Gays worse than terrorists

[Drew2]

All your base are belong to us.



http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=7983168

Lawmaker's anti-gay comments attract attention

Posted: March 7, 2008 04:22 PM CST

Updated: March 10, 2008 10:26 AM CDT


Rep. Sally Kern

By Audrey Esther and Darren Brown, News9.com INsite Team
© News9.com/KWTV NEWS 9

An Oklahoma lawmaker's anti-gay comments are attracting national attention.

"The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation; it's just a fact," Rep. Sally Kern is heard saying on a YouTube video posted Friday.

In an exclusive interview with News9.com Kern (R-Oklahoma City) admits it is her voice on the recording and stands by her comments. She said she's just stating the facts on what she believes.

"I'm not gay bashing, but according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle," she said. "It has deadly consequences."

The YouTube video was released by Washington-based political action committee The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Their Web site reads: "While this speech is remarkable in its statements, it is not unique. For every bit of hateful rhetoric we hear, scores of other anti-gay statements go unchallenged."

Rep. Kern said the gay community, especially in Oklahoma, should not be surprised by her comments because she's made similar statements in the past.

Kern said the attention isn't necessarily wanted, but she says she won't shy away from her opinions and beliefs, either.

"What is wrong with me as an American exercising my free speech rights on a topic that is a very big issue today?" she said.

One of Kern's most controversial claims is that homosexuals and homosexuality is more of a threat to the United States than terrorism.

Kern said she doesn't know who taped the speech and when it was recorded.

"Shame on the person who didn't have the courage to come and say, 'I'm going to tape you and put it out on YouTube,'" she said.

Karen Parsons is a local activist. She said the majority of Oklahoman's don't care about sexual orientation.

"They care whether or not people are attacked," she said. "They care about whether or not their kids are bullied in school and it's this kind of speech, this kind of hate speech that gives the bullies the license to do it, and that's got to stop."

Parsons also said that Kern's comments are an embarrassment to Oklahoma.

"Hate speech has such negative consequences. The words really mean something." Parsons said. "She's a legislative leader and people pick up on her words and they take them to be the truth."


Youtube video this article spawned from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo

THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IS DESTROYING THE NATION.

rofl.

[Back]

Quit destroying our nation, Drew.

[Drew2]

My agenda clearly states I must do otherwise, sorry.

[NocturnalRob]

My agenda clearly states I must do otherwise, sorry.

He can't help it. Last I heard, it's genetic, right?

...

[Celephais]

Fire ze laser!

[Drisco]

Religion = Downfall of Society.

[NocturnalRob]

Fire ze laser!

Fire ze missiles!

But I am le tired...

[Warriorbird]

http://swiftreport.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/laser_2.jpg

[Gan]

Ugh.

I'm speechless other than to say she's an idiot.

[AnticorRifling]

"They care whether or not people are attacked," she said. "They care about whether or not their kids are bullied in school and it's this kind of speech, this kind of hate speech that gives the bullies the license to do it, and that's got to stop."

Because there is nothing worse than being singled out and told your shoes and belt don't match.

[Drew2]

You better watch out or we'll start glitter-bombing your dirty hetero hang outs.

[The Ponzzz]

What a blind bitch. :(

[AnticorRifling]

Wasn't this already resolved in West Side Story?

[Latrinsorm]

Religion = Downfall of Society.Because nothing says "bigotry is wrong" like a bigoted remark.

I would not have guessed that Oklahoma wouldn't be the first musical referenced in this thread, btw.

[Warriorbird]

Right, right. Because the best way to explain away bigotry is to call people who point it out bigots.

[NocturnalRob]

Right, right. Because the best way to explain away bigotry is to call people who point it out bigots.

I agree. That's along the lines of saying that you can't be racist because you have a <insert minority here> friend.

O RLY?

[Hulkein]

I agree. That's along the lines of saying that you can't be racist because you have a <insert minority here> friend.

O RLY?

Yes, rly. It's in the Bible.

[Drisco]

Because nothing says "bigotry is wrong" like a bigoted remark.

I would not have guessed that Oklahoma wouldn't be the first musical referenced in this thread, btw.


Technically If I am not mistakened..... It says in the bible that Religious fights will be the downfall of Society... Don't quote me on this because I am not sure.

[NocturnalRob]

Yes, rly. It's in the Bible.

And now's when I start instigating stuff. the bible is just a book. it's not like it's the word of god or anyt...damnit...

anyway, i'm an atheist, so I think that any reference to the bible as the basis around which people should live their life is...well, a position open to interpretation.

believe what you like. that is your right. but in my opinion, to cite the bible as the absolute word is just baffling.

[Warriorbird]

One of the reasons I have problems with the Republican Party.

[NocturnalRob]

One of the reasons I have problems with the Republican Party.

One of the reasons I have problems with people that make such vast over generalizations depicting the Republican Party as a bunch of gay bashers.

[Warriorbird]

Nah. Just a fair portion of the party is dominated by radical Christianity and it has attempted to use anti gay marriage amendments as a wedge issue a number of times.

