Fowler a bad rep for American golf

[quote=SoonerBS]No Bible thumping, just science. Your argument is based upon opinion due to experience. This is a great argument on posting forums where you can play to someone's feelings on an issue, but it still boils down to being an opinion.

Let me interject a bit of fact into your theory, FD: I have also known guys that had feminine characteristics growing up that were sometimes mistaken for "homos" but actually liked girls, married a girl, and still remain married to this day. How do you explain that? It has nothing to do with how a person acts or what their tendencies are, it has everything to do with how they think and what they desire.

Let's take your theory a step further: If "girly" girls can like other girls and become lesbians, then why can't "girly" guys like other girls? The assumption is always that girly guys like cock. It is also assumed that masculine women like to muff dive. If that is a fact, then in EVERY case we would see it to hold up to be consistent. However, whenever you begin to examine society, you find that there is no consistency to that theory. So, in essence, FD, what you have done is stereotyped men with feminine characteristics and women with masculine characteristics. And, I might add, you have stereotyped everyone who believes that homosexuality is a matter of choice and that people are not born that way are automatically Bible Thumpers. I think you are the only one of us two that has posted to be a Christian on this forum, FD. I consider myself a scholar of all religions and only a seeker of truth.

The truth is this on this issue: people being born as homosexuals is just opinion, it has NEVER been proven by science.[/quote]

How could it ever be proven by science? How could God ever be proven by science? You are correct that some femmy guys end up marrying women and I guess I did stereotype femmy guys. I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't seem plausible that someone would choose to be homosexual. There is no logical or social reason to make that choice unless you think that the dual incomes of two dudes is more valuable than looking at a hairy arse in the morning. This is probably one of those topics where we will never agree and that's fine. I'd still school you on the golf course.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]How could it ever be proven by science? How could God ever be proven by science? You are correct that some femmy guys end up marrying women and I guess I did stereotype femmy guys. I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't seem plausible that someone would choose to be homosexual. There is no logical or social reason to make that choice unless you think that the dual incomes of two dudes is more valuable than looking at a hairy arse in the morning. This is probably one of those topics where we will never agree and that's fine. I'd still school you on the golf course.[/QUOTE]
Your argument starts out flawed because no one is really trying to use science to prove the existence of God, whereas folks ARE trying to assert that homosexuality is an inherent genetic trait ie: they are born that way.

Almost every rational person that is trying to convey the word of God is doing so from a faith-based perspective. Just stating that folks are born gay doesn't make it so just because you want to believe it. The nature vs. upbringing argument is alive and well, but has no basis in actual fact with corroborating data.

[quote=Yaz1975]Your argument starts out flawed because no one is really trying to use science to prove the existence of God, whereas folks ARE trying to assert that homosexuality is an inherent genetic trait ie: they are born that way.

Almost every rational person that is trying to convey the word of God is doing so from a faith-based perspective. Just stating that folks are born gay doesn't make it so just because you want to believe it. The nature vs. upbringing argument is alive and well, but has no basis in actual fact with corroborating data.[/quote]

Again, why would someone choose to be gay vs. straight? If none of it is biological or environmental then who in their right mind would choose something that gives them a disadvantage and makes them a target for discrimination?

[QUOTE=Yaz1975][B]Your argument starts out flawed because no one is really trying to use science to prove the existence of God[/B], whereas folks ARE trying to assert that homosexuality is an inherent genetic trait ie: they are born that way.

Almost every rational person that is trying to convey the word of God is doing so from a faith-based perspective. Just stating that folks are born gay doesn't make it so just because you want to believe it. The nature vs. upbringing argument is alive and well, but has no basis in actual fact with corroborating data.[/QUOTE]

This all depends on whether you accept the argument of "intelligent design" as a way of proving the existence of God through nature and science. I tend to think that nature and science does prove the existence of God because only a complete imbecile would say there is no intelligent design behind the way nature works and that it is all a product of happenstance.

To me, proving the existence of God is the easy part. The hard part, as we can clearly see by the umpteen million religions in the world today IS what is the correct way to honor and worship him? That is where discussion has been beyond interesting in my life.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Again, why would someone choose to be gay vs. straight? If none of it is biological or environmental then who in their right mind would choose something that gives them a disadvantage and makes them a target for discrimination?[/QUOTE]

Why do some guys like skinny-assed chicks over voluptuous ones? FD, it would sicken me to ride some chick who is literally skin and bones. That just doesn't turn me on. But, you put a little more flesh on a woman and I will get after it. It sickens me to think about riding a man or being rode by one. But, it is what some men desire. It is simply a matter of choice and desire.

We can take this even further whenever it comes to the realm of sex: there are women who like having intercourse with men, but do not like oral sex. Most enjoy regular copulation, but do not like or desire anal sex. Why? Was it because they were born this way, or because it is just not their thing to desire it?

It is all in what a person wants, not in how they were born.

[quote=SoonerBS]This all depends on whether you accept the argument of "intelligent design" as a way of proving the existence of God through nature and science. I tend to think that nature and science does prove the existence of God because only a complete imbecile would say there is no intelligent design behind the way nature works and that it is all a product of happenstance.

To me, proving the existence of God is the easy part. The hard part, as we can clearly see by the umpteen million religions in the world today IS what is the correct way to honor and worship him? That is where discussion has been beyond interesting in my life.[/quote]
Sorry Sooner, you just took the same position you're disagreeing with because in this case it suits you. You can't be selective that way and retain credibility.

I've learned through experience someone is gay if I say they're gay. This includes some guys that are married and never touched another man (i.e. the French).

So if you want to know whether a certain individual is gay or even beyond gay with no choice in the matter, just ask me.

[quote=SoonerBS]Why do some guys like skinny-assed chicks over voluptuous ones? FD, it would sicken me to ride some chick who is literally skin and bones. That just doesn't turn me on. But, you put a little more flesh on a woman and I will get after it. It sickens me to think about riding a man or being rode by one. But, it is what some men desire. It is simply a matter of choice and desire.

We can take this even further whenever it comes to the realm of sex: there are women who like having intercourse with men, but do not like oral sex. Most enjoy regular copulation, but do not like or desire anal sex. Why? Was it because they were born this way, or because it is just not their thing to desire it?

It is all in what a person wants, not in how they were born.[/quote]

You just answered your own question. You like some junk in the trunk because that's the way you are. You can't mix the terms choice and desire. Those are two completely different things. I desire women that are petite because that's the way I am. I don't like looking at dudes because that's the way I'm wired. It's not a conscious choice for me to flip a coin and decide if I want hair pie or balls across the nose.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Again, why would someone choose to be gay vs. straight? If none of it is biological or environmental then who in their right mind would choose something that gives them a disadvantage and makes them a target for discrimination?[/QUOTE]
This is a hackneyed old argument that proves nothing. Not ripping on you, but I've been hearing that shite for decades. No matter how you look at it, just saying "why would anyone choose.." still doesn't actually prove anything. It has always felt like someone trying to argue a double negative to justify feeling how they want to feel.

[quote=Yaz1975]This is a hackneyed old argument that proves nothing. Not ripping on you, but I've been hearing that shite for decades. No matter how you look at it, just saying "why would anyone choose.." still doesn't actually prove anything. It has always felt like someone trying to argue a double negative to justify feeling how they want to feel.[/quote]

Of course it proves something. Human beings in general will always seek out what is in their best interests. We are selfish animals by nature. Even when we do things that appear to be out of the goodness of our hearts we are still pursuing our self interest.

Therefore, the argument that someone would never "choose" to be homosexual is a very good one. If you chose to be gay you would be setting yourself up for discrimination, possible violence and estrangement from family and friends. No human being with any intelligence would choose that road unless they couldn't help being gay.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Of course it proves something. Human beings in general will always seek out what is in their best interests. We are selfish animals by nature. Even when we do things that appear to be out of the goodness of our hearts we are still pursuing our self interest.

