You are not logged in. Please register or login.

myillusions
 Rep: 5 

Re: The Miss California controversy

myillusions wrote:
Axlin08 wrote:

Let's not get crazy.

'Pro Gay Rights' is not politically correct. In fact, it's very very far from that. The majority of the country is anti-gay rights. So let's not act like Prejean is some sort of tough chick standing up against the crowd. All she's doing is agreeing with the crowd.

There's nothing ballsy about that.

As for hatred and intolarence, Perez Hilton might be an opportunistic douche bag, but he has a perfectly given right to be intolarant to Prejean's beliefs, as do I, or anyone else. She's a new age bigot. No matter what her stupid grandfather told her. All gays are asking for is the same rights that are provided to EVERYONE. They're not asking anyone to give up anything, just make it equal. But there seems to be a real problem with that, and I see these anti-gay rights people now turning the tables around, and saying that if you are not tolorant of their bigoted views, that somehow you're being intolarant.

Gays are born gay. Bigots choose to be. And even if their "religion" says so... religion is still a choice.

Just because Carrie falls back on her beliefs does not make her a bigot. I think she did a great job answering the question truthfully and how she feels about the subject. She didn't ask to be asked that question, it was asked and she answered it in according to her beliefs.

These people are bigoted and intolerant cause they attack you if you don't agree with them. If they weren't, they'd be fine with you opinion and not throw so much hatred around at those who disagree.

You say gays are born gay. Is there now an official science to back of this statement now? I didn't know it was now a fact.

Tell me, what rights do gay people not have that everyone else does have? I don't know of one. Everyone has equal rights.

jorge76
 Rep: 59 

Re: The Miss California controversy

jorge76 wrote:
myillusions wrote:

Tell me, what rights do gay people not have that everyone else does have? I don't know of one. Everyone has equal rights.

I'm not sure how to take that?  They don't have the right to get married, and I don't think anyone is disputing that fact. 

Marriage is a law, so it should apply to everyone.  If you want to take all the government/legal aspects out of marriage then you can do whatever you want with it...  but that's a whole other discussion.

On the subject of this girl, they asked her a question, and she answered it with how she feels...  What more should they have asked for.

Axlin16
 Rep: 768 

Re: The Miss California controversy

Axlin16 wrote:
myillusions wrote:
Axlin08 wrote:

Let's not get crazy.

'Pro Gay Rights' is not politically correct. In fact, it's very very far from that. The majority of the country is anti-gay rights. So let's not act like Prejean is some sort of tough chick standing up against the crowd. All she's doing is agreeing with the crowd.

There's nothing ballsy about that.

As for hatred and intolarence, Perez Hilton might be an opportunistic douche bag, but he has a perfectly given right to be intolarant to Prejean's beliefs, as do I, or anyone else. She's a new age bigot. No matter what her stupid grandfather told her. All gays are asking for is the same rights that are provided to EVERYONE. They're not asking anyone to give up anything, just make it equal. But there seems to be a real problem with that, and I see these anti-gay rights people now turning the tables around, and saying that if you are not tolorant of their bigoted views, that somehow you're being intolarant.

Gays are born gay. Bigots choose to be. And even if their "religion" says so... religion is still a choice.

Just because Carrie falls back on her beliefs does not make her a bigot. I think she did a great job answering the question truthfully and how she feels about the subject. She didn't ask to be asked that question, it was asked and she answered it in according to her beliefs.

These people are bigoted and intolerant cause they attack you if you don't agree with them. If they weren't, they'd be fine with you opinion and not throw so much hatred around at those who disagree.

You say gays are born gay. Is there now an official science to back of this statement now? I didn't know it was now a fact.

Tell me, what rights do gay people not have that everyone else does have? I don't know of one. Everyone has equal rights.

Jorge pretty much said it - they don't have the right to get married. And some states also have banned them from adopting children.

There is no scientific fact proving that they are in fact NOT born gay, and who are you, as a heterosexual, to TELL someone who is gay, whether not they are born that way or not. It's not up to you. It's up to them. They decide. They're human beings just as much as you. They are born gay, just because you don't see it, i'm sure when they come on to you, you'll know it. And to be prejudice or deny them ANYTHING because of you're PERSONAL CHOSEN BELIEFS, is in fact - bigoted and prejudicial.

They're just asking for equal rights according to the law. To be recognized legally and ceremonially married. Taxes, next of kin, all of that. Which all married couples already get.

