Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
He didn't just become gay. He was always gay. He tried to conform to a homophobic worlds view and marry a woman. It didn't work for him. He couldn't continue to hold back who he was and his choice destroyed a marriage.
He was ALWAYS Gay. There are plenty of examples of men who married women because they thought the had to to stop being gay, to try to fit in, because their family/church pressured them into it.
|
In a link I posted, McGrevey talked about years of "sexual confusion". That doesn't sound like "I was always gay". It sounds like someone trying different things, and CHOOSING one lifestyle. And this wasn't his first marriage, but his second. Apparently he liked the hetero life enough to give it another go.
Quote:
Homosexuality is not having gay sex. Homosexuality is an orientation from birth.
Could you feel attracted to a man? Can you imagine doing anything sexual with a man? No? Well the negative feelings you have in relation to men and the positive ones you have for women is the EXACT opposite feelings that homosexuals have.
If you can't imagine being gay, THEY can't imagine being straight
|
All your opinion. Not fact.
Quote:
Maybe you should pay attention then. And look it up instead of "not heard of it"
In the Paul Martin thread I posted a link to a book from an author that studied homosexual relationships in animals, maybe you should check it out.
That is, if you aren't afraid to learn.
|
I was going to reply to this thinly veiled (and clumsy IMO) personal attack in kind, but I'll refrain. I checked on the link you provided. In the review on the site, it talks about the authors finding that there are biological AND environmental causes for homosexual behavior. And it's by no means definitive. Here's one view refuting the claims of the book:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
You've switched topics in the middle of your sentence here. Yes, there are homosexual animals. The point being made here is that homosexuality exists in nature, and is therefore, by definition, natural.
|
I fail to see where I supposedly switched topics. And as for homosexuality in animals, see the above link.
Quote:
|
Your second point is irrelevant. Homosexual couples all across the US are rearing children, in many case the biological offspring of one of the partners
|
Again, where is the irrelevancy? I didn't say that homosexual couples couldn't raise children, i said produce. There's a large difference.
Quote:
|
This would depend upon what actions are being disapproved of, and whether those same actions meet with the same disapproval when engaged in by heterosexuals. If the actions are objectionable regardless of who does them, then it is the actions that should be condemmed, and not the sexuality of the people. If the actions are objectionable only when performed by homosexuals, but not by heterosexuals, then those objecting on that basis are engaging in bigotry.
|
That statement makes no sense. If the action defines the group, or is exclusive to the group, then condemning the action doesn't make someone bigoted. People object to same-gender relationships. That's what defines homosexuality. If I condemn drug use, am I "bigoted" against drug users? I'm not condemning non-drug users, so apparently I must be. Does it matter that drug users are the only people using drugs? Not by the above line of thinking. Calling people who object to a certain lifestyle bigots is an odious tactic that makes the term less effective in identifying true bigots.
And honestly, what is up with the liberal thinking on the subject. Most seem to say that sex is natural, nothing special, just a physical thing. It's the conservatives/Republicans who have all these supposed hang-ups. But mention homosexual sex, and suddenly homosexual sex is the most glorious thing ever, something that rises above all other sex. It should be put on display for all to see, regardless of if people want to see it or not.