Therefore, the argument that someone would never "choose" to be homosexual is a very good one. If you chose to be gay you would be setting yourself up for discrimination, possible violence and estrangement from family and friends. No human being with any intelligence would choose that road unless they couldn't help being gay.[/QUOTE]
Because it brings you attention that's why. It's like the old saying, any press is good press.

If you are desperate to be noticed or interacted with, you'll do anything to get it. Even if it's negative, at least someone is paying attention to you. You're being talked about, talked to, dealt with. To someone who has that need in their life, it's worth whatever hassle to get that fed. And their best interests might be that they need to feel attention, and that would override any other consideration. You ignore a kid for years and they'll do anything to get noticed. Wreck a car, commit assault, things that will land them in jail. Doesn't mean they don't do it to get noticed just because the outcome is negative.

And again, pulling the whole "No human being with any intelligence..." routine is just you projecting your feelings on to what you deem as intelligent or right thinking. People do things that make sense to them that can't or won't make sense to others, because to them, it feels right.

And yet again, your argument, while well worded, doesn't really have any concrete evidence to back up your assertion. It's all your opinions and feelings, no data.

This is all to funny

Yaz and Sooner demanding scientific proof for a genetic basis of h0mosexuality, the irony of it all. Two of the most rabid, right wing, intolerant, bible thumpers demanding scientific proof is f ucking briliant.

Camp Freddys gaydar went off when you two f ucking balloons first started posting about gay issues and i whole heartedly agree with him.

I am surprised that Sooner hasnt posted some long (copy and pasted) explanation why the founding fathers had no intention of the US of A ever allowing gay people to be tolerated. Shite the next thing we will have is "Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

When Bible thumping zealots demand scientific proof of something you know they are hiding their intolerance, hate and fear.

Come on boys, own up meine ehre heißt treue.

Wankers

Edgey

[QUOTE=edgey]This is all to funny

Yaz and Sooner demanding scientific proof for a genetic basis of h0mosexuality, the irony of it all. Two of the most rabid, right wing, intolerant, bible thumpers demanding scientific proof is f ucking briliant.

Camp Freddys gaydar went off when you two f ucking balloons first started posting about gay issues and i whole heartedly agree with him.

I am surprised that Sooner hasnt posted some long (copy and pasted) explanation why the founding fathers had no intention of the US of A ever allowing gay people to be tolerated. Shite the next thing we will have is "Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

When Bible thumping zealots demand scientific proof of something you know they are hiding their intolerance, hate and fear.

Come on boys, own up meine ehre heißt treue.

Wankers

Edgey[/QUOTE]
Well as long as you're just going to do the blanket categorization thing, I might as well chime in.

I am now going to assume you are the backward, crooked teeth, pasty, fat annoying c.unt that all Brits are. So go back to eating your boiled meat and shove that plug back in your arse and let the adults talk while you continue to dream about what your shitehole country once was.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I don't think he was born that way, [B]he CHOSE to like dick[/B].

The "gay gene" doesn't exist, people. Clinton launched a huge research project into this area whenever he was President and it came up with nothing. In other words, it cannot be proven that people are born gay. People like what they like and that is it.

If guys want to suck dick, then that it their prerogative. To each his own. BUT, there is no scientific or psychological proof that they are "born" that way. (This includes lesbians).[/QUOTE]
Hey Sooner I have a quick question:

When did you choose to start liking girls?...and for follow up: How long did it take you to decide?

[QUOTE=The Purist]Hey Sooner I have a quick question:

When did you choose to start liking girls?...and for follow up: How long did it take you to decide?[/QUOTE]
You guys are just making the same argument over and over again.

If this were almost ANY other subject, you'd call bullsh!t for lack of scientific evidence. But on this topic, you're all about feelings, unseen forces that have to be taken for granted, and massive assumptions. It's stunning really.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Same with the theory of evolution, even though I'm confident northern italians descended from southern italians, much like humans came from apes.[/QUOTE]
Humans coming from apes is baby steps. We came from protozoa.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]You guys are just making the same argument over and over again.

If this were almost ANY other subject, you'd call bullsh!t for lack of scientific evidence. But on this topic, you're all about feelings, unseen forces that have to be taken for granted, and massive assumptions. It's stunning really.[/QUOTE]
Serious question Yaz. When did you choose to be heterosexual?

[quote=Yaz1975]You guys are just making the same argument over and over again.

If this were almost ANY other subject, you'd call bullsh!t for lack of scientific evidence. But on this topic, you're all about feelings, unseen forces that have to be taken for granted, and massive assumptions. It's stunning really.[/quote]

Yaz, sometimes you make a decent argument but right now you're just looking like someone who's reaching for anything. We're not talking about feelings. We're talking about something that is so obvious and you are simply being stubborn. If you are a man and you are attracted to other males, rather than females, then that is something that you have absolutely no control over. Yes, there could be a small percentage of people that are gay simply for attention. I guess that's a possibility. However, for the majority of the population of gay people it is logical and would stand up in any debate to say that these people did not choose to be this way.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Yaz, sometimes you make a decent argument but right now you're just looking like someone who's reaching for anything. We're not talking about feelings. We're talking about something that is so obvious and you are simply being stubborn. If you are a man and you are attracted to other males, rather than females, then that is something that you have absolutely no control over. Yes, there could be a small percentage of people that are gay simply for attention. I guess that's a possibility. However, for the majority of the population of gay people it is logical and would stand up in any debate to say that these people did not choose to be this way.[/QUOTE]
You are making fantastic arguments based on theory and how you feel about it. "Obvious" is different for everyone, it's what makes us individuals. You call me stubborn, but you continue to beat your drum just as I do mine. You're using words like "logical", but you really can't define them in provable, concrete terms.

You are implying that it is so obvious and self-evident and that it doesn't even need to be proven. I'd argue that if it is so obvious, logical and self-evident and so basic an understanding, that it would be easy to prove that in a neutral, definable manner. And yet it hasn't been. So why is that?

[QUOTE=The Purist]Serious question Yaz. When did you choose to be heterosexual?[/QUOTE]
Poor attempt at baiting. Try harder. I heard this line of questions 10 years ago.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Poor attempt at baiting. Try harder. I heard this line of questions 10 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Seriously...I don't think there has been any scientific evidence I was born attracted to women either. I don't recall choosing to be attracted to women...I just randomly started getting horny for them in elementary school.

I have never heard a gay man talk about how obsessed he was with teets and vag, but then decided to make the decision to go against these desires...probably because its so much more socially acceptable and easier to be gay. Are all gay's liars?...are they all secretly attracted to women, but pretend not to be?

[quote=Yaz1975]You are making fantastic arguments based on theory and how you feel about it. "Obvious" is different for everyone, it's what makes us individuals. You call me stubborn, but you continue to beat your drum just as I do mine. You're using words like "logical", but you really can't define them in provable, concrete terms.

You are implying that it is so obvious and self-evident and that it doesn't even need to be proven. I'd argue that if it is so obvious, logical and self-evident and so basic an understanding, that it would be easy to prove that in a neutral, definable manner. And yet it hasn't been. So why is that?[/quote]

I guess we can agree to disagree. Now, how about that hot shower you promised?

[quote=The Purist]Seriously...[B]I don't think there has been any scientific evidence I was born attracted to women either.[/B] I don't recall choosing to be attracted to women...I just randomly started getting horny for them in elementary school.

I have never heard a gay man talk about how obsessed he was with teets and vag, but then decided to make the decision to go against these desires...probably because its so much more socially acceptable and easier to be gay. Are all gay's liars?...are they all secretly attracted to women, but pretend not to be?[/quote]

My papa told me I popped a woodie for the nurse after I was delivered. I think that qualifies as scientific evidence.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Again, why would someone choose to be gay vs. straight? If none of it is biological or environmental then who in their right mind would choose something that gives them a disadvantage and makes them a target for discrimination?[/QUOTE]
Come on FD! With all the bombardment of pro gay crap on TV and movies (the homos own the media) there is little target for discrimination...Its actually hip to be square (or a tube slider). Coincidently I just came from the beach and saw 2 hot lesbos walking along the shore. I am sure at least one made a choice to be the leading labia licker. In fact I actually wanted to ask them but my pain threshhold was low today.

