1
   

Pushing the Gay Agenda

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 05:07 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
What benefits does nature provide for homosexuality?

The innate ability to accessorize.


That's damn funny Joe. Laughing
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 05:27 pm
Baldimo wrote:
What benefits does nature provide for homosexuality?


I think you could look at it as natures method of population control.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 07:42 pm
mesquite wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
What benefits does nature provide for homosexuality?


I think you could look at it as natures method of population control.


If that were true, then it would be more prevelent then in just about 5% of the population.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 10:00 am
Another statistic picked out of the air. Add those heterosexuals who for a what might be a genetic proclivity not to have children (like two of my aunts and three of my uncles) and you have thousands of years what could be a pretty high figure for population control. Sure, tsunamis work too and our proclivity to kill each other off in wars.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 10:01 am
When I bump into Baldimo's posts, I'm frequently reminded of Wilde's description..."He has one of those terribly weak natures that are not susceptible to influence."
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 10:03 am
Good one, blatham.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 01:14 pm
Baldimo wrote:
I don't see homosexuality as normal or natural.

Newsflash, a lot of gay people don't see straight sex as normal or natural. In fact they tend to find it as repellent and bizzare as you find theirs. Judge not, lest ye... (ahem)

mesquite wrote:
I think you could look at it as natures method of population control.

Sorry, I'd rather not be disagreeing with someone whose standing up for other peoples rights and freedoms but just a quick point.

Unfortunately nature (evolution) doesn't work that way... if people don't breed then their genes don't get passed on, so any trait that governs population control tends to disappear (with the exception of colony creatures, e.g. insects).

I heard a different explanation the other day though that would make a lot of sense. Apparently the female relatives of gay men due to the same hormonal effects are much more fertile than other women, thus explaining why it continues to exist not only within the human species but many many other members of the animal kingdom.
(e.g. bottle nosed dolphins, bonobo monkeys...)

...

Is my memory failing me or was someone asking for proof that homosexuality wasn't a choice? Maybe it was a different thread. Since it's vaguely relevant to the conversation and I doubt I can find it elsewhere here's the info...

If someone wanted that then here are the studies showing that homosexuality has a genetic basis that you want to read "Pillard & Weinrich, (1986); Bell et al., (1981); Heston and Shields (1968); Eckert et al (1986); Green (1987)"
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 01:26 pm
You got it, antibuddha, but the bane of the uneducated is to further their uneducation.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:14 pm
theantibuddha wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
I don't see homosexuality as normal or natural.

Newsflash, a lot of gay people don't see straight sex as normal or natural. In fact they tend to find it as repellent and bizzare as you find theirs. Judge not, lest ye... (ahem)

mesquite wrote:
I think you could look at it as natures method of population control.

Sorry, I'd rather not be disagreeing with someone whose standing up for other peoples rights and freedoms but just a quick point.

Unfortunately nature (evolution) doesn't work that way... if people don't breed then their genes don't get passed on, so any trait that governs population control tends to disappear (with the exception of colony creatures, e.g. insects).

I heard a different explanation the other day though that would make a lot of sense. Apparently the female relatives of gay men due to the same hormonal effects are much more fertile than other women, thus explaining why it continues to exist not only within the human species but many many other members of the animal kingdom.
(e.g. bottle nosed dolphins, bonobo monkeys...)

...

Is my memory failing me or was someone asking for proof that homosexuality wasn't a choice? Maybe it was a different thread. Since it's vaguely relevant to the conversation and I doubt I can find it elsewhere here's the info...

If someone wanted that then here are the studies showing that homosexuality has a genetic basis that you want to read "Pillard & Weinrich, (1986); Bell et al., (1981); Heston and Shields (1968); Eckert et al (1986); Green (1987)"


Here is some food for thought.

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

http://dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:20 pm
Call the waiter over and have him return the meal.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:30 pm
blatham wrote:
When I bump into Baldimo's posts, I'm frequently reminded of Wilde's description..."He has one of those terribly weak natures that are not susceptible to influence."


