Glenn beck is right about gay marriage

[PLC1]

Is every homosexual born that way? Can you offer proof that every homosexual is born a homosexual?


Ever heard of a cradle catholic? They are born catholic, A child in the FLDS is born into a polygamist life style and taught from birth plural marry or never see heaven.

I would venture to say that most religions including Islam would say their children are born Muslim, Jehovahs witness, mormon exc. Born again christians believe you are not saved till you are born again spiritually but I bet if you asked any baptist what faith is your infant child, they would say baptist or christian...

but for arguments sake, lets say only if you are born a certain way can marriage apply to you, should we have a test on all homosexuals and only let the ones born that way marry? Seems fair if you are going to deny polygamists marriage

Homosexuality is not a belief system, nor is it a choice. Are some animals homosexual? yes, as a matter of fact, they are. Do they make that choice? No, only humans make such choices.

There is a difference in the brains of homosexuals vs heteros. If you think back to your own childhood, can you recall a different feeling when with a member of the opposite sex? I know I can. I can see the same thing in my grandsons. I can tell you right now that they are certainly heteros, and way before any choice could have been made, before they are capable of understanding why girls are different from boys.

Why on earth would someone who was not born gay want to marry someone of the same gender? That is just absurd.

 

[Pandora]

Homosexuality is not a belief system, nor is it a choice. Are some animals homosexual? yes, as a matter of fact, they are. Do they make that choice? No, only humans make such choices.

There is a difference in the brains of homosexuals vs heteros. If you think back to your own childhood, can you recall a different feeling when with a member of the opposite sex? I know I can. I can see the same thing in my grandsons. I can tell you right now that they are certainly heteros, and way before any choice could have been made, before they are capable of understanding why girls are different from boys.

Why on earth would someone who was not born gay want to marry someone of the same gender? That is just absurd.

So you are saying that every homosexual on planet her was born that way? Do you have any scientific proof?

Do you figure bi sexual people are born that way too?

I do not disagree that some people are just born homosexual but I do not think that in every case they are or even the majority of cases. I know men who have said they started having homosexual feelings after being molested. I know a very large number of lesbian women who say they became lesbian because of abuse by men but never felt "those feelings" for women in their youth. So I fully disagree with you that every person who is a homosexual was born that way.

 

[PLC1]

So you are saying that every homosexual on planet her was born that way? Do you have any scientific proof?

Do you figure bi sexual people are born that way too?

I do not disagree that some people are just born homosexual but I do not think that in every case they are or even the majority of cases. I know men who have said they started having homosexual feelings after being molested. I know a very large number of lesbian women who say they became lesbian because of abuse by men but never felt "those feelings" for women in their youth. So I fully disagree with you that every person who is a homosexual was born that way.

There is a lot of evidence that gays are born gay, and I gave you some of it above. As for bisexuals, yes, they probably are born bisexual also. There may not actually be totally hetero vs totally homo people, but a continuum from one extreme to another. That is just speculation, of course.

What men have said that they became gay after having been molested?

 

[Pandora]

There is a lot of evidence that gays are born gay, and I gave you some of it above. As for bisexuals, yes, they probably are born bisexual also. There may not actually be totally hetero vs totally homo people, but a continuum from one extreme to another. That is just speculation, of course.

What men have said that they became gay after having been molested?

Men I have met over time, more women than men. If you are wondering where I meet such people... abuse groups that I have taken part in over time.

Its kind of strange but a kid who is molested can either grow up to be a molester even a more violent type than the one who molested them. They can get turned off of sex all together or strangest of all become attracted to same sex. Seems odd to become attracted to the very thing that hurt you growing up doesn't it? Or they can (and this hardly ever happens) function perfectly normally sexually.

It seems to effect women and men both but some things are different.

Women who were molested as kids rarely molest children but they tend to marry or date molesters. I have seen that happen in my own family, and its really sad.

Now I am not saying every man molested will become a homosexual or that every woman molested will date a molester but there does tend to be a pattern here.

Anyway's back to the topic of Glenn Beck being right Why can't we all just agree to get the government out of ALL marriages (including tax breaks)? It would solve the problem.

 

[PLC1]

Men I have met over time, more women than men. If you are wondering where I meet such people... abuse groups that I have taken part in over time.

Its kind of strange but a kid who is molested can either grow up to be a molester even a more violent type than the one who molested them. They can get turned off of sex all together or strangest of all become attracted to same sex. Seems odd to become attracted to the very thing that hurt you growing up doesn't it? Or they can (and this hardly ever happens) function perfectly normally sexually.

It seems to effect women and men both but some things are different.