For the life of me, as a heterosexual man, I cannot understand why they are blocked for this. Who am I, when i'm sitting at my house on my fat ass, to tell a perfect stranger, that I do not know, that they are not allowed to be married, and they are not allowed to visit each other in Emergency situations in hospitals, they are not allowed to have children, etc.

Why do I care? Tell me why I am supposed to deny rights to people, that I get to have, "just cause"?

myillusions
 Rep: 5 

Re: The Miss California controversy

myillusions wrote:
Axlin08 wrote:

There is no scientific fact proving that they are in fact NOT born gay, and who are you, as a heterosexual, to TELL someone who is gay, whether not they are born that way or not. It's not up to you. It's up to them. They decide. They're human beings just as much as you. They are born gay, just because you don't see it, i'm sure when they come on to you, you'll know it. And to be prejudice or deny them ANYTHING because of you're PERSONAL CHOSEN BELIEFS, is in fact - bigoted and prejudicial.

Your the one who is professing that gays are born gay, remember? All I did was question your comment. You are the one who made the assumption. You continue to say people are born gay, yet you have no facts to back your statement up, you just declare it as fact. You cannot prove that being gay is NOT a personal choice in itself, do you? So, anyone who disagrees with my beliefs, is in fact a bigot and prejudicial as well.

I'm a straight male and I don't have one single right under the law that gays don't also enjoy. Not one.

You say that they aren't free to marry their gay lover? I'm not free to marry another man either.  Same rights.  Equal protection.   All single men are free to marry single women.  All single women are free to marry single men.  Men are not free to marry men.....the same for women. Same rights. Equal protection.

Gunslinger
 Rep: 88 

Re: The Miss California controversy

Gunslinger wrote:

"Born gay?"  There exists absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.  At birth a person is not sexual and I've yet to see any "gay genetic precursors" in any of my studies during the pursuit of my MS.

This is a term that was manufactured by those who support the gay lifestyle and wish to make a personal choice free of responsibilty and consequence.  All choices in life have some sort of consequence, especially those that step outside of what is considered the norm.  By "victimizing" a decision the person/group involved attempts to rid themselves of the burden of the given choice.

Before you start waving the "bigot banner" I will tell you in all honesty that one of my closest friends was gay.  I say "was" because he died a few years back from carbon monoxide poisoning.

I know his choice came from sexual abuse at a young age.  I can also tell you that a LARGE amount of those who choose to be gay have this in common.  Not ALL by any means but a large number.

I am AGAINST any kind of descrimination, bottom line.  However I am also against gay marriage.  It seems very strange to me that a gay couple would want to take part in a union that involves a religion that condemns the very act.  I'm not trying to bash anyone who is gay but I think this point is a strong one.  Why not take the Civil Union route instead?  The couple would still have the same rights.

I think it is a sad day in this country that someone can have an opinion that doesn't support gay marriage and take this kind of heat.  It's not like she was bashing, she simply answered a question...honestly.

jorge76
 Rep: 59 

Re: The Miss California controversy

jorge76 wrote:
myillusions wrote:

You say that they aren't free to marry their gay lover? I'm not free to marry another man either.  Same rights.  Equal protection.   All single men are free to marry single women.  All single women are free to marry single men.  Men are not free to marry men.....the same for women. Same rights. Equal protection.

Ok, so they're "seperate, but equal".  I get it now.

Gunslinger wrote:

.  It seems very strange to me that a gay couple would want to take part in a union that involves a religion that condemns the very act.

That's the issue to me, the government and religion aren't supposed to connected, and the arguement is about legallity, not morality or anything like that.

Gunslinger wrote:

I think it is a sad day in this country that someone can have an opinion that doesn't support gay marriage and take this kind of heat.  It's not like she was bashing, she simply answered a question...honestly.

I agree with this, when it's lawmakers and such I think it's a different story, but this is just a girl who was hot enough to make it to the miss USA pagaent, as much as they want to pretend she's there for any other reason, that's why she is.

Axlin16
 Rep: 768 

Re: The Miss California controversy

Axlin16 wrote:
myillusions wrote:

Your the one who is professing that gays are born gay, remember? All I did was question your comment. You are the one who made the assumption

I'm not assuming anything. I'm going on empirical evidence.

myillusions wrote:

continue to say people are born gay, yet you have no facts to back your statement up, you just declare it as fact.

