[Khar]

Okay, here's the short of it.

You declared yourself right, and that you didn't need to back yourself up. I just showed Dayseed that an entire organization of experts, as well as several prominent progressive experts, agree with me. I just showed that my "patently wrong" argument was "patently correct." I just showed that you were applying pseudo-scientific theory and claiming it was scientific. I apologized for things which I didn't need to apologize for.

I asked you to quote me where I was saying what you said I did, or where I went wrong. You didn't. I asked for even the smallest reference, an author's name, a single example of "homosexuality through the ages." With Grant, I have done that more than you. My WORST reference, which I said was my worst, was more than you've done, and all you can do is harp about Grant still. Hell, you ignored ALL that new evidence, and reverted to complaining about ONE example out of SEVERAL, which now includes ACADEMIC PAPERS since I've had the time to find them. You, on the other hand, continue to attack me.

You have not provided me a single example of what I asked for. You only attack me, and not what I said. You can attack me, and not the APA, or Bruckner, or Bearman. You would rather attack me than my thoughts. You'd rather attack valid scientific thinking than use it. I asked for oh so little, and go oh so less.

You've instead reflected the exact same thinking of these religious fundamentalists and used it on me.

Too long still? Here's it shorter. You're wrong. In just about every way possible. And you need to look a little closer at your mirror when you try to criticize me, too.

And I STILL agree with you in my personal beliefs. Also, NOW you can imply a mildly peeved tone, because I am admittedly mildly peeved.

[Mustang1]

Khar Khar:

Okay, here's the short of it.

You declared yourself right, and that you didn't need to back yourself up. I just showed Dayseed that an entire organization of experts, as well as several prominent progressive experts, agree with me. I just showed that my "patently wrong" argument was "patently correct." I just showed that you were applying pseudo-scientific theory and claiming it was scientific. I apologized for things which I didn't need to apologize for.

I asked you to quote me where I was saying what you said I did, or where I went wrong. You didn't. I asked for even the smallest reference, an author's name, a single example of "homosexuality through the ages." With Grant, I have done that more than you. Hell, you ignored ALL that new evidence, and reverted to complaining about ONE example out of SEVERAL, which now includes ACADEMIC PAPERS since I've had the time to find them. You, on the other hand, continue to attack me.

You have not provided me a single example of what I asked for. You only attack me, and not what I said. You can attack me, and not the APA, or Bruckner, or Bearman. You would rather attack me than my thoughts. You'd rather attack valid scientific thinking than use it. I asked for oh so little, and go oh so less.

You've instead reflected the exact same thinking of these religious fundamentalists and used it on me.

Ok...agenda is clear...getting odd...meltdown imminent. And the final act of hypocrisy isn't lost on anyone.

Maybe it's time you took a break as this is clearly getting too emotional for you.

[Lemmy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I forgot you are Scottish.....

Le'mmy finish your sentence for you:

Eyebrock Eyebrock:

I forgot you are Scottish and I, being English, would GLADLY shag you in the ass, with or without razor."

[ShepherdsDog]

Naw, he's Irish and they only like it from the parish priest.

[EyeBrock]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Naw, he's Irish and they only like it from the parish priest.

By the time he noticed me I'd joined up.

[Public_Domain]

[kenmore]

I have spoken to 3 psychiatrists and a psychologist on this subject because it was posted here. All tended to agree that ones sexuality is genetic as opposed to environmental or a chosen path. They did say however that rearing of children can have an effect on the masculinity or femininity of children ie that a boy who would be too close or raised soley by a woman could affect his behavioral traits. They say that the ( so called cure) by religious groups is abstinence which is basically telling the gay person that their life style is wrong. They said this creates conflict within the person leading to stress and in some cases mental health issues.

[Brenda]

$1:

that a boy who would be too close or raised soley by a woman could affect his behavioral traits.

So single moms raise their boys to be sissies?
Interesting...

[Gunnair]

I think I'll call bullshit...

[billypilgrim]

$1:

Homosexuality can be 'overcome': charity

no it can't. but religious brainwashing can.

[Zipperfish]

Remember when charities used to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless? These days it seems "charities" are nothing but thinly veiled lobby group trying to dodge taxes.

Clearly homosexuality is a lifestyle choce. I mean these people obviously choose to have sex with other men, despite the fact that (given the historical record) they have been horribly put to death/tortured/sent to prison/raped/outcast for doing so.

How's that for Occam's Razor, Khar.

[Zipperfish]

ASLplease ASLplease:

I could care less what 2 consenting adults choose to do in their bedroom,

...aaah if only that were true.

[kenmore]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

that a boy who would be too close or raised soley by a woman could affect his behavioral traits.

So single moms raise their boys to be sissies?
Interesting...

No not all. But there is a theory that boys can become effeminate ( not gay) by being reared by only females. I will ask tomorrow their thoughts on girls raised by only men. Seems when the gay issue is discussed it tends to be around males only. So my question will be do girls raised by men become tom boys or dykes.
Will let you know what they say.

[Brenda]

kenmore kenmore:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

that a boy who would be too close or raised soley by a woman could affect his behavioral traits.

So single moms raise their boys to be sissies?
Interesting...

No not all. But there is a theory that boys can become effeminate ( not gay) by being reared by only females. I will ask tomorrow their thoughts on girls raised by only men. Seems when the gay issue is discussed it tends to be around males only. So my question will be do girls raised by men become tom boys or dykes.
Will let you know what they say.

The interesting thing is that it is suggested that there will be no father- or mother figure in the kids lives when they are raised by 2 people of the same sex or single parents.

Either way, I call bs on that. I think that gay parents, as well as single parents (whether the other parent is still in the kids lives or not) are well aware that kids need to be around both genders and will do everything it takes to have the opposite gender present in their kids lives.

[billypilgrim]

this charity better hope that hunger cannot be 'overcome' by a walk with j.c, or they'll be looking for a new way to steal people's money. scheister bastards.