[Hulkein]

I wouldn't say a 'fair portion' is dominated by radical Christianity. A lot of Christians feel homosexuality is immoral but don't think their agenda (or whatever) is destroying the country or worse than terrorism.

[Drew2]

I really hope you don't include yourself in that, because that's going to open a whole can of worms that's not only been opened on these forums before, but doesn't need to be opened again now. I haven't the energy. I spent it all doing my IMMORAL BEHAVIORS.

[Warriorbird]

And yet how many of those amendments were proposed? How hard does the anti abortion bandwagon get played? How many idiots toss out that stuff about Obama's middle name and it being a "victory for terrorists?"

How much time was wasted on Terry Schiavo?

Quite a few. Quite hard. Quite a few. Quite a lot.

Economically (apart from the vast amount wasted on Iraq) I'm mostly in the Republican camp. I just can't be in a party that acts like that.

[Hulkein]

I really hope you don't include yourself in that, because that's going to open a whole can of worms that's not only been opened on these forums before, but doesn't need to be opened again now. I haven't the energy. I spent it all doing my IMMORAL BEHAVIORS.

I personally believe you're born straight or gay so no, I don't think it is inherently immoral.

[Drew2]

<3

[NocturnalRob]

And yet how many of those amendments were proposed? How hard does the anti abortion bandwagon get played? How many idiots toss out that stuff about Obama's middle name and it being a "victory for terrorists?"

How much time was wasted on Terry Schiavo?

Quite a few. Quite hard. Quite a few. Quite a lot.

Economically (apart from the vast amount wasted on Iraq) I'm mostly in the Republican camp. I just can't be in a party that acts like that.

I agree with a lot of that, especially the part that appeals to my fiscal conservativism (and again, Iraq aside--not the Iraq issue, just the financial drain taking place). But I don't think it's fair to peg an entire party with that label. I would call myself a Republican, but I definitely find myself in the "Democratic camp" on a number of social issues, abortion especially.

But taking the absolute extremes of a party as the "definition of a party" isn't necessarily the right way to go about it.

[Daniel]

How exactly do you put Iraq aside when talking about fiscal conservatism?

"I'm all about spending within my means, my 100k trip to Vegas for gambling and hookers aside..."

[NocturnalRob]

How exactly do you put Iraq aside when talking about fiscal conservatism?

"I'm all about spending within my means, my 100k trip to Vegas for gambling and hookers aside..."

I'm agreeing with WB. I don't agree with the way Iraq has been handled, especially when looking at the financial drain taking place. But IRAQ ASIDE, I am a fiscal conservative.

[Latrinsorm]

How many idiots toss out that stuff about Obama's middle name and it being a "victory for terrorists?" When did Hilary Clinton become a Republican?

[NocturnalRob]

When did Hilary Clinton become a Republican?

Bahahaha...well played

[Warriorbird]

Since when have I ever supported Hillary? I was referring to my issues with the Republican Party. If I was TheE that might've been incisive.

In some ways one of Hillary's strengths is that she campaigns like a Republican. John Kerry certainly didn't.

[NocturnalRob]

In some ways one of Hillary's strengths is that she campaigns like a Republican. John Kerry certainly didn't.

I would have said that one of her strengths is that she cries on national TV (regardless of whether or not it was staged). Or that she's so personable. Or that she stands out as a candidate ready to make changes in the Democratic party as opposed to being another middle-of-the-road liberal candidate.

Yup, those are her strengths.

[Sean of the Thread]

Gay people rule as wingmen.

[Drew2]

Been hanging out with your brother?

bwahaha.

[Snapp]

Fuck Arkansas, new laser beam target is Oklahoma.

[Necromancer]

People don't start as gay or straight. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals are made not born.

[diethx]

People don't start as gay or straight. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals are made not born.

You forgot to preface your post with, "I believe that,".

[Methais]

http://imagechan.com/img/images/religion.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

When did Hilary Clinton become a Republican?

The second she was for the Iraqi War. The second she flip-flopped on this, along with the second she pushed ten-thousand other under-the-table issues. Unilateral superiority exists only at the C.E.O. position in this country. Those other two branches are just to look good.

Fill in the rest of the missing pieces and you have the standard dictionary definition of a contemporary Republican.

[Warriorbird]

So... how exactly does one go about making bisexuals?

[Necromancer]

Why, you looking for a conversion? Uphill road; like changing habitus. But not impossible.

[Warriorbird]

Ha. Na. I'm just saying I think there's probably some nature/nurture combination going on.

[Drisco]

Why, you looking for a conversion? Uphill road; like changing habitus. But not impossible.

Hmm.. Are you saying gays can change who they like and comparing it to like changing a bad habit?

[Hulkein]

People don't start as gay or straight. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals are made not born.

Thanks for your opinion based on nothing more sound than mine or anyone else's in this thread.

How do you think they are 'made,' out of curiosity?

[Daniel]

Cheese.

[Drew2]

People don't start as gay or straight. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals are made not born.

I completely disagreed and I'm pretty floored that you believe that.

That would imply that there is a possibility to change your orientation later in life, and if you're telling me that someone or something could make me straight, LOL. Fuck you.

Also, by saying that you're asserting that I'm making the choice, on some level, to be gay.

Another fuck you.