Women who were molested as kids rarely molest children but they tend to marry or date molesters. I have seen that happen in my own family, and its really sad.

Now I am not saying every man molested will become a homosexual or that every woman molested will date a molester but there does tend to be a pattern here.

Anyway's back to the topic of Glenn Beck being right Why can't we all just agree to get the government out of ALL marriages (including tax breaks)? It would solve the problem.

That would solve the problem, no question. It will never happen, of course, as the authoritarians among us would have a fit, and the liberals among us would not like the change in tax laws, and the conservatives would not like any change in something as basic as marriage, but it would solve the problem once and for all.

 

[Pandora]

That would solve the problem, no question. It will never happen, of course, as the authoritarians among us would have a fit, and the liberals among us would not like the change in tax laws, and the conservatives would not like any change in something as basic as marriage, but it would solve the problem once and for all.

I think it could happen if pitched right.

If christians ( who I think would cause the biggest fuss) would look up how marriage used to be between a couple and their church and the government had zero involvement, they might be persuaded to go back to the old way.

I think the group who would like it least is the homosexual group. I do not think the reason for pushing homosexual marriage is about seeing each other in the hospital or any of the other reasons they listed that almost all can be dealt with now. What I feel they want is validation of their relationships and for mainstream Americans to see they are the same exc. Abolishing government marriage would not change the point of view of christians or others who see it as a union between a man and a woman so it really wouldn't help them.

But yes I think it would solve the fighting, and its really too bad it cant be that way...

But as long as homosexuals are going to fight for their rights to marriage I will fight for a polygamists rights too... at least the polygamist (in most cases) have a constitutional right under freedom of religion to practice it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Do you mean "they are all descriminated against" as to marraige?

Aren't polygamists also?

That's what I mean about the "gay marraige" issue on that ground. Why does that group not include all its members in the "other than monogamous hetero". Part of the "unfair" language of the current description of marriage as "between one man and one woman" is the word "one". Why shun the polygamists? Shouldn't the "GLBT" umbrella read at least "GLBTP" instead? Why or why not?

Please be specific. And please avoid statements like "I think its pretty clear why.." Because the situation is anything but "pretty clear"... The courts will want specifics in future challenges and I do too. I realize you cannot speak for all deviants from "between one man and one woman" so I'm just asking you to discuss polygamists here; since they've been wanting marriage far far longer than anyone in the GLBT description.

I could care less if you have 2 wife's...may take some changing of tax code, but like I care...so long as they are 18(or what ever legal age for that state) and its not set up so you can try to marry 50 people to get a realy good deal on taxes or something....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I think it could happen if pitched right.

If christians ( who I think would cause the biggest fuss) would look up how marriage used to be between a couple and their church and the government had zero involvement, they might be persuaded to go back to the old way.

I think the group who would like it least is the homosexual group. I do not think the reason for pushing homosexual marriage is about seeing each other in the hospital or any of the other reasons they listed that almost all can be dealt with now. What I feel they want is validation of their relationships and for mainstream Americans to see they are the same exc. Abolishing government marriage would not change the point of view of christians or others who see it as a union between a man and a woman so it really wouldn't help them.

But yes I think it would solve the fighting, and its really too bad it cant be that way...

But as long as homosexuals are going to fight for their rights to marriage I will fight for a polygamists rights too... at least the polygamist (in most cases) have a constitutional right under freedom of religion to practice it.

There are many many legal reasons to want marriage as well, not just social acceptance..If a married couple has one die, and they have kids...its clear who watches the kids after....to gays have a kid...one dies....just becuse you are the other parent..you still have no legal right to your own kid...Or to SS and other benifits a married couple would have. Or say one of the 2 was in the military, and was killed overseas....the other has no right to any of the normal things that would go to a husband or wife of someone killed overseas....Just to name a few...its about alot more then feeling accepted.

 

[PLC1]

I think it could happen if pitched right.

If christians ( who I think would cause the biggest fuss) would look up how marriage used to be between a couple and their church and the government had zero involvement, they might be persuaded to go back to the old way.

I think the group who would like it least is the homosexual group. I do not think the reason for pushing homosexual marriage is about seeing each other in the hospital or any of the other reasons they listed that almost all can be dealt with now. What I feel they want is validation of their relationships and for mainstream Americans to see they are the same exc. Abolishing government marriage would not change the point of view of christians or others who see it as a union between a man and a woman so it really wouldn't help them.

But yes I think it would solve the fighting, and its really too bad it cant be that way...

But as long as homosexuals are going to fight for their rights to marriage I will fight for a polygamists rights too... at least the polygamist (in most cases) have a constitutional right under freedom of religion to practice it.