[quote=lorenzoinoc]My papa told me I popped a woodie for the nurse after I was delivered. I think that qualifies as scientific evidence.[/quote]

Are you kidding me? From the second I was born the doctor slapped me in the ass and I said "Hey doc, you got a friggin' problem?!". Then some big blonde nurse comes in and shoves a plastic nipple in my mouth. I rip open her blouse and I say "honey, who ya teasin'? Hike up the skirt we're gonna mow the lawn tonight!"

[QUOTE=The Purist]Seriously...I don't think there has been any scientific evidence I was born attracted to women either. I don't recall choosing to be attracted to women...I just randomly started getting horny for them in elementary school.

I have never heard a gay man talk about how obsessed he was with teets and vag, but then decided to make the decision to go against these desires...probably because its so much more socially acceptable and easier to be gay. Are all gay's liars?...are they all secretly attracted to women, but pretend not to be?[/QUOTE]
Let's look at it this way:

I have known gay men who were married, made love to their wives, fathered children and then decided they were gay. Now how did they ever manage to perform sexually with someone they are not attracted to from birth?

To flip that around, could you pop a chubby and perform as a gay man only to decide that you were straight all along? If it works one direction, then it has to work the other. But you are not attracted to men, so you couldn't fake it no matter how hard you tried (bad pun). But gay men are somehow supermen in the sack in that they could perform for women or men no matter what? Makes no sense.And this is not some isolated phenomenon, so please explain this to me. Are they suddenly able to sport wood because they are afraid of discrimination? Societal pressures are enabling their units to work with the little lady when they secretly desire a dude? Come on.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Well as long as you're just going to do the blanket categorization thing, I might as well chime in.

I am now going to assume you are the backward, crooked teeth, pasty, fat annoying c.unt that all Brits are. So go back to eating your boiled meat and shove that plug back in your arse and let the adults talk while you continue to dream about what your shitehole country once was.[/QUOTE]
Both of you calm down. You're both right. Yaz is a sheltered ignoramous and Edgey is pasty, crooked-toothed c.unt.
It's so obvious to everyone else.

[FONT=Verdana]Maybe the thinking is in the smaller head? [/FONT]

[QUOTE=famousdavis][FONT=Verdana]Maybe the thinking is in the smaller head? [/FONT][/QUOTE]
So you're saying that your smaller head could perform with dudes.

Got it.

[QUOTE=edgey][B]This is all to funny
[/B]
Yaz and Sooner demanding scientific proof for a genetic basis of h0mosexuality, the irony of it all. Two of the most rabid, right wing, intolerant, bible thumpers demanding scientific proof is f ucking briliant.

Camp Freddys gaydar went off when you two f ucking balloons first started posting about gay issues and i whole heartedly agree with him.

I am surprised that Sooner hasnt posted some long (copy and pasted) explanation why the founding fathers had no intention of the US of A ever allowing gay people to be tolerated. Shite the next thing we will have is "Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

When Bible thumping zealots demand scientific proof of something you know they are hiding their intolerance, hate and fear.

Come on boys, own up meine ehre heißt treue.

Wankers

Edgey[/QUOTE]

I'm glad we can amuse you. Thank you once again for posting absolute worthlessness. You have once again missed the whole point and actually posted your ignorance. Allow me to inform you: A group called the International Human Genome Consortium researched genes for years trying to find the "homosexual gene." On April 14th, 2003 they concluded the projects work. No genetic differences between straight humans and gay humans was found. There is no genetic material that causes homosexuality. It was Sigmund Freud who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation. But, in the 1980s, people started coming out with the opinion that it must be "natural" and caused by genetic makeup. Well, the conclusions are in and that is all bullshite. In other words, Camp Freddy either sucks dick because he likes it, or his mommy nurtured him towards it. I'm not much on Freud, I tend to think he likely just likes dick.

Edgey, don't mess with me. Your opinions and cutdowns will not go far in a discussion that demands intellect and actual proof and evidence. Go grab a golf catalog and start searching for your next set of GI shovels.

[QUOTE=The Purist][B]Seriously...I don't think there has been any scientific evidence I was born attracted to women either. I don't recall choosing to be attracted to women...I just randomly started getting horny for them in elementary school.[/B]

I have never heard a gay man talk about how obsessed he was with teets and vag, but then decided to make the decision to go against these desires...probably because its so much more socially acceptable and easier to be gay. Are all gay's liars?...are they all secretly attracted to women, but pretend not to be?[/QUOTE]

So, . . . . you never noticed that you have a dick and a woman has a twat? Seriously, can two men procreate? Can two women procreate? If there is anything that can be categorized as "natural" in this whole argument it is the fact that man can naturally use his dick to fertilize a woman's womb. Whenever you look at nature, you see the same thing going on between animals.

Come on, guys, certainly you can do better than this. All you have to do to convince me is to just show me scientific evidence that homosexuals are born homosexual. If not, I'm done with this thread.

[quote=SoonerBS]So, . . . . you never noticed that you have a dick and a woman has a twat? Seriously, can two men procreate? Can two women procreate? If there is anything that can be categorized as "natural" in this whole argument it is the fact that man can naturally use his dick to fertilize a woman's womb. Whenever you look at nature, you see the same thing going on between animals.

Come on, guys, certainly you can do better than this. All you have to do to convince me is to just show me scientific evidence that homosexuals are born homosexual. If not, I'm done with this thread.[/quote]

No one is going to show you anything that satisfies you because it's not in line with your religious beliefts. Why would there be a gene that determines your sexuality? Is there a gene that determines if someone is right handed or left handed? Some things just are the way the are and there is no explanation. What CAN be explained, is that it makes no sense that someone would choose to be gay.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]So, . . . . you never noticed that you have a dick and a woman has a twat? Seriously, can two men procreate? Can two women procreate? If there is anything that can be categorized as "natural" in this whole argument it is the fact that man can naturally use his dick to fertilize a woman's womb. Whenever you look at nature, you see the same thing going on between animals.

Come on, guys, certainly you can do better than this. All you have to do to convince me is to just show me scientific evidence that homosexuals are born homosexual. If not, I'm done with this thread.[/QUOTE]

So, gay men aren't really attracted to other gay men? Why are there so many millions of gays pretending to be gay, when they are really attracted to women?

[quote=The Purist]So, gay men aren't really attracted to other gay men? Why are there so many millions of gays pretending to be gay, when they are really attracted to women?[/quote]

Purist, they aren't really gay. They have the devil inside them. All they need to do is join the correct religion and they will immediately become straight and start liking women.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]No one is going to show you anything that satisfies you [B]because it's not in line with your religious beliefts[/B]. Why would there be a gene that determines your sexuality? Is there a gene that determines if someone is right handed or left handed? Some things just are the way the are and there is no explanation. What CAN be explained, is that it makes no sense that someone would choose to be gay.[/QUOTE]

How does "show me some scientific evidence" play in to being a religious belief? All you guys have to do to prove to me that it is not a choice for homosexuals to be homosexuals is just to show me some scientific evidence that that is true. I'm not wanting to debate anyone's precious religious beliefs, I'm just asking for proof that what you guys are assuming and stating IS indeed fact and can be proven.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Purist, they aren't really gay. They have the devil inside them. All they need to do is join the correct religion and they will immediately become straight and start liking women.[/QUOTE]

I've never mentioned anything religious in this thread, FD. So far, that has been all you because you can't give me proof of what I'm asking.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I've never mentioned anything religious in this thread, FD. So far, that has been all you because you can't give me proof of what I'm asking.[/QUOTE]
Sooner, are you one of those guys who doesn't understand...er I mean believe in evolution either?