[Necromancer]

I never implied it was a bad habit, and I never said it was an easy change. Auditory processing is very influenced by early exposure to language, as is orthomotor response. If not introduced to particular sounds and speech patterns early on, it can be nearly impossible to reproduce and/or process them later. (The distinction between L/R sounds among Japanese native speakers is a good example) Most native Japanese speakers who go on to become fluent in English will never learn to properly distinguish between the sounds.

Were they simply born without the capacity?
It's not that simple- to learn to distinguish one must be raised in a proper linguistic environment. Does that mean it is easy to change? Of course not.

The history of Western sexual identity also makes it clear how recent the development of lgbs identities are- around 100 years for both (with heterosexuality as a concept being a more recent debvelopment than homosexuality). That's not to say that people are just now having exclusive (well, lgb identities don't require exclusivity) sex with one gender or the other- just like people didn't develop auditory processing with the advent of English. But Western sexual identity and beliefs about desire and its proper location (it is always defined by genital acts in its idealized discursive state) are recent and by no means inherent. Nor are they easy to deprogram.

[Drew2]

Use all the big words you want to, you're still full of shit.

[Necromancer]

Note: heterosexuality is no more 'natural' or 'inherent' than homosexuality and bisexuality. People seem to miss that part of the argument.

[Daniel]

Use all the big words you want to, you're still full of shit.

^

[Necromancer]

Use all the big words you want to, you're still full of shit.

Knee-jerk emotional reactions aren't arguments.

[sst]

I personally believe you're born straight or gay so no, I don't think it is inherently immoral.

Is that before or after daddy touched little jimmy

[Drew2]

It's not just a knee jerk emotional reaction. It's a lazy i-don't-feel-like-typing-out-a-thoughtful-response reaction.

But whatever, I'll humor you.

From what I understand of your analogy, you're saying that we're all created as a sexual ball of clay, as it were. Now whether or not that clay is shaped to be gay, straight, or bi is a result of our environment, as is our ability to hear liguistic differences.

How can you not see this as bullshit? I was not raised in Gaytown and my family doesn't speak Gayese, so who and what exactly shaped my sex clay to be gay? I have 4 sisters and 2 brothers, none of which are homosexual. We were all raised in pretty similar environments.

It just blows my mind that you can even accept your argument to be valid at all.

[Latrinsorm]

I think what Necromancer is groping for is the idea that you wouldn't be able to self-identify as a gay person without being taught the concept of a gay person. This is an epistemological issue, though, the metaphysical issue of whether you would be a gay person or not is not addressed.

[Hulkein]

Note: heterosexuality is no more 'natural' or 'inherent' than homosexuality and bisexuality. People seem to miss that part of the argument.

Uh, yes it is.


Is that before or after daddy touched little jimmy

You really think every gay person was molested/abused?

[Drew2]

I think what Necromancer is groping for is the idea that you wouldn't be able to self-identify as a gay person without being taught the concept of a gay person. This is an epistemological issue, though, the metaphysical issue of whether you would be a gay person or not is not addressed.

I'm pretty sure I grasp that, but the fact remains that regardless of what you want to call it (a rose by any other name?), there are only 2 genders in the human race and only so many combinations of where you like to stick it, so the categories are going to be created regardless.

[Drisco]

I never implied it was a bad habit, and I never said it was an easy change. Auditory processing is very influenced by early exposure to language, as is orthomotor response. If not introduced to particular sounds and speech patterns early on, it can be nearly impossible to reproduce and/or process them later. (The distinction between L/R sounds among Japanese native speakers is a good example) Most native Japanese speakers who go on to become fluent in English will never learn to properly distinguish between the sounds.

Were they simply born without the capacity?
It's not that simple- to learn to distinguish one must be raised in a proper linguistic environment. Does that mean it is easy to change? Of course not.

The history of Western sexual identity also makes it clear how recent the development of lgbs identities are- around 100 years for both (with heterosexuality as a concept being a more recent debvelopment than homosexuality). That's not to say that people are just now having exclusive (well, lgb identities don't require exclusivity) sex with one gender or the other- just like people didn't develop auditory processing with the advent of English. But Western sexual identity and beliefs about desire and its proper location (it is always defined by genital acts in its idealized discursive state) are recent and by no means inherent. Nor are they easy to deprogram.



You find me an actual gay man who truly turned straight and I will believe your theory no questions asked.


Also you have shit for brains.

[Necromancer]

I'm pretty sure I grasp that, but the fact remains that regardless of what you want to call it (a rose by any other name?), there are only 2 genders in the human race and only so many combinations of where you like to stick it, so the categories are going to be created regardless.

Actually, any given culture recognizes between 2-5 genders. In the US and most of the West we tend to say we have two, but we have to violently alter bodies (via hate crimes and surgery depending) to continue that cultural dialogue.

And Drew, you and I were both raised around male desire and it's inevitable that some men will pick it up- though by no means always the case. Meanwhile, being raised in a culture that puts an enormous amount of energy into defining identity by genital acts (and not other aspects of sexual activities) and that maintains that (hetero)sexuality is god given/genetic/necessary for our very survival and immutable it's understandable that the gay/lesbian/bisexual identities (so very similar to heterosexuality) are developed to make sense of those desires and to create viable political subjectivities. When put into crisis by same-sex desire, a cynic might argue that 'it' has replicated itself furtively to accomodate these desires in a way that maintains its own superiority.