I do not recall declaring it as a 'fact', and if I did, I apologize. But with that said, it is not a fact that they ARE NOT born gay. I do remember saying that. So that works both ways. All I know is scientific research (which is still theory), has greatly lended itself to debunking Homosexuality as a conscious mental choice, starting with Freud, who believed it was conditioning the subconscious. However that has been expanded upon all these years later, and empirical evidence as well as social norms have proven, at least this much, that it is not a mental condition nor psychopathological. Meaning they ain't crazy, and they ain't consciously choosing it either.

Now if you think psychology is a pseudo-science, or that being homosexuality was listed in the DSM-I originally, then I don't know what to tell you. Seems to me you're following your own religion, having to do with opinion, rather than spirtuality. Not that i'm saying you are, but i'm just stating what's out there, and what i've experienced. If you want more information on these studies, look it up. It's actually quite common these results, many of which citing the psychological arguments of it being a choice, have been weak at best.

myillusions wrote:

You cannot prove that being gay is NOT a personal choice in itself, do you

No, and you can't prove it's a choice either. If anything, research has lended itself more to my theory, than yours. But they're both theories.

myillusions wrote:

So, anyone who disagrees with my beliefs, is in fact a bigot and prejudicial as well.

14

No they are not. Religious people (not saying you are) can't seem to get this through their thick-assed skull. CHOICE is a CHOICE. I don't have to respect your choice or belief. Not one goddamn bit.

I however, cannot deny someone equal rights and say because of their color or race. This is something they are born with.

The law, in America at least, provides you with Freedom of Religion and freedom of speech. It however does not provide you with a guarantee of tolorance towards that religion and speech. However, those who are born gay, until it is proven otherwise (the burden of proof is on the naysayer to provide evidence proving the contrary, much of which proves the claim of gays, not debunk it) are born that way, and should be treated as such. I cannot treat them or their opinion on their homosexuality with hatred or discontent, because of MY personal chosen opinion. They were born gay. Being i'm not gay, i'll take THEIR word for it. Not some heterosexual with an axe to grind, and no facts, or weak fact, to back it up.

Those who don't are in fact - bigots. Just because I don't agree with you, does not make me a bigot, and you know that. Don't do this throwing the word back around stuff that alot of the anti-gay people do, because I don't have to respect their 'choice'. You do have to respect orientation.

myillusions wrote:

I'm a straight male and I don't have one single right under the law that gays don't also enjoy. Not one.

You say that they aren't free to marry their gay lover? I'm not free to marry another man either.  Same rights.  Equal protection.   All single men are free to marry single women.  All single women are free to marry single men.  Men are not free to marry men.....the same for women. Same rights. Equal protection.

Okay, I gotcha. A play with words, but still not right, no matter what.

Gunslinger wrote:

"Born gay?"  There exists absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.  At birth a person is not sexual and I've yet to see any "gay genetic precursors" in any of my studies during the pursuit of my MS.

14

Actually there's far more evidence to support "born Gay" rather than not. If you haven't found it in all these years, you haven't been looking hard enough, or you've got your head in the sand. It's all there. Tons of empirical evidence, and scientific study, that leans to it being orientation, not a choice.

Gunslinger wrote:

This is a term that was manufactured by those who support the gay lifestyle and wish to make a personal choice free of responsibilty and consequence.  All choices in life have some sort of consequence, especially those that step outside of what is considered the norm.  By "victimizing" a decision the person/group involved attempts to rid themselves of the burden of the given choice.

I know. All those negroes also need to take accountability for being crack smokers too. roll

How wonderful is it to be gay? Isn't it absolutely fun! You get to go around, have everyone look at you weird, talk shit behind your back, fire you, not give you jobs altogether, not let you marry the person you love, tell you you can't have kids, and if that's not enough... you get people to harrass you on the street, as well as your parent(s) disowning you!!!

YAY! What fun, and a personal choice for it. Sign me up, it sounds absolutely fanfuckintastic. :umm:

Gunslinger wrote:

Before you start waving the "bigot banner" I will tell you in all honesty that one of my closest friends was gay.  I say "was" because he died a few years back from carbon monoxide poisoning.

I know his choice came from sexual abuse at a young age.  I can also tell you that a LARGE amount of those who choose to be gay have this in common.  Not ALL by any means but a large number

It certaintly is an interesting aspect of it, that sexual abuse can lead to some kind of homsexual conditioning. But I feel this is a minority. I have known those like your late friend. But i've also known those, a majority, who claim they were born. Many of them have common stories, where they've been that way for as long as they could remember. They just were never attracted to girls, or vice versa, and they all have the "I knew" age, where they knew the were different.