[quote=SoonerBS]I've never mentioned anything religious in this thread, FD. So far, that has been all you because you can't give me proof of what I'm asking.[/quote]

But that's the precise reason that you are asking for scientific proof. You know that providing scientific proof for homosexuality is a ridiculous proposition and therefore you cling to it as a way to ward off any other ideas. It's like asking someone to prove scientifically that people don't choose to be left handed.

There is proof, but it's not the chemistry class type of proof you require. It's called logic. What you're saying simply doesn't make sense or add up. It's almost like saying "prove to me that a bumblebee can fly". I actually can't prove it to you scientifically because a bumblebee, based on it's weight, isn't supposed to fly.

I have met and gone to school with several gay men and they are clearly different than straight men. Based on your theory the feminine traits, lack of interest in sports, lack of interest in women and interest in men is all a choice. You know that's not the case yet you cling to the genetics piece so that you can justify your belief that it's immoral. If it isn't a choice you can't say it's immoral and that's the dealy-o'.

[QUOTE=The Purist]So, gay men aren't really attracted to other gay men? Why are there so many millions of gays pretending to be gay, when they are really attracted to women?[/QUOTE]So you're not going to respond to my point directed at you.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]But that's the precise reason that you are asking for scientific proof. You know that providing scientific proof for homosexuality is a ridiculous proposition and therefore you cling to it as a way to ward off any other ideas. It's like asking someone to prove scientifically that people don't choose to be left handed.

There is proof, but it's not the chemistry class type of proof you require. It's called logic. What you're saying simply doesn't make sense or add up. It's almost like saying "prove to me that a bumblebee can fly". I actually can't prove it to you scientifically because a bumblebee, based on it's weight, isn't supposed to fly.

I have met and gone to school with several gay men and they are clearly different than straight men. Based on your theory the feminine traits, lack of interest in sports, lack of interest in women and interest in men is all a choice. You know that's not the case yet you cling to the genetics piece so that you can justify your belief that it's immoral. If it isn't a choice you can't say it's immoral and that's the dealy-o'.[/QUOTE]
We are asking you to prove it because you are the one asserting your position as if it is proven fact and irrefutable. You keep stating logic, but you provide no backing for the reason of your logic. You just keep repeating logic. The only backing you provide is your personal conjecture. It's simply not good enough, nor is it provable.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]We are asking you to prove it because you are the one asserting your position as if it is proven fact and irrefutable. [B]You keep stating logic, but you provide no backing for the reason of your logic. You just keep repeating logic. [/B]The only backing you provide is your personal conjecture. It's simply not good enough, nor is it provable.[/QUOTE]

Logic usually makes sense. What he has been stating has been "opinion."

I think you guys are missing the point. Just think how good Gay guys have got it:

1. Equal sex drive. Your partner will never make the excuse that they have a headache.
2. You can drink beer and watch the game together instead of being nagged about the chores.
3. You never have to go to a romcom/chick flick again.
4. You can buy as many sets of golf clubs as you like without having to worry about her finding out or getting her permission.
5. You never have to make time to 'talk about your feelings'.
6. You never have to set foot inside a single shopping mall again, unless of course it has a Golf Superstore.
7. You can play as many rounds of golf at the weekend as you want.
8. When you go to a bar it's full of patrons as horny and keen to get it on as you are. No buying them drinks and drawn out laying of groundwork required.
9. Your partner will never ask "Do I look fat in this?" and if they do you can answer honestly.
10. When you come home from work and your partner asks how your day was you can shrug your shoulders and say "Ok?". When you ask them their answer will be the same. Beats a 90 minute detailed, blow by blow account of their day at the office anyday IMHO. :)

Of course the only drawback to all of this is that you have to like rogering guys up the backside and being rogered up the backside yourself so I guess that means it's not really an option for most of us.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Logic usually makes sense. What he has been stating has been "opinion."[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Which he has a right to, just don't state it to me and not expect to be challenged. Any good theory or conjecture should be able to stand up to scrutiny. If it can't then it isn't very good to begin with.

If this was the evolution discussion as Purist has repeated, then he would spout fossil finds, carbon dating, scientific study to back his assertion that evolution is a known fact. yet in this instance, that same level of burden of proof goes by the wayside. It's inconsistent, and amazingly convenient.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]This sentence right here. Not one single scientific fact exists to refute this statement.[/QUOTE]
This argument we are having delves into the field of psychology, which is a very grey area as far as science is concerned. Psychology is 'The study of the mind and mental processes, especially in relation to behavior'. It is based on theories formjulated from observing behaviour, not from precisely measuring things or working out mathematical formulas. Human behaviour can be strongly argued, but cannot be 'proven' by 'science'. Also, there are other froms of evidence besides scientific evidence (let me tell you from experience the real world is nothing like CSI. They forget to tell you that it is just as easy for a defence CSI to raise doubt from scientific evidence as it is for the cops to prove guilt). Anecdotal evidence, in the form of personal testimony, is accepted in the law courts as evidence, so why not here. Gay guys stating that they were gay as long as they can remember blows (no pun intended) Sooner's statement out of the water. Whether or not a bunch of scientists can locate a gene which controls this behaviour does not prove or disprove the assertion that gay guys are born that way.

11. The question as to how big something can be and still fit up your anal canal will get answered.

12. No need to hire an interior decorator.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Because it brings you attention that's why. It's like the old saying, any press is good press.

If you are desperate to be noticed or interacted with, you'll do anything to get it. Even if it's negative, at least someone is paying attention to you. You're being talked about, talked to, dealt with. To someone who has that need in their life, it's worth whatever hassle to get that fed. And their best interests might be that they need to feel attention, and that would override any other consideration. You ignore a kid for years and they'll do anything to get noticed. Wreck a car, commit assault, things that will land them in jail. Doesn't mean they don't do it to get noticed just because the outcome is negative.

And again, pulling the whole "No human being with any intelligence..." routine is just you projecting your feelings on to what you deem as intelligent or right thinking. People do things that make sense to them that can't or won't make sense to others, because to them, it feels right.

And yet again, your argument, while well worded, doesn't really have any concrete evidence to back up your assertion. It's all your opinions and feelings, no data.[/QUOTE]Your argument about the need to gain attention is as lacking in 'scientific' evidence as FD's assertion that being gay is a natural behavioural trait to faggs. You can't have it both ways Yaz, either stick rigidly to science as the deciding factor or acknowledge that FD is right and you are wrong.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]This argument we are having delves into the field of psychology, which is a very grey area as far as science is concerned. Psychology is 'The study of the mind and mental processes, especially in relation to behavior'. It is based on theories formjulated from observing behaviour, not from precisely measuring things or working out mathematical formulas. Human behaviour can be strongly argued, but cannot be 'proven' by 'science'. Also, there are other froms of evidence besides scientific evidence (let me tell you from experience the real world is nothing like CSI. They forget to tell you that it is just as easy for a defence CSI to raise doubt from scientific evidence as it is for the cops to prove guilt). Anecdotal evidence, in the form of personal testimony, is accepted in the law courts as evidence, so why not here. Gay guys stating that they were gay as long as they can remember blows (no pun intended) Sooner's statement out of the water. Whether or not a bunch of scientists can locate a gene which controls this behaviour does not prove or disprove the assertion that gay guys are born that way.[/QUOTE]

NaH, go back in the thread and look -- you started this whole argument with this statement, "[B]Gay men are born gay and do not choose their sexual orientation.[/B]" Natural thought does not start upon being born, it is learned, shaped and formed. What you implied with your statement was that they were "born" that way. If that is so, then it has to be genetic, not learned or formed.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]NaH, go back in the thread and look -- you started this whole argument with this statement, "[B]Gay men are born gay and do not choose their sexual orientation.[/B]" Natural thought does not start upon being born, it is learned, shaped and formed. What you implied with your statement was that they were "born" that way. If that is so, then it has to be genetic, not learned or formed.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I'll rephrase that. From the day they are born, SOME men will be gay when they reach maturity. I don't think anyone on this baord is saying it's a hard anf fast rule for all gays, and I don't recall genetics being introduced before you threw it in there. Of course some guys go gay from socialogical influences, but the gays I (and I assume the rest of the affrimative in the men are born gay debate) am talling about are the raging queens who dress in high heels and lips stick as kids and learn to mince before they can walk. They are born very different from normal boys and are obvioulsy going to turn out to be poo punching faggotts from a very early age.