And no Latrin, I'm not saying you need to have the word gay to recognize what you are. I'm saying that use of the word makes you what it is. "gay" and "straight" are verbs, not nouns or adjectives.

And to this day, there is no solid evidence that homosexuality is genetic. None of the major studies have been reproducable. More importantly, no one has even bothered to study the genetics of heterosexuality- it's just assumed to be genetic and permanent (men in prison, school girls, college students, mentally ill people, people in 'primitive' non-white societies, sexual assault victims, people with strong mother figures, etc etc aside). And so, it remains the benchmark and is immune to critique. Meanwhile, non-heterosexual desire is encapsulated in a heterosexual-like mirror and those who are potentially the most threatening to it are the ones who spend the most time and energy protecting it- all in the name of liberation carried out in a pleasant fantasy of transgression.

[Stretch]

I never implied it was a bad habit, and I never said it was an easy change. Auditory processing is very influenced by early exposure to language, as is orthomotor response. If not introduced to particular sounds and speech patterns early on, it can be nearly impossible to reproduce and/or process them later. (The distinction between L/R sounds among Japanese native speakers is a good example) Most native Japanese speakers who go on to become fluent in English will never learn to properly distinguish between the sounds.

Were they simply born without the capacity?
It's not that simple- to learn to distinguish one must be raised in a proper linguistic environment. Does that mean it is easy to change? Of course not.

The history of Western sexual identity also makes it clear how recent the development of lgbs identities are- around 100 years for both (with heterosexuality as a concept being a more recent debvelopment than homosexuality). That's not to say that people are just now having exclusive (well, lgb identities don't require exclusivity) sex with one gender or the other- just like people didn't develop auditory processing with the advent of English. But Western sexual identity and beliefs about desire and its proper location (it is always defined by genital acts in its idealized discursive state) are recent and by no means inherent. Nor are they easy to deprogram.

The only thing I garnered from this wall of text:

You = the male Jazuela.

[Snapp]

You guys just had to get Necromancer started with all this crap, didnt you? :banghead:


Is that before or after daddy touched little jimmy

STFU retard.

[Necromancer]

An extraordinary amount of scholarship has been done on tgis people- it's not just my pet theory.

D'Melio Yanagasako, Collins, Warner, Foucault, Butler, Winnubust, and a host of others have been writing abd researching this subject for decades. It's just not popular with the LGBT Mainstream since it runs counter to how Westerners view their desires and the political ramifications of the conservative anti-gay movement's "choice" rhetoric- which has come to define the terms of the debate on the subject.

[Warriorbird]

You just listed Foucault as a researcher.

[Necromancer]

Foucault is one of the most important minds in the 20th century. He was a mediocre historian but a brilliant philosopher and the father of post-structuralism...

[Daniel]

An extraordinary amount of scholarship has been done on tgis people- it's not just my pet theory.

D'Melio Yanagasako, Collins, Warner, Foucault, Butler, Winnubust, and a host of others have been writing abd researching this subject for decades. It's just not popular with the LGBT Mainstream since it runs counter to how Westerners view their desires and the political ramifications of the conservative anti-gay movement's "choice" rhetoric- which has come to define the terms of the debate on the subject.

I can list random names and say they prove my point too.

However, it's just as stupid.

Regardless, you are still full of shit. There are certain innate desires of men and women. I.e. whether or not you put it in the front door on the back door.

The only thing that changes is the manisfestation of those desires.

Your analogy of language is spurious at best. A child that is exposed to english does not randomly learn french.

[Necromancer]

Analogies are always problematic at best, but the language anology was meant to prove how difficult/impossible it is to change some brain-based behaviors after childhood.

And those were far from 'random' names. People like Butler and Foucault are some of the most well-known names in the social sciences today- particularly in the arena of cultural analysis. Again, argue points all you'd like, but if the best you can do is reassert your position over and over again it may be time to ask yourself how you have come o know whatyou know and why.

[Warriorbird]

Foucault was a lot of things. I wouldn't call him a researcher.

[Daniel]

Analogies are always problematic at best, but the language anology was meant to prove how difficult/impossible it is to change some brain-based behaviors after childhood.

And those were far from 'random' names. People like Butler and Foucault are some of the most well-known names in the social sciences today- particularly in the arena of cultural analysis. Again, argue points all you'd like, but if the best you can do is reassert your position over and over again it may be time to ask yourself how you have come o know whatyou know and why.

Cognizance?

[Necromancer]

Foucault was a lot of things. I wouldn't call him a researcher.

Foucault did extensive research for his major works. It ws just his discursive analysis and his take on knowledge and power (and thus the notable paucity of citations in his works) that gave an impression otherwise.

[Warriorbird]

That and the citations that, y'know, didn't exist. If he'd been working now he'd have been even more crucified for it.

I question the implication that he was somehow scientific or unbiased.

I certainly buy environmental factors in the process... but I think ignoring genetics is foolish.

