Fowler a bad rep for American golf

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]He was bored. Packaging up and returning golf clubs is a slight notch above watching paint dry, or reading Larry's posts.[/QUOTE]
For real. I'd rather do this than listen to Larry and Alan have a pi$$ing contest for the 500th time over the same stuff. This isn't a very active forum, sometimes you just need to kick it in the nuts once in a while.

[quote=Yaz1975]For real. I'd rather do this than listen to Larry and Alan have a pi$$ing contest for the 500th time over the same stuff. This isn't a very active forum, sometimes you just need to kick it in the nuts once in a while.[/quote]

We're as active as we can manage. Some of us here form thoughts even more slowly than Dave's Mac processes video.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]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]

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]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]

Edgy doesn't HAVE a position, unless you're counting him being ass up while biting a pillow an official "position".

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Edgy doesn't HAVE a position, unless you're counting him being ass up while biting a pillow an official "position".[/QUOTE]

No that's Camp Freddy's position and he's proud of it.

[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]

LMAO..............

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]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]

Just because we have not discovered it doesn't make it true or untrue. I really don't care either way. If they are born with it our not is really irrelevant to me and most people.

I guess you believe you can recondition a gay person to be heterosexual? What happens if it doesn't succeed? How do you prepare them for this eventuality? Pretty scary to tell someone they can be cured only to fail. Isn't this the reason your profession doesn't side with your opinion?

You brought up animals. How do you explain the vast number of animals that have gay tendencies or actions? Their not influenced by the 70's or disco. What gives?

You talk about genetics. Have you heard of the recent finding of the Warrior gene? They never knew it existed until recently. They also concluded that it gave you a disposition for a type of action. Not exactly a switch one way or the other but a tendency. Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about. You might find it interesting. Thinks aren't usually black and white like we want them to be.

I knew this thread was going to turn into this ****, just like always. In one way I'm glad I flew out of town to do some testing for the Military, and didn't participate, but I'm also a little disappointed. I think I could have thrown a wrench into things.

No surprise, it's the same few suspects, spewing the same crap that always comes up with this discussion. PingMan must be busy as he didn't comment, lol. I just read through this entire thread, and as a gay man, I came across some pretty offensive comments. Thankfully I have A) Thick skin and B) Enough experience to identify a flamer (no pun intended). It's interesting to see people can be so disrespectful when expressing their views. Only on Golf Review, I guess...

I'll contribute to the topic a little bit, with some personal experience. As stated, I'm gay, and if you don't want to read about it, by all means, skip the rest of this post.

All my life I got a chuckle out of the people that say "it's a choice, them fags choose to be attracted to men!!". I knew I was attracted to other boys in the 5th grade. I had different feelings towards boys than girls. At that age, I'm sure I didn't really fully understand the scope of what was going on in my brain, but I knew I was different. In the later years, I did know what was going on. Now, I'm not a feminine guy, so this was confusing to me. I tried to like girls. Hell, I had a "girl friend" in 7th grade. What a ****ing pointless experience that was, lol. I learned that I didn't want to pretend, so all throughout High School, I didn't have a girl friend. I began to accept it, and realized no matter how much I didn't like it--I couldn't change the way I felt. I had some female friends that I felt close to, and had an emotional connection with, but I didn't have the sexual connection--I didn't want to have sex with them. Males on the other hand...well....

I want to touch on the fact that someone said gay men choose to be that way for attention. That was funny. You're a ****ing idiot. Really.That's all that boils down. If I were a straight male, my life would be so much easier. I'm not in a very Homosexual Friendly career, especially if the Military Testing I alluded to earlier comes back positive. Luckily for me, I'm not a famine guy, so people don't know I'm gay unless I tell them. This made the 'coming out' process a lot harder, as it took come convincing for people to actually believe me.I'm sure some of you will say "I can always tell. People know your gay." Shut up. You're an idiot, and have no idea what you're talking about.

As stated, I've tried to like women, but it just doesn't work like that. I can't control what makes my brain tick. Sure, I find a VERY select few women attractive, but I wouldn't have sex with them. It's like walking across broken glass in bare feet when you have the option of going around--you can do it..but why?

If I were able to choose, yeah, I'd rather live my life as a straight man. Can I go out and find a woman, marry her, have a **** load of kids, and pretend to be loving life? Sure I could. But why? I wouldn't be happy, and my life would be a lie. I know some men that were married with kids, and are now separated and partnered with another man. That's not a road I'm going down. I have enough respect for myself and others to avoid that situation.

Anyway. The major part of this massive troll fest has died down, so I'm not going to add much to the discussion.

Oh, and some of you can go play in traffic.


/end gayness


Someone mentioned that fact that it's the same posters and same topics over and over again. The Registration block is still on, and new users are not able to post. I keep getting Messages and E-mails from users wanting to post on the forums, but Francois hasn't activated their accounts. I've sent him messages asking him to take care of this but he hasn't. Spank, if you're talking to him, perhaps you could pass the word on to him on my behalf so we can get the new guys posting. Ask him to remove the New User Activation Requirement, please. Thanks.


Have a great day.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
I already knew you didn't know what at least one of us was talking about.

[quote=golfaholic]LMAO..............[/quote]

They really need to provide tableside counseling sessions at those parades. Who knows how many misguided souls could be brought back to normal within a matter of minutes?