[quote=Not a hacker]Ok, I'll rephrase that. From the day they are born, SOME men will be gay when they reach maturity. I don't think anyone on this baord is saying it's a hard anf fast rule for all gays, and I don't recall genetics being introduced before you threw it in there. Of course some guys go gay from socialogical influences, but the gays I (and I assume the rest of the affrimative in the men are born gay debate) am talling about are the raging queens who dress in high heels and lips stick as kids and learn to mince before they can walk. They are born very different from normal boys and are obvioulsy going to turn out to be poo punching faggotts from a very early age.[/quote]

The most credible research in this area may still be that done by Kinsey which supports what your saying.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Your argument about the need to gain attention is as lacking in 'scientific' evidence as FD's assertion that being gay is a natural behavioural trait to faggs. You can't have it both ways Yaz, either stick rigidly to science as the deciding factor or acknowledge that FD is right and you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I'm trying to further the conversation. I don't even know how much of what I typed I even believe in. But if all I'm going to get is wild-a$$ theories thrown at me without the need to back anything up, then I might as well float a bullsh!t balloon right back into the fray to counteract opinion based theory being hoisted as logic and facts at me.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]The most credible research in this area may still be that done by Kinsey which supports what your saying.[/QUOTE]

Kinsey was a faggot.

And not one of you has been able to answer me why dudes can be pounding puss for 20 years, then suddenly declare they're gay and have no problems performing in either situation. Whereas I challenge any straight man on here to do the opposite, go give some luvin' to some dude's hairy backside, then suddenly declare you prefer pu$$y and have always secretly known it.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Kinsey was a faggot.[/QUOTE]
The universal rebuttal to any argument which can never be trumped. Well played.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]I agree. I'm trying to further the conversation. I don't even know how much of what I typed I even believe in. But if all I'm going to get is wild-a$$ theories thrown at me without the need to back anything up, then I might as well float a bullsh!t balloon right back into the fray to counteract opinion based theory being hoisted as logic and facts at me.[/QUOTE]
Your thought process belies your low post count Yaz. Denny himself couldn't have said it better.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]And not one of you has been able to answer me why dudes can be pounding puss for 20 years, then suddenly declare they're gay and have no problems performing in either situation. Whereas I challenge any straight man on here to do the opposite, go give some luvin' to some dude's hairy backside, then suddenly declare you prefer pu$$y and have always secretly known it.[/QUOTE]
You are talking about bi-sexuals here Yaz. They are a whole different kettle of fish and could probably never be explained.

[quote=SoonerBS]Kinsey was a faggot.[/quote]
They were a husband and wife team. Because of them and their influence, some of us have had more and better sex in our lives with more women than if they hadn't existed.

So they are my heroes and should be yours too.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]They were a husband and wife team. Because of them and their influence, some of us have had more and better sex in our lives with more women than if they hadn't existed.

So they are my heroes and should be yours too.[/QUOTE]
You didn't note my post Zo. Anybody who can disprove your argument is poclaimed a faggot, automatically discrediting everything they have said, because you don't want to be seen agreeing with a faggott. It goes right back to the school yard.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]You are talking about bi-sexuals here Yaz. They are a whole different kettle of fish and could probably never be explained.[/QUOTE]
Well if you want to include that in the discussion, then sure. If we're born the way we are, and we prefer either the puss or the rod, then how does that theory work on folks who don't seem to care which they encounter?

And i n my assertion, I've know guys who pulled this maneuver. I can't wrap my head around some guy who's able to tag all kinds of trim, sire a few kids, then tell me he's always preferred smoking pole. So how does he manage to get it done if he's coupling with something that isn't in the same area code as his preference? And we're not talking about banging a fat chick when you might prefer thin, we're talking about the vag or a man's ass. They're not exactly a variant on a theme.

And for the third time, if it's so easy to do, then why aren't there dudes who go from gay to straight as easily? In fact, if they're "born that way" they shouldn't be able to bat from either side of the plate in the first place.

[quote=Not a hacker]You didn't note my post Zo. Anybody who can disprove your argument is poclaimed a faggot, automatically discrediting everything they have said, because you don't want to be seen agreeing with a faggott. It goes right back to the school yard.[/quote]

He could also have gone with "I know you are, but what am I?" Or maybe just nya, nya..nya, nya.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Well if you want to include that in the discussion, then sure. If we're born the way we are, and we prefer either the puss or the rod, then how does that theory work on folks who don't seem to care which they encounter?

And i n my assertion, I've know guys who pulled this maneuver. I can't wrap my head around some guy who's able to tag all kinds of trim, sire a few kids, then tell me he's always preferred smoking pole. So how does he manage to get it done if he's coupling with something that isn't in the same area code as his preference? And we're not talking about banging a fat chick when you might prefer thin, we're talking about the vag or a man's ass. They're not exactly a variant on a theme.

And for the third time, if it's so easy to do, then why aren't there dudes who go from gay to straight as easily? In fact, if they're "born that way" they shouldn't be able to bat from either side of the plate in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't even try to understand what goes through the mind of a switch hitter, but it is possible for some guys who have always been gay to get married and have a family before finally coming out of the closet. There is intense pressure on males to be hetero, si it is entirely possible that some gay men try to be straight, but eventually can no longer ignore their inner feelings, and succumb to the darkness in their soul and become peter puffers. There are aslo those again who successfully lead double lives, pretending to be straight in public while having a secret private gay life. They marry what are known in the gay communities as 'beards', whch means a woman who provides cover for a gay man by pretending to be his wife. Without mentioning names, a couple of high profile Scientologists in the entertainment industry come to mind as probable gay men leading a double life.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I wouldn't even try to understand what goes through the mind of a switch hitter, but it is possible for some guys who have always been gay to get married and have a family before finally coming out of the closet. There is intense pressure on males to be hetero, si it is entirely possible that some gay men try to be straight, but eventually can no longer ignore their inner feelings, and succumb to the darkness in their soul and become peter puffers. There are aslo those again who successfully lead double lives, pretending to be straight in public while having a secret private gay life. They marry what are known in the gay communities as 'beards', whch means a woman who provides cover for a gay man by pretending to be his wife. Without mentioning names, a couple of high profile Scientologists in the entertainment industry come to mind as probable gay men leading a double life.[/QUOTE]
I know all that. I'm asking a more base question. How do you get hard for a woman when you prefer men? How do you get the plumbing to function if you were born with a strong opposite preference? If you are born to prefer men, how do you make things work when with a woman?

[quote=Yaz1975]I know all that. I'm asking a more base question. How do you get hard for a woman when you prefer men? How do you get the plumbing to function if you were born with a strong opposite preference? If you are born to prefer men, how do you make things work when with a woman?[/quote]

Sometimes I feel a little movement down there when I'm cleaning my Ping Eye 2s.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]Sometimes I feel a little movement down there when I'm cleaning my Ping Eye 2s.[/QUOTE]
Jam one up your ass and marry one then I'll listen.
Wait, you haven't have you?

I find it hilarious that a chromosome here or there can determine what GENDER we end up being, but it is seemingly impossible for genetic material to determine our other... "subjective" traits, such as what color we like best, which food tastes best to us, what type of movies we like, inclination towards physical activity, intelligence, appetite, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, color-blindness, male pattern balding, skin color, eye color, hair color, height, and even PERHAPS sexual orientation.

This genetic research is NEW research at the moment, there is a LOT that hasn't even been completed. This stuff takes time to figure out and we're too new at it to be claiming we know these things for certain just yet. The entire human genome has been mapped, but it has not yet been completely translated. The evidence that sexual orientation is genetic in origin may very well exist - we have simply yet to gaze upon it. We WILL know for sure in the very near future... and discussions like this will finally be irrelevant.