[Necromancer]

No one is really refuting any of his work in the Academy. At most they nitpick on his historical accuracy and androcentrism. (both of which are valid, imo) But in terms of 'writing today', his first major works were in the 70's and was coming out through the 80s. He wasn't exactly writing in the 1800s.

[Warriorbird]

I find there's a lot of social science that tends to neglect any hard science (pun not intended) on these matters and that's just as bad as intelligent design to me... no matter how skilled the academic research.

[Fallen]

Speaking of gays, see my new sig.

[Necromancer]

Hard science- to use a ridiculous term- is far more likely to ignore social science. So you get inane studies tryi g to link sexual identity to genetics by people who haven't begun to do any inquiry into the very category they are trying to find. Sort of like phrenology and the fashionable evolutionary psychology.

And 'intelligent design' is grounded in a philosophical argument -teleology- and not science. That's why it's bad science; it's not because they ignored biology but because they are making a rhetorical claim that is totalizing and reads all observation back into the teleological argument. That's the same problem, incidentally, with evolutionary psychology and the search for a genetics of desire.

[Warriorbird]

And somewhere between the two ignoring each other you might get close to an answer.

[Necromancer]

Because if it was good enough for Aristotle it must ergo be the path to truth.

[Back]

Does this mean Socrates was a terrorist? Michelangelo?

[Necromancer]

No, but I was happy when I read the part when he drank the hemlock.

[Stanley Burrell]

No, but I was happy when I read the part when he drank the hemlock.

Arsenic and hemlock.

It was the Greek equivalent to the modern day lethal injection "cocktail."

[Back]

Freddy Mercury was definitely worse than a terrorist. “We Will Rock You”? Thats a terrorist anthem if I ever heard one.

[Daniel]

*Sigh I'm going to regret this.

What factors, that can be replicated, are known to cause people to become gay, straight or bi? Specifically, what factors would cause an individual to become gay when siblings or peers do not and how has this been studied and verified through your theory?

Also, what are the incidents that contribute to a higher or lesser rate of homosexuality in a given culture or society that A) take into account the propensity to self identify as homosexual or bi sexual and B) can scientificly rule our other factors of causation.

I want numbers and not some hockemany theory.

Thanks.



Thanks.

[TheEschaton]

This is why Necro should never be listened to. He's a certifiable nutjob, both on diet and sexuality, and thinks circular arguments about gender identity trump reality.

-TheE-

[Necromancer]

Because if you don't agree with it Eschaton, it must be false. Get a life- and an education.

Daniel,

We don't have raw data on what would make someone more likely to be one thing or another. We don't even have consensus on how many LGBS people there are in any given area of the country. The nature (pun intended) of how we construct sexual identity and the surprisingly nebulous definitions and high rates of people who don't neatly fit into any category makes it impossible. (Are men who occasionally have sex with men but who form lasting sexual and emotional bonds with women and identify as heterosexual gay, straight, bi, queer, or none of the above? Are female sex workers whose clientelle consists mainly of men but who have lasting relationships exclusively with women lesbians, bisexuals, queer, or none of the above? How many sexual partners of the same-sex qualifies you as gay? How many of the opposite sex makes or breaks each identity? The questions are endless.)

In terms of other cultures- homosexuality is a Western phenomenon that has been spread to many areas due to colonization. The idea of an individual who has pre-determined exclusive sexual desire for a member of the same-sex and is therefore a fundamentally different type of person is by no means a universal idea. In many areas of South America (not as much in major cities where western ideas of sexuality increasingly have taken hold), your identity is determined by your sexual position not your partner's gender- insertive partners are still machos whose occasional romps with mericones are excusable and do not compromise their masculinity or identity (it's assumed that excess sexual energy of men means they will be prone to fucking whatever is available). Receptivo partners are maricones and are derided for it and treated as we would treat a 'fag'. Machos still maintain relationships with women for the most part and are by no means 'gay'.

In Native American tribes same-gender desire was almost unheard of prior to the arrival of Europeans. But there were up to 4 genders (with the ones we would view as gender nonconforming collectively known as the bardache) depending on the tribe (with the vast majority having 3 or 4- very few had 2) Bardache, in Western terms, were male bodies that took on female roles or vice-versa. Bardache never had relations with one another, and a male bodied bardache would never have relations with a woman (and vice versa). Men of the tribes, partivcularly older men who already had a wife or who had children but were widowed, would take in a bardache as a wife. But a man would never have sex with another man- that would be unfathomable. These were not 'homosexuals' by any stretch. Nor were they heterosexuals by any stretch. In fact, one's identity was not determined by their sexual partner at all but by the clothing one wore, their body, and the work one did. (a man who had a female wife and another who had a bardache wife were the same)

I could go on describing other cultures and our own culture over time and space for volumes (as many people have). I also apologize for the rampant androcentrism of my two examples.

Weatern arrogance and the totalizing nature of our sexual system compels most people to immediately decide that these 'weird' and 'primitive' sexual systems were created by people who were just repressed and didn't have full Western knowledge of sexuality. (just like anyone in our culture who doesn't fit neatly into the mold is often considered to be 'confused' or 'repressed') We read our own unique system into the other systems of the world to make us feel that our way is somehow 'natural', but it is as constructed and situational as any other.

