that is a little more accepting of it. The same with being gay. If you’re staying in the boundaries of the US about Christians being persecuted, then go right ahead. But it goes beyond simply our borders.
I’ll admit to being a silent part of this problem. I’m dismissive of companies that put a little fish logo on their business cards; I think it’s pompous and presumptive. (I don’t know how I’d fare with a Magden David or Crescent as I haven’t seen them.) Nor are the thoughts I think very nice about people with overtly religious bumper stickers of any religion, but predominantly Christian.
I’ve known bad Xians, and I unfairly lump most Xians in that category, though I try very hard to have that whole “judge not” thing complementing my treatment of others as I want to be treated.
Consider this my formal apology.
You don’t have to appologize! *hugs* We have a difference of opinion shaped by our different life stories
I agree with you about the little fishes being pompus in some uses. I refuse to put one on my truck because I don’t want people associating the way I drive with the way a Christian is supposed to drive *blush* I dont’ really have a problem with it on business cards and the like, at least you know up front what you’re dealing with. Trust me, I’ve known bad Christians as well. Some of the worst people I know are deacons in churches I’ve attended. That isn’t going to make me NOT a Christian though, but that’s simply a life choice. Or an Afterlife choice 
(I also prejudge those with New york Yankees apparel, but that’s justifiable
)
I’m just about to decide that anyone who follows a sports team with the ferver I see coming from Cubs’ fans every year has single-handed started their own religion. I mean, honestly! I don’t see that kind of in-your-face religion from your whacked out Bible-thumpers in Arkansas! And my husband and the Braves………..let’s just say that when the Braves play, I go to the other TV in the house
the whole solution to this stupid conflict is to just
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, be fair to other peoples values, and just leave them alone.
seriously, downgrading gays and christians? this is pretty much the same as being racist.
my drama teacher, who is a major catholic, made a good point the other day.
he said homosexuality is a sin, but it also says in the bible to hate the sin and not the sinner, therefore he respects homosexuals’ values.
Well then how about the rights that gay people are fighting for? Has the governemtn of the place you live in prevented you from marrying the person you love? Has a hospital not allowed you to visit your partner in the ICU because you aren’t married or blood related and you CANNOT do a thing about it? Has your partner adopted a child and raised it with you, only for your partner to die and have the child that you have raised and loved be taken away from you because the adoptive parent has passed away? How about being denied tax benefits that come with being married? Has the governemtn ever denied you those things based on your religion?
Regardless of whether being gay is a choice or not, this is a group of people who are being denied rights that are allowed to all other citizens of the US.
You’re taking part of my postings and forming an opinion of me based on a small part of the whole. Read everything I wrote in this thread and you will see that you and I are not really disagreeing. I’m simply pointing out another side.
Oh, I know. I’m just saying that choosing to be a Christian, while having some of the same social problems, like persecution, is still not the same as choosing to be gay, even if being gay was a choice.
I too am pointing out another side.
Your comment was just easiest for me to form a coherent response to, and I felt like adding something to the whole choosing religion/sexual orientation debate.
Sorry for the confusion.
I’m easy to bash? hehehe. Well, maybe
My problem with equating gay rights abuse (or lack of gay rights……it’s late, I’m about to leave work, and I’m tired 
) isn’t a real equation. You’re trying to compare a group that has rights taken (or kept from) it, sure, but there haven’t been the mass slaughters of gay people the same way there have been of religious groups. The Holocaust and the like……also, if you do the math, more Christians have died since the Holocaust than all of the Jews IN the Holocaust. That’s not trying to diminish the Holocaust in any way, it’s simply putting a little perspective on religious killings vs rights being kept from a social group. (don’t hit me for refering to gay people as a social group. I’m having trouble forming sentences that make sense right now 
)
Um, Hitler targeted gays in the Holocaust hun. He went after them pretty hard too.
Hitler went after a lot of people who resembled him (I believe he was half Jewish, right?), so that goes to prove my theory that he was a closeted gay. It wasn’t just gays, or Jews, or blacks, or one particular kind of people, it was anybody he viewed as ‘different’ or ‘inferior’. I was just saying that there haven’t been mass slaughters of gay people in the same ways as religious people have been targeted. Not that is hasn’t happened, just that it hasn’t happened in the same ways.
Considering how long gays have been shunned and outlawed by religion over the years, I am inclined to disagree, love. Just because there isn’t a mass grave doesn’t mean that tons weren’t killed.
You are right, I am wondering if Hitler was just trying to kill parts of himself through projection.
froofrou, I didn’t mean that you were easy to bash. Just that some of these other comments have me sputtering at what these people are typing, and your comment was thoughtful and well written, thus diminishing the amount of red that I had been seeing enough to write something also thoughtful and well written (I think.) But on the topic of killings, it’s rather hard to quantify the number of people who were killed for being homosexual or suspected of being homosexual, because that isn’t something that is normally declared to the world prior to the killing. Being a Christian though, encourages proclaiming the good message from a mountain top, so it’s pretty easy to say, that person was targeted for being Christian. I don’t think we can actually know the number of homosexuals who have been killed for that, or even been suspected of being homosexual, even if they weren’t.
I think that you’re exactly right. And it saddens me
The reason you’re right saddens me, not the fact that you are 
Killing anyone simply because they are different than you is a pretty crappy reason.
DWM, fist bump for you as well, because I think that essentially you and I agree, we just take different roads in explaining it
Yay, fist bumpage!
I know plenty of people who have been disowned and beaten up and especially denied opportunity to worship because they follow the bible. I’m not talking just calling themselves christians. I mean actually keeping the 10 commandments, etc. Even on this post, look at the comments people have made about God to show they don’t believe in him but as soon as someone who does believe brings him up people get their undies in a bunch. I know there are also ignorant comments coming from people who call themselves believers so it sucks when they make us all look bad, but seriously, in the real world there are sooo many people who are anti-Christianity.
Have you all ever noticed that when people don’t believe in God, the first (sometimes only) religion they attack is Chrisitanity?
Sorry if some of my statements ramble. I’m really hungry & haven’t gotten my lunch break yet.
That’d be because all of the others seem to count as minorities in North America.
I’ve been beat up for being a christian, I’ve been denied the right to worship, and I’ve been prohibited from seeing someone for being a Christian. And plenty of times.
It’s not like that doesn’t happen here in America.
If you’re getting beat up for being a christian, its pretty likely you were doing something annoying, like protesting an abortion clinic.
People don’t throw rocks at people going to sunday mass, or should I say (since someone is always doing something anti-social to someone else) MOST people don’t get their ass kicked walking in to Sunday mass.
If you’re out protesting, or just being your normal hate spewing, going to hide behind my religion and act like an idiot because independent thought makes your brain hurt and ears bleed, and you actually piss off someone who is tired of trying to argue with idiots…Yeah…You’re going to get your ass kicked.
I will not be surprised in the slightest, if more and more of you bible thumping jack hols actually get bludgeoned into smears for annoying the crap out of the rest of us. After all, as godless heathens, isn’t it our right to express our beliefs and uphold our way of thinking?
If you’re going to label everyone, and want your opinion to be heard, be prepared. Everyone else has that right too.
And quite a few, don’t like you at all.
It’s not your religion that people have a problem with, you narrow minded zealots…its the perversion of a set of ideals and teachings that you have turned into a hate mongering abomination that has earned the scorn of more than enough people to just get sick of it and want to stomp a mud hole in your butt.
So… because I was quietly answering a friend’s questions about my religion during free time after *she* asked what I believed; I deserved to have a group of boys cross the room, swear at me, make threats of violence, and throw me out of class while the teacher smiled.
Likewise, because I don’t sleep around I *must* be gay and deserved to have guys try to follow me home and attempt to rape me to “teach me a lesson.”
You responded to Chan’s post with the assumption that he/she had done something to deserve it or provoke such a response. Way to demonize the victim.
Hate, in all its forms, sucks.
Do not confuse absence of privilege or endorsement with persecution. It IS okay to be Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Pastafarian, Christian, etc. It is NOT okay to expect special privileges because of such. You are not free to be shielded from differing beliefs. It is not persecution to be asked to coexist.
Do not confuse what I said earlier with me saying that I was asked to coexist. I do not expect special privilege because of my religion. I expect not to be bashed.
To add to your point, two words: Matthew Shepard (RIP)
You obviously didn’t go through the American school system as a complete geek. News flash, when geeks are picked on in school, we don’t see it a being “ridiculed lightly”.
I got lucky, I went to a college-prep high school that was full of geeks. Literally half my graduating class majored in something related to computers, the other half were going on to be lawyers and doctors. So we geeks were the majority. If I had to go on to the high school that my middle-school classmates went to, I’m sure I would have attempted suicide. I’ve thanked my parents countless times for letting me go to the high school I did.
Agreed! The kind of ridicule kids suffer has the potential to completely alter the person they would naturally be in an accepting environment. Lots of people become totally fake due to the teasing of their classmates. Lots of kids who are made fun of for being gay kill themselves. Clearly, if the options were choose something else or kill themselves, they’d choose to stay alive and change
You’re kidding, right? I used to get As and Bs in middle and high school and I was made fun of up and down for wanted to excel, but I NEVER considered getting bad grades just to stop being made fun of.
If I happened to be gay, I would be lying to myself to try and point myself the other way.
Gotta love it when people want you to dumb it down so they feel better…
Yeah, people choose to have their lives be extremely hard for them by people like you to ridicule them, its a smart choice they choose. You’re an idiot sir.
See my below post. There IS scientific evidence for being born gay on the studies I’ve cited as well as throughout the animal kingdom, including higher primates (bonobos), our closest relatives.
Just like boob size!
AARGH my previous comment was a reply to “being gay is a choice!”
I have issues with why it moved way down here.
That ranks right up there with, “There is no global warming” and “the earth is flat.” Welcome to the 21st century. I think you have some catching up to do.
so wait… does that mean we’re born heterosexual? and THEN choose to be gay?
But I thought you were NOT BORN WITH your sexuality
how is it heterosexuality can be “normal” and “natural” and homosexuality be a “choice”
either they’re both choices, or neither of them is a choice
heck, for all we know… maybe we’re all born gay and some people just choose to be heterosexual!
so, if your not born gay, who would CHOSE to be beaten and teased and shunned there whole life? one of my friends was beaten and left for dead because he mentioned that he was having troubles at work, because his boss found out he was gay. he thought it was safe to mention as most of the guys he was at the bar with were left wing. turns out you can be for womens rights, for environmental protection, for free education and still be a homophobic brute. would you chose to be a minority where a word in the wrong ear could have you in hospital for three months?
I wouldt fight for its right, Im pro choice. I wuld abort EXPECIALLY if its homosexual
*beats JohnnyClutch with a copy of the Merriiam/Webster’s 11th Collegiate*
Please father my children.
wut
Wow.