However, until then we can use our best logic to determine the "most correct answer" for the time being. Until we know more... and know for certain. Which we don't.

If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality (those are your options) ...of course there's another of "God's creatures" that throws a monkey wrench into that whole thing... hermaphrodites. If you have a c0ck and t!ts what are you supposed to like? Yes, they ACTUALLY exist, and there are enough of them to be relevant to the issue at hand. Therefore "When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?" is a valid question. "When did you choose to have a c0ck and t!ts?" Narrow-mindedness becomes easy to spot at this point... because it's always Black and White. There are so many shades of gray here...

If homosexuals choose their sexual orientation as a means of getting attention, then why do so many of them choose to keep their orientation hidden from even their closest family and friends? What is this "closet" and why are they "in it"? The last thing you do if you want attention is to conceal yourself. I guess military snipers are doing it all wrong. They should be setting off signal flares and getting Cessna's to fly banners over the battlefield that read "Over here! Me with the flares! Yeah!!! I'm a military sharpshooter and I'm gonna scramble your brains from 2km!!" What a terrible argument. Seriously, if you're gonna make an argument - try to have it make just a little bit of sense.

Science will NEVER condemn homosexuality - because science doesn't JUDGE. Only religion and its followers do that. Homosexuality may not be as common as heterosexuality, but according to science - it is equally as natural.

NOW...

On to the subject of RF. Finally. :D

He has a dumb redneck looking haircut and is miserably failing in his pathetic attempt to be a fashion trend setter with his "innovative" look. Hipsters were doing that shizz 10 years ago just to look "ironic". Epic fail. Start dressing normal Ricky, until you can come up with something original. RF's a good player, he has no need for such gimmicks. This ain't wrasslin'.



FON

[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]I think you guys are missing the point. Just think how good Gay guys have got it:

1. Equal sex drive. Your partner will never make the excuse that they have a headache.
[/QUOTE]

I was reading a book entitled, "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" written by an author by the name of Tucker Max. This guy is an as.shole, but he'd be a great friend to have since he'd attract a lot of tail and the odds of you hooking up with some chick he's pissed off are probably pretty high. Anyway, on his website he has this story that's also in the book entitled, "The most disturbing conversation ever". It eventually gets terrifying if you're a guy, but before then, he's S faced and somehow gets dragged to a gay club. They're all drinking, having a good time and somehow this topic comes up. Here it is below, edited for language.

"The first subject was something I knew nothing about, and was actually kind of interested in, in a sort of clinical, sociological kind of way: How do gay guys decide who bangs who? I mean, when two guys go home, do they flip a coin? Play rock, paper, scissors? How does that work?

They explained that there are two types of gay guys: Tops and Bottoms. Tops are the ones that like to do the banging, the pitchers, if you will, and the bottoms are the ones that like to get banged, the catchers. Most gay guys have a preference, but can go either way, though there are a certain percentage that are only one way or the other. So if two Strict Bottoms go home together, then no one gets banged, though there is still the oral option."

So now you know. At least you know when you take a chick home, you're getting something..

[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]I find it hilarious that a chromosome here or there can determine what GENDER we end up being, but it is seemingly impossible for genetic material to determine our other... "subjective" traits, such as what color we like best, which food tastes best to us, what type of movies we like, inclination towards physical activity, intelligence, appetite, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, color-blindness, male pattern balding, skin color, eye color, hair color, height, and even PERHAPS sexual orientation.

This genetic research is NEW research at the moment, there is a LOT that hasn't even been completed. This stuff takes time to figure out and we're too new at it to be claiming we know these things for certain just yet. The entire human genome has been mapped, but it has not yet been completely translated. The evidence that sexual orientation is genetic in origin may very well exist - we have simply yet to gaze upon it. We WILL know for sure in the very near future... and discussions like this will finally be irrelevant.

However, until then we can use our best logic to determine the "most correct answer" for the time being. Until we know more... and know for certain. Which we don't.

If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality (those are your options) ...of course there's another of "God's creatures" that throws a monkey wrench into that whole thing... hermaphrodites. If you have a c0ck and t!ts what are you supposed to like? Yes, they ACTUALLY exist, and there are enough of them to be relevant to the issue at hand. Therefore "When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?" is a valid question. "When did you choose to have a c0ck and t!ts?" Narrow-mindedness becomes easy to spot at this point... because it's always Black and White. There are so many shades of gray here...

If homosexuals choose their sexual orientation as a means of getting attention, then why do so many of them choose to keep their orientation hidden from even their closest family and friends? What is this "closet" and why are they "in it"? The last thing you do if you want attention is to conceal yourself. I guess military snipers are doing it all wrong. They should be setting off signal flares and getting Cessna's to fly banners over the battlefield that read "Over here! Me with the flares! Yeah!!! I'm a military sharpshooter and I'm gonna scramble your brains from 2km!!" What a terrible argument. Seriously, if you're gonna make an argument - try to have it make just a little bit of sense.

Science will NEVER condemn homosexuality - because science doesn't JUDGE. Only religion and its followers do that. Homosexuality may not be as common as heterosexuality, but according to science - it is equally as natural.

NOW...

On to the subject of RF. Finally. :D

He has a dumb redneck looking haircut and is miserably failing in his pathetic attempt to be a fashion trend setter with his "innovative" look. Hipsters were doing that shizz 10 years ago just to look "ironic". Epic fail. Start dressing normal Ricky, until you can come up with something original. RF's a good player, he has no need for such gimmicks. This ain't wrasslin'.



FON[/QUOTE]That's a big bag of bullsh!t served up with a heaping helping of smugness.

[QUOTE=Mward2002]I was reading a book entitled, "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" written by an author by the name of Tucker Max. This guy is an as.shole, but he'd be a great friend to have since he'd attract a lot of tail and the odds of you hooking up with some chick he's pissed off are probably pretty high. Anyway, on his website he has this story that's also in the book entitled, "The most disturbing conversation ever". It eventually gets terrifying if you're a guy, but before then, he's S faced and somehow gets dragged to a gay club. They're all drinking, having a good time and somehow this topic comes up. Here it is below, edited for language.

"The first subject was something I knew nothing about, and was actually kind of interested in, in a sort of clinical, sociological kind of way: How do gay guys decide who bangs who? I mean, when two guys go home, do they flip a coin? Play rock, paper, scissors? How does that work?

They explained that there are two types of gay guys: Tops and Bottoms. Tops are the ones that like to do the banging, the pitchers, if you will, and the bottoms are the ones that like to get banged, the catchers. Most gay guys have a preference, but can go either way, though there are a certain percentage that are only one way or the other. So if two Strict Bottoms go home together, then no one gets banged, though there is still the oral option."

So now you know. At least you know when you take a chick home, you're getting something..[/QUOTE]Wow!

You're telling me about tops and bottoms?!

Welcome to 1990!

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]They were a husband and wife team. Because of them and their influence, some of us have had more and better sex in our lives with more women than if they hadn't existed.

So they are my heroes and should be yours too.[/QUOTE]


I prefer Johnson and Johnson . . . . . . . or Karma and Sutra.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Wow!

You're telling me about tops and bottoms?!

Welcome to 1990![/QUOTE]

I was 6 years old in 1990. Top and bottoms were more in reference to me back then in what shirt and shorts I had on, not pitching vs catching. You get the point damn it!

If I was gay I'd definitely be the pitcher. Then when I told my parents I was gay, I'd tell them that too to soften the blow.

The Gay Gene is right there next to the man-made global warming gene. It can be fixed with carbon credits purchased at the Barney Frank bathhouse after a private session with Al Gore. I hear he wrote once about neptune's melting boner....I mean bones.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]If I was gay I'd definitely be the pitcher. Then when I told my parents I was gay, I'd tell them that too to soften the blow.[/QUOTE]
Who are you kidding.