LOL

Does Wilde have anything to say about a certain Hindu viper? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 09:02 pm
Food for thought, Baldimo? Oh, my...

Try **** for brains. Those links are so amazingly full of nitrogenous waste as to render anyone with the slightest sense of smell to gag uncontrollably.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 09:14 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Food for thought, Baldimo? Oh, my...

Try **** for brains. Those links are so amazingly full of nitrogenous waste as to render anyone with the slightest sense of smell to gag uncontrollably.
Care to explain why you say this? Could it be because it disputes some of the info given by theantibuddha. Don't shoot the messenger; I'm just passing along some counter research. Sorry it doesn't pass your liberal only research criteria.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 11:10 pm
Tell the waiter there's a fly in the soup and it zipped open and something popped out that was very threatening.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 11:14 pm
http://uploads.freeupload.net/users/uploads/dogbert.jpg
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 12:00 am
Counter research = religious bullshit.

Buy a clue, Baldimo. Why is it that proven science is considered liberal, while alternative views (i.e., creationism, intelligent design) is considered conservative?

How eager are you really to return back to the stoneages? My guess is you must be pretty excited about turning back the clock of evolution, um, er, in your case, creationism, in order to make a completely unfounded point.

Politicizing emperical evidence and labeling it as "liberal" took place hundreds of years ago.

Looks like you're desperate to bring it back into fashion.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 02:39 am
Re: Pushing the Gay Agenda
ebrown_p wrote:
What the heck is the "Gay Agenda" and why do people keep accusing me of pushing it? It is quite annoying and if they are going to sling these term, they should at least have the balls to define it.

I am a male who is married to a female (and my fertility will be expressed when my daugter is born is a couple of weeks).

Well I'm glad you made that clear. It wouldn't do to have any of us mistake you for a queer.

So here is my Agenda.


1. I believe that in issues that don't hurt willing adult participants, the government and society at large should stay out, based on my Constitutional persuit of happiness.

There's room to debate "willing," but not when it comes to adult homosexual relationships. Fair enough. The government and society should stay out of homosexual relationships.

2. In a public school, I don't want my kids taught to fear or even avoid things I don't find immoral. The religion and moral judgements of others have no business in a public institution.

But of course your moral judgement on what may or may not be immoral (as it relates to what your kids are taught to fear) is A-OK for an institution. Sorry, but I have to take serious issue with this agenda item.That you do not find homosexuality to be immoral is, of course, a moral judgement. Explain, please, how it has business in a public institution.

3. Furthermore, In a pluralistic democracy I believe it is wrong for a majority to make policies that denigrate other minorities, be they religious minorities, cultural minorities, racial minorities or sexual preference.

Not difficult to agree with, but we now must come to agreement on what "denigrate" means. Defining marriage as a legal union between man and woman doesn't necessarily denigrate homosexuals.

4. I believe it is ridiculous for people who want to live in pluralistic democracy to expect to be protected from people who think differently than them. Children in a Democracy should be taught that there are homosexuals who, under our most sacred laws, are their equals. They can be taught that homosexuality is against their religion, but that is part of being religious.

Saying that teaching children that homosexuals exist, are people, and are their equals as human beings and citizens, somehow violates the rights of Christians goes against the very foundation of democracy.

Only because you have made the moral judgement that homosexuals are "equal" as human beings and citizens. It is amusing how blithely you dismiss the religious prohibitions against homosexuality.

Of course it is dangerous to shield our children from people who think differently from them, but there is a limit to how different a tolerable way of thought might be. I doubt you would include in your agenda the need to open our children to experience the points of view of pedophiles, or cannibals. As you have made the moral judgement that homsexuality is A-OK, it's a no-brainer that this is not something from which children should be shielded. Clearly there are people who have not reached your level of enlightenment on this issue. Should we simply dismiss their point of view and move on?

5. Based on this, I think gay marriage is a necessary and inevitable right in a true pluralistic democracy. This right will be achieved as surely as slavery was ended and women were given the right to vote.