I have to admit you do have a point about the freedom of religion and polygamy. The Mormon church actually left the US due in large part to conflicts over polygamy, then abandoned the practice when the US caught up with them (when Utah became a part of it). A few remnant sects still clandestinely practice plural marriage.

So, how many sister wives would you like to have?

 

[Sihouette]

I have absoute proof that certainly not all homosexuals are born that way.

I actually, really and factually know a pair of identical twins who, at adulthood, one is a lesbian and one is straight. Kid you not.

Proof.

[footnote, these twins were raised by a bisexual baptist woman who posed as a pillar of her church while simultaneously running a porn shop in town. Also true story. She has had multiple partners, ruined several marriages, and has seven kids by ? fathers. She is in short, a christian sex addict. Not that that had anything to do with how the twin girls turned out..oh no..lol.]

The difference is that no one is born polygamist. That really is a choice.

Uh...there is far far far more evidence that refutes that statement than supports it. If anthropologists are to be believed, we, the higher apes, are most certainly born with a polygamist bent. Abso-friggin-lutely.

And, to make matters more muddy still, I have trained animals to diverge from their normal sexual preferences onto inanimate objects, so that when they passed a given stage in their sexual behavior, they no longer preferred the original "tease" object [an estrus mare in this case]. They instead begin to drool not only at the site of the dummy mount, but also the specific halter I go get when it's time to "do their thing". He gets an immediate erection at the site of just the halter. Let me guess, he was born that way right? In fact, the AI specialist I took him to for training, this horse anyway, recommended that I get a specific halter just for breeding since if I used the same one for saddling and riding this horse could mistake the event for breeding and become unruly under saddle.

In fact, it's well known in animal husbandry that if you want a stud animal to cover both live and dummy mounts, you'd better take very careful precautions to expose him first to a live mount a couple of times and then a dummy and alternate it up a bit or you'll be stuck with a stud animal that has a fixated preference for the one with the more predominant exposure [see my thread on gay marriage: exploring the closet, where I posted law enforcement overview of molestation early in life.]

Luckily I did this with my new stud and now he "innately"..lol.. mounts either the dummy or the mares.

So I ask again to pocket, why should the "P" be left out of GLBT? For certainly a HUGE case could be made that polygamists have a genetic bent to have multiple mates.

 

[PLC1]

I have absoute proof that certainly not all homosexuals are born that way.

I actually, really and factually know a pair of identical twins who, at adulthood, one is a lesbian and one is straight. Kid you not.

Proof.

[footnote, these twins were raised by a bisexual baptist woman who posed as a pillar of her church while simultaneously running a porn shop in town. Also true story. She has had multiple partners, ruined several marriages, and has seven kids by ? fathers. She is in short, a christian sex addict. Not that that had anything to do with how the twin girls turned out..oh no..lol.]


Uh...there is far far far more evidence that refutes that statement than supports it. If anthropologists are to be believed, we, the higher apes, are most certainly born with a polygamist bent. Abso-friggin-lutely.

And, to make matters more muddy still, I have trained animals to diverge from their normal sexual preferences onto inanimate objects, so that when they passed a given stage in their sexual behavior, they no longer preferred the original "tease" object [an estrus mare in this case]. They instead begin to drool not only at the site of the dummy mount, but also the specific halter I go get when it's time to "do their thing". He gets an immediate erection at the site of just the halter. Let me guess, he was born that way right? In fact, the AI specialist I took him to for training, this horse anyway, recommended that I get a specific halter just for breeding since if I used the same one for saddling and riding this horse could mistake the event for breeding and become unruly under saddle.

In fact, it's well known in animal husbandry that if you want a stud animal to cover both live and dummy mounts, you'd better take very careful precautions to expose him first to a live mount a couple of times and then a dummy and alternate it up a bit or you'll be stuck with a stud animal that has a fixated preference for the one with the more predominant exposure [see my thread on gay marriage: exploring the closet, where I posted law enforcement overview of molestation early in life.]

Luckily I did this with my new stud and now he "innately"..lol.. mounts either the dummy or the mares.

So I ask again to pocket, why should the "P" be left out of GLBT? For certainly a HUGE case could be made that polygamists have a genetic bent to have multiple mates.

So, can you get that heterosexual stallion to mount another stallion? Now, that would be an indication that homosexuality is something that can be acquired.

There probably are heterosexual human males who have "mounted" a dummy, too, but would never admit it.