You are SO a power bottom.

[quote=Yaz1975]Who are you kidding.

You are SO a power bottom.[/quote]

Even gay I'd be too repressed for anything to go there. Not even butt plugs.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]That's a big bag of bullsh!t served up with a heaping helping of smugness.[/QUOTE]


Sorry I made you feel bad about the world view you've CHOSEN.

But you're totally right. Genetics don't have any influence on who we become as individuals, nor does geography have any influence on which faith we prescribe to.

Go back to justifying your prejudices with heaping helpings of confirmation bias. That's what you seem to excel at.



FON

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I'm glad we can amuse you. Thank you once again for posting absolute worthlessness. You have once again missed the whole point and actually posted your ignorance. Allow me to inform you: A group called the International Human Genome Consortium researched genes for years trying to find the "homosexual gene." On April 14th, 2003 they concluded the projects work. No genetic differences between straight humans and gay humans was found. There is no genetic material that causes homosexuality. It was Sigmund Freud who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation. But, in the 1980s, people started coming out with the opinion that it must be "natural" and caused by genetic makeup. Well, the conclusions are in and that is all bullshite. In other words, Camp Freddy either sucks dick because he likes it, or his mommy nurtured him towards it. I'm not much on Freud, I tend to think he likely just likes dick.

Edgey, don't mess with me. Your opinions and cutdowns will not go far in a discussion that demands intellect and actual proof and evidence. Go grab a golf catalog and start searching for your next set of GI shovels.[/QUOTE]

You , and Yaz are both the biggest hypocrites on here.

For a Bible thumper to demand (and quote) scientific evidence to support their rabid homophobia is way to ironic. That you failed to pass comment on this comes as no surprise since you (like Larry) are a hater who will latch onto anything to support their narrow minded, worthless views.

Here is a clue you f ucking pseud - Bible thumper and creationist demands scientific proof of genetic for genetic basis of h0mosexuality. Do you get the irony you f ucking half brained chimp.

In all fairness i am never surprised by someone who slags me off for playing Pings whilst using a chipper and shooting 97.

I will always challenge you and your lame arsed, fascist intolerence. As i said Sooner you are a Pseudo intellectual and like most extremists instantly dislikable.

F uckyou very much

Edgey

Tee'd Off must be very proud of this thread. It started off as a lame pissing contest between himself and Yaz yet has turned out to be so much more!

Kiwi, you must get a lot of pm's. your box is full again.

[QUOTE=edgey]You , and Yaz are both the biggest hypocrites on here.

For a Bible thumper to demand (and quote) scientific evidence to support their rabid homophobia is way to ironic. That you failed to pass comment on this comes as no surprise since you (like Larry) are a hater who will latch onto anything to support their narrow minded, worthless views.

Here is a clue you f ucking pseud - Bible thumper and creationist demands scientific proof of genetic for genetic basis of h0mosexuality. Do you get the irony you f ucking half brained chimp.

In all fairness i am never surprised by someone who slags me off for playing Pings whilst using a chipper and shooting 97.

I will always challenge you and your lame arsed, fascist intolerence. As i said Sooner you are a Pseudo intellectual and like most extremists instantly dislikable.

F uckyou very much

Edgey[/QUOTE]
Blah blah whatever. Why did you type so much to not actually say anything?

Tell you what, you actually make a cohesive statement without your massive assumptions, and you might get an answer.

Piss off you stupid c.unt

[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]Sorry I made you feel bad about the world view you've CHOSEN.

But you're totally right. Genetics don't have any influence on who we become as individuals, nor does geography have any influence on which faith we prescribe to.

Go back to justifying your prejudices with heaping helpings of confirmation bias. That's what you seem to excel at.



FON[/QUOTE]
Stoned and stupid is no way to go through life son.

[QUOTE=edgey]You , and Yaz are both the biggest hypocrites on here.

For a Bible thumper to demand (and quote) scientific evidence to support their rabid homophobia is way to ironic. That you failed to pass comment on this comes as no surprise since you (like Larry) are a hater who will latch onto anything to support their narrow minded, worthless views.

Here is a clue you f ucking pseud - Bible thumper and creationist demands scientific proof of genetic for genetic basis of h0mosexuality. Do you get the irony you f ucking half brained chimp.

In all fairness i am never surprised by someone who slags me off for playing Pings whilst using a chipper and shooting 97.

I will always challenge you and your lame arsed, fascist intolerence. As i said Sooner you are a Pseudo intellectual and like most extremists instantly dislikable.

F uckyou very much

Edgey[/QUOTE]

I love you, Edgey.

Sooner & Yaz,

Why do you care what causes an individual to be gay? Does it really matter if the preferences come from genetics, upbringing, or some kind of physiological response during early development?

I doubt that being gay is a completely genetic, but it does seem like signs tend to point to a phenotypic response (or a combination of the two). For instance, identical twins have the same genotype but their phenotype is different due to the unique ways in which their genes form and interact with their environment (inside the uterus)...its the reason twins have different finger prints. Its interesting to note that if one identical twin is gay the other twin has a 52% chance of being gay (same genotype and similar or same placenta), while if one fraternal twin is gay the other twin of the same sex only has a 22% chance of being gay (different genotype, different placenta, but similar environmental conditions in the uterus).

Back when I was a fish biologist we studied different methods of producing all male stocks of tilapia (males grow faster and don't waste energy conversion on reproduction). We could change the fishes physiology 99% of the time through the introduction of trace amounts of certain hormones in the feed during the first few weeks of life. We could also use pressure, temperature, and UV shock treatments to create mostly male stocks.

[QUOTE=The Purist]Sooner & Yaz,

[B]Why do you care what causes an individual to be gay?[/B] Does it really matter if the preferences come from genetics, upbringing, or some kind of physiological response during early development?

I doubt that being gay is a completely genetic, but it does seem like signs tend to point to a phenotypic response (or a combination of the two). For instance, identical twins have the same genotype but their phenotype is different due to the unique ways in which their genes form and interact with their environment (inside the uterus)...its the reason twins have different finger prints. Its interesting to note that if one identical twin is gay the other twin has a 52% chance of being gay (same genotype and similar or same placenta), while if one fraternal twin is gay the other twin of the same sex only has a 22% chance of being gay (different genotype, different placenta, but similar environmental conditions in the uterus).

Back when I was a fish biologist we studied different methods of producing all male stocks of tilapia (males grow faster and don't waste energy conversion on reproduction). We could change the fishes physiology 99% of the time through the introduction of trace amounts of certain hormones in the feed during the first few weeks of life. We could also use pressure, temperature, and UV shock treatments to create mostly male stocks.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I could care less why an individual is gay, except in understanding it for counseling reasons. This was the topic of the day yesterday, so I decided to participate.

[quote=edgey]You , and Yaz are both the biggest hypocrites on here.

For a Bible thumper to demand (and quote) scientific evidence to support their rabid homophobia is way to ironic. That you failed to pass comment on this comes as no surprise since you (like Larry) are a hater who will latch onto anything to support their narrow minded, worthless views.

Here is a clue you f ucking pseud - Bible thumper and creationist demands scientific proof of genetic for genetic basis of h0mosexuality. Do you get the irony you f ucking half brained chimp.

In all fairness i am never surprised by someone who slags me off for playing Pings whilst using a chipper and shooting 97.

I will always challenge you and your lame arsed, fascist intolerence. As i said Sooner you are a Pseudo intellectual and like most extremists instantly dislikable.

F uckyou very much

Edgey[/quote]

Edgey, it's good to know that there's another person on this forum that sees the light. The fact that you play Pings is proof enough that you're of a higher intelligence.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Actually, I could care less why an individual is gay, except in understanding it for counseling reasons. This was the topic of the day yesterday, so I decided to participate.[/QUOTE]
Do I like get a prize or something for winning the debate.