"Wow, thanks Doc. I can't believe I've been on this planet for 25 years and never considered the benefits of being with a woman!"

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]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]
I was changing sides constantly from tolerant of gays to homophobic cracker. Forums are like RPGs, the fun is in taking on a different persona for each new thread, or indeed new post if the thread starts to get long.

The only real conclusion to be made from this thread is that Yaz and Sooner are god bothering, right wing, ultra conservative crackers, and more than likely closet turd burglars. Or possible Scientologists. The other thing we have learned is that in jail, being a top or bottom is dependent solely on how big your cell mate is.

P.S. Gays are going straight to hell to burn for eternity in the lime lake. I'm pretty sure about this and don't require scientific evidence.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I was changing sides constantly from tolerant of gays to homophobic cracker. Forums are like RPGs, the fun is in taking on a different persona for each new thread, or indeed new post if the thread starts to get long.

P.S. Gays are going straight to hell to burn for eternity in the lime lake. I'm pretty sure about this and don't require scientific evidence, and could everyone please not post on this thread so this last post is the truth.[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean. Sometimes I just can't decide which side of the harbor to troll.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I was changing sides constantly from tolerant of gays to homophobic cracker. Forums are like RPGs, the fun is in taking on a different persona for each new thread, or indeed new post if the thread starts to get long.

The only real conclusion to be made from this thread is that Yaz and Sooner are god bothering, right wing, ultra conservative crackers, and more than likely closet turd burglars. Or possible Scientologists. The other thing we have learned is that in jail, being a top or bottom is dependent solely on how big your cell mate is.

P.S. Gays are going straight to hell to burn for eternity in the lime lake. I'm pretty sure about this and don't require scientific evidence.[/QUOTE]

My wife just read this, laughed, and called you a f@g.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Just because we have not discovered it doesn't make it true or untrue. I really don't care either way. If they are born with it our not is really irrelevant to me and most people.

[B]I guess you believe you can recondition a gay person to be heterosexual?[/B] What happens if it doesn't succeed? How do you prepare them for this eventuality? Pretty scary to tell someone they can be cured only to fail. Isn't this the reason your profession doesn't side with your opinion?

You brought up animals. How do you explain the vast number of animals that have gay tendencies or actions? Their not influenced by the 70's or disco. What gives?

You talk about genetics. Have you heard of the recent finding of the Warrior gene? They never knew it existed until recently. They also concluded that it gave you a disposition for a type of action. Not exactly a switch one way or the other but a tendency. Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about. You might find it interesting. Thinks aren't usually black and white like we want them to be.[/QUOTE]

It's always amazing to me on these forums how many people can take what is posted out of context, add something to what has been posted as if someone had posted it, or be so upset with what someone posted that they go on a tangent of outlandish assumptions of what a poster believes or what he stands on.

Let me just post some facts of what I have already stated:

1.) FACT: there is no proof that people are born gay.

2.) FACT: if a person WANTS to change their sexual preference, it is possible to do so. That is CHOICE. I have stated the known FACTS about cases where gay men and gay women have changed their sexual preference. It is also known that there have been a lot of heterosexual men and women who have gone into prison (short term or long term hasn't mattered) and came out gay. Why? Because being around same sex gender and having an absence of opposite gender companionship has caused them to reach out to same sex relationships. Again, this is called a "Behavioral" change.

3.) FACT: Assuming that someone is a Bible Thumper because they believe in FACT #1 and #2 shows that you are out of touch with scientific findings and are nothing more than an opinionated arsehole. (This is not directed at you, Poe) (Of course, this is GR and everyone is entitled to be an opinionated arsehole and for most facts should never stand in the way of that.)

Poe, no one in my profession tells anyone they can 100% of the time be cured of anything. But, if a person is willing to try and make changes, they usually can with a high expectancy rate. Same thing in marriage counseling, if one of the members of a relationship do not want to be married anymore, counseling isn't going to help save the marriage. But, I hear some homosexuals say that "this is the way I am and I can't change." Those who say this are right they can't change because they do not WANT to change. But, being that there are countless cases where people (**** or hetero) have switched sexual preference shows that this is not a "natural" issue we are dealing with here as NaH and FD want to make it, but the fact is it is a "behavioral" issue.

Now, it's likely someone will come in here now and distort what I have just posted or type things that I have not said in a post and give me credit for it because that is what people do on discussion forums, but these facts are what I have been reiterating throughout this thread.

While I am reiterating facts, let me finish with one more:

4.) FACT: I don't give a flying shite whether a person is gay or straight! To each his own. GA knows this as well since I have known about him being gay for over a year now. Good for him. I'm not trying to stand in the way of anyone's sexual happiness. If I could I might put a stop to Edgey's continual proliferation because there is enough crooked teethed, smelly assed Brits in the world already but I can't stop that, so each go about your own business.

I would also like to say that I have learned one thing on this forum that has changed some thoughts of mine on the homosexuality issue. I use to think that only fags played PINGS and GI shovels and that heterosexuals played GFF irons. I do confess to having some strange feelings stirring within me back in the Summer for the two months I played PING Eye 2s. I use to catch myself watching guys' asses as they walked to their balls laying in the fairways. As soon as I quit playing the PINGs and sold them, I went back to normal. But, seeing a *** like Golfaholic playing MP-60s has shown that I have been somewhat wrong about this notion. I'm still relatively sure that Edgey is a repressed h0m0 and FD is an "out of the closet" walking h0m0 though.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]It's always amazing to me on these forums how many people can take what is posted out of context, add something to what has been posted as if someone had posted it, or be so upset with what someone posted that they go on a tangent of outlandish assumptions of what a poster believes or what he stands on.