It's caused problems. In many areas of East Asia, there are culture wars going on between people who are adopting Western sexual identities and those who refuse them- creating chaotic political and social situations among communities of non-normative sexual behavior.

So there is a complicated answer to two complicated questions.

[Daniel]

We don't have raw data on what would make someone more likely to be one thing or another. We don't even have consensus on how many LGBS people there are in any given area of the country. The nature (pun intended) of how we construct sexual identity and the surprisingly nebulous definitions and high rates of people who don't neatly fit into any category makes it impossible.

^

Thanks.

All I needed.



Regardless, you are still full of shit. There are certain innate desires of men and women. I.e. whether or not you put it in the front door on the back door.

The only thing that changes is the manisfestation of those desires.

[Necromancer]

No, it really wasn't all you needed. It was all you took. It lets you hold on to your ideas on sexual identity without having to deal with the challenges to those ideas.

It is ironic, but LBG-identified people in the US tend to be the most closed-minded when it comes to subjects of sexual identity. We let our political struggles define our self-image. Heterosexuals do it too, but we take it to a fanatical level in the name of 'change' that isn't.

[Daniel]

What part of my posts make you think I am discarding what sexual identity is?

What do you think "Manifestation" means?

I reject your notion that somehow homosexual tendencies are created. As I said before it's a spurious argument. Just because people are raised in different cultures with varying degrees of acceptence to homosexual behavior doesn't mean that the innate desire is *created* rather than acquired.

We know that our physiological longing for sexual activity is genetic in nature. There is no reasoning or proof that would say otherwise.

[Blud]

Let me see if I can help clear it up...

If you are a male and have exclusive sex with other males, you are gay.

If you are a female and have exclusive sex with other females, you are lesbian.

If you are a male and have sex with men and women, you are bisexual.

If you are a female and have sex with men and women, you are a bisexual.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

This coming from a heterosexual male, so take it for what it's worth.

..................

Back on topic though...I don't think homosexuality is worse than terrorism, FWIW.

[Necromancer]

Just because people are raised in different cultures with varying degrees of acceptence to homosexual behavior doesn't mean that the innate desire is *created* rather than acquired.

We know that our physiological longing for sexual activity is genetic in nature. There is no reasoning or proof that would say otherwise.

First, what evidence is there that homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality is genetic? Give me two studies that have been successfully reproduced and that aren't under fire for shakey methodology. Good luck- they don't exist.

Secondly, go actually read my points about South America and the bardache and explain to me how they were examples of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

It's unbelievably arrogant to assume that your culture has the monopoly on knowledge and awareness of the 'truth' about sexuality. Yeah, Americans are just more enlightened and have found the truth about desire. White European ideas on sex today are clearly just more evolved. (huh, where have we heard that implication before?) Everyone else is just less aware. We have built an entire system that defines identity through the genitalia of our sexual partners and fantasies. This is unique to Western notions of sex and by no means the defining characteristic for everyone else. It's not even remotely intelligable to many people- those least influenced by colonial history.

[Daniel]

It's unbelievably arrogant to assume that your culture has the monopoly on knowledge and awareness of the 'truth' about sexuality.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Take off your gay glasses and re-read what I am saying.

[Necromancer]

Way to ignore the first two questions, and way to side-step the third. You're implying that cultural acceptance of 'homosexuality' (even though the concept/identity doesn't exist in many of those societies) is what determines its manifestation.

Thus, every society would have our system in its ideal state, and people would all manifest desires in the same way we do. You imply that our system is the real one. That was my point.

Marrying a bardache wife was something any man would do if they had already had children in most Native American tribes- so I guess they all had the gay gene!!11! But wait, most if not all of those men would never desire another man as a partner- even though the genitalia were the same. Maybe they all had the straight gene!!11!

But wait, they had 4 genders, and heterosexuality implies 2 genders. They must have been ignorant about how gender really works- biologically speaking.

But wait, there are 5 different chromosomal combinations of the X and Y genes in humans, and we group everyone into one of two genders. We dramatically alter bodies that don't fit either one with surgery and hormones.

Maybe WE are ignorant of how gender works- in which case heterosexuality, predicated on a two gender system, has no genetic basis at all.

Or maybe we created gender, then created a system of sexual identity predicated on that system, and then we put an inordinate amount of energy into creating social myths that, oh so ironically, tell us it is the natural state of things when society's prejudices and repression *don't* interfere.

[Daniel]

I'm going to edit this because it's a slow day at work.

[sst]

STFU retard.

Guess I hit a nerve there...

[Necromancer]

Snapp is a gay terrorist.

[RichardCranium]

I thought Drew caught teh gay from Mexicans?

[sst]

I thought drew was mexican...

[Daniel]

I didn't answer your questions because they are so far beyond the point that it is not even funny.

A. I don't need to point you towards research of heteorsexuality as those terms are merely a construct of our society. I have said all along that the innate desire is there, and whatever manifestations they have are dependent on the society you live in. We classify people as Gay, Straight or Bi. This is based upon your tendencies to prefer sexual encounters with either your own sex, the opposite sex or both.

b. This does *not* infer that other cultures or other socities do not have different categories of sexuality or that ours is any better than theirs.

