This is sooo gay

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[quote]In Europe somewhere. The Catholic church denied marriage between two people because they said that they would not have children (because of the possibility of passing on a genetic disorder), and in the bible it says marriage is for making babies.

They're not correct on that point, though I know the Catholic church is stupid like that. My mother had to tell her priest that she was going to raise me Catholic in order for her to get married, though she had no such intention.

But that's Catholicism for you.

Only if he has "friends" who think like you.

You don't know me. I may disapprove of homosexuality but I do tolerate it, and I don't hate people who choose to do so. I don't hate them anymore than you do, we simply differ in that I believe they do so by choice. There are people out there who disagree with homosexuality FAR more strenuously than myself. You know, people who taunt them, and even worse, those who attack them. I do not advocate either activity. I believe what happens in a person's bedroom is their business, as long as it stays in the bedroom.

Proving my point. That's exactly what I'd expect you to say, given that you fit right into that category.

Of course, because I don't believe morals are relative. But it's pointless to discuss morals with a liberal.

There is a huge diffrence between how homosexuals feel and how heterosexuals have occasional small 'urges' like you mention. A very, very big difference. You will refuse to admit it, but nothing I've ever heard has said anything else. HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT JUST HAVE "LITTLE URGES" WHICH THEY THEN FOLLOW, WHILE IGNORING HETEROSEXUAL ONES! PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY HOMOSEXUAL DON'T HAVE ANY MORE (and possibly fewer) 'URGES' TOWARDS THE OPPOSITE GENDER AS THE AVERAGE HETEROEXUAL DOES FOR THEIR GENDER!

That is fact.

Mmmhmm. You didn't answer my question before, probably because you thought it was an insult, but are you gay or bisexual? I mean, you seem to have an innate knowledge about this sort of thing, you seem to think that even psychology cannot explain this. It's kinda funny that you would take such a question as an insult, but I was being serious.

So you deny that animals are homosexual, even though it has been an observed behavior in some animals? Huh? That makes no sense!

I denied it? I believe my words were "Who knows why they do it? Why don't you ask one"? I can't tell how that could be misconstrued for denial, but whatever.

Sure, everyone has their own idea of who they find attractive. That is true. And no, its probably not genetic... I don't know how that happens. But when you are attracted to someone you know it -- you have absolutely no control over the mere act of being attracted to them. So genetic or not, its not something that people can control... you are either attracted to someone or you aren't. Sure, you can then think it over and with other factors decide what to do (or, more likely, not do), but the attraction? Not under your control. And especially not in puberty, when you are first realizing these things... yet homosexuals (when not repressed) start realizing that they are attracted to the same gender at that early point.

Sure, your opinions will change as you get older... that's to be expected! But this is at a much more fundamental level than that. Its not like just changing between different traits in the gender you find attractive, for sure...

As I said before, your definition of homosexuality is fatally flawed when applied to "reality". It has nothing to do with sex... its not exactly state of mind either. Yes, your state of mind is part of that, but you have that state of mind because of how you realize you are... which goes back to much more basic things then "how you feel now".

Homosexuality is most definitely about sex, which is why the term appears in the word Homosexuality. But if it's not sexual, and it's not mental, than what is it? This is the loophole your theory keeps catching on.

You have such bizzare definitions of those terms...

You have such a hard time with real-life application.

Ah, so your unproven hypotheses with no real-world backing are better than my unproven hypotheses with lots of factual proof that says that they are right, at least in part. Got it.

Er, if I remember correctly, your unproven hypotheses were supported by almost no factual proof whatsoever, and one of the two major studies on the topic was subject to investigation by a research ethics committee on grounds that data was left out to skew the results.

My opinions are not truly hypotheses at all. Besides being supported by psychology and biology, the burden of proof is not upon us to disprove a genetic link, it is upon you to prove the genetic link.

Ergo, there is no genetic link until one is found. That is how science works. And as of now there is no genetic link, and little chance of there being one.

I can't think of why not... genetics control a very wide variety of things... [/B]

Genetics control nothing behaviorial.