Let me just post some facts of what I have already stated:

1.) FACT: there is no proof that people are born gay.

2.) FACT: if a person WANTS to change their sexual preference, it is possible to do so. That is CHOICE. I have stated the known FACTS about cases where gay men and gay women have changed their sexual preference. It is also known that there have been a lot of heterosexual men and women who have gone into prison (short term or long term hasn't mattered) and came out gay. Why? Because being around same sex gender and having an absence of opposite gender companionship has caused them to reach out to same sex relationships. Again, this is called a "Behavioral" change.

3.) FACT: Assuming that someone is a Bible Thumper because they believe in FACT #1 and #2 shows that you are out of touch with scientific findings and are nothing more than an opinionated arsehole. (This is not directed at you, Poe) (Of course, this is GR and everyone is entitled to be an opinionated arsehole and for most facts should never stand in the way of that.)

Poe, no one in my profession tells anyone they can 100% of the time be cured of anything. But, if a person is willing to try and make changes, they usually can with a high expectancy rate. Same thing in marriage counseling, if one of the members of a relationship do not want to be married anymore, counseling isn't going to help save the marriage. But, I hear some homosexuals say that "this is the way I am and I can't change." Those who say this are right they can't change because they do not WANT to change. But, being that there are countless cases where people (**** or hetero) have switched sexual preference shows that this is not a "natural" issue we are dealing with here as NaH and FD want to make it, but the fact is it is a "behavioral" issue.

Now, it's likely someone will come in here now and distort what I have just posted or type things that I have not said in a post and give me credit for it because that is what people do on discussion forums, but these facts are what I have been reiterating throughout this thread.

While I am reiterating facts, let me finish with one more:

4.) FACT: I don't give a flying shite whether a person is gay or straight! To each his own. GA knows this as well since I have known about him being gay for over a year now. Good for him. I'm not trying to stand in the way of anyone's sexual happiness. If I could I might put a stop to Edgey's continual proliferation because there is enough crooked teethed, smelly assed Brits in the world already but I can't stop that, so each go about your own business.[/QUOTE]
No comment on the Warrior gene? Homosexual animals?

I want to be left handed. Can counseling help me? Oh but wait they just found a gene that disposes people to being left handed. Time will tell on the gay issue as well.

Can you prove that there isn't a gene or some natural cause for someone having a disposition to being gay? Because without proof your position is as much an opinion as anyone else's.

I agree that this isn't one way or the other. I'm sure there are many reasons people choose to be gay. I have no doubt that some don't have anymore choice than you have being heterosexual. To discount that some may not have a choice is as biased as saying everything is choice. I don't buy either as an all or none argument. Life isn't that simple.

Edit - added references
"Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." -American Academy of Pediatrics

"For nearly three decades, it has been known that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Medical and mental health professionals also now know that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be altered. Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help." -American Psychological Association

"Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." -American Psychiatric Association

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]My wife just read this, laughed, and called you a f@g.[/QUOTE]
Tell your wife I'd wife swap with you, that is, if I had a wife.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Tell your wife I'd wife swap with you, that is, if I had a wife.[/QUOTE]

My wife is a blond half-German with HUGE b00bs.

She'd kill you.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]My wife is a blond half-German with HUGE b00bs.

She'd kill you.[/QUOTE]
Yeah,yeah, been told that many times but I'm still here. I know how to handle blonde German women with big boobs. And I'm ok with their having no cooking skills whatsoever.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Yeah,yeah, been told that many times but I'm still here. I know how to handle blonde German women with big boobs. [/QUOTE]

It's true, she can't cook a lick.

And I know how you Italians handle Germans. You usually surrender. But to be fair, that applies to everybody vs. the Italians.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]No comment on the Warrior gene? Homosexual animals?

I want to be left handed. Can counseling help me? Oh but wait they just found a gene that disposes people to being left handed. Time will tell on the gay issue as well.

[B]Can you prove that there isn't a gene or some natural cause for someone having a disposition to being gay? Because without proof your position is as much an opinion as anyone else's[/B].

I agree that this isn't one way or the other. I'm sure there are many reasons people choose to be gay. I have no doubt that some don't have anymore choice than you have being heterosexual. To discount that some may not have a choice is as biased as saying everything is choice. I don't buy either as an all or none argument. Life isn't that simple.

Edit - added references
"Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." -American Academy of Pediatrics

"For nearly three decades, it has been known that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Medical and mental health professionals also now know that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be altered. Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help." -American Psychological Association

"Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." -American Psychiatric Association[/QUOTE]



[SIZE="5"][B]While I think the onus of giving proof belongs to the group who consistently comes out saying that it is "genetic," I'm willing to play the game:[/B][/SIZE]


[SIZE="3"][B]BAILEY AND PILLARD—
THE FAMOUS “TWINS” STUDY[/B][/SIZE]