But I know many who had perfectly normal backgrounds, with good heterosexual parents, and they never once felt heteroseuxal.

Gunslinger wrote:

I am AGAINST any kind of descrimination, bottom line.  However I am also against gay marriage.  It seems very strange to me that a gay couple would want to take part in a union that involves a religion that condemns the very act.  I'm not trying to bash anyone who is gay but I think this point is a strong one.  Why not take the Civil Union route instead?  The couple would still have the same rights.

Very interesting point, one i've asked myself also. Marriage, in the modern ceremonial sense, really is all about the Christian idea of marriage. Preacher, church, clothes, etc. Now why would a religion that condemns you, would you fight for that?

Because i've met many gays that are also Christians, and very much believe in God. They don't believe that God hates them, that he just made them different, and that maybe one day God will make them understand why he made them the way he did. But their hopes and dreams for marriage are the exact same. They want to worship in God's house, fit in, and be recognized as a married couple with children.

I'm not saying this is always the case, but i've met many gays who love their religion and still wear crosses, with the hope that one day the church will recognize them, because God 'already does'.

As for Civil Unions, that's another good point. I recently told a gay friend in fact, of a story I recently encountered. I got into a discussion with someone, who was staunchly anti-gay marriage, and I said to them "what if we just get rid of the word marriage?". What if gays were allowed all of those equal rights of marriage (civil unions are not allowed all 1,138 rights of marraige under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act), but in fact that was lifted, civil unions got all rights of marriage, and all states lifted their same-sex bans (in my state - FL - same-sex civil unions are also banned), and we just didn't call it 'marriage'. This personal responded, "that'd be fine. I don't have a problem with that." I then asked this same question to my gay friend, who said "I don't have a problem with that".

So what i'm getting at, is if all of this bullshit from anti-gay marriage people is about the word 'marriage'. Then get rid of the word. Gays, give them the word, let 'em have it, and you have your civil union, with the same rights. Some gays like that idea, some gays don't. So you pretty much put yourself back a square one.

But I think if it was all about the word 'marriage'. We wouldn't have same-sex civil union bans in several states in the U.S.

Gunslinger wrote:

I think it is a sad day in this country that someone can have an opinion that doesn't support gay marriage and take this kind of heat.  It's not like she was bashing, she simply answered a question...honestly.

This I agree with, and why I made this thread. She answered the question the way she felt, when she was asked a totally inappropriate question imo for the contest she was in, and now she's been railroaded because of it. However her little grandfather speech, didn't help her. Just made her sound like another uneducated 'thumper'.

Gunslinger
 Rep: 88 

Re: The Miss California controversy

Gunslinger wrote:
Axlin08 wrote:

know. All those negroes also need to take accountability for being crack smokers too.

This is below you Axlin08.  You are too intelligent for this sort of crap.  Don't try to belittle someone for an opposing view, I can assure you my intellect is not inferior to yours.

Axlin08 wrote:

How wonderful is it to be gay? Isn't it absolutely fun! You get to go around, have everyone look at you weird, talk shit behind your back, fire you, not give you jobs altogether, not let you marry the person you love, tell you you can't have kids, and if that's not enough... you get people to harrass you on the street, as well as your parent(s) disowning you!!!

YAY! What fun, and a personal choice for it. Sign me up, it sounds absolutely fanfuckintastic. :umm:

It's not fun being an addict either.  That doesn't mean you were born an addict (at least in most cases) nor does that mean "God made you that way".  Free choice comes with responsibilities and consequences...not always fun ones.

Axlin08 wrote:

Actually there's far more evidence to support "born Gay" rather than not. If you haven't found it in all these years, you haven't been looking hard enough, or you've got your head in the sand. It's all there. Tons of empirical evidence, and scientific study, that leans to it being orientation, not a choice.

Actually there's not.  Before I decided to first go into Physical Therapy (later decided to get a MS in biology as my plan is to be a professor at my local university) I actually was pursuing what many beginning college students do...Psychology.  We could go into the "Nurture vs Nature" deal all night long but in the end this is simply an opinion, not a proven fact. 

Let me end my argument on a lighter side.

