Homophobia

[SGWilko]

It is very easy, is it not, to allow oneself to be lulled into a false sense of isolation form behind the keyboard. When your body language cannot be viewed along with the comment, its meaning and or intention can easily be misconstrued.

I probably talk a lot of b0ll0cks too mind you!

[EuroTroll]

I probably talk a lot of b0ll0cks too mind you!

Every man talks sometimes the bollocks, n'est-ce pas? :)

[Spafranco]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but: mishap?

I even misunderstood myself. Clear indication that one should be careful when they post on sensitive subjects. Mishap is minimizing a very serious biological anomaly not yet understood by the sciences and completely misunderstood by the citizenry.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[donKey jote]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but: very serious biological anomaly ?

[BDunnell]

Mishap is minimizing a very serious biological anomaly not yet understood by the sciences and completely misunderstood by the citizenry.

I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser.

[Roamy]

Since everybody is apologising, I think I'll join in. :) I'd like to apologise for post #241. I lost my temper a little, I was rude, and I neglected the golden rule of "discuss the post, not the poster".

Who's next? :)

If you are solicitating rude - I can do that - which is why I have not joined in on this thread very much.

[EuroTroll]

If you are solicitating rude - I can do that - which is why I have not joined in on this thread very much.

Oh, do join in fella! :up:

[donKey jote]

Oh, do join in fella! :up:

he's too busy with his buttplugs...

[Knock-on]

I would also like to apologise if anyone felt I was ever rude. That my arguments are sound and my logic flawless isn't in doubt but sometimes I don't appreciate less developed people's lack of comprehension and intelligence. This may come across as being a touch brusque to the great unwashed whereas it's just genius that your little brains can't grasp.

There, I've got it off my chest and feel better for it. Now, back to the love in please my little plebs :D

[call_me_andrew]

So what are you really trying to say? :) That we are in fact the only species who has sex recreationally? I don't think that's true, but what if it was? What would it mean in the context of this discussion?

My point is that animal behavior should not be used to validate human behavior.

[EuroTroll]

My point is that animal behavior should not be used to validate human behavior.

I don't think anyone is using animal behaviour to validate human behaviour! The monkey business was simply a little, curious off-topic snippet. ;) As I've said before, I don't think homosexuality needs any validation or justification.

[Spafranco]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but: very serious biological anomaly ?

Is it a condition? A genetic flaw? What would you characterize it as?

[Spafranco]

I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser.

What exactly don't you get? Is it a PC issue? If not, then explain to me why some people are born with an attraction to their own sex. What is the cause of this?

[henners88]

My point is that animal behavior should not be used to validate human behavior.
Not in all cases no, but certain animal behaviour is related due to evolution. Obviously things like murder can't be justified, but in terms of sexual urges I think I comparison can be sort regardless of sexual orientation.

[donKey jote]

Is it a condition? A genetic flaw? What would you characterize it as?

How about leave it at biological phenomenon?
It's way too normal to be considered an anomaly or flaw, let alone a "very serious" one...

[Zico]

Spafranco, put that spade away! ;)

You raise an interesting question though.


Nature or nurture? Does science know if people are born with a sexual orientation... or is it an environmental thing..... or even both?

[EuroTroll]

Nature or nurture? Does science know if people are born with a sexual orientation... or is it an environmental thing..... or even both?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation), the source of all our knowledge: "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but research generally suggests that sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure."

[EuroTroll]

Or, an alternative view. :D

From Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Homosexuality): "The causes of homosexuality are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most liberal school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out. The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment."

[Gregor-y]

How about leave it at biological phenomenon?
It's way too normal to be considered an anomaly or flaw, let alone a "very serious" one...
I think that attitude comes from an easy to grasp idea that if you find something that's considered the best of a bunch, the bunch would be better if everyone was like that best example. Biodiversity proves otherwise, but that can be harder to understand.

[BDunnell]

What exactly don't you get? Is it a PC issue? If not, then explain to me why some people are born with an attraction to their own sex. What is the cause of this?

I don't get why it matters, and I certainly don't understand why you term it a 'very serious anomaly'. Very serious in what way?

[EuroTroll]

I don't get why it matters, and I certainly don't understand why you term it a 'very serious anomaly'. Very serious in what way?

It causes earthquakes. :p

[donKey jote]

and swarms of locusts.

[BDunnell]

Oh yeah, sorry about those.

[The Black Knight]

I don't mind gays at all. In fact, I wish all men were gay, except me. That way I could have any woman I wanted. So if a guy is gay it helps my plans for female domination in a way. Now all I need is a cat with opposable thumbs to carry out my daring plan...

[Spafranco]

I don't get why it matters, and I certainly don't understand why you term it a 'very serious anomaly'. Very serious in what way?
You don't get it and that appears to be obvious or you would not keep dwelling on how it is to be discussed. If you do not deem it serious then you are not living in the US. I may be wrong but I imagine, flag or not that if you did live here you would understand that being a homosexual,lesbian,transsexual,hermaphrodite does not go over well with large chunks of the conservative population. In fact it can be a death sentence in parts.

[Gregor-y]

You don't get it and that appears to be obvious or you would not keep dwelling on how it is to be discussed. If you do not deem it serious then you are not living in the US. I may be wrong but I imagine, flag or not that if you did live here you would understand that being a homosexual,lesbian,transsexual,hermaphrodite does not go over well with large chunks of the conservative population. In fact it can be a death sentence in parts.
You must be living in the wrong part of the US. ;)

[airshifter]

You don't get it and that appears to be obvious or you would not keep dwelling on how it is to be discussed. If you do not deem it serious then you are not living in the US. I may be wrong but I imagine, flag or not that if you did live here you would understand that being a homosexual,lesbian,transsexual,hermaphrodite does not go over well with large chunks of the conservative population. In fact it can be a death sentence in parts.

I agree that the US is probably less tolerant than most of the EU countries. But it's certainly not BDunnels fault that too many here in the US are ignorant of the fact that the majority of gay people (or other than straight people) don't make a choice to be gay, they are born that way. A great deal of that conservative population is also sometimes led by biased religions that allow all the divorced, greedy, and otherwise "sinful" people to judge gays and ignore their own sins.

[gadjo_dilo]

.... too many here in the US are ignorant of the fact that the majority of gay people (or other than straight people) don't make a choice to be gay, they are born that way.....

I used to be a member of a forum where about 50% of the members were gay. There were numberless debates and fights on this issue and I remember that many of them explained they become gay because they experimented it. Never dared to say something but I suppose they were just trying a new experience, liked it and etc.