One of the most frequently cited studies used in promoting the genetics of sexual orientation is a 1952 study by Kallmann. In this famous work, he reported a concordance rate (or genetic association) of 100% for sexual orientation among monozygotic (identical) twins (1952, 115:283). This result, if true, would prove nearly insurmountable for those people who doubt the biological causation of homosexuality. [B]However, Kallmann subsequently conjectured that this perfect concordance was an artifact, possibly due to the fact that his sample was drawn largely from mentally ill and institutionalized men (see Rainer, et al., 1960, 22:259). But Kallmann’s research opened the door to twin studies in regard to sexual orientation.[/B]

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, carried out a similar experiment, examining 56 pairs of identical twins, 54 pairs of fraternal twins, 142 non-twin brothers of twins, and 57 pairs of adoptive brothers (1991, 48:1089-1096). Bailey and Pillard were looking to see if homosexuality was passed on through familial lines, or if one could point to environmental factors as the cause. Their hypothesis: if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then more twin brothers would be expected to have the same orientation than non-twin or non-biological brothers.
Their Reported Findings

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
* 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)
* 48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

[B]Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study[/B]

While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6). [B]However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual.[/B] In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. [B]This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend[/B]. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe:[B] “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard”[/B] (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology. [B]Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals. Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications. This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond. Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation[/B] (see Baron, 1993). Hubbard and Wald observed:

[B]The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness[/B] (1997, p. 97).

[B]In summarizing their findings, Byne and Parsons stated: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking” (50:228). Commenting on Bailey and Pillard’s report, researchers Billings and Beckwith wrote:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment (1993, p. 60).

When evaluated scientifically, twin studies fail to provide any valid support for the longed-for “gay gene.”[/B]

[QUOTE=golfaholic]I knew this thread was going to turn into this ****, just like always. In one way I'm glad I flew out of town to do some testing for the Military, and didn't participate, but I'm also a little disappointed. I think I could have thrown a wrench into things.

No surprise, it's the same few suspects, spewing the same crap that always comes up with this discussion. PingMan must be busy as he didn't comment, lol. I just read through this entire thread, and as a gay man, I came across some pretty offensive comments. Thankfully I have A) Thick skin and B) Enough experience to identify a flamer (no pun intended). It's interesting to see people can be so disrespectful when expressing their views. Only on Golf Review, I guess...

I'll contribute to the topic a little bit, with some personal experience. As stated, I'm gay, and if you don't want to read about it, by all means, skip the rest of this post.

All my life I got a chuckle out of the people that say "it's a choice, them fags choose to be attracted to men!!". I knew I was attracted to other boys in the 5th grade. I had different feelings towards boys than girls. At that age, I'm sure I didn't really fully understand the scope of what was going on in my brain, but I knew I was different. In the later years, I did know what was going on. Now, I'm not a feminine guy, so this was confusing to me. I tried to like girls. Hell, I had a "girl friend" in 7th grade. What a ****ing pointless experience that was, lol. I learned that I didn't want to pretend, so all throughout High School, I didn't have a girl friend. I began to accept it, and realized no matter how much I didn't like it--I couldn't change the way I felt. I had some female friends that I felt close to, and had an emotional connection with, but I didn't have the sexual connection--I didn't want to have sex with them. Males on the other hand...well....

I want to touch on the fact that someone said gay men choose to be that way for attention. That was funny. You're a ****ing idiot. Really.That's all that boils down. If I were a straight male, my life would be so much easier. I'm not in a very Homosexual Friendly career, especially if the Military Testing I alluded to earlier comes back positive. Luckily for me, I'm not a famine guy, so people don't know I'm gay unless I tell them. This made the 'coming out' process a lot harder, as it took come convincing for people to actually believe me.I'm sure some of you will say "I can always tell. People know your gay." Shut up. You're an idiot, and have no idea what you're talking about.

As stated, I've tried to like women, but it just doesn't work like that. I can't control what makes my brain tick. Sure, I find a VERY select few women attractive, but I wouldn't have sex with them. It's like walking across broken glass in bare feet when you have the option of going around--you can do it..but why?

If I were able to choose, yeah, I'd rather live my life as a straight man. Can I go out and find a woman, marry her, have a **** load of kids, and pretend to be loving life? Sure I could. But why? I wouldn't be happy, and my life would be a lie. I know some men that were married with kids, and are now separated and partnered with another man. That's not a road I'm going down. I have enough respect for myself and others to avoid that situation.

Anyway. The major part of this massive troll fest has died down, so I'm not going to add much to the discussion.

Oh, and some of you can go play in traffic.


/end gayness


Someone mentioned that fact that it's the same posters and same topics over and over again. The Registration block is still on, and new users are not able to post. I keep getting Messages and E-mails from users wanting to post on the forums, but Francois hasn't activated their accounts. I've sent him messages asking him to take care of this but he hasn't. Spank, if you're talking to him, perhaps you could pass the word on to him on my behalf so we can get the new guys posting. Ask him to remove the New User Activation Requirement, please. Thanks.


Have a great day.[/QUOTE]
GA - can you reset passwords? Not a great or best option but if you could reset them you could just handout old usernames. This would be one way to bring teesseee back and get around the road block.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]It's true, she can't cook a lick.

And I know how you Italians handle Germans. You usually surrender. But to be fair, that applies to everybody vs. the Italians.[/QUOTE]
An American distortion. We've conquered every country, every culture and everyone with our food and our sex, not necessarily in that order. Some day we'll get the credit we deserve for our bloodless conquerings. Americans only relate to brute force followed by humiliating, costly defeat.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]It's true, [B]she can't cook a lick[/B].