Multiple assumption theory
Fails at logic.
Meh. At least it isn’t Palin I guess.
Its only hypocritical if you believe that one can be born gay.
OMG, abortion and homosexuality wrapped up in one LOL. This thread is going to be an EPIC WIN for comment wankery.
it’s more hypocritical to say you are pro-life yet you’re pro-gun and pro-war
Not really. Maybe if you take it has a literal term. But Pro-Lifers believe that unborn children should get at least a shot at life. Pro-Gun and Pro-War believe that guns for self defense, and that some wars save lives in the long run.
It’s not hypocrisy, it’s just another way to think about things.
There is no contradiction there, so no hypocrisy. An unborn child is not equivalent to say, a criminal breaking into your home, or a soldier choosing to fight you. Unborn children do not have a say in their conception, but a criminal or a soldier made a choice to take that risk.
I just wanted to add that it works the other way around too. Most pro-choicers are also anti-capital punishment. To play devil’s advocate, why is it okay to prevent an innocent blameless child from being born, but its not okay to execute a murderer who has proven they do not value human life?
Is that hypocrisy? I don’t think so. Its a very complex issue and you distilling it down to what you argued is just kindergarten level logic. There’s a lot more to it.
If it makes you feel any better, I am pro choice who approves of the death penalty when they actually get it right.
That’s me too. But in general I’m pro-everything. I feel that people can decide on a personal level whether abortion is right for them or not, or just about anything else. I don’t support legislating morality, period.
Laws should exist to ensure a stable society. People killing other people for no reason is obviously bad for society. People killing people because they were found guilty of murdering someone else essentially trades a criminals life for the future innocents they would have killed. Life imprisonment is fine too, really, but I don’t support taxpayers having to pay to feed and cloth a murderer.
I also feel that drug laws cause more harm than good. Forcing an act into the shadows only causes it to become more insidious and harder to control. If drugs were legalized the illegal drug trade would die overnight, and proper education about the possible side effects of certain drugs could be instituted instead of fear tactics.
I am glad we agree. I can argue with your logic. I know the drug problem is a tad more complicated but I do believe that a number of drugs are made illegal when they are no worse than Alcohol.
Besides, the meth laws limit my ability to get cough syrup here in Iowa among other things. :/
I have issues with overly processed anything, from drugs to food. I’ve no issue with pot, mushrooms, peyote, or coca leaves, but will have nothing to do with meth, MDMA, coke, or Easy-Cheez.
Legalize, regulate, and tax the shit out of them. I’m for a “vice tax” on things we don’t need, but really want, and that aren’t that good for us (cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, drugs, sex with hookers, etc.).
x2
I’m a pro choice who agrees with capital punishment when used properly.
I am also pro choice and i agree with you
I don’t like scum-bot’s post, but even in its context that’s invalid. The pro-choice stance is based off the assumption that fetuses are, at the very least, no more sentient than animals. Unless the issue is stopping someone coming into existence, which seems a pretty slippery slope.
I agree, cognitive dissonance is a common occurrence in people who fail to properly examine the underlying principles of their beliefs. I am a bit of a political odd ball in that I would argue pro-life and anti-death penalty in a perfect world but odd as the position is there is definitely no dissonance because I argue for life in both cases. Unfortunately, the way things are now I see them both as a necessary evil for many reasons so I’m current pro-choice and pro-death penalty
Because pro-choice means *choice.* It’s a false dichotomy. Just because “pro-life” conflates with forced birth does not mean “pro-choice” conflates with forced abortion.
No one’s ever heard of a group of pro-choice advocates bombing an ob-gyn office.
Precisely. I have never heard of pro-choicers bombing anybody. I was going to add but reread and you pretty much covered it, hun.
Im sure Pro-choicers have, but probably not in the name of choice
I remember growing up when pro lifers were fire bombing clinics and murdering abortion docs and going, ‘uh hypocritical much?’
Blah…blah…blah…blah.
Speaking of average Americans, there’s one now!
You’re the worst Reverend in history if you actually believe the tripe you just spouted.
Really? I’d think something like that would be more a qualifying attribute for the *best* reverend in history. Except for maybe the cuss at the beginning, but I’m not sure if the bible even says anything about that…
As far as I can figure, though, the general definition of pro-life isn’t about life without exception. The idea seems more about killing “people” who literally never get a chance in life for what usually amounts to the parent’s actions. Pro-life’s generally accepted meaning is really just a political catch-phrase for anti-abortion.
That’s exactly it. He’s just playing some crazy semantics game. “Pro Life and Pro War are contradictory” well yeah, but only if you use his complex definition of pro-life, when the generally accepted definition is, as you said, anti-abortion. There’s really nothing in common between aborting a pregnancy and killing an enemy soldier, or a criminal. The first is a choice strictly on the part of the mother, the latter are choices that the person who is killed made for themselves. If you force someone to choose between their life, and yours, they cannot be blamed when they choose their own.
It should not be a disqualifying factor to actually expect one’s opponents to use logic and critical thought a la a “semantics game.”
Life is life. The criminal’s life is no less created by the Lord than the fetus’, the neighbor’s, the mother’s. If you don’t wish to encourage prolonging life and making it a life worth living, then just call yourself Anti-Abortion already and stop hogging positive semantics and double meanings you clearly don’t have.
God be with you all.
You can’t fault people for treating the definition of pro-life as what most people treat the definition as. Language is all about assumptions of what terms mean, and pro-life/choice just happens to generally mean anti/pro-abortion in a way that makes one’s own stance seem more positive. You may as well argue against terms like left-wing and right-wing, or Liberal and Conservative. I’m not saying they’re good terms, just that that’s what they mean.
not all people who oppose abortion hate homosexuals.
Maybe the caption creator should have pointed out that the posters are deciding what God can and cannot forgive.
There’s lots of idiots out there masquerading as God’s judiciary. There called
the Christian Right.
EVANGELISTS!
YAAAAAY
*dead*
I don’t believe in your god, hence I was unable to make that point. So sorry.
Being gay is a natural occurence, even animals can be born gay. It would be absurd to say they chose it. Ask any gay person you know about this (although I have a feeling you don’t know many openly gay people if you think it’s a choice).
You can chose who to have sex with obviously and even “unlearn” cultural codes of conduct making you able you in some way be attracted to whatever sex, but what sex you fall in love with is not a choice. This is simply a fact and any not something that’s up for argument.
Abortion is a very hard subject for any ethical system, but being against abortion doesn’t mean you have to hate gay people. It’s a nice caption for anyone against both tho
I don’t know that anyone is born with it. There certainly hasn’t been any proof of that. I mean, I wasn’t attracted to girls until I was 9 or 10. I don’t think anyone is born straight, or born gay.
I suspect that if you had a commune or secluded society somewhere that bisexuality was considered the norm, you’d find most people ended up attracted to both. Its not really a choice, but its not by birth either. Its all in the upbringing.
Our culture says heterosexuality is normal, so most people tend to be heterosexual. There’s always the exception, but I think that’s how sexual orientation is decided.
As far as animals, who knows. They don’t even have the same brain functionality as humans so I don’t think a comparison can be drawn.
Upbringing, no… Plenty of Christian families who claim it is evil have gay kids. They aren’t trying to rebel. They just are. Also, humans are animals. Attraction still has a lot of primal roots and homosexuality feeds off the same idea. I have known a lot of gays with a decent percentage who felt if they were attracted to women they wouldn’t have the issues they have but… They simply are gay.
I remember a friend in college who I talked to when I was a bit more ignorant while talking about experimentation. He told me very plainly. You don’t vacation in gay. You are or you aren’t. You can be confused or bisexual or gay. However, it isn’t a choice.
No one knows exactly what causes it, but let’s assume for a moment you’re right and that you’re born that way.
Homosexuals are the minority. So, if we were to take 100 people who believed bisexuality was the norm, and secluded them away somewhere, would only a minority of their children grow up to be attracted to the same sex, just like in the population at large?
Would 90% of kids raised from birth to believe bisexuality is okay really get some biological urge telling them its wrong and that heterosexuality is normal, while only 10% would go along with what they are taught?
I have to believe that most would indeed become bisexual.
Reversing that stance, I believe that fewer people will disclose that they are gay or act on their homosexual or bisexual feelings in a culture that is anti-gay. The number of gay or bisexual people wouldn’t change, instead more people would repress their feelings on the same sex.
I do too. I know a lesbian mother who was raising a boy with her wife and the wife punked out and had the mother take the kid back. She was devastated. That boy was her life and she was very good to him.
So yes, I definitely think gays should be allowed to adopt. They have just as much love as anybody else.
Not really. I tried both guys and girls when I was very confused and found I am very heterosexual. Not by choice but simply because that is what I responded to. I am just not attracted to men. Isn’t like if I find a great guy, I could switch. I couldn’t period. Also have you ever wondered if homosexuality was a genetic population control? Something natural to keep us from overbreeding? Just a thought I have had from time to time.
Also, if bisexuality is considered normal and they decide to simply choose heterosexuality how would that be calling bisexuality wrong since that leaves both options open? I don’t think we should think of sexuality in terms of right and wrong. That is where the biggest mistake is made. I think we should just teach that sex is natural and simply needs to be used responsibly. Then your choice in lovers wouldn’t matter.
If you’re gay, you’re gay. If you’re bi, enjoy the flexibility of options. If you’re hetero, you’re hetero. In the end, people either embrace or deny who they are on their own anyway. I can’t make you be gay or straight or bi so why bother?
For your example, I still think a majority would pair up heterosexual not because of right or wrong but because of average genetic urge.
The problem is that it’s not a 50/50 split as you suggest. Not to sound homophobic, because I am most certainly not, but it is a “birth defect” which occurs in 20% of the population
Actually, from what I’ve heard, studies show that there’s a specific part of the brain that grows larger or smaller depending on which sex a person is attracted to.
Of course, these studies were taken post-mortem, so there’s still no way to tell, beforehand.
According to the Kinsey scale, very few people are ardent 1s (only gay) or 10s (only straight) but somewhere in the middle. In your described Bisexual Society (aka “college”), people would feel freer to experiment and dabble with their 8ish or 3ish tendencies.
The issue with animals is that there is no biological reason for them to exhibit homosexual tendencies excepting in ritualistic displays of dominance, but there have been recorded cases of gay dogs, apes, dolphins, penguins, fish and so forth. Even a pair of Tower Ravens are happy li’l homo life-partners. I will say that in the animal world this behavior is definitely abnormal, as most creatures still carry the absolute need to procreate.
Humans, by comparison, are not going to be listed on the Endangered Species List any time soon.
Kinsey also had a large number of inaccuracies since he based it on a bell curve.
You are right about animals though. They have homosexual members in the simplest of terms, because it is what they are. They have no motive otherwise.
YES!! There are known instances of homosexuality in almost over animal species known to humans and not just dominance behavior, but animals who truly prefer their own sex. To say that homosexuality is a choice is like saying me having green eyes is a choice. Yes, I can get colored contacts and change the color for a while, but the reality is that I have green eyes.
Homosexuality is NOT a choice. I can tell you that first hand. I don’t need any scientific evidence proving or disproving it. my upbringing was that of any other suburban child. i even played football and wrestling in high school. in fact, both my parents are against gay rights. you say “most people” are straight but the amount of homo/bisexual people you know is probably staggering and you are completely oblivious to it. your best friend could very well be and you wouldn’t even know it. also, you can ABSOLUTELY compare the cerebral capacity of an animal and a human in this situation. sexual attraction in both an animal and a human is not a choice. that cute girl wearing a short skirt walking down the block doesn’t catch your attention for no reason; you’re naturally attracted to it.
That was a gay response.
r u srs
gtfo
You put the “b” back in “subtle”, eh?
If being born gay isn’t possible then having a God that loves you yet sends you to Hell if you screw up once isn’t either, makes sense no? All these people judging others on what they’re doing I do believe the bible says something along the lines of “Judge not least you be judged in their image.” I’m Atheist and I know that much…
Let the gay’s have their love and marriage and let your imaginary man floating in the sky sort it out, unless you’re too afraid you’ll be nothing but worm food of course.
Pro-lifers for war = hypocrisy and I love watching that train derail in debates SOOOOO much.
That’s funny, its typically the shallow reasoning you just described that derails in debates. If you think can an argument can be distilled down to a catchy little “x = y” statement, then you’ve really got no business debating any issue.
(Well, I was going to say “Your Comment = WIN”, but mow I’ll rethink that…)
I can prove science works and how babies are born, can you prove your imaginary man and book of fictional characters (Fictional because they cannot be proven to be true) were ever alive, I believe that GOD was created out of misunderstanding of the world’s working like the way Roman and Greek gods controlled everything. Did you know they actually believed that a God pulled the sun into the sky each morning and that the Earth was the center of the solar system?
Another flaw in your “debate” performance here. Well two flaws.
1) Assuming I believe in a god. I do not. At least not that one.
2) Going off on an absurd tangent instead of addressing a point.
You debate about as well as Palin minus her cue cards.
Ok how’s this, I have more gay friends that do the world better than any GOD can do for anyone. Gays>Religion
Let’s put it this way, maybe if I dumb it down for those ignorant religious people…
Gay Pros:
*A homosexual never started any wars.
*A homosexual doesn’t ruin anyone’s life.
*A homosexual doesn’t make you less of a person.
*A homosexual is making you go to hell for being around. (Partly because Hell is a state-of-mind not a place)
Cons:
*Have to hide from ignorant people.
*Have to live a life of LIES to be happy with someone else just to make the woman/man they’re with feel used and angry for being used.
Gee which one is better hmmm?
*isn’t going to make you go to hell, slight typo there.
But you still jumped from abortion/war to homosexuality/religion for no apparent reason and calling the people responding to the former idiots because of the latter, which they never mentioned.
Because it’s all the same subject, Religious people HATE gays and won’t let them marry but won’t let people that are raped have an abortion. So if the baby they save is a gay baby then where does the hypocrisy stop?
BTW:
“*A homosexual never started any wars.”
What? Alexander the Great doesn’t count?
Oh, and as far as homosexuals and wars. If the military wasn’t so anti-gay, I suspect gays would be even more willing to go to war against oppressive regimes, knowing themselves what it is like to be oppressed, they might be more likely to want to fight to restore someone elses rights.
Just a theory, but its a thought.
Ya Herb forgot about him, but he wasn’t just homosexual, was bisexual, his men were his lovers on the field and his wife at home.
Most ignorant religious people HATE gays, including Catholics the worst. (I live near Cincinnati and no gay person around here can print/do anything noteworthy without the church blockading it.
Weren’t the Greeks and Spartans and early Romans really open about homosexuality? Ever hear of “mentoring” younger boys. Greeks fought a lot of wars and they loved the wang especially the men.
Oy.
Alright: here it is spelled out:
“This Guy” gave a straight-forward post about his observations of growing up homosexual. A common euphemism for “homosexual” is “gay”, and as his post was a response to another, I labeled it “a gay response” knowing full and well that a common slur these days is to refer to something unseemly as gay, but hoping people would understand the literal definition and see it for the quasi-pun that it was.
Clever pun, but internetz r serious business. I’m actually surprised there weren’t more griefers looking for something to bleed on.
I approve.
You’re misquoting that, taking it out of context, and there is a much better scripture than that to use if you want to tell people not to judge
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”? (John 8:7)
Actually, Romans 14. The entire chapter
lol… i have to say, that was appropriate and i asked for it. kudos to you.
If only others could understand the intent. *sigh*
You also weren’t born with pubic hair, but you were born with DNA that said that you would grow it.
Speak for yourself, I was born with hair all over the place. I even had a big gnarly beard.
Now that would be a sight to see.
So you were a Wookie baby?
Rooarooraororar.
Don’t be that way Chewie. Just pilot us out of here.
Impossible, that right was reserved for Chuck Norris.
You found my secret identity.
Also impossible. Chuck Norris needs no secret identity.
Are you saying that Chuck Norris isn’t capable of having a secret identity? Those are dangerous words.
I think the scarier thought is what if sexual orientation IS something a person is born with? What happens when a parent can screen their eggs for homosexuality like they already can a hereditary disease? That particular way of life will be erased inside a generation.
Not if people with reason have any babies… I wouldn’t kill a baby for being gay. It is a person’s mind that is important, not who they screw.
However, you’re right it would be scary to think of people screening like that.
-_-
If it is genetic rather than something during pregnancy, then abortion isn’t even an issue, they simply use the egg that isn’t gay. If it IS determined during pregnancy then yeah some people might choose to have an abortion vs. having a baby that is going to be persecuted.
A lot of women could be pressured into it by the father too. “I dont want no stinkin gay son.” or something along those lines. There are a lot of really bad implications if sexual orientation can be determined prior to birth.
That’s way I prefer to believe its determined in a more complex way as a combination of things.
Well if I am right then you are just overcomplicating things. Personally, I would prefer you are right for the sake of those unborn who would be killed over such a petty reason.
the example you’re giving implies invitro-fertilization. you can also do amniocentesis after pregnancy has already occurred. In this way someone could learn that their baby is gay after conception but before birth.
also, just because genetic causes for sexuality have negative implications is absolutely not an argument for why it’s not true. that’d be like saying that it would mean no afterlife if there’s no god and that sucks so clearly there must be a god.
Oh I don’t mean that, I just mean that absent widely-accepted proof, I’ll hold out hope that we’re not going to be aborting gay babies or sorting eggs any time soon.
oh ok, that makes more sense
That’s assuming sexual orientation is strictly genetic instead of a combination of factors during pregnancy and/or early childhood.
But the only people that would be likely to abort them would be pro-choice liberals, who are also pro-gay so I’m not sure it would be a problem… Pro-life types would definitely not. They may try to convert them later though!
Not necessarily. I can imagine a lot of pro-choice individuals deciding that having a gay baby would be unfair to the child because of the hardships they are likely to face. The same with not bringing a child with a mental defect to term, or a painful disease that will lead to a short and miserable life.
True, all I was saying is that only a portion of pro-choice individuals, and possibly a small portion of hypocritical pro-lifer’s would abort based on sexual orientation. So I don’t think homosexuality would be erased. Now if an outside entity (government!) enforced testing and abortion based on something like that, that would do it (scary!)
Or the anti-abortion rights group would just know ahead of time that they aren’t going to keep the child after birth and can prepare to give the child up for adoption.
“At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab’s and Allen’s results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind.
Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the “homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior”, and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2]. ”
allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
scientific evidence = WIN
Haha. Great!
Are 19, 16, and 6 really statistically significant samples of the population?
Can we see some results on attempts to reproduce these results?
I’m happy to know that we can all rest assured that no scientist, psychologist, or researcher has ever falsified results or held some pre-determined agenda.
There is a complicated equation for all scientific studies which calculates statistical significance. The lowest allowable p-value for results to be published is .05 Therefore, there is only a 5% chance that these results are caused by chance, a.k.a. a 95% that there is a correlation. It’s possible they used an even lower p-value but no journal would publish it if it were higher than that.
Cerb is a result of political propaganda. There is ALWAYS a choice. Hetero people choose who to love. its not magic or genetic…its a choice. I’m not anti Homo, I don’t condone it, but I’m not a hater. But to say someone doesn’t have a choice is just absurd. It is possible for any one (or animal) to become infatuated with an idea or addiction. Those people feel like their choice is taken away from them…they need their drug of choice, etc. But, at some point they choose to give in and indulge their vice. That being said, this lol still doesn’t make any sense.
Have you been reading ANY of the posts here? It’s a little more complicated than saying “oh look at this person. Let’s fall in love with him/her”. You think with all the hate in society, a lot of homosexuals haven’t tried to like the opposite gender? It’s not a choice, sorry. Nor should they have to make it. Live and let live.
What really interests me is that some of these posters look like they came from India, where ultrasound technology was so well-recieved because it meant no more unwanted female babies. National Geographic did a piece on that a few years back, so if you’re interested, look it up.
What I find funny is that Asian countries who love removing baby girls now have a surplus of frustrated young males with hardly any women around. I do love when the ignorant breed themselves out.
They aren’t the only ones. Westerners are hardly reproducing at replacement rates. The only population groups growing exponentially are largely conservative Hispanic and Muslims and their children will have a huge influence on the world in the next few generations as they will outnumber liberal westerners at least by 2 to 1
I always thought most Hispanics were liberal, save for the Cubans who tend to be wary of anything leftist.
Mexicans and Central Americans by and large are Catholic and very conservative and they generally stay that way through generations although it is lessoning somewhat. The Mexican government however and most of the educated elite in Mexico are liberal and lean towards communism which is kind of weird…
Hispanics as a whole tend to have more conservative views but tend to vote more frequently for Democrats. The common view of the GOP as the anti-immigration party doesn’t help to sway Hispanics to their side.
That’s decreasing as the population increases, and in reality neither party is the anti-immigration party!
Careful there, sweetie. Muslims can experience population growth without procreation; it’s called “conversion”.
I know what you meant (the base Middle Eastern stock of people) but wanted to soften the blow of the possible Lib-Troll onslaught.
(I prefer diplomacy over even flame wars)
Thanks herb! That’s true too!
As opposed to to the conservative troll onslaught? Works both ways, SWEETIE.
Shorter: diplomacy, you’re doing it wrong.
Hmph. I must not post here enough: damn my publicist.
I’m certainly of the camp of bleeding heart pinko liberals, only I like rational dialogues over outright bashing. Though the latter is fun (and I admit to doing it from time to time) it doesn’t advance anything.