Based on what? There is no logical progression from points 1 through 4 to point 5. Presumably achieving the legalization of same sex marriages is part of your agenda. Making pronouncements on the inevitibility of your agenda in no way explains that agenda.

6. I also believe that public schools must treat differences (including religious differences) with respect. However, as they are institutions of a pluralistic democracies they most accept that homosexuals exist, even in their communities, and they must serve them, as they do with any part of the community, with respect. As this is an issue in our society, it should not be hidden from students. It is part of being an educated citizen.

I'm not sure there is an institution in America that does not accept that homosexuals exist. We're not talking about ghosts or aliens you know.
Once again you have made a moral judgement that homosexuals are different from pedophiles and cannibals and are deserving of the same service of public institutions afforded law abiding heterosexuals. I happen to agree with you, but I am not as demanding of my fellow citizens. In addition, you seem to suggest that public institutions have an obligation to bring attention to and endorse homsexuality ("should not be hidden from students"). Here we clearly part company. There is a huge difference between society not persecuting homosexuals and schools teaching our children that homosexuality is A-OK.

The latter is what most people believe the Gay Agenda to be.

It is interesting that you throw "religious differences" into the mix. Sorry, but I perceive this as a feeble attempt to blunt criticisms of intolerance. Once again, you would have public institutions honor religious differences as long as they comply with your moral judgements.



7. I support free speech of all as part of a healthy public discourse. Christians and other have the right to teach that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals and others have the right to challenge this assertion. I trust that as has happened many times in our future, justice will prevail. The law and public instutitutions must act fairly to protect the rights of each groups.

We agree. Justice as mainfested by the will of the people will prevail. Protecting the rights and championing or assisting their agenda are something quite different.

The right to free speech is gaurenteed. The right to not have to hear is not. Using the "protect the children" argument to squelch an argument is cowardly and specious. I personally don't want my children to be protected from a debate that is democracy at its best. My kids know all about homosexual marriage (as it is a big issue here.

Public schools are not the only means by which your children may experience and take part in the debate on homosexuality and same sex marriages. If your kids "know all about homosexual marriage" it is hardly due to school debates. If you feel the need to engage your children on the subject, have at it. I'm not sure why your are so insistent that schools do likewise. And yet again you offer your personal preferences as some sort of validation of your agenda. Some people do want their children to be "protected." That you do not is not a sufficent counterargument. You need to explain how the imposition of such a preference might harm all students in general. Something you've not done - particularly since you admit that your children know all about homosexual marriage.



So please tell me. Is this the gay agenda?

In part, yes it is.

If it is, than I support it whole-heartedly. But I call prefer to call it the "Freedom Agenda!"

How thrilling, and how wonderful that you are able to lay claim to your piece of the fight for freedom.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 06:30 am
Quote:
Only because you have made the moral judgement that homosexuals are "equal" as human beings and citizens. It is amusing how blithely you dismiss the religious prohibitions against homosexuality.


How blithely do you dismiss the common animist injunction to thank the plant or animal before consuming it? Or Hindu and Judaic prohibitions on eating meat? Do you invoke Tore before hunting as the Bushmen must? Do you avoid working on the land on Thursdays in keeping with Ashanti prohibition? What prohibitions do you think valid, finn? Why?

It is a moral judgement that homosexuality is perverse and a moral judgement that it is just fine. "We hold that all men are created equal" is a moral claim too, or a statement of a moral principle based on the claim that all in the community have the right to equality and liberty. I make the moral judgement that blacks and chicanos are equal as human beings and citizens. I make the moral judgement that Hindus and Christians are equal, along with non-worshippers. I make the moral judgement that people who have sex before marriage are equal to people who do not.

Which moral notion wins and which does not? Does a vote establish what is morally best? Had America continued to allow, by consensus, a policy of slavery, would that be morally best? Does the vote in a Hell's Angel's clubhouse establish a best morality for that community?