And I know how you Italians handle Germans. You usually surrender. But to be fair, that applies to everybody vs. the Italians.[/QUOTE]
Hey, as long as she don't [B]lick the cook [/B]you are good to go! :) ... stop complaining!

Sooner,

I'm no geneticist, but from my limited understanding, some genetic traits are not 100% certainties, they just predispose the holder of that gene to a particular outcome. It's like the so cal;led alcoholic gene. Having that gene means you are predisposed to becoming a drunk, but you may not necessarily turn out that way. So, theoretically there could be a fagg gene out there that has yet to be discovered, which predisposes males who carry it to perform obscene, abominable sex acts on other males, but without necessarily turning the holder into a fully blown, aids infected arse bandit. What me and FD are saying is that there are SOME guys who look and act differently from a very early age, and are born queers. We have never said that there aren't faggotts out there who can change back and forth, or that there isn't some degree of choice in being a peter puffer. But there are poofters out there who have no choice whatsoever, and to whom sucking a cock is as natural to them as a normal man scratching his balls.

[QUOTE=jetdriver]Hey, as long as she don't [B]lick the cook [/B]you are good to go! :) ... stop complaining![/QUOTE]
Well, being as I'm the cook,.....I don't remember complaining.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Sooner,

I'm no geneticist, but from my limited understanding, some genetic traits are not 100% certainties, they just predispose the holder of that gene to a particular outcome. It's like the so cal;led alcoholic gene. Having that gene means you are predisposed to becoming a drunk, but you may not necessarily turn out that way. So, theoretically there could be a fagg gene out there that has yet to be discovered, which predisposes males who carry it to perform obscene, abominable sex acts on other males, but without necessarily turning the holder into a fully blown, aids infected arse bandit. What me and FD are saying is that there are SOME guys who look and act differently from a very early age, and are born queers. We have never said that there aren't faggotts out there who can change back and forth, or that there isn't some degree of choice in being a peter puffer. But there are poofters out there who have no choice whatsoever, and to whom sucking a cock is as natural to them as a normal man scratching his balls.[/QUOTE]
Gosh, you're just so sensitive and delicate in making your point!

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Sooner,

I'm no geneticist, but from my limited understanding, some genetic traits are not 100% certainties, they just predispose the holder of that gene to a particular outcome. It's like the so cal;led alcoholic gene. Having that gene means you are predisposed to becoming a drunk, but you may not necessarily turn out that way. So, theoretically there could be a fagg gene out there that has yet to be discovered, which predisposes males who carry it to perform obscene, abominable sex acts on other males, but without necessarily turning the holder into a fully blown, aids infected arse bandit. What me and FD are saying is that there are SOME guys who look and act differently from a very early age, and are born queers. We have never said that there aren't faggotts out there who can change back and forth, or that there isn't some degree of choice in being a peter puffer. But there are poofters out there who have no choice whatsoever, and to whom sucking a cock is as natural to them as a normal man scratching his balls.[/QUOTE]
That is pretty precise prick pricking pecker poetry right there Hacker.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Gosh, you're just so sensitive and delicate in making your point![/QUOTE]GR isn't known for it's sugar coating.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]GA - can you reset passwords? [/QUOTE]

No..........

[QUOTE=SoonerBS][SIZE="5"][B]While I think the onus of giving proof belongs to the group who consistently comes out saying that it is "genetic," I'm willing to play the game:[/B][/SIZE]


[SIZE="3"][B]BAILEY AND PILLARD—
THE FAMOUS “TWINS” STUDY[/B][/SIZE]

One of the most frequently cited studies used in promoting the genetics of sexual orientation is a 1952 study by Kallmann. In this famous work, he reported a concordance rate (or genetic association) of 100% for sexual orientation among monozygotic (identical) twins (1952, 115:283). This result, if true, would prove nearly insurmountable for those people who doubt the biological causation of homosexuality. [B]However, Kallmann subsequently conjectured that this perfect concordance was an artifact, possibly due to the fact that his sample was drawn largely from mentally ill and institutionalized men (see Rainer, et al., 1960, 22:259). But Kallmann’s research opened the door to twin studies in regard to sexual orientation.[/B]

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, carried out a similar experiment, examining 56 pairs of identical twins, 54 pairs of fraternal twins, 142 non-twin brothers of twins, and 57 pairs of adoptive brothers (1991, 48:1089-1096). Bailey and Pillard were looking to see if homosexuality was passed on through familial lines, or if one could point to environmental factors as the cause. Their hypothesis: if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then more twin brothers would be expected to have the same orientation than non-twin or non-biological brothers.
Their Reported Findings

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
* 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)
* 48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

[B]Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study[/B]

While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6). [B]However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual.[/B] In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. [B]This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend[/B]. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe:[B] “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard”[/B] (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology. [B]Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals. Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications. This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond. Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation[/B] (see Baron, 1993). Hubbard and Wald observed:

[B]The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness[/B] (1997, p. 97).

[B]In summarizing their findings, Byne and Parsons stated: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking” (50:228). Commenting on Bailey and Pillard’s report, researchers Billings and Beckwith wrote:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment (1993, p. 60).

When evaluated scientifically, twin studies fail to provide any valid support for the longed-for “gay gene.”[/B][/QUOTE]

Hm. So the next time my mother tells me that me being gay ruined her life, I can tell her it's her fault. Awesome!