C. You're point is that homosexuality, as we define it i.e. the presupposition to prefer the same sex over that of the opposite sex is CREATED as opposed to an innate desire.

This is patently false. There is nothing scienfiticly that would you could point to to support your argument. Instead you rely on projecting other peoples feelings and believes and juxtaposing it with isolated cultural examples to prove that sexuality is a construct of western society. Which is disingenuous to the discussion and completely and utterly in left field. Whereas, anybody in a non western, non (GHEY) academic society would look at you like you were retarded for saying that.

[Necromancer]

You still miss the point entirely. Sexual desire is a product, it's a response. It's not a beginning. Just like disgust is a response, not a beginning. I desire certain non-physical qualities in a partner, and therefore find myself sexually aroused in the presence of someone with those qualities. I do not have a "gets hard for capricorns' gene.

I get hungry, and I live in a society that raises me on adobo. I do not have an adobo-loving gene. People never exposed to adobo will not crave it. Some people exposed to it will not crave it. They do not have an adobo-hating gene. A person exposed to adobo in pleasuable circumstances will probably love adobo. A person fed adobo only by their abusive father will probably hate it. That same person told all of their life that people are born either loving or hating adobo and faced with staggering consequences regardless of their preference will come to love or hate adobo largely due to their u derstanding of their own identity, sense of self, sense of place in the world, and desires regarding all aspects of the consequences for choosing one or the other.

A person raised in a society where liking adobo means nothing in regards to their identity so long as it is eaten with a silver fork or golden fork will likely have very little opinion on whether ir not they like adobo but a whole elaborate taste regarding the type of fork they use.


What do these people have in common? They both get hungry.

[Daniel]

Uh.

No.

You don't crave Adobo but you crave FOOD, because your body has a built in mechanism to suggest to you that it is time to eat.

However, you leave out all of the genetic factors that play into what you can and can not eat. People are more susceptible to heart disease. Therefore they can't eat as much salt. Some people are allergic to wheats or milk. Therefore, they do not do so.

I may prefer Adobo because of the way that my tongue and nose react to the composition of the food, which is further refined by all the things you mentioned.

Just the same. You don't crave white girls with piercings or little boys. You crave SEX because your has a built in mechanism that you need to breed. How that manifests itself is a direct result of your genetic predipostion and is further reinforced and through cultural and societal factors. However, that *desire* to do so is not created.

[Gan]

WORDPLAY!

Replace hungry with horny. Replace adobo with sex. Other replacements = [ ].

I get horny, and I live in a society that raises me on sex. I do not have an sex-loving gene. People never exposed to sex will not crave it. Some people exposed to it will not crave it. They do not have an sex-hating gene. A person exposed to sex in pleasuable circumstances will probably love sex. A person fed sex only by their abusive father will probably hate it. That same person told all of their life that people are born either loving or hating sex and faced with staggering consequences regardless of their preference will come to love or hate sex largely due to their uderstanding of their own identity, sense of self, sense of place in the world, and desires regarding all aspects of the consequences for choosing one or the other.

A person raised in a society where liking sex means nothing in regards to their identity so long as it is [enacted] with [a man] or [a woman] will likely have very little opinion on whether ir not they like sex but a whole elaborate taste regarding the type of partner they use.


What do these people have in common? They both get horny.

[Gan]

WORDPLAY!

Replace hungry with horny. Replace adobo with sex. Other replacements = [ ].

I get horny, and I live in a society that raises me on sex. I do not have an sex-loving gene. People never exposed to sex will not crave it. Some people exposed to it will not crave it. They do not have an sex-hating gene. A person exposed to sex in pleasuable circumstances will probably love sex. A person fed sex only by their abusive father will probably hate it. That same person told all of their life that people are born either loving or hating sex and faced with staggering consequences regardless of their preference will come to love or hate sex largely due to their uderstanding of their own identity, sense of self, sense of place in the world, and desires regarding all aspects of the consequences for choosing one or the other.

A person raised in a society where liking sex means nothing in regards to their identity so long as it is [enacted] with [a man] or [a woman] will likely have very little opinion on whether ir not they like sex but a whole elaborate taste regarding the type of partner they use.


What do these people have in common? They both get horny.

[Blud]

You crave SEX because your has a built in mechanism that you need to breed.

Homosexual encounters will not fulfill this "need" you alluded to, so how can homosexuality be tied to a need to procreate the species?

This is one arguement I've heard used to state that homosexuality is an inherent choice of lifestyle, as nature provides no way of continuing the "homosexual" gene. The irony is I just read it in your post.

[Daniel]

It's a mechanism that is built into our bodies. Although the intended purpose was Penis + Vagina = baby. That doesn't mean that there can not be physiological causes for deviations in how this complex system works.

Some people lose their sense of smell for whatever reason, and thus have a skewed perception of taste, which is the bodies mechanism to identify food that is "Good for you".


Point for fact: There are no identifying factors that cause people to turn "Gay". Therefore, there must be something accountable for the statistical deviation that causes men to like men and woman to like women.