I want to leave you and Yaz with some cliff notes:

1. Being gay is not a choice, unless the person is born bisexual and decides not to pursue the opposite sex...if you had to make a choice not to be gay when you were younger, you might be suppressing bisexual or gay tendencies yourself...if that is the case, I don't blame you for lashing out at gays because of some deep seated closet-envy.

2. Gays deserve the same rights as others.

3. Gays aren't going to hell for being gay.

[QUOTE=The Purist]Do I like get a prize or something for winning the debate.

I want to leave you and Yaz with some cliff notes:

1. Being gay is not a choice, unless the person is born bisexual and decides not to pursue the opposite sex...if you had to make a choice not to be gay when you were younger, you might be suppressing bisexual or gay tendencies yourself...if that is the case, I don't blame you for lashing out at gays because of some deep seated closet-envy.

2. Gays deserve the same rights as others.

3. Gays aren't going to hell for being gay.[/QUOTE]

The one who has the last words in a debate is not always the winner although some believe so. If a person wants to choose to be gay, then that is their right and prerogative and I have no problems with it. However, I do not believe that anyone is "born" gay as there is no proof of this concept. I am born male and I cannot change that (even modern day sex changes do not change the DNA coding to allow someone to truly be female if that is their desire). But, if I wanted to change my thinking and train my desires towards wanting to be intimate with men, I could do that, I could change. If my "tendencies" were to favor homosexuality, but I wanted to be heterosexual, I could change that as well. (Talking on behalf of others I have seen this all take place and have actually counseled with one young man who was a practicing homosexual for 10 years, but was troubled by it and wanted to become heterosexual. Through counseling and encouragement, he has been happily married for 6 years now.)

What we are discussing with homosexuality is a "behavioral" practice, not a "natural" practice. The preaching of homosexuality being a trait that people were born with didn't start occurring until the 1970s along about the same time as the free sex era of the 60s had led to experimentation into homosexuality by a majority of the "disco" scene crowd.

[QUOTE=The Purist] Gays aren't going to hell for being gay.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to have to go ahead and ask that you prove this with some scientific data.

TP did offer proof with the data on twins. One silly anecdote in response, Sooner, legitimizes Edgey's position. You also kiss goodbye all credibility talking out of both sides of your mouth, I.e., it doesn't matter why but then offer a midieval religious right anecdote full of judgement. Really. this would be a good time for you to stop talking. you're not doing yourself any favors.

[quote=Home-slicer]I'm going to have to go ahead and ask that you prove this with some scientific data.[/quote]

Richard Simmons sure as hell is. The scientific data can be found on any obnoxious meter within 50 miles of him.

You all just ignored my early post about the media influence on making hom0s hip. I think that is just as valid as any.

Some important questions we should ask ourselves as a forum. Is this the gayest GR thread ever? If so, what does that say about Ricky Fowler? I can't help but think that Tee'd Off is feeling pretty vindicated right now.

[QUOTE=jetdriver]You all just ignored my early post about [B]the media influence on making hom0s hip[/B]. I think that is just as valid as any.[/QUOTE]

Yeah you're right and those terrible h0mo parades like the Mardi Gras in Sydney and San Francisco need to be banned too. They are simply recruitment grounds for h0mos. How many innocent young heterosexuals have gone along to watch them and naively signed up to become h0mos?

[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]Yeah you're right and those terrible h0mo parades like the Mardi Gras in Sydney and San Francisco need to be banned too. They are simply recruitment grounds for h0mos. How many innocent young heterosexuals have gone along to watch them and naively signed up to become h0mos?[/QUOTE]
I personally think that half of the homosexual population is born gay and the other half just gets sucked into it. Get it?! [B]SUCKED[/B] into it?! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]Some important questions we should ask ourselves as a forum. [B]Is this the gayest GR thread ever?[/B] If so, what does that say about Ricky Fowler? I can't help but think that Tee'd Off is feeling pretty vindicated right now.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm ... that's a big statement.

Beating the 'Camillo Villegas WOW' thread would take some doing.

Also I think 'Information on Thrivers' rivaled the levels of homophobia/bible thumping we are witnessing in this thread.

Personally, I think being an assjockey just sucks dick. Wait, that's the whole point of it isn't it.

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]I personally think that half of the homosexual population is born gay and [B]the other half just gets sucked into it[/B]. Get it?! [B]SUCKED[/B] into it?! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!![/QUOTE]


LOL - yeah I guess if you can't get a chick, not even a fat one then getting sucked off by a h0mo might just be a poor 3rd option for some desperate types out there?

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I love you, Edgey.[/QUOTE]

I love you too Sooner, in a non scientific, butch, manly way. Obviously :thumbsup:

Edgey

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Blah blah whatever. Why did you type so much to not actually say anything?

Tell you what, you actually make a cohesive statement without your massive assumptions, and you might get an answer.

Piss off you stupid c.unt[/QUOTE]

I apologise for using lots of words, i forget that your an ignorant half wit.

Tell me Adolf, do you have any scientific proof that i am a stupid c unt or have you just made an assumption. I demand scientific proof of my stupid c untishness.

I bet you masturbate listening to Horst Wessell longing for the day your Messiah returns to rid the world of the sodomites.

What a f ucking bellend you are.

I laugh in the face of your request i piss off, knob jockey

Edgey

PS If you need any help with the big words let me know

My God that was easy.

It's like wading into a room full of internet newbies from 1998.

I got this thing whipped up in no time flat.

Edgy is the easiest one of all. Doesn't take much with that git.

I'm going to have to devise an online class about how to be a first-class troll, and how to spot one. You folks are just ASKING for sh!t like this.

Have a great day all.

BTW, Rickie Fowler seems like a great kid and I love the clothes. Tee'd Off is a Neanderthal in his initial post, which seems to have gone unnoticed by the gay-loving bleeding hearts in this thread.

The rest was me just taking the piss.

So damm easy.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]My God that was easy.

It's like wading into a room full of internet newbies from 1998.

I got this thing whipped up in no time flat.

Edgy is the easiest one of all. Doesn't take much with that git.

I'm going to have to devise an online class about how to be a first-class troll, and how to spot one. You folks are just ASKING for sh!t like this.

Have a great day all.

BTW, Rickie Fowler seems like a great kid and I love the clothes. Tee'd Off is a Neanderthal in his initial post, which seems to have gone unnoticed by the gay-loving bleeding hearts in this thread.

The rest was me just taking the piss.

So damm easy.[/QUOTE]

You gotta admit this thread was dreadfully boring when it was just a pissing contest between yourself and Tee'd Off. It was like watching two school kids call each other names ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :rolleyes:

How did you allow yourself to stoop to his level???

Thankfully NAH chimed in with his 'Gays are Born' comment and this thread finally took off! :D

[quote=Yaz1975]My God that was easy.

It's like wading into a room full of internet newbies from 1998.

I got this thing whipped up in no time flat.

Edgy is the easiest one of all. Doesn't take much with that git.

I'm going to have to devise an online class about how to be a first-class troll, and how to spot one. You folks are just ASKING for sh!t like this.

Have a great day all.

BTW, Rickie Fowler seems like a great kid and I love the clothes. Tee'd Off is a Neanderthal in his initial post, which seems to have gone unnoticed by the gay-loving bleeding hearts in this thread.

The rest was me just taking the piss.

So damm easy.[/quote]

I'd like for the lot of you to use this thread as a learning tool. Yaz made his true feelings known in earlier posts. Even without that the pure trolling was pretty obvious.

At most this all has been nothing more than an Argument Clinic. I know, no is hasn't.

[quote=Kiwi Player]You gotta admit this thread was dreadfully boring when it was just a pissing contest between yourself and Tee'd Off. It was like watching two school kids call each other names ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :rolleyes:

How did you allow yourself to stoop to his level???

Thankfully NAH chimed in with his 'Gays are Born' comment and this thread finally took off! :D[/quote]

He was bored. Packaging up and returning golf clubs is a slight notch above watching paint dry, or reading Larry's posts.