[QUOTE=golfaholic]Hm. So the next time my mother tells me that me being gay ruined her life, I can tell her it's her fault. Awesome![/QUOTE]
When you and your future husband (assuming you are a bottom here, maybe you are a top and he will be your wife) one day get a surrogate mother to have one of your kids all will be forgiven.

I'm thinking with JS coming out and also being a Ricky Fowler fan, it removes any doubt as to what market Ricky Fowler is trying to appeal to. I think everybody owes Tee'd Off an apology.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS][SIZE="5"][B]While I think the onus of giving proof belongs to the group who consistently comes out saying that it is "genetic," I'm willing to play the game:[/B][/SIZE]


[SIZE="3"][B]BAILEY AND PILLARD—
THE FAMOUS “TWINS” STUDY[/B][/SIZE]

One of the most frequently cited studies used in promoting the genetics of sexual orientation is a 1952 study by Kallmann. In this famous work, he reported a concordance rate (or genetic association) of 100% for sexual orientation among monozygotic (identical) twins (1952, 115:283). This result, if true, would prove nearly insurmountable for those people who doubt the biological causation of homosexuality. [B]However, Kallmann subsequently conjectured that this perfect concordance was an artifact, possibly due to the fact that his sample was drawn largely from mentally ill and institutionalized men (see Rainer, et al., 1960, 22:259). But Kallmann’s research opened the door to twin studies in regard to sexual orientation.[/B]

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, carried out a similar experiment, examining 56 pairs of identical twins, 54 pairs of fraternal twins, 142 non-twin brothers of twins, and 57 pairs of adoptive brothers (1991, 48:1089-1096). Bailey and Pillard were looking to see if homosexuality was passed on through familial lines, or if one could point to environmental factors as the cause. Their hypothesis: if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then more twin brothers would be expected to have the same orientation than non-twin or non-biological brothers.
Their Reported Findings

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
* 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)
* 48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

[B]Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study[/B]

While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6). [B]However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual.[/B] In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. [B]This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend[/B]. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe:[B] “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard”[/B] (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology. [B]Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals. Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications. This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond. Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation[/B] (see Baron, 1993). Hubbard and Wald observed:

[B]The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness[/B] (1997, p. 97).

[B]In summarizing their findings, Byne and Parsons stated: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking” (50:228). Commenting on Bailey and Pillard’s report, researchers Billings and Beckwith wrote:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment (1993, p. 60).

When evaluated scientifically, twin studies fail to provide any valid support for the longed-for “gay gene.”[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I've read this before. These assume that the gene is like a switch. Either on if off. Did you Google the warrior gene? The gay gene could be similar. It gives the carrier of the gene the disposition toward resolving issues with aggression. But the individuals have personal experiences and proper parenting/role models give these individuals tools to overcome these feelings. Having a gene doesn't mean you will be one way or another. Like having a cancer gene doesn't mean you have cancer.

Still no comments on all the animals in the wild that are gay?

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Yes, I've read this before. These assume that the gene is like a switch. Either on if off. Did you Google the warrior gene? The gay gene could be similar. It gives the carrier of the gene the disposition toward resolving issues with aggression. But the individuals have personal experiences and proper parenting/role models give these individuals tools to overcome these feelings. Having a gene doesn't mean you will be one way or another. Like having a cancer gene doesn't mean you have cancer.

Still no comments on all the animals in the wild that are gay?[/QUOTE]

I haven't googled the "warrior gene" yet, but I will whenever I have time.

The "gay' animals are not really gay for life. I am a former farmer/rancher and can tell you that young bulls, whenever they are about a year old, try to hump each other whenever they are stuck by themselves in a pasture. I asked a Vet about this tendency one time he told me that they do not do it for sexual reasons as they never really find each other's ass holes (if you ever watch them this is true). He says it is a way of establishing a "pecking order" to decide who will be the dominant bull within the herd. Later, when and if they get put in a pasture with cows and heifers, the dominant bull will do most all the breeding. So, it's actually not a "gay" tendency at all as has been misinterpreted by some people. Poe, I haven't studied anything on "gay" animals, but I am wondering if it is not the same thing we're talking about with yearling bulls. Regardless, nature shows us that if a species is to survive and continue, it has to proliferate. For all the evolutionist out there, you can't believe in the "born homosexual" theory because it goes directly against evolution and proliferation of species. In a "survival of the fittest" nature, the homosexual gene would not have survived.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I haven't googled the "warrior gene" yet, but I will whenever I have time.

The "gay' animals are not really gay for life. I am a former farmer/rancher and can tell you that young bulls, whenever they are about a year old, try to hump each other whenever they are stuck by themselves in a pasture. I asked a Vet about this tendency one time he told me that they do not do it for sexual reasons as they never really find each other's ass holes (if you ever watch them this is true). He says it is a way of establishing a "pecking order" to decide who will be the dominant bull within the herd. Later, when and if they get put in a pasture with cows and heifers, the dominant bull will do most all the breeding. So, it's actually not a "gay" tendency at all as has been misinterpreted by some people. Poe, I haven't studied anything on "gay" animals, but I am wondering if it is not the same thing we're talking about with yearling bulls. Regardless, nature shows us that if a species is to survive and continue, it has to proliferate. For all the evolutionist out there, you can't believe in the "born homosexual" theory because it goes directly against evolution and proliferation of species. In a "survival of the fittest" nature, the homosexual gene would not have survived.[/QUOTE]
I think the gay human bulls just stayed with the other bulls too long and liked it.