And you should probably clarify what you think the proper role of community education might be. Does it teach math but avoid all discussion or content on moral questions? Is it appropriate or not to have students increase their understanding of other cultures? If there is a large influx of Chinese people into a town in Montana, and as a consequence the community witnesses bullying and slandering and bigotry towards these new community members, would it be ok for a teacher to add a lesson on China and Chinese culture to increase the local kids appreciation of how these folks are human too?
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 08:06 am
blatham wrote:
How blithely do you dismiss the common animist injunction to thank the plant or animal before consuming it? Or Hindu and Judaic prohibitions on eating meat? Do you invoke Tore before hunting as the Bushmen must? Do you avoid working on the land on Thursdays in keeping with Ashanti prohibition? What prohibitions do you think valid, finn? Why?


Marry me Blatham, no wait. That'd be illegal Razz In that case I'll just settle for saying "very neatly put".

baldimo wrote:
Could it be because it disputes some of the info given by theantibuddha. Don't shoot the messenger; I'm just passing along some counter research. Sorry it doesn't pass your liberal only research criteria.


Baldimo... thankyou for your valiant attempt at "counter-research". Yet popular articles from public press, let alone christian websites are hardly scientific studies, no matter how many isolated statements by various scientists they quote, potentially out of context. Never the less, below I've included my opinions and findings on the two articles.

The first article on animal homosexuality is a very poor piece of work. The article is written by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo. An author who has no scientific qualifications whatsoever, and it shows.

In support of saying "animal homosexuality doesn't exist" they quote simon levay saying that "animal homosexuality is a RARITY", which is clearly stating that it exists.. Simon levay is also saying that it is a rarity amongst species, not individuals. Though as this statement is taken outside of it original context this may not be immediately apparent to those not already familiar with his work.

It then quotes Dr Pardo (a bioethicist and not a zoologist, a distinction that the unqualified author is clearly unfamiliar with) who incorrectly claims that no animals are exclusively homosexuality clearly demonstrating that he is unfamiliar with current fruit-fly research.

It then quotes ethologist Cesar Ades who is apparently a moron since their statement both A) claims humans are not animals. B) extends a global use of pheremones to every member of the kingdom Animalia when use of pheremones is both only a minor component of animal sex and which only a small percentage of creatures within that kingdom actually use. Visual cues and mating rituals are FAR more prevalent by several thousand times.

The quotation by Dr Barghemil is a quite accurate and frank admission of the nature of zoology which would be apparent to the most poorly educated first year student. In fact many lecturers in zoology use a similar statement as their first lesson they run for beginning students. Its use in the article is the most apt point in the entire piece and ON ITS OWN could be used for building quite a successful argument, yet is included as only a sideline. This demonstrates that the author clearly has no idea of the science involved and is merely quoting anything he can find that seems to contradict his opponents opinions.

In short this article quotes several scientists out of context, often commenting on things outside of their respective fields. By actively selecting the scientists they wish (many of whom are not authorities of their field but rather simply the outspoken fringe scientists who happen to agree with the authors point of view) of course they can make any argument they wish. This article is on about the same level as most I've seen defending UFO abductions.

Surely Baldimo you could have found a better piece of "counter-research".

The second article is FAR better than the first in that it makes reference to not only one but TWO studies. This is no doubt because it was written by a qualified psychologist who knows what he's talking about (somewhat, it would no doubt have been better from a geneticist but never the less from a christian site I'll take what I can get). However the fact that one scientist made a claim that he had found "the gay gene" and the subsequent invalidation of his claim does not in any way imply anything about a genetic basis to homosexuality.

The points that it raises regarding the Bailey and Pillard study that I suggested to you are indeed quite ept. Homosexuality is clearly NOT exlusively genetic, however just as clearly it has an extremely large genetic component. However the Eckert et al study of 1986 demonstrated high rates of male sexual concordance within seperated identical twins. The author is either unfamiliar with this study or unwilling to include it in the article as it disagrees with his allegations of entirely environmental causes.

Baldimo, thankyou for the food for thought, however these articles hardly qualify as "counter-research". They were however very interesting to read, so thankyou for suggesting them.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:45 am
And if you don't like the soup, wait until you see the entree.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 03:06:18