(Well, neither does civil discourse on PK, but we can still pretend.)
You have to be careful herb. Rational thought gets you labelled a conservatroll regardless of how liberal your actual views are. If you don’t jump on the feces throwing bandwagon, you’re a heretic Repug and need to be torn asunder!
Conservative troll onslaught? There are maybe 4 conservatives who even visit this site, and only two are trolls. (MegaBob and Evil Pundit) That’s not much of an onslaught.
There are a few other minor trolls in that camp (orcs, really) but to name them would give them credence undeserved.
orcs! LOL! Maybe goblins?
Actually, it was sarcasm. I’m well of aware of the internet traditions that include EP.
Not if we DO THEM!!! >_>
<_<
What, I think Latino chics are hawt. I also think a lot of other nationalities are hawt too. I like to think of myself as an equal opportunity lover of women.
As a hetero guy, I hear ya’.
I kinda miss the days when my college crew would go out to town: three straight guys, two lesbians, and a gay guy. Somebody was likely to score.
Sounds like it was a blast. Gotta love the old days. Too bad they are past. *sigh*
What about the opposite? If science finds irrefutable evidence that gayness *is* genetic, and could be determined in-utero, how suddenly would GLBT activists become pro-life when straight women started aborting their gay unborn babies?
What makes you think everyone would do what you clearly would? How is anyone being gay affecting you personally?
Sure. But marriage isn’t a “right” … it’s an institution.
So’s a mental ward. Your point is?
(Seriously, though: I hate when posts are orphaned from the nest; I’ve little idea their context.)
OK… Marriage is an institution. Those that participate gain rights by participating. My wife and I have the Right to visit each other in the hospital. We have the Right to make medical decisions for each other if one of us can no longer decide for ourselves. We have the Right to inherit property from each other. To deny same sex couples the opportunity to participate in an institution that guarantees these rights to them goes against our Constitutional freedoms, and it’s just plain prejudiced.
THANK YOU
j 3j
I like the idea of abolishing “marriage” as the legal term for a joint union. I’d rather see “civil union” as the term of contract on a social level and “marriage” for the bit with the church.
As in: my wife and I have a civil union, but haven’t yet married (which is the case).
((Oh, and for the sake of clarity, I support civil unions for all age-o-consent adults))
I like this idea too…
Thanks. It’s from the same basic separation between a circumcision (the procedure) and a bris (the ceremony). I figure if nobody has a problem with that…
I love that idea!!!!
P.S. I had both
I had a civil union in January the year I got married, and the religious ceremony in April of the same year. It made for an exhausting year!!
Marriage as the concept of a “permanent bond” between two people is dying anyway. I think people are quickly realizing humans don’t naturally do well in that type of scenario.
People change, to believe two people can be compatible forever is naive at best. If it weren’t for religion I doubt the concept would ever have gained acceptance.
I just ponder the threat two guys seeking equal rights to property and family on the sanctity of getting a shotgun drive-through Vegas wedding by a midget Elvis impersonator.
Yeah there are a lot of straight people who probably shouldn’t be allowed to marry
I like it as well, but I still believe in the principle of the whole issue. This situation sadly has been in so much the spotlight that it looks as if “civil union” is a cop out and marriage is the only true way to be in love.
Which sucks.
Because I’m an Athiest and “marriage” just sounds so holy. :C
Further… the Sanctity of my marriage IS NOT threatened by ANYONE else who decides to get married. Doesn’t matter if it’s Jeff and Jenn, or Jeff and Jake, or Jenn and Jane.
I just humbly request that Jenn and Jane send me a video of the honeymoon……………
>_>
<_<
What?
Jenn’s luggage got lost and Jane spent most of the week with diarrhoea. They had disappointing sex twice but took some lovely pictures of the sand dunes at sunset.
$23: for the uncut edition.
Why must you kill my dreams?
ITA!!! I often ask people who are so vehemently opposed to gay marriage, “So tell me, how will two men or two women getting married affect YOU in any way?”
I’m in California and Proposition 8 in on the table – to make marriage between a man and a woman. The ads supporting this proposition are amazing in their fear mongoring… “THEY WILL TEACH GAY MARRIAGE IN THE SCHOOLS!!!” Uh, well, I’m pretty sure they touch on that or a similar subject in the schools already – this IS California! Next objection…
Sure they can. I’m conservative and I’d absolutely fight for a gay child’s rights. Being pro-life doesn’t make you anti-gay.
by majority it does, but im glad you see it that way.
I disagree. Most Pro-Lifers may in fact be against homosexuality, but most of them also have nothing against them as people, and love them the same as everyone else. They just erroneously believe they should try and “fix” them.
Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a hateful person. In fact that is the small minority, whereas the rest just want to try and convert them the same way they want to convert Atheists.
Related topic: I got annoyed by Kanye West’s song “Jesus Walks” because at one point he says they’re there to convert Atheists into believers. And I was hurt! Why pick on me, I thought? There are lots of people who aren’t Christians, Kanye, why are you making me stand up in front of the class. I was just minding my own business, making gingerbread and thinking about cheese…
What about a gay adult’s rights?
The amount of ignorance and fail in this thread is legendary. Born or bred, nature or nurture, what the hell does it matter? Hating people for being gay is no different than hating them for being a different race or religion. The same tired, bigoted arguments are used to excuse the behavior, with the ultimate excuse being that God shares the same prejudice as the hater. It’s disgusting and barbaric.
As I said above, people who hate gays are in a very small minority. Its possible to believe that homosexual is wrong or is a disease, or whatever, and have absolutely no hatred for them. The vast majority of people who disagree with homosexuality just erroneously believe it is something to be cured or changed, not a reason to hate somebody.
It isn’t just the burning “I’m gonna kill that guy” hate that I’m speaking of, though. There’s an institutionalized hate that relegates gay people to second-class citizens, as if granting them the same rights as “normal” people is somehow denigrating to non-gays. The people who champion this segregation probably would say it’s nothing personal, but tell that to my lesbian friends who can’t get “married” but have to settle for a “civil union.”
They’re good people who are getting sh*t on by this cultural apartheid… they don’t deserve it. They would surely honor the institution of marriage more than some drunken redneck who beats his wife, or some pair of twit celebrities with their revolving door marriages.
So yeah, this issue burns me up just a bit. More than the hate, it’s the impersonal “that’s just the way it is” cultural oppression that’s being levied on these people.
AMEN and HALLELUJAH
Also Mazel Tov, Praise Buddha, Hail the Great Mother, Nekhtet, Woo Hoo, and rAmen.
Oooooh, covering all the base.
You’re doing it epic.
Have the people who think being gay is a choice ever spoken to a gay person before? Or are you too busy ridiculing them to really give a crap about what they think?
People stay in the closet for a reason – one of my good friends I went to college with tried everything in order to hide the fact that he was gay. He even tried dating women to try to make himself straight. He denied this fact until he was about 20 and then finally he admitted it to himself (and us) that he was indeed gay. He told me then that he wished he could feel attracted to women, but simply couldn’t.
The good thing is that now he has accepted the fact that he is gay and is doing OK with it. But yeah, that was really his ‘choice’ to be gay. Try it some time Evil, go and talk to one of ‘them’.
Not being “interested” in women does not equal being attracted to men. Why does everyone see things so black and white? There could be such a thing as a simple lack of interest in sex.
yes, that’s called a-sexuality. there are many people who identify with this sexuality. this doesn’t mean there aren’t gay people
Caroline was just pointing out that there are more possibilities than just gay and straight.
Which rights?
That was…supposed to be by itself…*plants C4 on comment*
No one is born gay. I’m not sure what makes them act the way they do, but it’s not their genes.
I won’t be checking back to this picture, so if you respond, my silence will not equal agreement.
So, by your own admission you’re not sure “what makes them act the way they do” but you know 100% that it’s not in the genes.
Considering there are doctors and scientists studying this and finding some interesting evidence that supports genetics, I’d have to say that your answer is based more on ignorance and a wish rather than any cold hard facts.
Really, if you can’t post anything intelligent, then don’t post at all.
You cannot know that it’s not genetics, there is absolutely no way to know this. You can believe it’s not genetics sure, but you can’t just make a definite statement that says it’s absolutely not a natural cause.
Yes.
” I was gay , but I got better !”
Unless it wants to get married.
Relevance FAIL
no worries!
if it turns out gay, you can always abort it and try again! =D
My imaginary man in the sky is equal to your imaginary concept of laws of nature. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how was matter created? What? You don’t understand that? Then disprove the existence of God. You can’t? Then kindly shut up and let people believe what they want. You believe in your flawed laws, and I’ll believe in my imaginary man in the sky.
Logic fail. You can’t disprove the existence of anything. If no evidence has yet been found, then existence is not yet proven. That’s as good as it gets, and is why science is more focus on what has been proven.
Ahahaha, complete and total science fail.
*sigh* Speaking as a scientist-in-training who believes in a higher power (though I have no idea what form this power might take), we are not out to disprove God. We merely cannot put Him into the equation because He is unquantifiable. Nothing personal.
Just wondering how a choice someone makes is considered being hypocritical? I’m sure there’ll be all the “they’re born that way” people out there, but there’s absolutely no scientific evidence to even slightly suggest that homosexuals are born that way, unless you take into consideration questionable sources that have already made their minds up prior to running experiments, which makes for poor scientists.
Comparing homosexual behavior to abortion is comparing apples to oranges. Comparing homosexual behavior to alcoholism or drug addiction is a whole lot closer, because getting an abortion is a choice at what you do to another life, whereas homosexuality, alcoholism, and drug addiction are about choices that you make towards yourself (but those same choices do affect others).
I realize there are extremists out there who advocate getting rid of those who do not agree with their viewpoints, but I am far from one of those. I have all kinds of friends from every walk of life and I look upon their choices the same as I look upon mine. We do not always make the correct ones, but that doesn’t mean we cannot be friends with each other. Just as one wouldn’t encourage an emo to cut themselves due to the self-desctructive nature of the act, all behavior that is self-destructive or societal-destructive should not be encouraged. Acceptance of a person does not necessarily entail acceptance of all of their actions.
The only hypocritical types in relationship to this topic are those who claim to be open-minded and accepting, but are only accepting of those who agree with their views.
Actually, there is some evidence of that.
There are studies that say at some point in the womb a rush of either testosterone or estrogen washes over the cranium of the child. Not to say this is a for sure study or a for sure reason why one is born with it (which they are), but it’s a possibility. These studies aren’t conclusive by any means, but it’s there.
But there’s all kinds of things dealing with sexuality if that’s brought up as well. For example, I happen to be a female who identifies with a more masculine personality, but I’m extremely straight, so there’s gray matter everywhere that this study could say things about.
Also, so you’re saying we need to alienate emos even more?
They alienate themselves.
This poster is a “Fail”. There is no hypocrisy here. The picture deals with fetus rights. The person who created this poster obviously equates Pro-lifer with people who want to kill gays. S/he is saying that they want to save fetus’s at the same time as kill gays. That is just a stupid thing to think, I’m sure SOME pro-lifers do feel that way, just like SOME pro-choicers do. The best part is I’d bet dollars to donuts the person who made this is in favor of gay rights and abortion. So if there is an hypocrisy here it is on the part of the posters creator who favors rights for gays, but not babies.
Do some homework, Biff. Educate yourself. Go out and meet some gay people. Expand your horizons.
What are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? I didn’t say anything about or against gays. I simply pointed out that being pro-life can’t be equated with being in favor of killing gays.
And at what point did I mention ANYTHING about *killing* gays? The fact that you read death and doom for homosexuals in that one little line makes me rather nervous concerning your thought processes. And yes, I *AM* pro-choice and I *DO* support gay rights. Proudly.
Pro-life is about a child’s right to LIVE. So I assumed that you were making an actual comparison. The ONLY way this comparison makes sense is if you are comparing the babies right to live with the gays right to live. Since you say you’re not, then you are comparing apples and oranges. So your whole premise is a fail. But please feel free to murder some babies to make yourself feel better about your poster fail.
Hey, doofus…this poster “fail” is front page. That means enough people voted it a “win” to get it here, and I was one of them. I get the not-so-subtle irony; too bas you missed the point by a mile. Go find some poor pregnant teenager trying to get into a PP clinic to belittle and heckle to make yourself feel better about your life fail.
Oh yeah, and in case you missed it above. YOU are the hypocrite. You wants rights for gays but not unborn babies. A better poster would be a picture of you with with the word HYPOCRITE under it.
No, Biff, it’s not that I don’t believe in rights for a fetus, inasmuch as any parasitic non-viable-outside-the-womb life form could HAVE rights. What I don’t believe in is the Pro-life crowd trying to enforce their moral views on others. Abortion is a choice that should be between every expectant woman and her higher power. Period. To try to cram your beliefs down someone else’s throat is hubris in the least and egomaniacal at the extreme.
Let me ask you this: you cry out for the rights of the unborn child; you believe that a woman who does not wish to carry her fetus to full-term should be forced to do so. There is then yet another unwanted child in a country which is rife with unwanted children who languish in foster care. So tell me, Biff, how many of those unwanted children have YOU adopted?
And, dear boy, since when did ANYthing in the pundit arena have to make sense?
Hypocrite? *shrugs* Your opinion, and you’re entitled to it…and that is the biggest difference between the two of us. ;o)
I’ll tell you what you are. You are same as a Nazi, the same as a KKK member.
If you go read about white Supremacists you’ll learn that they justify killing blacks and other minorities on the grounds that they aren’t actually human, samr thing the Nazi’s said about Jews. That is what you are, a disgusting murderer that justifies your crimes against humanity by claiming that those babies weren’t human anyway. You are EXACTLY like religious extremist that want to kill gays. Except you’re willing to kill not because of some wrong and misguided hated but because it would be inconvenient to you. It would be to inconvenient to stop being a slutty whore and getting knocked up in the first place, and it would be even more inconvenient to let the kid be born and have a life. Hell, you’d have to be inconvenienced for nine whole months. And *gasp!* you might even end up with stretch marks! Interesting comments about foster care. So if these kids are unwanted, what age should they be killed off at? Maybe if they aren’t adopted by age one they should be gutted alive and tossed into the garbage can to die. After all they can’t survive on their own at that age anyway, so they’re not really human.
“To try to cram your beliefs down someone else’s throat is hubris in the least and egomaniacal at the extreme.”
You’re right. So let the KKK kill all the blacks. And let the NeoNazi’s kill all the Jews. And religious fanatics kill all the gays. After all, you said it yourself, who are YOU cram your beliefs down others throats? Even though that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with this post.
The biggest difference between you and me is I believe everybody has rights, you don’t.
I am torn between laughter and genuine pity for you. I’m laughing at you because of the pathetic descent you’ve made into the realm of name-calling; do you not realize that that sort of behavior is usually the last bastion of an intellectually insecure individual who feels they are losing an argument?
Do you really think that every unplanned pregnancy is because a woman is a slutty whore? Are you really that foolish, that you don’t know that sometimes birth control just doesn’t work? And are you willing to concede that sometimes an “oops” pregnancy might NOT be the fault of the woman but instead be the fault of the man involved in the creation of that fetus? Well?
I am especially concerned with your apparent preoccupation with murder and death. Anyone who could conceive of the idea of gutting toddlers should probably have their dosages adjusted. You are a disturbed and disturbing individual.
You are also simply not worth the effort…oh, and while your petty tantrum-induced insults don’t bother me in the least – I would have to care about your opinion of me for it to matter – throwing around KKK & Nazi is truly silly, considering you’re aiming your comments at a Native American of Jewish descent.
Seriously. Call your doctor. Bye, now.
“Do you really think that every unplanned pregnancy is because a woman is a slutty whore?”"And are you willing to concede that sometimes an “oops” pregnancy might NOT be the fault of the woman but instead be the fault of the man involved in the creation of that fetus?”
When I talk about being a slutty whore, I’m talking about the men as well.
But as far as it being the mans fault, how could it be in your world? After all the father has NO say in whether or not the child is murdered so obviously he doesn’t have anything to do with it. That’s using your logic.
“I am torn between laughter and genuine pity for you. I’m laughing at you because of the pathetic descent you’ve made into the realm of name-calling; do you not realize that that sort of behavior is usually the last bastion of an intellectually insecure individual who feels they are losing an argument?”
And that right there is the only argument your kind can make in the end. What you are really saying I’m wrong and won’t admit it and have nothing to support me so I’ll just laugh at you and make belittling comments.
“Anyone who could conceive of the idea of gutting toddlers should probably have their dosages adjusted. You are a disturbed and disturbing individual.”
I agree, so why do you gut toddlers and throw them in the trash to die? Oh, wait those babies aren’t born yet so they’re not human. Way to justify murdering babies. Works just as well for infants, after all they can’t take care of themselves either, they’re just an inconvenience.
“throwing around KKK & Nazi is truly silly, considering you’re aiming your comments at a Native American of Jewish descent.”
And that shows nothing but your stupidity. I never said you were a Nazi or KKK member. I said you were the SAME as them. In that you justify crimes against humanity by claiming your victims weren’t human. It doesn’t matter what race you are, your method of justifying murdering human beings is the same as a Nazi or a White Supremacist. You are cut from the same cloth.
But we have to have lots of unwanted kids so that Madonna and Jolie-Pitt can adopt them!
No if you think that most people who are against abortion is because religion.
The same fact (thier religion) that made them against gay rights.
I’m not sure that most pro-lifers have that stance because of their religion, but lets assume that is true. You are correct that most religions are against being gay, and gay marriages. However, most are also against killing gays. Killing gays is what this poster is equating with pro-life, NOT gay rights. There is a big difference between disapproving of a lifestyle choice and calling for murder.
And see, Biff, there’s your fail again. Homosexuality is NOT a “lifestyle choice”; it’s a natural trait that some humans are born with. Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism: THOSE are lifestyle choices. (As is say, the “Right-to-Life” movement…)
Nope sometimes it is just a birth defect. Just like being born blind or with a deformity. Other times, it is a result of learned behavior. Like a kid that grows up to beat women because he saw his dad do it to his mom everyday. Or someone who learns to fear the opposite sex because they were molested by an opposite sex parent, relative, family friend, etc. I think the majority of cases are due to learned behavior.
One big rule of Christianity is that you can’t kill anyone… even if they’re homosexual.
Misquote. You can’t MURDER anyone. There is a BIG difference.
Um there’s a part of the bible which basically says all gay people must be stoned to death. Same treatment for women pregnant outside of marriage.
I think this LOL is brilliant!
Just look at the discussion it has prompted! Agree or disagree, it has definitely hit a nerve and people are communicating.
Good job, willy wonka
I love this!!!! You are my new hero! I’ve linked to it in my blog and via email!
Keep up the awesome work!
~Beth
Too bad no fetus is ‘born gay’…
You’re right. Foetuses are born gay, they aren’t even born at all.
Infants are born, and yes, some of them are born gay.
Just realised a typo meant that this didn’t make much sense.
*Foetuses aren’t born gay
i agree with eric, no one is born gay. NO ONE.
Well, gee. Thanks for clarifying that. I loved all the evidence you brought to the table to underscore your point.
No, wait–
Well said, herb.
lul
I know! Totally!
Where’s yours?
That’s it, this board is officially not funny anymore.
I defend their right to live, but I refuse to allow them to reproduce together.
….and there’s nothing any of you can do about it
You’re right, there isn’t. I wouldn’t know where to start in trying to get two men (or two women) to reproduce together. Perhaps with some advancements in biotechnology.
It’s a matter of time I suppose…
I’m going to get right to work on that the instant I graduate college. How did you know that was my pet project?
I’m a huge biotech geek, if you couldn’t tell.
Actually there was just a piece on that on discovery channel. In a method similar to how they use an egg for cloning, they might be able to allow to women to have biological child. It’s still in the works
********* Wait a tick………isn’t it HIPOCRACY?? *********
No… there is no such words as what you typed. Hypocrisy is the correct spelling.
Hippocracy is rule by hippos. Which is fun until the hippos flip out and kill you.
Could be some majorly bad-ass hippos………
Hippos are listed on the Top Ten Deadliest Animals. They kill more people in Africa than crocodiles.
This is true. It should give you pause walked past the glass front tank at the zoo where the hippos are swimming around. I’m waiting for one of them to slam into the glass, break it, and start tossing people around like so much confetti
Yeah, but if the unborn baby you’re murdering is gay, is that suddenly crime? I’ve been waiting years for this debate. Imagine if parents start killing their babies in utero because they can tell early on if they’re going to be gay. Maybe someday we’ll be able to tell if the babies will grow up to be liberals and parents kill those babies? Wouldnt that be horrible irony.
But really, I dont care one way or another about the morality of abortion. I would totally have no problem with it… if the majority of people thought to keep it around. Fact is, whenever it’s put to a vote, it’s voted down. And if you find yourself hiding behind activist judges against the way MOST of the country feels, doesn’t that make you an enemy of Democracy?
“I believe in Freedom, so long as it’s in keeping with my beliefs.”
For shame. Bring back self-determination. Bring back Democracy.
Sorry for the horrible punctuation. It’s late, I’m tired. I just got off work. I’m going to bed, lol.
Democracy doesn’t mean 3 cannibals can vote to eat the fourth.
And you really think the majority of the country wants abortion to eb made illegal? The reason Bush had no intention of doing ANYTHING which would ever make abortion actually illegal (And don’t think Palin, McCain or any politician thinks any differently) is because it would be political suicide.
Nor does it mean that one cannibal on an island gets to do whatever he wants while the other three are powerless for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. More to the point, using extreme allegories proves nothing other than the fact that the pro-baby murder argument doesn’t stand on it’s OWN merits. Cannibalism is obviously different than murdering a fetus.
And, more to the point… yeah, those three cannibals in that situation really DO make the law, lol. Sucks to be the fourth guy. Is it FAIR to let everyone starve to death?
As for the political suicide comment, sadly I agree. I wish we had representatives who would do the correct thing rather than what is politically convenient. This issue is one that needs to be resolved, not by courts, but by discussion and expression. If you want abortion to be legal, fine: vote that way. And when you lose, go with the group.
Ultimately, democracy ONLY works when the people who lose accept it, rather than try to circumvent it. I for one am sick of the tyranny of the minority. Let’s not forget that a vocal minority in the South leading up to 1860 FORCED their RIGHT to slavery on the rest of the country. And no one spoke out against that either, for fear of POLITICAL SUICIDE…
“Nor does it mean that one cannibal on an island gets to do whatever he wants ”
Yes he does, if it involves his body and his alone. Here’s a newsflash for you, abortion is never, ever going to be illegal in the United States of America, not just because such an action would be immoral, but because it is absolutely unworkable, no matter what you woolly headed idealists think.
Have a nice day
Here’s a question for you. If it was put to a vote what sentence a woman who has an illegal abortion should have, what do you think the result should be?
You’re kidding yourself if you think
a) A country where the public votes on everything would work
b) If the United States was this kind of crazy country that abortion would be illegal
and
c) That would mean even one less abortion happening.
Sorry, son. There are lots of religious theocracies over in the middle east where abortion is legal if you’d like to live in one of those conservative paradises.
Uhm, excpept that people arent born gay. Its a choice
Just like you chose to be straight. Deliberately and consciously. Right?
Are you aware the human genome has been mapped? Are you aware that they cannot find a “gay” gene? Are you aware that all attempts to show that a homosexual is born and not “made” have either failed outright or failed to have reproducible results? Are you aware that homosexuality was removed from the DSM because of politics and not research? Are you aware that it is not illogical for there to be a “natural” trait in a human, and to vary from that would be constituted as an abnormality? Are you aware that the common-held belief that “homosexuals are born that way” is the modern equivalent to thinking the world is flat? Did you notice that nothing I just said has anything to do with morality?
Citation, I want to see this.
Last I heard, they’d mapped the thing, yes, but they had no idea what most of those 20,000-25,000 genes did. Hell, we have no idea what most of the genes do in freaking Arabidposis thaliana, a relatively simple plant, so what makes you think they’ve had the time and money to sift through all the genes in a human body looking for a “gay gene”?
Research fail.
As for “normal” genes, think on this for a sec. There is such a thing as a genetic mutation that causes variation in any species. Some are beneficial, some are harmful, and some really don’t make much of a difference. Blonde hair and freckles, for example, are good examples of traits that mutated in somewhere along the line. The cause for homosexuality could be a common mutation somewhere along a person’s genetic code; we don’t know yet. Not everyone is homosexual; therefore, it’s obviously not a “natural” trait.
And one more thing. Nothing I just said had a damned thing to do with morality, either. It’s not tough to do.
I am amused at how easily people are set off. Where is YOUR citation for your first paragraph? And what the hell does that 2nd paragraph even mean? “The cause for homosexuality could be . . .”? 1st: It’s caused? Most people on your side usually get up in arms when the word “cause” is used in conjunction with “homosexuality.” 2nd: It “could be?” So you’re speculating, too. Guess what, ti also “could be” completely psychological. It “could be” that all gays are weird aliens who have somehow managed to infiltrate our ranks to divide us in preparation for an invasion.
Regardless of the source, gays are still citizens and thus deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, thus should be allowed to marry and be free from persecution. I am still waiting for the part where that can be disproven.
How does “allowed to marry” and “be free from persecution” get lumped together?
So now that this particular thread has moved to gay marriage, can I ask why getting married is so vital? Haven’t homosexuals been able to live together, have “life commitment” ceremonies without being put in jail for a couple decades now? Those things are about “love,” right? It seems that the whole fight for gay marriage is just to stick it to people who hold marriage sacred.
And to respond prematurely to the whole tax breaks/financial benefits thing, the reason those benefits are offered to heterosexual married couples because of propagation of the species. It’s not “oh, you two are in love, have some discounts.”
Shut up! Straight people are stupid!
Go abortions!
O_o… Your hospital called, they will be here shortly.
I know that’s not true! I don’t have a hospital.
My mistake, psycho ward.
No, more like YOU belong in a psycho ward.
And btw, it’s PSYCH ward, not PSYCHO. Idiot.
*hands bloombloom a paper cup with three pills and a Dixie cup of water*
Nurse Ratchet will be with you shortly.
*beats the shit out of herb and bites his nose*
the issue about marriage is not the actual ceremony, it’s the legal rights that come along with it, like different taxes and wills and stuff
Yeah, I know. That’s why I responded pre-maturely in my first comment.
My point is that everyone wants to say that it’s about “love.” But when someone opposed to the idea brings up the issue of marriage being defined as “a man and a woman,” the issue of tax breaks, wills, etc., is brought up. But then when someone suggests better recognitions of committed, homosexual unions with the same legal benefits as a marriage (sticking with the definition of “a man and a woman”), people go off about how marriage is supposed to be about love.
When I step back and look at the whole cycle, I begin to think that many of gay marriage’s strongest advocates really only have it out for conservatives and want to piss them off somehow.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
It is simple, marriage is about love and benefits given to married couples. If it didn’t matter, then there wouldn’t be benefits nor reason for heterosexual couples to have it. It is a symbol and homosexual couples are entitled to that as well since they are citizens.
Your tax rebuttal is weak because it is given to ALLLLLLLLLLL married couples, even those who choose to have no children or simply marry…. wait for it… Because of the benefits. Geez, I guess it should be a right available to all citizens since it is about love and benefits.
Also married couples have inheritance rights, divorce rights, hospital rights, all sorts of things that are involved with married couples.
So to look at the whole cycle, I think you aren’t really looking. You are seeing people whining when they just want the same rights the rest of us have. I could technically run to Vegas, marry a woman, spend a couple weeks with her, then divorce her in Vegas and nobody would bat an eyelash legally.
However, if a gay couple who plan to spend the rest of their life together go to Vegas and get married, then go to somewhere besides the few states it is legal in, they are shunned and hit with legal proceedings.
So tell me again why this is right?
I’m actually convinced you’re the one who’s confused. All of your arguments are classic examples of shaking up the snow in the globe, so we end up with a bunch of assumed statements and you demand answers on them when they don’t deserve answers. They’re not true.
Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. You’re not entitled to it just because you are a citizen. To say it’s only a symbol about love and benefits means you are re-defining the word.
If you’ll do some research, you’ll find that the reason married couples are given benefits is because their union provides a stable environment for the raising of children – but you can’t make a couple swear that they will or will not have children when they marry, so it’s given to all married couples. And everyone can acknowledge the abuse and complete disregard of that institution among the heterosexual community, but save that for a different poster. (Besides, there are arguments that the moral compromises that have led to the disintegration of the modern family are the same that have led our society to the place where we debate such absurd ideas as two men or two women getting married; 20 years ago this debate would have been laughed at, and mark my words that in another 20 years there will be debates of this nature on issues that even you would currently see as absurd or immoral).
You’ll find that many people against gay marriage will support better benefits to committed homosexual couples. The problem running against that is that those who support gay marriage only acknowledge two options: giving co-havitating people benefits (always defined loosely, so two straight guys could easily get the same benefits as a gay couple), or allow gay marriage.
I personally know conservative politicians who have proposed legal alternatives to gay marriage, but those ideas are always thrown out and mocked.
Ignoring the fact that your Vegas illustration is dumb, you can’t make an argument over how the ease of heterosexual divorce justifies homosexual marriage. No one against gay marriage thinks easy divorce is okay.
First of all, I am curious why you can’t post under an original name to debate me. I hate dealing with cowards. Be who you are or don’t debate. I’m not disrespecting you and would appreciate the same courtesy.
Second those points are very valid. Married couples do have inheritance rights, divorce rights, custody rights, etc, etc. Gay couples don’t because they cannot marry under the law.
My Vegas example stands because I have seen no legislation aggressive opposing easy divorce like I see it oppose gay marriage.
Also, if marriage benefits are purely for the children, then why is there tax credit on top of that? Ya know, considering that I have kids and actually get that credit without being married at the moment. All marriage would actually do at the moment is give my fiancee’ and I legal rights over each other.
Hmmm, that sounds like something that any couple would want. As for your statement of marriage being between a man and a woman, I do not see reason for that statement and insist that you show unbiased, nonreligious backing.
As for married couples giving more stability to children and thus deserving benefits, that still doesn’t answer why it is given to all marriages. No, giving it to all so that some may benefit does not matter when you don’t allow All to get married to the partner of their choice.
If you think two people being married is absurd then I am wasting my time. I actually know the rights I will be getting when I marry my woman. I can’t imagine denying those rights to another couple because their union won’t produce children.
*checks name* The hell?
First of all, if marriage is no big deal, then why have it all? Also do you know the huge difference in rights between married and unmarried couples?
Also the tax breaks are given to those who have no children so your benefits discussion is invalid.
If you are going to impersonate me, at least do it right.
Um, what? Since when I am not allowed to use the word “cause”? Ditto adding my own take on the matter–I used the qualifier “could be” since this is my own best guess. I’m speculating just like anyone else in this thread. My major problem was with your assertation that there was absolutely, positively no “gay gene” in the human genome. After that, I got science-y. Ignore it if it makes your brain hurt.
Also, I have no paper citation, but as I worked two years ago with scientists from Virginia Tech to try and figure out the function of two genes in Arabidopsis thaliana, spent a year on it, and found no conclusive results, I assume that the purposes of the rest of the genes have not been discovered overnight.
The common finding is that it is not genetic but is caused during fetal development. There are previous posts all about this which clearly you did not read. Also, they have not mapped the entire human genome. I don’t know where you heard that but it is dead wrong. On top of that, there are lots of things about genetics we don’t understand and lots of complicated interactions between different genes which affect the body and mind in ways we never imagined. It is too complicated and too poorly understood to say for even a second that we know for sure that ANYTHING is or is not genetic.
We know that gender is genetic.
Ok, I will give you that. Perhaps anything was a little too broad a word, almost anything would be more sufficient. In relation to how many different genes we have we know very few thing that they cause.
Poor argument. The default setting on humans is ‘straight’ or else we’d never have survived as a species. This is the equivalent or retorting with “I know you are but what am I.”
So, if people could choose their race, then it would be ok to be racist, right?