[QUOTE=jetdriver]I think the gay human bulls just stayed with the other bulls too long and liked it.[/QUOTE]
I thought the bulls tended to like the lipstick variety and vice versa.

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]I thought the bulls tended to like the lipstick variety and vice versa.[/QUOTE]
I haven't spent loads of time with farm animals like Sooner, but I was led to believe you put lipstick on a pig.

I was told there would be no math.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]I was told there would be no math.[/QUOTE]
You can always use your fingers.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I haven't googled the "warrior gene" yet, but I will whenever I have time.

The "gay' animals are not really gay for life. I am a former farmer/rancher and can tell you that young bulls, whenever they are about a year old, try to hump each other whenever they are stuck by themselves in a pasture. I asked a Vet about this tendency one time he told me that they do not do it for sexual reasons as they never really find each other's ass holes (if you ever watch them this is true). He says it is a way of establishing a "pecking order" to decide who will be the dominant bull within the herd. Later, when and if they get put in a pasture with cows and heifers, the dominant bull will do most all the breeding. So, it's actually not a "gay" tendency at all as has been misinterpreted by some people. Poe, I haven't studied anything on "gay" animals, but I am wondering if it is not the same thing we're talking about with yearling bulls. Regardless, nature shows us that if a species is to survive and continue, it has to proliferate. For all the evolutionist out there, you can't believe in the "born homosexual" theory because it goes directly against evolution and proliferation of species. In a "survival of the fittest" nature, the homosexual gene would not have survived.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the education on Bulls but there are many other species, 1500 and counting, that have gay sexual behaviors and I'm sure some don't fit your gay/evolution theory. I think you're oversimplifying things a bit. Genetics isn't an on/off switch like you keep stating. '

BTW - You keep arguing genetics but I'm not set on this theory either and I don't think many have the "choice" like you've stated. Just my opinion from years of living and learning/observing people growing up.

I think homosexual behavior here is beng confused with perversion. A dog humps your leg because he is horny (pervertus caninus) not necesarily a hom0. This perversion in humans if gone unchecked can lead to a behavioral hom0 (homosapien anus peninis).

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]I'm thinking with JS coming out and also being a Ricky Fowler fan, it removes any doubt as to what market Ricky Fowler is trying to appeal to. I think everybody owes Tee'd Off an apology.[/QUOTE]
Not really, I hear RF is quite the homopob, like a lot of you.

[QUOTE=golfaholic]Not really, I hear RF is quite the [B]homopob[/B], like a lot of you.[/QUOTE]
If that is homophobe...is it like closetphobe?:)

[QUOTE=golfaholic]Not really, I hear RF is quite the homopob, like a lot of you.[/QUOTE]

It's OK, GA, it is my firm conviction that he can "change" his sexual orientation.

[img]http://smilies.sofrayt.com/eng/glasses10.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=golfaholic]Not really, I hear RF is quite the homopob, like a lot of you.[/QUOTE]
I didn't choose to be a homophobe, I was born this way.

[QUOTE=Home-slicer]I didn't choose to be a homophobe, I was born this way.[/QUOTE]

Hahahahahahahaha.

[quote=Home-slicer]I didn't choose to be a homophobe, I was born this way.[/quote]

It happened to me over time. What put me over the edge was the Guns and Rose "Lies" album. You can't argue with Axl

[QUOTE=golfaholic]Not really, I hear RF is quite the homopob, like a lot of you.[/QUOTE]

What did you eat when you were a baby? Black beans instead of titties?

Serious question: Did an uncle/male relative suck your c0ck when you were 5 years old? Were you ever molested? I hope not.

I know a gay man that was an altar boy (true story) and was taking d!ck up his ass for years as a kid from a priest... getting sucked off before puberty and everything...

He told his mom that he was gay because of it. My grandmother left the Catholic Church when her best friend told her about the priest rocking her son's world... poor kid had his salad tossed like a little b!tch; damn...

When you are young, one is so vunerable.

GA, I saw your swing video, and you looked like a faggot, but I didn't say anything... but I know you are straight.

I digress... A dick up your ass/getting sucked off, when you are a kid will turn you gay quicker than a gay man buying a Miata...

[IMG]http://www.summerofbenny.com/images/2008/12/gay.jpg[/IMG]

Golfaholic, were you molested by a male member of your family? I hope not, if you remember or not...

Oh, and just because one's mouth/tongue is up some hairy dude's hairy @sshole, backwards with his sweaty balls on one's forehead... it doesn't make one special.

... Oh, by the way, Francois doesn't give a rat's ass about this forum.

I have been kind in this post,

Am I not merciful?

spank

p.s. (golfaholic is just trolling; take it from a native San Franciscan... he looks like a f@g but he is not)

[QUOTE=jetdriver]I think homosexual behavior here is beng confused with perversion. A dog humps your leg because he is horny (pervertus caninus) not necesarily a hom0. This perversion in humans if gone unchecked can lead to a behavioral hom0 (homosapien anus peninis).[/QUOTE]

Dogs that dry hump people or other dogs is actually an attempt at dominant behaviour.