You do bring up some interesting points. No proof that homosexuality is a choice, but then, there really is no proof to the contrary either. There is evidence, and further research is being done. Here is an interesting study about differences in hetero vs homosexual brains. It concludes:

Currently, biological research into sexual preference is muddled and inconclusive. Furthermore, three distinct biological fields are involved in the most recent work on sexual orientation: neuroanatomy, psychoendocrinology, and genetics (2) . Among these three fields, more and more evidence for a biological determinant of homosexuality is surfacing. It is predicted that a biological substrate for sexual orientation will be found within the next ten years (1) . Genetic studies such as one done by Bailey and Pillard have shown a 52% concordance rate of homosexuality in monozygotic twins (4). This suggests that homosexuality is highly attributable to genetics. These findings as well as those of LeVay's (although debatable) are setting the groundwork for a biological cause of homosexuality. They are the key to unlocking the mystery of sexuality and are proving more than ever that brain does equal behavior.

An interesting point from the study:

The importance of these regions in sexual differentiation (between the sexes) led scientists to believe that sexual orientation could be on a continuum in this area of neurological research (7).

There most likely is no simple "homosexual gene", but most of the evidence points to the conclusion that we do not choose our sexual orientation. Maybe events after birth, or during gestation have an effect. It is not a simple black and white question.

 

[Pandora]

There are many many legal reasons to want marriage as well, not just social acceptance..If a married couple has one die, and they have kids...its clear who watches the kids after....to gays have a kid...one dies....just becuse you are the other parent..you still have no legal right to your own kid...Or to SS and other benifits a married couple would have. Or say one of the 2 was in the military, and was killed overseas....the other has no right to any of the normal things that would go to a husband or wife of someone killed overseas....Just to name a few...its about alot more then feeling accepted.

You have an excellent point on the SS benny's. The child issue is done via will. Everyone should have a will. Homosexuals are not exempt to needing a will.

You might have a good point on the military thing too not sure but just about everything except for benny's can be done via a will or living will and everyone should have that no matter who they have sex with.

Also, Really glad to see you accept there is a part of this that is social acceptance. All the laws in the world wont make people accept the lifestyle if they do not already for what ever reason. But I am glad you are not denying that has something to do with it.

 

[Pandora]

I have to admit you do have a point about the freedom of religion and polygamy. The Mormon church actually left the US due in large part to conflicts over polygamy, then abandoned the practice when the US caught up with them (when Utah became a part of it). A few remnant sects still clandestinely practice plural marriage.

So, how many sister wives would you like to have?

I will never marry again. Not via the government anyway. I also would not plural marry for religious reasons. But I see nothing wrong with a few husbands

 

[Pandora]

So, can you get that heterosexual stallion to mount another stallion? Now, that would be an indication that homosexuality is something that can be acquired.

There probably are heterosexual human males who have "mounted" a dummy, too, but would never admit it.

You do bring up some interesting points. No proof that homosexuality is a choice, but then, there really is no proof to the contrary either. There is evidence, and further research is being done. Here is an interesting study about differences in hetero vs homosexual brains. It concludes:



An interesting point from the study:



There most likely is no simple "homosexual gene", but most of the evidence points to the conclusion that we do not choose our sexual orientation. Maybe events after birth, or during gestation have an effect. It is not a simple black and white question.

There have been cases of funeral directors who had sex with corpses and eventually got to a point they could not be sexually aroused by anything but a corpse. I doubt they were born that way.

 

[Sihouette]

Agreed.

So, can you get that heterosexual stallion to mount another stallion? Now, that would be an indication that homosexuality is something that can be acquired.

Actually in the beef industry, it is common to train bulls to mount steers [castrated males] by training them first off an estrus female and then "weaning" them onto the conditioned cues of the steer [body type, smell, etc.] They use steers because the cows are too valuable to risk injuring by a gigantic bull mounting her for collection time and time again. The steers are hardy enough to take it.

The bulls get to where they get quite excited at the site, sound and smell of their mounts and seem to care less about the cows any more.

BTW, knowing just one set of identical twins who openly report different orientation completely destroys the "all homosexuals are innately that way" theory. It simply cannot be true. Identical twins are genetically the same, and if raised in the same household...that's it. Done deal. Just one pair.

More could be studied, surveyed and so on but just one proves that homosexuality in at least some of the cases is environmentally adopted.

I still haven't heard a good argument for why polygamists cannot plead for marriage alongside GLBT. The more the merrier as far as "weight in numbers" is concerned for the dismantling of "between one man and one woman". I wonder why the GLBT folks are not quick to include the polygamists? Well pocket? Besides a lame argument against their 'love' being too dicey tax wise..do you have any real rebuttal to keeping the "P" off the GLBT list?