[BDunnell]

I used to be a member of a forum where about 50% of the members were gay. There were numberless debates and fights on this issue and I remember that many of them explained they become gay because they experimented it. Never dared to say something but I suppose they were just trying a new experience, liked it and etc.

I don't claim to have a huge circle of gay friends, but I have never met anyone like that.

[BDunnell]

You don't get it and that appears to be obvious or you would not keep dwelling on how it is to be discussed. If you do not deem it serious then you are not living in the US. I may be wrong but I imagine, flag or not that if you did live here you would understand that being a homosexual,lesbian,transsexual,hermaphrodite does not go over well with large chunks of the conservative population. In fact it can be a death sentence in parts.

Whose fault is that other than the bigots themselves?

Maybe I also slightly resent your implication that I suffer from a 'very serious anomaly'.

[henners88]

I used to be a member of a forum where about 50% of the members were gay. There were numberless debates and fights on this issue and I remember that many of them explained they become gay because they experimented it. Never dared to say something but I suppose they were just trying a new experience, liked it and etc.

I think many religious people think being gay is the choice of the individual because they assume they wish to be different. Because homosexuality is frowned upon so much they don't accept it's occurred by natural means because it allows them to remain intolerant. I don't believe people choose to experiment and stick with it because you have to have the natural urge in the first place. There must be something there in the first place IMO.

[BDunnell]

I think many religious people think being gay is the choice of the individual because they assume they wish to be different. Because homosexuality is frowned upon so much they don't accept it's occurred by natural means because it allows them to remain intolerant. I don't believe people choose to experiment and stick with it because you have to have the natural urge in the first place. There must be something there in the first place IMO.

Of course there must. The same is true of any curiosity — they don't come out of nowhere.

[The Black Knight]

I think many religious people think being gay is the choice of the individual because they assume they wish to be different. Because homosexuality is frowned upon so much they don't accept it's occurred by natural means because it allows them to remain intolerant. I don't believe people choose to experiment and stick with it because you have to have the natural urge in the first place. There must be something there in the first place IMO.

Some gay guys I have been speaking to have told me that they were attracted to women up until the age of 16 or 17 and then they realized they found men more attractive and forgot about women. Others have had that realization much later in life. I don't see it as a big deal either way. It has absolutely no impact on my life if two men have sex. It has been going on since the stone age and will continue to do so. Why offer resistance that which you can't change? Can there be anything more futile or insane than trying to change what already is? I accept gay people and everyone as they are. If every one else did the same and realized we were all entitled to our opinions the world would be a far better place.

[BDunnell]

Some gay guys I have been speaking to have told me that they were attracted to women up until the age of 16 or 17 and then they realized they found men more attractive and forgot about women. Others have had that realization much later in life. I don't see it as a big deal either way. It has absolutely no impact on my life if two men have sex. It has been going on since the stone age and will continue to do so. Why offer resistance that which you can't change? Can there be anything more futile or insane than trying to change what already is? I accept gay people and everyone as they are. If every one else did the same and realized we were all entitled to our opinions the world would be a far better place.

Absolutely.

[BDunnell]

Coincidentally to this discussion, here is a very pleasing piece on much the same subject:

Rob Portman commentary: Gay couples also deserve chance to get married | The Columbus Dispatch (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html)

[CaptainRaiden]

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/124663_700b.jpg

[Spafranco]

Whose fault is that other than the bigots themselves?

Maybe I also slightly resent your implication that I suffer from a 'very serious anomaly'.

If you're gay I am confounded even more that you do not accept the fact that you are "different" and that you take exception to being what you seem to view as labeling.
You do not find 'cause for resentment when one member states that homosexuality is a "biological phenomenon". Why?
Personally, I do not have any issue with gays, gay marriage or cohabitating.

[SGWilko]

If you're gay I am confounded even more that you do not accept the fact that you are "different" and that you take exception to being what you seem to view as labeling.
You do not find 'cause for resentment when one member states that homosexuality is a "biological phenomenon". Why?
Personally, I do not have any issue with gays, gay marriage or cohabitating.

Maybe if Ben was the first man ever to be Homosexual, then maybe that is a valid view.

What you actually mean is Ben is different to YOU.

Is being rich the 'norm'? If so, I am different!

[BDunnell]

If you're gay I am confounded even more that you do not accept the fact that you are "different" and that you take exception to being what you seem to view as labeling.

The reason I object is partly because of your language — you make homosexuals sound ill by describing them as having a 'serious anomaly' — and partly because the differentiation, labelling, call it what you will, is pointless. Heterosexual people are 'different' from me, but I wouldn't make an issue of it.



You do not find 'cause for resentment when one member states that homosexuality is a "biological phenomenon". Why?

Because we don't know what the root cause is, and nor do I care.

[donKey jote]

homosexuality is a "biological phenomenon"

as is heterosexuality ! ... what is exactly your problem? :dozey:

[steveaki13]

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/124663_700b.jpg

This sums it up perfectly for me.

I assume the major concern for some people is that "marriage" for what its worth is a religious title for a relationship between Man & Woman and if a Religion is against Homosexuality then they can't allow the use of the term marriage for a relationship between Man & Man or Woman & Woman?

The balance may be a fully legal "marriage for gay couples with everything set in stone like a marriage, but due to religious intolerance maybe the title has to be something different.

(This is not my view, but me thinking why some may be against it)

[Spafranco]

as is heterosexuality ! ... what is exactly your problem? :dozey:

Where have I shown I have a problem? Because I used language you disagree with does not make me incorrect and you correct.
It is unfortunate for those born as homosexual as I'm sure many would agree. Coming to terms with it is a brave and considerable effort.
I have already stated that I do not have any have any issue with those that are gay.
Heterosexuality is NOT a phenomenon!

[donKey jote]

Heterosexuality is NOT a phenomenon!

Alright, it's a biological occurrence or circumstance then. As is homosexuality.

It's not your language I disagree with, but the thoughts you convey with it. You clearly have issues.

[BDunnell]

Heterosexuality is NOT a phenomenon!

Do you feel homosexuality is?

I must say, for someone who says they don't have any 'issue' with gay people you put your views on the subject a little oddly, at all times as though you are desperate to stress the 'differences' between those who are gay and those who are straight.

[race aficionado]

Most Homophobes are closet homosexuals that are afraid and really pissed off of what their true feelings and urges are.
So instead of accepting it, they lash out at it towards others hoping that it will disappear.