[quote=oldplayer]Dogs that dry hump people or other dogs is actually an attempt at dominant behaviour.[/quote]

Are you saying Alan and Larry are here dry humping each other.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Are you saying Alan and Larry are here dry humping each other.[/QUOTE]

I hadn't thought of expressing it that way but I would venture to say that your metaphor is correct.

[QUOTE=oldplayer]Dogs that dry hump people or other dogs is actually an attempt at dominant behaviour.[/QUOTE]
I have a mate who works in dog control, and he tells me that when they drop stray dogs off at the pound it isn't long until the dominant dog there is humping the newcomer. As Walken's character in Wild Side said to his driver as he has him bent over the kitchen table "This is not about sex, it's about power".

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I have a mate who works in dog control, and he tells me that when they drop stray dogs off at the pound it isn't long until the dominant dog there is humping the newcomer. It's not about sex, it's about power.[/QUOTE]

Correct....

[QUOTE=oldplayer]Correct....[/QUOTE]
You quoted me before I amended my post, but still the same.

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]

I have been kind in this post,

Am I not merciful?

/QUOTE]

Really? Because I found your post quite distasteful. Hm..

[QUOTE=oldplayer]Dogs that dry hump people or other dogs is actually an attempt at dominant behaviour.[/QUOTE]

I haven't studied the behaviors of other animals, I basically just know about farm animals because I was raised on a farm and had cattle of my own up until about 10 years ago. I have a lot of discussions on cattle behavior with vets and am confident with what I posted above about bulls. Thanks for verifying the same fact of at least one other species of animals.

One curious note on the other side of this particular discussion is the cows and heifers though. I use to artificially inseminate my cows and heifers to the best bulls in the nation. The way we find out if a heifer or cow is ready to breed, and will be ovulating and fertile for the procedure to take, is that they will ride each other whenever one comes in cycle. I really don't think this is an act of establishing dominance. But, I haven't asked any vets about it, so I can't tell you for sure what it means behavioral wise.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I haven't studied the behaviors of other animals, I basically just know about farm animals because I was raised on a farm and had cattle of my own up until about 10 years ago. I have a lot of discussions on cattle behavior with vets and am confident with what I posted above about bulls. Thanks for verifying the same fact of at least one other species of animals.

One curious note on the other side of this particular discussion is the cows and heifers though. I use to artificially inseminate my cows and heifers to the best bulls in the nation. [B]The way we find out if a heifer or cow is ready to breed, and will be ovulating and fertile for the procedure to take, is that they will ride each other whenever one comes in cycle. I really don't think this is an act of establishing dominance. But, I haven't asked any vets about it, so I can't tell you for sure what it means behavioral wise[/B].[/QUOTE]

Oh come on Sooner what do you mean you don't know what it means behavioral wise? EVERYBODY knows they are lesbian cows. The Bulls love to watch.

[QUOTE=Yaz1975]It's true, she can't cook a lick.

And I know how you Italians handle Germans. You usually surrender. But to be fair, that applies to everybody vs. the Italians.[/QUOTE]

Hey d!ck! Get your history straight! The Italians switched sides when things got tough. You are confusing them with the French.

Taken from the movie "Sleep with me". This is Quentin Tarantino having a discussion with another guy at a party.


<!-- end of gumax-content-actions --><!-- gumax-content-body --><!-- content -->[URL="http://forums.golfreview.com/"][/URL]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
Sid: What's a film about, what's it really about? What genre does it take?
[Duane: What, like the spine? Like one sentence?]
Sid: No, I don't, fuc.king boy meets girl, I don't give a **** about that. F.uck boy meets girl, fu.ck motorcycle movie. No, what is really being said? What's really being said, that's what you're talking about. 'Cause the whole idea, man, is subversion. You want subversion on a massive level. You know what one of the greatest fuc.king scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is? Top Gun.
[Duane: Oh, come on.]
Sid: Top Gun is fuc.king great. What is Top Gun? You think it's a story about a bunch of fighter pilots.
[Duane: It's about a bunch of guys waving their di.cks around.]
Sid:It is a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality. It is! That is what Top Gun is about, man. You've got Maverick, all right? He's on the edge, man. He's right on the fuc.king line, all right? And you've got Iceman, and all his crew. They're gay, they represent the gay man, all right? And they're saying, go, go the gay way, go the gay way. He could go both ways.
[Duane: What about Kelly McGillis?]
Sid: Kelly McGillis, she's heterosexuality. She's saying: no, no, no, no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way. They're saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way, all right? That is what's going on throughout that whole movie... He goes to her house, all right? It looks like they're going to have sex, you know, they're just kind of sitting back, he's takin' a shower and everything. They don't have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives away. She's like, "What the fu.ck, what the fu.ck is going on here?" Next scene, next scene you see her, she's in the elevator, she is dressed like a guy. She's got the cap on, she's got the aviator glasses, she's wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is, okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy's going towards the gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay way, so I'm do that through subterfuge, I'm gonna dress like a man. All right? That is how she approaches it.
Okay, now let me just ask you--I'm gonna digress for two seconds here. I met this girl Amy here, she's like floating around here and everything. Now, she just got divorced, right?...
All right, but the REAL ending of the movie is when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting fuc.king force, all right? And they're beating the Russians, the gays are beating the Russians. And it's over, and they fuc.king land, and Iceman's been trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he's got him, all right? And what is the last ****.ing line that they have together? They're all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and he says, "Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!" And what does Maverick say? "You can ride mine!" Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuc.kin' A, man!