Why would we assume that this deviation is not dependent upon what gives us diversity as human beings? I.e. People do not "Choose" to be tall, nor do they "Choose" to have sickle cell anemia, nor do they choose to have depression. Why would we assume that they choose what causes the chemical reactions that leads to erections\orgasms etc?

What Necromancer fails to take into account is that despite genetic predispositions it is possible to overcome them in either direction if the will and\or pressure is sufficient.

[Warriorbird]

I've come to a conclusion.

Necromancer and Latrinsorm are the same person. They argue the same way.

[CrystalTears]

WORDPLAY!

Replace hungry with horny. Replace adobo with sex. Other replacements = [ ].

I get horny, and I live in a society that raises me on sex. I do not have an sex-loving gene. People never exposed to sex will not crave it. Some people exposed to it will not crave it. They do not have an sex-hating gene. A person exposed to sex in pleasuable circumstances will probably love sex. A person fed sex only by their abusive father will probably hate it. That same person told all of their life that people are born either loving or hating sex and faced with staggering consequences regardless of their preference will come to love or hate sex largely due to their uderstanding of their own identity, sense of self, sense of place in the world, and desires regarding all aspects of the consequences for choosing one or the other.

A person raised in a society where liking sex means nothing in regards to their identity so long as it is [enacted] with [a man] or [a woman] will likely have very little opinion on whether ir not they like sex but a whole elaborate taste regarding the type of partner they use.


What do these people have in common? They both get horny.
I can't tell now if I'm hungry or horny...

[diethx]

I've come to a conclusion.

Necromancer and Latrinsorm are the same person. They argue the same way.

But Latrinsorm often makes sense. Necromancer never does (unless I suppose you're also a crazy vegan nutbag who also makes "factual" statements based on opinions and no solid data (i.e.: no proof), then you may think he does).

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

But Latrinsorm often makes sense. Necromancer never does (unless I suppose you're also a crazy vegan nutbag who also makes "factual" statements based on opinions and no solid data (i.e.: no proof), then you may think he does).

Reread through Latrinsorm's arguments, I think you'll see more similarities than you think.

[Some Rogue]

I can't tell now if I'm hungry or horny...


I think I could give you something to satisfy both....

:rofl:

[Latrinsorm]

It's no surprise that the two heteronormal patriarchophiles feel the need to Otherize the minorities in their midst. I'm reminded of something Camus wrote in response to a Scrabble game: "Ceci est un mec parle français." You can see from the third declension that he too was victim to the military-industrial mind colonization so prevalent today but the meaning is clear.

Also, uh.... mmm, buttsex.

[Warriorbird]

Wasn't that supposed to come from Necromancer?

[Sean]

Just don't use the ACT command when playing transgendered.

[AnticorRifling]

I think I could give you something to satisfy both....

:rofl:

She didn't ask for a small snack, sit down.


WTH is adobo?

[CrystalTears]

WTH is adobo?
Good question. Spanish people consider that a seasoning, and in other parts of the world it's a chicken or pork dish. So I don't know WTF he's talking about. Must be a gay vegan thing.

[AnticorRifling]

I thought they were the bald dudes from double dragon....

[NocturnalRob]

I thought they were the bald dudes from double dragon....

Abobo! awesome reference

http://www.pressstarttocontinue.net/images/abobo.gif

[Asha]

Also, uh.... mmm, buttsex.


Wasn't that supposed to come from Necromancer?

/coffee over screen thx

[Some Rogue]

She didn't ask for a small snack, sit down.


WTH is adobo?

Silence Cartman....

[Stanley Burrell]

Abobo! awesome reference

http://www.pressstarttocontinue.net/images/abobo.gif

I got fucked in the end of the forest level where 2 of these bitches appear (the small snapshot.)

At least ONE Abobo as the first level boss; able to craftily slide the bastard off the conveyor belt is acceptable. Those two shits were not cool. I had to use Game Genie for infinite lives.

[NocturnalRob]

I got fucked in the end of the forest level where 2 of these bitches appear (the small snapshot.)

At least ONE Abobo as the first level boss; able to craftily slide the bastard off the conveyor belt is acceptable. Those two shits were not cool. I had to use Game Genie for infinite lives.

Game Genie was/is the bomb. All you had to do was keep jump kicking like a rabbit on crack. Took a while because apparently Billy and Jimmy kicked like children, but easiest way to kill them.

[Allereli]

Abobo! awesome reference

http://www.pressstarttocontinue.net/images/abobo.gif

Man I always got stuck at those fuckers.

The best DD move was the hair grab pull down, repetitive knee to the head, throw over the shoulder.

[Asha]

The best way was to lure them to walking off the bottom edge of a ledge while you walk towards the bottom of the screen on a different level, since they just keep coming at you.
The green dudes at the end used to literally beat the living shit out of me since they could snap out of their 'stuns'.

DD was top.

[Gan]

I can't tell now if I'm hungry or horny...

I have a beef burrito for you chica.

[Drew2]

BACK ON TOPIC.

GAY AGENDA. IT ARE OWNZ U.

[Warriorbird]

No. But it does own the local hair salon.