Let me give you some advice, it won't go away.

Oh, and for the record, please come out, I will not judge you because I see nothing wrong with your sexual preference as long as you don't try to ram it in my face. The same goes for your religious, political or any other of your preferences and beliefs.

[donKey jote]

as long as you don't try to ram it in my face

:s ailor: :andrea:

[airshifter]

Where have I shown I have a problem? Because I used language you disagree with does not make me incorrect and you correct.
It is unfortunate for those born as homosexual as I'm sure many would agree. Coming to terms with it is a brave and considerable effort.
I have already stated that I do not have any have any issue with those that are gay.
Heterosexuality is NOT a phenomenon!

It seems to me you come across as being biased along with that language you choose.

I could politely say that some people are less capable of learning than others, and that it is an unfortunate phenomenon. On the other hand I could say I don't have a problem with the stupid mouth breathers, as they are such freaks of nature they can't help being dense.

You don't seem to differentiate between the two methods.

[Spafranco]

Alright, it's a biological occurrence or circumstance then. As is homosexuality.

It's not your language I disagree with, but the thoughts you convey with it. You clearly have issues.

The "thoughts" you convey. Specifically what thoughts would they be?

You do not know or will ever know the thoughts conveyed by one on a forum.
It's an insult to me and mine that you take this bold step which is more egregious than my stating what is written in the medical and scientific communities when describing homosexuality.

I have a gay individual in my family and do not have anything other than love and respect for them. I feel sad that they have to be careful when they go out lest some buffoon takes it upon themselves to express their heterosexuality when in fact they may be ignoring their homosexuality.

[Spafranco]

[quote="race aficionado"]Most Homophobes are closet homosexuals that are afraid and really pissed off of what their true feelings and urges are.
So instead of accepting it, they lash out at it towards others hoping that it will disappear.

Let me give you some advice, it won't go away.



If this is an attempt to label me as a closet gay then go with it. It does not matter to me one way or another. It does matter to me when it is another individual that is labelled. Be it a correct assumption or not then by your own words through innuendo you have now through stealth by not actually referring to me me cast me as a closet gay.

If that is your opinion then you sir/madam are as guilty as those who take internet bullying to the real world and cause harm.

[race aficionado]

Spafranco, this was nor personally aimed at you, it's just a general personal observation.
Notice that the word "all" was not used.

Again, just an observation.

[Spafranco]

Homosexuality: A Biological Anomaly : The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Citation/1944/01000/Homosexuality__A_Biological_Anomaly.7.aspx)





Homosexuality, type 1: an Xq28 phenomenon.Turner WJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Turner%20WJ%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=7794104).




SourceDepartment of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA
Despite the absence of phenotypic manifestations in alternating generations characteristic of X-linked disorders, a thesis is presented that a major type of Kinsey grades 5 and 6 male homosexuality is determined by a gene in the Xq28 region.

[Spafranco]

Spafranco, this was nor personally aimed at you, it's just a general personal observation.
Notice that the word "all" was not used.

Again, just an observation.

If not aimed at me then who?

Just to be clear, I do not hold a grudge with anyone who disapproves of my opinion or others that disagree with opinions stated by others. We all learn by meaningful intelligent dialogue.

As long as it is not guns and politics :)

[race aficionado]

.... and sexual preferences?

We can all learn from our diversity.

[donKey jote]

The "thoughts" you convey. Specifically what thoughts would they be?

You do not know or will ever know the thoughts conveyed by one on a forum.
It's an insult to me and mine that you take this bold step which is more egregious than my stating what is written in the medical and scientific communities when describing homosexuality.

I have a gay individual in my family and do not have anything other than love and respect for them. I feel sad that they have to be careful when they go out lest some buffoon takes it upon themselves to express their heterosexuality when in fact they may be ignoring their homosexuality.

The thoughts you convey with expressions like "very serious biological anomaly" or "biological mishap they have to endure".
Save me the theatrical outrage and show me where these expressions are written in the medical and scientific communities when describing homosexuality.

[Spafranco]

The thoughts you convey with expressions like "very serious biological anomaly" or "biological mishap they have to endure".
Save me the theatrical outrage and show me where these expressions are written in the medical and scientific communities when describing homosexuality.
Why are you are so offended by what I write when I am showing you exactly where these expressions originate.
Theatrics! Outrage! Neither applies to me but if you take a good look in the mirror you may get the answer to your own questions which I assume are questions since the is no question mark.
NIH reprinted in NHB and Lancet.
"In 1991, an autopsy study by Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego found that part of the brain called the anterior hypothalamus was twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men, suggesting a biological anomaly for homosexuality. Because the gay men were active sexually with other homosexuals is it wise to make a determination that DNA or a genetic alteration causing the individuals sexuality to be altered to such an extent that the simple structure of genetic markers results in the anomaly of homosexuality be it male or female, and sexual attraction to the same sex".

Why are you so avidly aggressive when all I am doing is stating fact. I have said it once and not again. I have no reason nor inclination to have feelings of bigotry towards gay people.

[airshifter]

Well I think this little tidbit explains some of the terminology used. If medical publications are still using such terms I'm sure they are struck decade in the past.

From one of the above posted links:


Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease:
January 1944 - Volume 99 - Issue 1 - ppg 65-70
Original Articile: PDF Only

Note the date!

[Spafranco]

Well I think this little tidbit explains some of the terminology used. If medical publications are still using such terms I'm sure they are struck decade in the past.

From one of the above posted links:



Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease:
January 1944 - Volume 99 - Issue 1 - ppg 65-70
Original Articile: PDF Only

Note the date!
From one of the above posted links:

s:

Ah, I see. You see something contained in the article and straight away you dismiss it. I suppose that means that ALS was not a disease until Lou Gehrig came along.

[call_me_andrew]

Well I think this little tidbit explains some of the terminology used. If medical publications are still using such terms I'm sure they are struck decade in the past.

From one of the above posted links:


Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease:
January 1944 - Volume 99 - Issue 1 - ppg 65-70
Original Articile: PDF Only

Note the date!

Argumentum ad novitatem: just because something is new does not make it right.

(The opposite being argumentum ad antiquitatem: being old does not make something right.)

As to that brain matter

Cum hoc propter hoc: Correlation does not prove causation.

Latin is such a beautiful language.

[EuroTroll]

Latin is such a beautiful language.

Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre? - Is that a scroll in your toga, or are you just happy to see me?

:D

[EuroTroll]

I have no reason nor inclination to have feelings of bigotry towards gay people.

I get that impression from you too, actually. Don't quite understand why the donKey and others are so unhappy with your writing... :erm:

Why don't we all :kiss: and make up? :D

[gadjo_dilo]

Why don't we all :kiss: and make up? :D

Because you wanted a debate on this issue? :laugh:

[EuroTroll]

Because you wanted a debate on this issue? :laugh:

The way I see it, Spafranco and the others actually see the thing in pretty much the same light. There's nothing to debate. :) Except the minor issue of terminology. ;)

Now, if Roamy joined in - then we would have something to debate, I'm sure. :D

[gadjo_dilo]

Now, if Roamy joined in - then we would have something to debate, I'm sure. :D
Then I'd better retire strategically...... :devil:

[Spafranco]

Good, now we can all start the day like happy campers :)

[airshifter]

From one of the above posted links:

s:

Ah, I see. You see something contained in the article and straight away you dismiss it. I suppose that means that ALS was not a disease until Lou Gehrig came along.

I didn't dismiss anything, or use it as a way to take a shot at you either. Being an older article it's more likely to use terminology that is less kind or PC if you will. Being that the world tends to be more PC these days it's rather expected, which is probably why some of us took your use of such terminology out of context. Once you posted this link I more understood your position and I'm sorry if I was one of the people that misjudged your earlier posts.

In the end since most of us aren't real life personal friends, we only have typed words to gauge people by. I hope you can see how your typed words came across as less polite than some other terms, which probably caused the poor judgements made by some of us. In either case you later typed words clarified your view, and I'm not about to deem anyone dishonest unless I have solid evidence to prove it correct. I'm glad you clarified your views, and once again apologize for doubting it earlier.

As an example of such subtle changes, my daughter is hoping to be accepted into a local academy program and we attended a function there on Saturday. They no longer teach "foreign languages" due to the fact that it somewhat alienates the other culture. They now teach "global languages" as showing that they are more accepting of the other cultures. Same intentions, just different choices of words.

[airshifter]

I get that impression from you too, actually. Don't quite understand why the donKey and others are so unhappy with your writing... :erm:

Why don't we all :kiss: and make up? :D

We already accept that you are not a homophobe ET. You don't have to start kissing men to prove it! :) In this instance I'd admit being much more open minded to a first bump or manly shoulder bump.

[Spafranco]

I didn't dismiss anything, or use it as a way to take a shot at you either. Being an older article it's more likely to use terminology that is less kind or PC if you will. Being that the world tends to be more PC these days it's rather expected, which is probably why some of us took your use of such terminology out of context. Once you posted this link I more understood your position and I'm sorry if I was one of the people that misjudged your earlier posts.

In the end since most of us aren't real life personal friends, we only have typed words to gauge people by. I hope you can see how your typed words came across as less polite than some other terms, which probably caused the poor judgements made by some of us. In either case you later typed words clarified your view, and I'm not about to deem anyone dishonest unless I have solid evidence to prove it correct. I'm glad you clarified your views, and once again apologize for doubting it earlier.

As an example of such subtle changes, my daughter is hoping to be accepted into a local academy program and we attended a function there on Saturday. They no longer teach "foreign languages" due to the fact that it somewhat alienates the other culture. They now teach "global languages" as showing that they are more accepting of the other cultures. Same intentions, just different choices of words.

That is kind of you and I accept the apology although it was not necessary.

I work in a field where one says something in public and something else to co-workers. Unfortunately , that may have come across where my posts are concerned.

I am glad you brought that PC issue up about language. I never heard or read of anything related to that.

PC is good in some areas but when one has to think prior to making a comment then that is where it falls flat on it's face.

[donKey jote]

Why are you are so offended by what I write when I am showing you exactly where these expressions originate [missing question mark].
Theatrics! Outrage! Neither applies to me but if you take a good look in the mirror you may get the answer to your own questions which I assume are questions since the is no question mark.
a) I'm not offended at all. :dozey:
b) You're not showing where very serious anomaly or mishap originate at all. They are your own expressions.
c) When I ask a question, I use question marks. Try it! :p



Why are you so avidly aggressive when all I am doing is stating fact [missing question mark]. I have said it once and not again. I have no reason nor inclination to have feelings of bigotry towards gay people.
"Very serious" is not fact, it's a subjective qualification - your own interpretation. "Mishap" is also arguable, don't you think?
Clearly you feel no bigotry towards gay people. Your intentions are good and you don't need to keep repeating how much you love and respect your gay family member. Nobody is asking you to. To be honest I couldn't care less how he may or may not feel when you label him as having a very serious anomaly or pity him for having to endure his mishap, or whether or not you are capable of self-reflection when these terms are questioned.




p.s. Avidly aggressive? Look in the mirror?
... sad indication of what society can breed.
The irony is that you are a sad uneducated neanderthal knuckle dragger that is more dangerous to society than the people you so cruelly dislike.

[henners88]

Its a difficult one this and not one that can be easily explained. I think Spafranco's intentions are very different to how his wording has been greeted here. I've left this thread alone for a week or so but discussed this very topic with two gay men at the weekend and their opinion is not what some of you would expect. They felt although homosexuality is a natural phenomenon much like heterosexuality, but it is a mix up of sorts. I questioned deeper and asked if they thought they were abnormal in their sexuality and the response was that they are normal, but a minority in the grand scheme of things. Its not like we are going to be wiped out any time soon. :)

[Roamy]

Holy Butt Plug - Close this thread

[donKey jote]

:laugh:

[Knock-on]

I think half the problem stems from people trying to 'explain' away Homosexuality as something you are born with like a birthmark or 11 toes. It automatically gives people a hook to hang their hat on because being Gay can now be classed as 'explainable'.

Does being Gay need to be explained away or is it of so little consequense that it really doesn't matter. I think the Gay community shares some of the blame as thay pontificate that being Gay is not a choice but a 'condition' you're born with. I think this is what SpaFranco is getting hung up on.

If being Gay is a condition from birth, then so is being straight. Homosexual or Hetrosexual doesn't need to be explained away. Neither is some disease. It's just the way people are and has no bearing on who people are or how they behave.

Now, if I'm right and understand correctly, some people get irritated by how some people in the gay community behave. We have probably all known people in the Gay community that are OTT and in your face with it. I don't appreciate that sort of behavior just as I don't appreciate loud, aggressive straight people with overt displays of sexuality or what can be described as intimidating behaviour.

The problem is that if someone feels intimidated by what, for want of a better description, I would call loutish chavy behaviour, very few people would criticise them but if someone feels intimidated or uncomfortable by people being overtly or flamboyantly camp and gay in their face, then they are branded homophobic, whereas they just feel uncomfortable with a type of behaviour and not the sexuality of the individuals themselves.

[BDunnell]

Does being Gay need to be explained away or is it of so little consequense that it really doesn't matter.

No, it doesn't.


I think the Gay community shares some of the blame as thay pontificate that being Gay is not a choice but a 'condition' you're born with. I think this is what SpaFranco is getting hung up on.

Really? Do they?

To me, this is an example of the assumption being made that all members of a particular group think the same way. As a gay person, I assume you would consider me part of the 'gay community', whatever that means, yet I don't feel I need to share any blame for anything. And I have never once met a gay person who has described being homosexual as a 'condition'.



Now, if I'm right and understand correctly, some people get irritated by how some people in the gay community behave. We have probably all known people in the Gay community that are OTT and in your face with it. I don't appreciate that sort of behavior just as I don't appreciate loud, aggressive straight people with overt displays of sexuality or what can be described as intimidating behaviour.

The problem is that if someone feels intimidated by what, for want of a better description, I would call loutish chavy behaviour, very few people would criticise them but if someone feels intimidated or uncomfortable by people being overtly or flamboyantly camp and gay in their face, then they are branded homophobic, whereas they just feel uncomfortable with a type of behaviour and not the sexuality of the individuals themselves.

The trouble is that, like it or not, such criticism of gay people does often stem from an underlying homophobia. I don't personally like any exaggerated behaviour, or what I consider to be some of the more boorish traits of any type of individual, but this doesn't mean to say there aren't those whose views have a different basis. It's like people saying, 'I'm not racist, but...'

[BDunnell]

Its a difficult one this and not one that can be easily explained. I think Spafranco's intentions are very different to how his wording has been greeted here.

I agree, and wonder whether a bit of a language barrier has come into play.

[Sprocket]

I think half the problem stems from people trying to 'explain' away Homosexuality as something you are born with like a birthmark or 11 toes. It automatically gives people a hook to hang their hat on because being Gay can now be classed as 'explainable'.

Does being Gay need to be explained away or is it of so little consequense that it really doesn't matter. I think the Gay community shares some of the blame as thay pontificate that being Gay is not a choice but a 'condition' you're born with. I think this is what SpaFranco is getting hung up on.

If being Gay is a condition from birth, then so is being straight. Homosexual or Hetrosexual doesn't need to be explained away. Neither is some disease. It's just the way people are and has no bearing on who people are or how they behave.

Now, if I'm right and understand correctly, some people get irritated by how some people in the gay community behave. We have probably all known people in the Gay community that are OTT and in your face with it. I don't appreciate that sort of behavior just as I don't appreciate loud, aggressive straight people with overt displays of sexuality or what can be described as intimidating behaviour.

The problem is that if someone feels intimidated by what, for want of a better description, I would call loutish chavy behaviour, very few people would criticise them but if someone feels intimidated or uncomfortable by people being overtly or flamboyantly camp and gay in their face, then they are branded homophobic, whereas they just feel uncomfortable with a type of behaviour and not the sexuality of the individuals themselves.

I think personally words like condition and abnormality in medical reports are all part of the problem. It is a perfectly natural variation within the whole of society not some form of explainable mishap. This leads to the derogatory 'well it isn't their fault' but still seems to convey some sense of inferiority, as if gay people are somehow not entirely healthy and have some form of medical condition.

There may be some underlying biological factor or 'explanation' or common traits, but it is like writing medical reports on whether or not someone decides to buy a white car instead of red one.

I tend to agree though who actually cares why? It is easier to just accept people have different sexuality as a natural variation within the population and the issues tend to go away. It doesn't matter in the least that gay people happened to be a minority rather than majority, it is still perfectly 'normal' that the variation occurs. Explanations in medical journals by someone trying to make a name for themselves won't change a thing.

I've seen reports that gay men are overly feminine in brain structure and others that say the are overly male - it is just this sort of nonsense that doesn't help at all, the individual is just 'who they are' end of story and they should be allowed to be just that without bigotry. It takes far more balls in life to be who you actually are than conform to some predetermined 'ideal' set by society at the end of the day.

[Knock-on]

Really? Do they?

To me, this is an example of the assumption being made that all members of a particular group think the same way. As a gay person, I assume you would consider me part of the 'gay community', whatever that means, yet I don't feel I need to share any blame for anything. And I have never once met a gay person who has described being homosexual as a 'condition'.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I meant some members of the Gay community. I wasn't trying to imply, at all, that everyone is like that.




The trouble is that, like it or not, such criticism of gay people does often stem from an underlying homophobia. I don't personally like any exaggerated behaviour, or what I consider to be some of the more boorish traits of any type of individual, but this doesn't mean to say there aren't those whose views have a different basis. It's like people saying, 'I'm not racist, but...'

Of course, some people are Homophobic but just like in the section you commented on where I clarified I was talking about some elements, I'm sure you mean that just like you, other people find some behaviour distastefull but can get branded Homophobic where they aren't. Of course, there are also quite a lot of Homophobes out there but that's not really what we were talking about.

[BDunnell]

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I meant some members of the Gay community. I wasn't trying to imply, at all, that everyone is like that.

I know, because I realise you don't think that way, but this is a trap into which a lot of people — whether unwittingly or not — fall.

[Spafranco]

The thoughts you convey with expressions like "very serious biological anomaly" or "biological mishap they have to endure".
Save me the theatrical outrage and show me where these expressions are written in the medical and scientific communities when describing homosexuality.
Currently it is often asserted, and perhaps popularly believed, that the traditional evaluation of homosexuality as an anomalous condition has been proved wrong by scientificDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (Encarta Multimedia Encyclopedia, CD-ROM 1998 edition: under "Homosexuality"). Ecclesiastical jurisprudence cannot remain indifferent to these great changes, being bound rather to examine what theoretical or practical effect they may have on the canonical appreciation of homosexuality, in particular with regard to capacity for valid marital consent. advance. One reads for instance: "As a result of scientific discussion, the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 eliminated homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

Instead of assuming "theatrical outrage directed to me maybe you should read just part of this. In fact you will see that until 1973 it was considered a mental disease.
What other explanation could there be for the armed forces of our nation only recently allow homosexuals to openly serve?

[Spafranco]

"Very serious" is not fact, it's a subjective qualification - your own interpretation. "Mishap" is also arguable, don't you think?
Clearly you feel no bigotry towards gay people. Your intentions are good and you don't need to keep repeating how much you love and respect your gay family member. Nobody is asking you to. To be honest I couldn't care less how he may or may not feel when you label him as having a very serious anomaly or pity him for having to endure his mishap, or whether or not you are capable of self-reflection when these terms are questioned.




p.s. Avidly aggressive? Look in the mirror?[/QUOTE]





p.s. Avidly aggressive? Look in the mirror? http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Spafranco http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157435-homophobia-post1114088.html#post1114088)
... sad indication of what society can breed.
The irony is that you are a sad uneducated neanderthal knuckle dragger that is more dangerous to society than the people you so cruelly dislike.




Please give me the post number and the context with which this was written.

I have supplied you with numerous medical opinions, papers and conclusions yet you still want to drag this out and directly at me.

Yesterday morning we(other forum members) had decided that it was best to close off the thread. You do not seem to think so.

Once again, I would appreciate it if you would supply me the post number for the above comment. Context is important.

[BDunnell]

Yesterday morning we(other forum members) had decided that it was best to close off the thread. You do not seem to think so.

What's such a decision got to do with you — or, indeed, any other forum members other than the moderators?

There is no need to close this thread at all. It's generally been extremely civilised and very interesting.

[pino]

There is no need to close this thread at all. It's generally been extremely civilised and very interesting.

...and as long as it stays that way none will close it :)

[Sprocket]

"Very serious" is not fact, it's a subjective qualification - your own interpretation. "Mishap" is also arguable, don't you think?
Clearly you feel no bigotry towards gay people. Your intentions are good and you don't need to keep repeating how much you love and respect your gay family member. Nobody is asking you to. To be honest I couldn't care less how he may or may not feel when you label him as having a very serious anomaly or pity him for having to endure his mishap, or whether or not you are capable of self-reflection when these terms are questioned.


p.s. Avidly aggressive? Look in the mirror?



p.s. Avidly aggressive? Look in the mirror? http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Spafranco http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157435-homophobia-post1114088.html#post1114088)
... sad indication of what society can breed.
The irony is that you are a sad uneducated neanderthal knuckle dragger that is more dangerous to society than the people you so cruelly dislike.




Please give me the post number and the context with which this was written.

I have supplied you with numerous medical opinions, papers and conclusions yet you still want to drag this out and directly at me.

Yesterday morning we(other forum members) had decided that it was best to close off the thread. You do not seem to think so.

Once again, I would appreciate it if you would supply me the post number for the above comment. Context is important.

I can't help you with the posts and to be honest have not followed all the thread, but I did see your links to medical reports. Who cares what was thought back in 1973? One link to a paper from 1944? Ever heard of the Tuskegee Airmen? You know around the same time the US Government commissioned a report that concluded 'Negros lack the ability to fight in war', right sure we should swallow that sort of nonsense too because it was in a report.

I treat all reports medical or otherwise with the utmost skepticism, two reason, who commissioned it (and therefore paid for the research and the authors mortgage)? And why?

I find your presentation and standing by of these so called reports rather distasteful to be honest. As I mentioned some of these so called 'experts' fail to even break the link between gender and sexuality in there 'masterpieces' (i.e. think gay men have feminine or male brains doh!) - you need to step back a little and look again with new eyes at what you are presenting in my very humble personal opinion, before calling for the thread to be closed.

[donKey jote]

What other explanation could there be for the armed forces of our nation only recently allow homosexuals to openly serve?
that part of your nation or the armed forces had some sort of collective hang-up when it comes to homosexuality ? :p

openly serve? as opposed to "covert" operations? :laugh:

[donKey jote]

Homosexual or Hetrosexual doesn't need to be explained away. Neither is some disease. It's just the way people are and has no bearing on who people are or how they behave.

this is what I believe :)

[Spafranco]

What's such a decision got to do with you — or, indeed, any other forum members other than the moderators?

There is no need to close this thread at all. It's generally been extremely civilised and very interesting.

Where is all this aggression coming from? A simple statement. Did you post the same to the person that asked for this to occur? Why was that?

[Spafranco]

this is what I believe :)

Please supply me with the post # contained in my previous question to you. Much obliged.

[donKey jote]

I have supplied you with numerous medical opinions, papers and conclusions ...

Except you haven't ! :p

Again, you have not supplied anything to support your (I assume personal, subjective) view of homosexuality as a very serious anomaly or a mishap.

very serious / mishap

very serious / mishap

and one last time:very serious / mishap

Got it ? :)

[donKey jote]

Please supply me with the post # contained in my previous question to you. Much obliged.

lost the search button? It's hard to tell which of your posts you mean, as you appear to have mangled the quotes :)

... 221 was an example of you being avidly aggressive, no matter what the context was :)

[Spafranco]

I can't help you with the posts and to be honest have not followed all the thread, but I did see your links to medical reports. Who cares what was thought back in 1973? One link to a paper from 1944? Ever heard of the Tuskegee Airmen? You know around the same time the US Government commissioned a report that concluded 'Negros lack the ability to fight in war', right sure we should swallow that sort of nonsense too because it was in a report.

I treat all reports medical or otherwise with the utmost skepticism, two reason, who commissioned it (and therefore paid for the research and the authors mortgage)? And why?

I find your presentation and standing by of these so called reports rather distasteful to be honest. As I mentioned some of these so called 'experts' fail to even break the link between gender and sexuality in there 'masterpieces' (i.e. think gay men have feminine or male brains doh!) - you need to step back a little and look again with new eyes at what you are presenting in my very humble personal opinion, before calling for the thread to be closed.

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.
Tuskegee Airmen? What in all that is rational have these men got to do with the conversation save for the fact that they were courageous individuals?

You mention studies and medical papers as though they were written by a bunch of uneducated morons not capable of a thought. So with your reasoning you have cast the efforts of Pasteur , Fleming, Bernard, Alzheimer and a myriad of others.
So, in your case you deem it as significant that anything believed in prior to your decided time period is of no significance and everything else is within your frame of time is correct. Slippery slope.

Oh, and by the way, the last of the Tuskegee airmen died.

[Spafranco]

I think personally words like condition and abnormality in medical reports are all part of the problem. It is a perfectly natural variation within the whole of society not some form of explainable mishap. This leads to the derogatory 'well it isn't their fault' but still seems to convey some sense of inferiority, as if gay people are somehow not entirely healthy and have some form of medical condition.

There may be some underlying biological factor or 'explanation' or common traits, but it is like writing medical reports on whether or not someone decides to buy a white car instead of red one.

I tend to agree though who actually cares why? It is easier to just accept people have different sexuality as a natural variation within the population and the issues tend to go away. It doesn't matter in the least that gay people happened to be a minority rather than majority, it is still perfectly 'normal' that the variation occurs. Explanations in medical journals by someone trying to make a name for themselves won't change a thing.

I've seen reports that gay men are overly feminine in brain structure and others that say the are overly male - it is just this sort of nonsense that doesn't help at all, the individual is just 'who they are' end of story and they should be allowed to be just that without bigotry. It takes far more balls in life to be who you actually are than conform to some predetermined 'ideal' set by society at the end of the day.

My my, now we have someone who comes in and lays semantics. "A perfectly natural variation within society" variation/anomaly?

I reiterate that I am and do not have any issues with people who state they are homosexual. I do object to those who dismiss what was asked for because an article, one of thousands available using the word anomaly. That some of these written in 1944 does not negate what I stated when I said that homosexuality was considered an anomaly.
What you are doing is trying to insert language that you feel comfortable with. Dementia, a symptom of Alzheimer's was never used until it became known as a more serious illness.
Homosexual people suffer enough without you trying to push the reason it occurs under the carpet. People are born male and female for a reason. Reproduction.Why are people attracted to the same sex? That is a serious question.

[donKey jote]

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.
Where is all this aggression coming from? :p

[BDunnell]

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.
Tuskegee Airmen? What in all that is rational have these men got to do with the conversation save for the fact that they were courageous individuals?

You mention studies and medical papers as though they were written by a bunch of uneducated morons not capable of a thought. So with your reasoning you have cast the efforts of Pasteur , Fleming, Bernard, Alzheimer and a myriad of others.
So, in your case you deem it as significant that anything believed in prior to your decided time period is of no significance and everything else is within your frame of time is correct. Slippery slope.

Quite what this has to do with the subject in hand I don't know.

Your contributions to this thread I find rather odd. On the one hand you claim to have no problem with gay people, and I believe you. On the other you post all this stuff about homosexuals having 'very serious anomalies'. Now you're ranting about, for example, me being 'aggressive', which is blatantly nonsense. I've been very polite to you throughout. Might I again suggest that there's a bit of a language barrier here?

[BDunnell]

That is a serious question.

Why? Why does it matter?

[BDunnell]

Where is all this aggression coming from? A simple statement. Did you post the same to the person that asked for this to occur? Why was that?

You are not a moderator. The fact that you thought the thread should be closed is completely irrelevant. Surely you must see that?

[Mark]

Neither are you ;) So less personal stuff.

[BDunnell]

Neither are you ;) So less personal stuff.

I happen to find it rather 'personal' to be told I have a 'serious anomaly'.

[Mark]

Well you do don't you. Your just as anomalous as many here :laugh: .

[donKey jote]

I feel so sad that you have to endure such a mishap. :p
OT btw... has anyone seen Glaui recently? :andrea:

[Mark]

He's here all the time!!

[donKey jote]

I can't find him, or was he you? :p

....whatever?! :dozey: :andrea:

[Spafranco]

Holy Butt Plug - Close this thread

So DonKeyote, seems that you should be reprimanded. Oh, and please, if you are unable to direct me to the post and the context with which it was written I would kindly ask that you refrain from your sarcastic comments.
As an aunt of mine in Hull England states," sarcasm is the lowest form of wit".

[Spafranco]

I happen to find it rather 'personal' to be told I have a 'serious anomaly'.

Was it me that stated that?

[Spafranco]

You are not a moderator. The fact that you thought the thread should be closed is completely irrelevant. Surely you must see that?

No, I am not a moderator. If you read the post by Roamy and the "like" by DonKeyote then you may direct your angst towards them and not me.

I have been ploite all through this and the only thing you fixate upon is when I was asked to provide a scientific paper which mentions anomaly I am set upon as though I was the person that wrote the paper.
There is selective umbrage by some posters. I have answered every question posed and I am not in any way rude to you. However, I do not see the same with one or two others.

[Sprocket]

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.
Tuskegee Airmen? What in all that is rational have these men got to do with the conversation save for the fact that they were courageous individuals?

You mention studies and medical papers as though they were written by a bunch of uneducated morons not capable of a thought. So with your reasoning you have cast the efforts of Pasteur , Fleming, Bernard, Alzheimer and a myriad of others.
So, in your case you deem it as significant that anything believed in prior to your decided time period is of no significance and everything else is within your frame of time is correct. Slippery slope.

Oh, and by the way, the last of the Tuskegee airmen died.

You clearly do not understand the story of the Tuskegee airmen at all. They remained non combatant throughout much of the war - due to a report written by apparently educated scientists.

When they were finally allowed to serve, they proved to be one of the most professional units in the U.S. Army Air Force.

The point is even those that write scientific reports are not free of their own bigotry and this becomes clearer the further you go back in time.

If you don't get the point, not much point explaining it. Though I rather think you just posted links to random articles and papers that happened to contain words such as 'abnormal' or 'condition' from the web to prove a point. I doubt if any gay person regards themselves or their lives as a mishap, even if you think of it that way.

[Spafranco]

You clearly do not understand the story of the Tuskegee airmen at all. They remained non combatant throughout much of the war - due to a report written by apparently educated scientists.

When they were finally allowed to serve, they proved to be one of the most professional units in the U.S. Army Air Force.

The point is even those that write scientific reports are not free of their own bigotry and this becomes clearer the further you go back in time.

If you don't get the point, not much point explaining it. Though I rather think you just posted links to random articles and papers that happened to contain words such as 'abnormal' or 'condition' from the web to prove a point. I doubt if any gay person regards themselves or their lives as a mishap, even if you think of it that way.
First of all I am well informed as to who the Tuskegee airmen were. How you deemed that I do not, based upon a question and pointing out the fact that the last of these brave men died is rather ambitious of you.

Secondly, you have your opinion but you do not have the right to make character assassination judgements.

It seems as though you and a couple of others have one goal and that is to create an argument. Don't read my posts. Simple as that.

If you knew how carefully the language used in medical studies you would not make idiotic statements such as the one above.

[Spafranco]

Why? Why does it matter?

If you as a gay man do not see how serious this whole topic is then you do not live in the US. Here it is important enough to win or lose elections based upon the stance of the party.
Just yesterday a member of the government, a republican and a vociferous campaigner against gay marriage and gays in the military.