As I said before one of my best friends in my entire life was gay.  Yes he did have a shitty life due to his sexuality, very unfortunate as I did love him like any other of my close friends.  In fact I would say he was one of the best people I've ever known.  My problem is NOT with those who are gay.  My problem is with those who choose to hear one voice but drown the other.  I am against legalizing gay marriage but not FOR punishing those whose choices and opinions are different than mine.  I think tolerance is the key but tolerance is not snynonymous with acceptance.

myillusions
 Rep: 5 

Re: The Miss California controversy

myillusions wrote:
Axlin08 wrote:

Actually there's far more evidence to support "born Gay" rather than not. If you haven't found it in all these years, you haven't been looking hard enough, or you've got your head in the sand. It's all there. Tons of empirical evidence, and scientific study, that leans to it being orientation, not a choice.

We all know that evidence is not proof and evidence is subject to interpretation. And we all know the ever changing outcome of scientific studies. For every scientist that agrees, there's a scientist who doesn't agree. The fact remains is that this "Being born gay" theory is not factual no matter how much evidence one conjures up.

I don't think everyone should have to respect each others opinions but I do know that it's not better to throw hatred and intolerance in the direction of people who do not agree with your opinions either. What that ignorant judge said is the prime definition of hatred and intolerance.

Axlin16
 Rep: 768 

Re: The Miss California controversy

Axlin16 wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:

This is below you Axlin08.  You are too intelligent for this sort of crap.  Don't try to belittle someone for an opposing view, I can assure you my intellect is not inferior to yours.

I'm not belittling your point. I'm trying to show a point through sarcasm. When people get on the whole "it's a choice" argument, that's what they sound like.

Gunslinger wrote:

It's not fun being an addict either.  That doesn't mean you were born an addict (at least in most cases) nor does that mean "God made you that way".  Free choice comes with responsibilities and consequences...not always fun ones

No, it's totally fun being an addict. Always has been. Drugs are great in the beginning, and in that stage too. You don't give a fuck, you just want to get high. It's the dependency stage that fuckin' sucks on every level. When you've did so much shit that now your body physically needs it to run, and you desperately want to quit, but doing so causes unbearable body pain.

But the human body was 'designed' for human sexuality and it's gratification. Not drugs. Drugs are the definitive 'choice'. It actually makes homosexuality sound more like orientation. Drugs by definition, are a vice. Sexuality is something we are ALL predespositioned for, when we're born. Beyond that, I dunno. We could get into the social norms argument, but if that were the case, anyone could be conditioned to be gay or straight. That nobody is born with sexual preference, that it's developed. That you're not born straight, it's a choice, so you have no right, nor anyone else to deny gay's rights under marriage law.

Gunslinger wrote:

As I said before one of my best friends in my entire life was gay.  Yes he did have a shitty life due to his sexuality, very unfortunate as I did love him like any other of my close friends.  In fact I would say he was one of the best people I've ever known.  My problem is NOT with those who are gay.  My problem is with those who choose to hear one voice but drown the other.  I am against legalizing gay marriage but not FOR punishing those whose choices and opinions are different than mine.  I think tolerance is the key but tolerance is not snynonymous with acceptance

And I actually agree with this entire statement. I'm not asking for acceptance either, and never would in fact. It's not fair, and it's not right. But with tolorance comes the same freedoms under the law that everyone else gets, and gays do not get this concerning marriage.

I'm not sitting back and asking you to accept it. I have no problem with freedom of religion or speech, until it interferes with the law. That's when I step in, and say wait a second.

myillusions wrote:

We all know that evidence is not proof and evidence is subject to interpretation. And we all know the ever changing outcome of scientific studies. For every scientist that agrees, there's a scientist who doesn't agree. The fact remains is that this "Being born gay" theory is not factual no matter how much evidence one conjures up.

I don't think everyone should have to respect each others opinions but I do know that it's not better to throw hatred and intolerance in the direction of people who do not agree with your opinions either. What that ignorant judge said is the prime definition of hatred and intolerance.

Pros and cons in your post for me. I agree with your assessment of Perez Hilton. He's a little opportunistic troll, who uses his "gay schtick" as I call it, to further his career. He's a little fuckin' punk, that needs his ass kicked around the block for drill.

But with your first comment, you're just sounding like your "gay is a choice" stuff is a religion for you. You seem unwilling that anything will sway your opinion. If I were to give you definitive proof, signed by God himself, you'd still say "nope, my opinion is..." and for that, there's nothing I can tell you. If you don't believe actual evidence, and what you see in front of your face, then... what else can be said?

We'll have to agree to disagree. "Born Gay" is a theory, just as much as "Gay Choice" is.

I'll remain open to read or hear any evidence or research that proves it's a choice. However, I don't feel you feel the same if it proves it's orientation.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB