quote:

---

It absolutely laughable that anyone living in today's age of information could believe otherwise.

---

wait. you're saying i couldn't go gay today? that i'm incapable of such a decision?

or would that make me an inauthentic homosexual?

quote:

---

Disagree. My aunt is a lesbian. Her and all her friends are the attractive lipstick types. She told me that she was molested as a young girl. She says every one of her lesbian friends was too. She thinks that has something to do with her not being attracted to men. Her and her friends do not associate with the bull dyke types. My aunt believes those types were born that way.

---

Even if that were the case, which most of the time it is not. Please tell me where your aunt CHOSE to be a lesbian? Whether she was born with it, or was molested by a man or woman, or was taken to too many Lillith Fairs as a child, nothing happened by her CHOICE. The only thing that matters is what her sexual orientation is and it's absolutely inhuman of people to hold that against them.

I don't support government forcing people to be nice, but I will speak out on nonsense.

quote:

---

wait. you're saying i couldn't go gay today?

---

You can do gay things, sure. But you can't just decide what you are sexually attracted to. The closest you can do is condition your mind to respond to certain stimuli.

Why would anyone need to? Only an individual can really know what they are attracted to. Why should it matter to anyone else?

I really don't get what you are asking. Are you implying that if someone was only being gay because they chose to, against what they are actually attracted to, then it should be ok to hate them and beat them up?

quote:

---

Why would anyone need to? Only an individual can really know what they are attracted to. Why should it matter to anyone else?

---

Not taking sides but then how can HERO, the judge or the jury enforce or determine if someone is gay or not?

I don't support HERO but why would they need to know if the "victim" is actually gay or not? All that should matter is if the accused discriminated against them because they thought they were gay.

quote:

---

But you can't just decide what you are sexually attracted to.

---

so i'd be living a lie based on whose perceptions?

quote:

---

I really don't get what you are asking.

---

i'm asking your permission to go gay

since you don't think i have a choice in the matter

quote:

---

But you can't just decide what you are sexually attracted to. The closest you can do is condition your mind to respond to certain stimuli.

---

so the nurture component is inauthentic?

You don't have a choice in the matter. But you can do whatever you want.

The nurture component can be absolutely valid. It still doesn't involve choice of the individual.

quote:

---

Not taking sides but then how can HERO, the judge or the jury enforce or determine if someone is gay or not?

---

A roll of postage stamps.




or a mandatory dance-off.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not taking sides but then how can HERO, the judge or the jury enforce or determine if someone is gay or not?

---

A roll of postage stamps.




or a mandatory dance-off.

---

POTD.

quote:

---

You don't have a choice in the matter. But you can do whatever you want.

---

i like this statement

it is my choice to not think that this song is gay

i choose to think otherwise

quote:

---

quote:

---

You don't have a choice in the matter. But you can do whatever you want.

---

i like this statement

---

You wouldn't understand, Jim. It's a secret.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You don't have a choice in the matter. But you can do whatever you want.

---

i like this statement

---

You wouldn't understand, Jim. It's a secret.

---

So only the gays have the decoder ring?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You don't have a choice in the matter. But you can do whatever you want.

---

i like this statement

---

You wouldn't understand, Jim. It's a secret.

---

So only the gays have the decoder ring?

---

Yes. But if they recruit you, you get the decoder ring and they get a toaster.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You don't have a choice in the matter. But you can do whatever you want.

---

i like this statement

---

You wouldn't understand, Jim. It's a secret.

---

So only the gays have the decoder ring?

---

From the office,
Jim: What do you got going on tonight?
Michael Scott: You wouldn't understand. It's a secret.
Jim: I wouldn't understand or it's a secret?
Pam: You wouldn't understand, Jim. It's a secret.

It was a play off of 7nine's statement. You don't have a choice or you can do whatever you want? You don't have a choice in the matter, Jim. You can do whatever you want.

This whole situation is a joke because, not coincidentally, the attention is being focused on all the wrong details. The fact that someone is gay should never be a factor in any of these supposed lawsuits and, in fact, is only one of the "groups" that this laws is supposed to protect. People are going to discriminate against other people because it is HUMAN NATURE. Progressive liberals are trying to make it against the law to act naturally.

The reality should be, if you target and attack someone that is not threatening your life then you need to be punished. If you kill that person for no reason then you should die in similar fashion, in public.

I have no problem with gays, blacks, women, whatever, until they start threatening my way of life including rights and/or my cash flow. If someone is a closed minded bigot then ignore them and do business elsewhere. They have a right to be that way no matter how offensive they might act, just like you have the right to be a freak, weirdo, and/or religious nut job.

quote:

---

If you kill that person for no reason then you should die in similar fashion, in public.

---

preferably by stoning, right?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you kill that person for no reason then you should die in similar fashion, in public.

---

preferably by stoning, right?

---

We need a headsman and long sword.

I feel similarly to Savage, in that it's not the government's business to make us not be biggoted idiots. However I don't take it as personally as he does.

I have come to know many gay people in the past several years and I understand their mental attitude on this type of legislation. If I was made to think myself a freak, that something was wrong with me, that I deserved to be beaten up, hated on, despised, simply for how I inherently was for my entire life growing up, I probably would have similar feelings towards this type of legislation.

It get's nowhere to call them names and say they are trying to PUSH their agenda on you, especially when you say you have no problem with their sexuality then in the same breath call them freaks or weirdos.

what used to be my biggest problem with Republicans has now expanded to become my biggest problem with ALL Politicians and Special Interest Groups...

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. The government should get involved when laws are broken, not when feelings are hurt.

Some people are genuinely nice - some people are a-holes. No law you pass is ever going to change that. Abortion is legal - I don't personally believe in it, but that's me. It's not my place to tell someone what they believe in. While I personally have an inner conflict with the word "marriage" in gay marriage, the fact that our tax code gives preference to those filing as married versus single is my automatic response in support of gay marriage (or including civil unions in the tax code).

what if someone doesn't believe that stealing from someone in a certain rich neighborhood is bad?

I think you know the answer to that. No one is at all suggesting that all laws should go away and you should only use your own morality to determine you actions.

quote:

---

It get's nowhere to call them names and say they are trying to PUSH their agenda on you, especially when you say you have no problem with their sexuality then in the same breath call them freaks or weirdos.

---

Very poor wording on my part. I did not mean to infer that gays are freaks or weirdos and when I typed that statement I was thinking more along the lines of people that are generally "different" like tatted up, ear gauges, purple hair; more obvious characteristics that can lead to discrimination. I also should have used parenthesis because I meant no literal intent.

I want people to do what they want act and in any manner that makes them happy, until it infringes on my rights and or income.

People on here probably think I am a racist homophobe which is actually far from true. I just don't ignore obvious innate traits of human behavior and cultural norms.

I think the answer is that we can and do legislate morality.

I think you think you aren't racist or a homophobe, because you excuse the bigotry you have as "natural".

I know you are a nice guy because I have met you. But from what you post you seem to have a bit of pent up anger at those different than you.

If you are so quick to excuse what you call "human nature" then why not acknowledge that it's human nature to not want to be looked down upon, hated on, pushed around, discriminated against and that those like RTT who support this type of thing aren't doing it to FORCE you to accept their gay agenda but rather to be treated with respect? And just say they are going about it the wrong way.

quote:

---

you seem to have a bit of pent up anger at those different than you.

---

My "anger", if you truly comprehend the body of my Texags contributions, is directed at the cultivation and growth of the victim mentality this country seems to embrace and glamorize. I think politicians, community organizers, activists, etc prey on the weak minded and false guilt that society says we are supposed to have for those "less fortunate". Of course, by "less fortunate", I mean those able bodied humans that feel entitled to free money from scumbag politicians to help keep them in office, in lieu of working and bettering themselves.

quote:

---

If you are so quick to excuse what you call "human nature" then why not acknowledge that it's human nature to not want to be looked down upon, hated on, pushed around, discriminated against and that those like RTT who support this type of thing aren't doing it to FORCE you to accept their gay agenda but rather to be treated with respect? And just say they are going about it the wrong way.

---

This would be relevant if, in reality, there was an actual goal or level that society would need to reach for gays to be happy with status quo. Guess what, THERE's NOT. Just like black people will continue to claim suppression due to racism until the end of time. Just like women will continue to claim suppression due to whatever until the end of time.

People are not equal. Figure it out.

So 60 years ago is no different than today in how minorities are treated by the majority?

I'm not saying we need government intervention to make society change and treat minorities better but to say that it will never get better is silly. You really think in 50 years that homosexuals will have just as hard a time growing up? That they will still get disdainful treatment from a large portion of society?

That's a pretty sad outlook you have. Unless you want them to continue to be hated on.

Not at all. People need to evolve naturally for it to truly work. There is no easy answer, but this type of legislation is not it.

I think that type of discourse is much more fruitful than saying they are freaks and scum trying to force their agenda and lifestyles on straight white males.

Of course it is, but that's my natural reaction to reverse racism, reverse sexism, and being labeled as oppressive because I'm a white male Christian. Notice that it isn't a lawsuit. Which is worse?