That’s not what that is saying. But good attempt to confuse the issue.
Well, since most pro-lifers believe that homosexuality is a choice this question is absurd. Not to mention that there is no way to tell if the fetus is gay or not before it’s born.
Personally, I don’t see how people who believe people are born with a gay gene think it’s natural. I mean, I don’t know whether it’s genetic or not, and I’m not saying that it isn’t, but seeing as how it totally goes against the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest, wouldn’t it be a genetic mutation in a species? Since this gene apparently makes the person attracted to his/her own gender, wouldn’t that hamper the species as the person would have no desire to reproduce with the opposite gender? That would then necessitate either unwilling courtship or rape, which some have argued certain animal species (such as dolphins) do. I’m not trying to devalue gay people (I may not understand them, but I have nothing against gay people), I’m just curious as to how this natural idea works. Open to explanation.
Also, to those who have been bashing religion as closed-minded and what not, I’d have to say that that falls under the “hypocrisy” category as well. You act as if all religious people are ignorant and hypocritical, yet you’re displaying some ignorance yourselves. I am a Christian who tries to stay open-minded. I believe that it is wrong to hate people for any reason, whether it be color or orientation. I also believe that since Jesus spent most of his time with outcasts and social rejects, it would be absurd to believe that God would hate gay people (that church that goes to soldiers’ funerals and thanks God for sending a message against gay people through 9/11 are truly ignorant idiots). So, please return the favor of open-mindedness that you ask from us. I’m not asking you to convert, I’m just asking you not to classify all of us as bigots, as that displays some bigotry in and of itself.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Homosexuality is natural, infertility is natural – Are you saying anything which hampers reproduction of the individual is ‘unnatural’? How so? In overpopulated places isn’t having a section of the community genetically predisposed not to reproduce a genetic advantage for the group as a whole?
That’s what I think. The human population is on its way to surpassing the healthy level for the planet; therefore, more children are being born homosexual so they won’t reproduce. I don’t pretend to understand how it works, but that’s my best guess. It’s a fail-safe.
I don’t really see how the body can know “Oh! Populations gettin’ pretty high. We Need to make gay babies.” Also, the only way offspring couldn’t reproduce would be if they had no reproductive organs. Gay people still have body parts that are meant to interact with the opposite gender, so I doubt it’s an evolutionary thing. Being gay (even genetically) doesn’t mean that you are forced to be with someone of the same gender, it just means they are attracted to their own sex.
“Oh! Populations gettin’ pretty high. We Need to make gay babies”
I think you need to have a crash course in how evolution and natural selection works.
Just because infertility is a result of natural causes doesn’t mean that it’s natural for a woman not to be able to give birth. They may not see it as a bad thing, but that doesn’t make it necessarily natural. It’s still a defect. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, it’s just not the norm.
Also, I have trouble believing that the body just knows how to control population in a crowded world. While infertility may help the population, it can be emotionally damaging for a woman.
“They may not see it as a bad thing, but that doesn’t make it necessarily natural. It’s still a defect. ”
Defects are natural. Homosexuality and infertility occur naturally in nature, in what kind of definition can they not be natural?
Maybe “natural” wasn’t the right word. I meant in what way does it profit the human race, but that seems to be relative as your opinion of profiting through population control differs from my opinion of seeing the human race expand. By Darwinian theory, the stronger species on earth takes up more natural resources than the others, causing the other species to dwindle. Of course, I don’t WANT to wipe out other species, and I believe it very wise for humanity to realize we need to control our resources, but wouldn’t the evolutionary process mandate that humans should multiply so we have even more control of the earth’s resources?
I’m not quite sure if I’m stating my point very well. But you seem to know what you’re talking about, so, if you would be so kind, explain to me how you believe this works.
Deer are killed by wolves who only cull the sick, old, and the young. They insure that some balance is put into the deer’s lives so they aren’t held back. It is a natural population control. In nature, you find that some species are controlled only by their natural breeding cycles and the limitations therein.
Ergo, it is highly possible that infertility and homosexuality are a natural check to keep us from overtaxing an area and ALL of us dying. I think you aren’t fully grasping all of Darwin’s theories which probably didn’t take into account all the aspects of nature that work towards population control.
A lot of species have inborn traits that prevent them from overbreeding, since if the entire group starves because there is too many, then the entire group dies.
Darwin didn’t say the stronger species would have more control over resources. He said the most fit would survive. Big difference. There are species who survive by exploiting their “weak”, or recessive, traits – like size (or lack thereof) and color. Most fit means most able to adapt to the environment, not the strongest.
Why should me multiply ourselves into extinction, Jared? Who is taking control away from us, humans, over the earth’s resources? Big elephants? Pesky whales? Maybe the dinosaurs are coming back. The biggest threat to us is ourselves and disease.
Your brain is a defect, Jared. Please do the species a favor and NOT procreate. Women not being able to give birth are not defective.
Do you ever get laid? ‘Cause you’re a real smooth talker. Smart, too. I bet all the ladies just LOVE you.
Also, before people start throwing the “talk with a gay person, ignorant bigot!” argument at me, one of my relatives is gay and she is the funniest, most interesting person I know. So don’t even bring up that argument.
Thanks, “I have gay/black/muslim friends!” was the only one I needed on my Pundit Kitchen Bingo Card to get a line.
So are you ridiculing me for talking about having a gay relative?
no, just for talking crap at all.
Actually, I’m anti-baby murder AND I happen to think that homosexuality is something you’re born inclined to have. There is very little choice about it.
I guess I’m what you might call a “log cabin republican” in the sense that I really dont mind homosexuals or their having the same rights. I just shudder with glee to think of the day that liberal parents start aborting (or in the future altering) their children because they dont want gay offspring.
And as a matter of fact, just last year scientists discovered a gene that “pretty much” makes someone gay. It’s all about genetic triggers, waiting to be activated during puberty.
People, people, people… the poster in question is from India… Homosexuality is still “in-closet” here… The person who must have put up the caption must have obviously been an Indian. Female foeticide/infanticide is as big a problem as religious homophobes here, who, by the way, openly persecute gays and humiliate them in the public.
Well then, there ya go.
Stereotyping pro-lifers: you’re doing it right.
I’m just following their lead.
Personally, yes. To me, such things as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and even social class have about as much meaning as hair or eye color. That being absolutely none. The only reason I’m a Republican is that I hate European-style socialism, which I am convinced the Democrats ultimately want to impose here.
And the Europeans are totally doing pretty bad for themselves. What with better education and more accessible heathcare (meaning higher life expectancy), amongst other things.
dumb. right to living is not same as so-called “rights” once living.
What sort of an argument is this?
Of course we’ll fight for his rights. The next thing you’ll be saying is that we should have killed Hitler while still in the womb.
Nah, we should go back in time and arrange for him to make it into art school. Let him do more art instead of becoming overly bitter.
And this picture stinks of discrimination.
It’s interesting that most of the captions here are dhimmicrat side. The reason for that is that most conservatives/republicans are working or in school – not wasting their lives on the internet coming up with trite captions.
So, why are you here, oh wise one?
That is a very good question since I am a moderate at work right now.
Sense of humor fail. 374 comments (and growing), most of which are taking this like a serious question of ethics and values. Wow. This is punditkitchen, people. This was a comment on the hilarity inherent in hypocrisy, and the amusing concept of some people fighting for the rights of a child and then stoning him to death for being homosexual. Sure, you can take that issue seriously. But come on! Sense of humor! Punditkitchen!
Sense of humor failed at the very beginning: this LOL isn’t funny.
I think it was supposed to be some sort of LOL for political trolling, but I find it just sad and boring.
It is fun to try and make people sound stupid in the comments!
THANK YOU!
I have a fun question for some people out there:
If someone is born gay, can’t then someone be born to hate people (such as gays)?
We are all wired to be afraid of what is unknown. We are also born curious. It is the upbringing and personal choices that dictate what you eventually go with.
Thank you, that’s what I was eventually going to drive at, but you put it so succinctly. Thank you for ruining my fun…
I sowwwwwy!!!!
It’s very true though, those same people that scream about how wrong abortions are are almost always the same ones who think that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. How does it change your life if someone that’s gay gets married? And for that matter how does it change your life if someone chooses abortion? The bottom line is that it doesn’t, so let people choose for themselves.
Comparing the right to live and the right to marry someone of the same sex is like comparing apples and airplanes…
Not funny or sensible…
Ha! He said “let people choose”
This means that a person cannot be born gay! Proof!
“And for that matter how does it change your life if someone chooses abortion?”
Doesn’t it change the life of the aborted human being drastically? It might not be MY life but there’s someone else’s life involved and we never actually know whether that human being gives his/her consent.
Even though the point it extremely valid, it doesn’t actually make sense in the single-image way (unless you’re saying that kid is gay?) and is obviously not a LOL.
But in any case. Pro-choice, pro-…Gay. Hurray!
This one is just STUPID. I’m against abortion, but I think we should look for the causes and factors. Not everyone who’s against abortion is a bible-beating nazi. God, how close-minded can you get? I’m not even religious. Oh, and I believe in gay marriage.
Thumbs down.
Jesus was celibate (which is even creepier than being gay), and he didn’t adopt any babies from other countries, so I think Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are more worthy of praise.
For the sake of this argument, I am defining “pro-life” as being pro-fetal-life only (since it’s obvious they could care less about born children or born adults, especially women). Here’s why it’s hypocritical to call oneself “pro-life” whilst also being pro-war: It takes an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance to believe that only soldiers are maimed/killed during wars. Since recorded history, innocent civilians have always been targets of the enemy in an effort to get the people to persuade their governments to accede to the invaders’ demands – neither women nor children excepted. In fact, the Holy Bible contains numerous examples of Yahweh ordering/condoning mass murders of EVERYONE in a particular area, especially pregnant women (for, by no means exhaustive, examples see Genesis 7:1-24, Numbers 21:25 and Deuteronomy 2:34, Numbers 25:16-17 and Numbers 31, I Samuel 14 and 15, 2 Kings 8:12, 2 Kings 15:16, Hosea 13:16, Amos 1). Now, in case you need it pointed out to you, killing pregnant women means, by default, killing their sacred and precious fetuses.
Nowadays, armies rain bombs on enemy targets, oftentimes synonymous with civilian strongholds of culture and wealth. They call it “collateral damage” which, for some reason, seems to assuage the so-called “pro-lifers.” I implore you to think: since bombs do not discriminate, then, obviously, pregnant women and, hence, their precious zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, are being blown to smithereens. We already know that “pro-lifers” could care less about actual, born people, but I thought every blastocyst was sacred and must be protected whatever the cost? Apparently not. This is why pro-war “pro-lifers” are such utter hypocrites.
I appreciate your distinction of “pro-war” pro-lifers, as not all pro-lifers are pro-war. I believe that it’s ok to agree with the reasons we thought we went to war for (i.e. freedom and democracy, end of terrorism and tyranny) but anyone who’s actually pro-WAR has issues. That is, I don’t understand people who want war, as war is never something that should never be lauded (though I do believe in supporting our troops for fighting for what they believe is right, despite what the government’s true intentions might be. Also, I believe that those who claim to be pro-war are stating that they believe in fighting the people who threaten the good people (American or not) of this world.
Oops. I meant to say “war is never something that should be lauded”
Are you kidding me? Can NO ONE in this group get the subjunctive mood correct?
“If i/he/she/it/we/they etc WERE,” not “was.” GET THIS RIGHT.
Anyways, I love this LOL, it’s very correct and still very funny at the same time.
Whatever sin a person chooses to do when they are older is irrelevant to the fact that they deserve to live to make that choice. Dumb LOL.
A sin? I really do feel sorry for you.
You know, what if YOUR mother had aborted you? Then we wouldn’t have to see bullshit like this. If you can spread your legs, you can take care of what comes out!
Except if you are mentally disabled. And you may need help for certain levels of physical disability too, but not everybody has that sort of help available to them.
Sex is not just for making babies, so you shouldn’t be attacking people for choosing to have sex purely for other reasons.
What if you mother had an unwanted child at 18 rather than having an abortion and as a result never chose to have a second child which would have been you? How would you like that?
Frickin’ stupid picture.
Just wanted to add in about how much this lol fails.
what kind of moron thinks you’re born gay?
thats like saying you’re born democrat.
Trolling fail.
If people are “born” gay, why aren’t scientists studying what makes people have that sexual preference?
Oh, right, that’s left to the psychologists. Because psychologists are (mostly) the ones who have their heads on straight. At least the motivated ones.
I’m not going to expand on that, because people are stubborn by nature; maybe I’ll get a lot of replies to this, maybe I won’t.
Even if I do – do you really believe you’re going to change my mind if I can’t change yours?
I can change your mind. I just need a hacksaw and an ice cream scoop.
what makes you so sure scientists AREN’T studying it? Are you knowledgable in every research project underway?
ugh, and why did this comment un-nest? It goes to MadamePsychology, almost directly above (for now at least)
wow, wtf is up… it re-nested… we need to be able to delete our own comments -_-
people aren’t studyling what determines sexual preferences because it’s not that big a deal. that would be like studying why people like the color blue, or why they like mashed potatoes, or why they’re straight. totally irrelevent
For God’s sakes – who CARES if someone is gay?! And you know something.. the church has been very quiet about the numerous male priests doing stuff to kids.. so that’s OK? And what about them findamentalist idiots in the ‘bible belt’ with 14 wives (and mothers-in-law) Please! Get a freakin grip!
People are BORN gay, and you know something, some people LIKE being gay, and like who they are. Some people like being who they are without all the overhyped american therapy crap, or the all stupid judgemental idiocy!
Therapy is for people that don’t have mates – or no proper real support structure. If you are able to live in the real world for once, youy know that there is more to life then 7/11 shops, movie theatre’s and phone show-case mates that think everything is perfect. America sucks
If you don’t kill the post-born gay person, it’s not really hypocrisy is it? EPIC HIPPIE FAIL!
Not realizing that this photo is from India, where abortion and infanticide of females runs rampant, so it’s a bit of a different take on pro-life: FAIL
Arguing on the Internet for days with people you’ll never meet: EPIC FAIL
Very true. I’m in India and have spent the last three months with pro-life Indian Christians who have an infant home here with 13 babies that would have otherwise been either boiled to death or drowned in a pant leg because they are female (all but one). It’s so hard to nail this thing down, isn’t it?
Completely agree about arguing via the internet. That’s a wise statement
whoever made the caption was just using a photo out of context to make a point.
also, the baby killing in India you were talking about is almost all infanticide because people can’t afford ultrasounds, not abortion. just sayin’
Absolutely.
How about, “If the gay human who’s right you are fighting for is a fetus, will you kill it?”
Hypocrisy ultimately starts when people point fingers and demonize while refusing to look at themselves. Maybe it’s starts with doing something like making a pithy statement via the internet or on a bumper sticker without having to engage in honest relationship with people different then themselves. Maybe even making that pith focused toward how “those others” are so against people different than them… Maybe somebody should make another one of these that says, “Irony – Calling someone a hypocrite while being one yourself.”
wouldn’t you say “hypocrasy-calling someone a hypocrite while being one yourself”? screw that, the whole wording is clumsy.
No one is born gay.
Except maybe guys name Keith.
Haha I made a U R GAY joke.
Doosh.
Oh, I thought it was Bruce.. my mistake.
No Bruce just “decides” to be gay.
Nice.
Homosexuals are gay.
YOU CANT BE BORN GAY!!! ITS COMPLETELY UNNATURAL, IMMORAL, AND PERVERTED!!! Whereas, abortion is murdering a baby. It’s the same as killing a child, teenager, or adult. While on the subject of baby killing, embryonic stem cell research has not yielded any significant results, while adult stem cells have been creating countless essential discoveries. You don’t need to murder anyone for scientific research!
What’s perverted is your hateful worldview. It must be very sad to live life as a bigot.
I would disagree. I am a Christian and I am against the act of homosexual sex, however we all have tendencies that we are born with that are wrong. People do not decide to like someone of the same sex, either they are born attracted to the same sex or some issue in their lives have pushed them that way. Regardless, the attraction is innate. However, nobody is born engaging in the act of homosexuality (i.e. having sex with a member of your particular sex), in THAT sense you are not incorrect. Any married man will tell you they have adulterous temptations occasionally, but that does not make them adulterers. You cannot judge a man for being attracted to another man, you can LOVINGLY point out that acting on that attraction would be wrong according to your conviction, but you still have to accept them, at LEAST until you yourself become perfect, which will be NEVER.
For the abortion issue, I agree that abortion is wrong, but to say that it is murdering a baby is not defensible. We have no way of determining when “life” begins, that is a fact. I am opposed to abortion (except for extreme, non-convenience issues) not because life begins at X but because I am wise enough to recognize that I do not know when life begins. Therefore, I have a responsibility to assume that because of its potential it should live. I do not know when God considers a human to have been created, but I do know that since I voluntarily committed the act that led to the pregnancy, and since I don’t know if it is “alive” or not, I am responsible for whatever I do with that potential life. If I killed something God saw as a person then I have to answer to that, however, there is no evidence in the bible that God has drawn any inutero distinctions about the beginning of human life. I believe that life begins when a fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall, but I do not KNOW that. The point is that human life is important enough that since we do not know, not the liberals, not the conservatives, not the Christians, we are obligated to set the life beginning point as early as possible to be on the (understated) “safe side”.
nice to see someone who understands the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘believing’
you are a narrow minded idiot. ‘nuf said.
abortion is one of those subjects where it depends on the situstion. if the fetus is threatening the mother’s life then yes. if you got too drunk and your boyfriend used a gas station condom, no. ultimately it’s the mother’s choice. let her bear her sins and don’t tell her what’s right and wrong.
same with homosexuals. besides going against your religious beliefs, what are they doing to harm you? and they wouldn’t be the only ones going against your religion, any other religion goes against christianity.
does it seriously bother you people that much if someone is different then you? love is love. let others do what they will.
everyone makes choices. but in the end, your choices make you.
thats a stupid question, whether or notr a person is gay has nothing to do with rights. everyone who is a hiuman has rights duh! abortion is killing!!!!!! and whoever wants to deny gays rights is a complete and total idiot.
I like this poster a lot. ^___^
Born gay or not, the point of this poster stays the same for me.
And I also agree that gays are human and humans have rights.
OMFG people!!! It’s just a little bashing! If you are offended by a stupid picture on the internet that is designed to make people laugh a little before forgetting about it, you need to put in some headphones and stop paying attention or you will be pissed off forever.
I think the point is that if you fight for the right of the unborn fetus as being a living person, you also have to fight for the right of the gay person. Human rights are human rights!
FTW!
But that is logical, heaven forbid!
Yeah what happens when all those unaborted babies turn out gay and want to get married?
Ummm… you do know that there’s no scientific evidence linking genetics to sexual preference, right? That’s developed during life through experiences. Murder is wrong in any case but the question is what you define as HUMAN life. I think I’ll quote the immortal kid from the tootsie pop commercials: “The world may never know.”
there’s also no scientific evidence that it isn’t genetic either.
I am a profound Catholic = antigay and antiabortion, but still Everyone deserves to live and chose for themselves life or death, homosexual or straight. Those choices shouldn’t be made for them, God wants everyone to live, even if just for a few minutes outside the womb. THIS DOES NOT MEAN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS OK.
“Ive noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born.” – Ronald Reagan
That is one of my favorite quotes
That’s a good one. There is one I heard that goes “smile, your mom chose life.”
You seem to be implying that people who are for abortion don’t like people being born, which is not the case, most people for abortion support the option for a mother to abandon a baby due to personal needs.
partial? how do you partially abort?
and what if the mother and child would die in birth? is it wrong to kill one so the other survives instead of guaranteed death for both?
No, not a partial abortion – a method that’s called “partial birth abortion”.
This will probably never get read, but i just want to say that “pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion”
Heh. True, man. That’s how the baby-rita joke came about with Ivan and Jane.
Am back on facebook now… Sorry, the family showed up and started being all excitable…
umm…. yes. where is the hypocrisy then?
of course, It is much better to support these simple civil rights of human beings than to murder babies
It’s not hypocritical at all; the person who made this is clearly ignorant and stupid.
Regardless of your individual feelings on either issue, there is a distinct difference between the ‘right to life’ and the ‘right to quality of life’.
Thanks for posting, I’ll definitely be subscribing to your blog.
I think this poster makes a valid point: it’s ok to save babies if they are white, straight, American, and Protastant.
Hello. Great job, if I wasn’t so busy with my school work I read your total site. Thanks!
If someone is gay, is it their fault? If someone wants to have an abortion, it may be their fault, but if it isn’t their fault it led to having to get an abortion, then you should let them. If you deny someone the ability to do something because of something that isn’t their fault, like being gay, you are no better than a racist. You may not think so, but that’s the way they thought before blacks got rights. They thought like you. Are you a racist?
It’s great to learn ideas as share for blog posting. Because I just began posting comments for weblog and facing problem of good deal of rejections. I think your suggestion end up being useful for me personally. I will if it’s work for me personally too.
how the fvck is abortion related to homosexuals? just great, cheezburger. find the ONE lol that combines two of the most sensitive subjects on earth and let it on the homepage.
Holistic Medicine Winter Haven http://www.targetednumberpicking.com/ – levitra cost Taking Levitra with a nitrate can cause serious damage. [url=http://www.targetednumberpicking.com/]buy generic levitra[/url]
loved it. Great Store