[donKey jote]

Oh, and please, if you are unable to direct me to the post and the context with which it was written I would kindly ask that you refrain from your sarcastic comments.

what part of 221 in
lost the search button? It's hard to tell which of your posts you mean, as you appear to have mangled the quotes :)

... 221 was an example of you being avidly aggressive, no matter what the context was :)
don't you understand?

whatever :dozey:

[donKey jote]

Secondly, you have your opinion but you do not have the right to make character assassination judgements.

It seems as though you and a couple of others have one goal and that is to create an argument. Don't read my posts. Simple as that.

If you knew how carefully the language used in medical studies you would not make idiotic statements such as the one above.

You know the saying... argue with a donkey and onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

If I didn't feel like I was in a time-warp I'd say "welcome back loowi" and congratulate you on beating your previous post tally :wave:


whatever :dozey:

[donKey jote]

when I was asked to provide a scientific paper which mentions anomaly I am set upon

if anything, you were asked to provide a scientific paper mentioning very serious anomaly or mishap.

very serious / mishap

Whatever... no point going around and around in circles.

[EuroTroll]

I've tried twice now to read the last few pages of this thread, but I can't! :erm: It's so uninteresting. :erm:

Could someone give me the gist, in 100 characters or fewer? :D

Some tit-for-tat affair, is it? :)

[donKey jote]

Was it me that stated that?

post 253:

Mishap is minimizing a very serious biological anomaly not yet understood by the sciences and completely misunderstood by the citizenry.

The root of the apparent argument :)

[donKey jote]

I've tried twice now to read the last few pages of this thread, but I can't! :erm: It's so uninteresting. :erm:

Could someone give me the gist, in 100 characters or fewer? :D

Some tit-for-tat affair, is it? :)

no... go away and spice up the forum elsewhere :p

[EuroTroll]

Ah, so that's it. :D Thanks, Donks! ;)

I say, "Repent Spafranco!" So we can all kiss and make up, much to airshifter's delight! :D :p

[EuroTroll]

no... go away and spice up the forum elsewhere :p

But this is the only home I know... :( :p

[donKey jote]

To me it looks now like we've all been here before. Same donkeys too. Same quoting of medical articles, claims of character assassination, cherry-picking, not reading people's posts...
I'm sorry I fell for it and didn't realise earlier.

Here's how that thread ended:

Well, I see that now you are suggesting to me to PM.

Funnily enough, I just got a PM :laugh:

(which I shall dutily ignore... whatever :dozey :)

[Knock-on]

This thread has moved way past discussing the subject and has sunk to the normal pissing contest, arguing about personalities and irrelevant 'facts' :(

Oh we'll, let me know if anything improves but I'm out of here :wave:

[EuroTroll]

This thread has moved way past discussing the subject and has sunk to the normal pissing contest, arguing about personalities and irrelevant 'facts' :(

Oh we'll, let me know if anything improves but I'm out of here :wave:

I'll let you know (via PM) if it improves, Cock-on. :cheese: :p

[BDunnell]

I've tried twice now to read the last few pages of this thread, but I can't! :erm: It's so uninteresting. :erm:

It is. Elements of it are almost indecipherable, too. Shame, really. It was interesting before one member waded in.

[gadjo_dilo]

.... So we can all kiss and make up, much to airshifter's delight! :D :p

Since you have a fixation with those kisses I'll start the series:
:kiss:

[EuroTroll]

It is. Elements of it are almost indecipherable, too. Shame, really. It was interesting before one member waded in.

Oh well. All good things must come to an end. :erm: Pity we never got to hear from Roamy, though. :D

[EuroTroll]

Since you have a fixation with those kisses I'll start the series:
:kiss:

:kiss: ;)

[Sprocket]

First of all I am well informed as to who the Tuskegee airmen were. How you deemed that I do not, based upon a question and pointing out the fact that the last of these brave men died is rather ambitious of you.

Secondly, you have your opinion but you do not have the right to make character assassination judgements.

It seems as though you and a couple of others have one goal and that is to create an argument. Don't read my posts. Simple as that.

If you knew how carefully the language used in medical studies you would not make idiotic statements such as the one above.

Unfortunately it is those that are closest to medical studies and scientific reports that are the most skeptical. They are written for the purpose of peer review. Very often by post grad students. It is only the media and certain section of the public that take them at face value.

Interestingly most of what you have stated about me is true of yourself. Forums eh, simple point that the wording in medical reports from 30 to 70 years ago may well have carried bigotry within the words. (and inclusion of a well known example regarding racism in US in the 1940s) That was all.

I assumed you did not know much about the Tuskegee airmen, else you would have formed a link with the point I was making and the report you posted from 1944 - your whole point was to demonstrate that derogatory wording aimed against homosexuals (such as you used yourself earlier in the thread) was 'normal' in medical reports. My point was it might well have been 'normal' in 1944 - but it certainly is not now.

But I won't be returning to this thread as your accusations that I posted just to somehow agree with other forum members or that you are somehow being picked on, in itself is ridiculous. I'm quite capable of having my own opinions.

What you have avoided is what you have been asked over and over by others. Why do you think being gay is a mishap?

It is you who took my posts so personally and started on the accusations btw. It is all here to read back through.

[Spafranco]

To me it looks now like we've all been here before. Same donkeys too. Same quoting of medical articles, claims of character assassination, cherry-picking, not reading people's posts...
I'm sorry I fell for it and didn't realise earlier.

Here's how that thread ended:


Funnily enough, I just got a PM :laugh:

(which I shall dutily ignore... whatever :dozey :)

Your choice.

[Spafranco]

Eurotroll, it seems that there are many people that have no sense of what a person is saying or referring to. There is no point in me addressing the post of Sproket where he/she decides what it is that I am thinking.

Suffice it to say and to you and BDunnell I hold no malice towards people of different sexual orientation. That includes all.
If I offended anyone it was not my intent and I apologize to those that felt aggrieved.

[race aficionado]

speaking of Heterophobia . . . . oh wait! wrong thread.

Not that there is one on this topic but it wouldn't surprise me.

So sorry, carry on. This thread aint lasting much longer looks like.

I'm going to focus on all these great FIFA worldcup qualifiers coming up.
Vamos Colombia, España y Argentina!

[BDunnell]

Eurotroll, it seems that there are many people that have no sense of what a person is saying or referring to. There is no point in me addressing the post of Sproket where he/she decides what it is that I am thinking.

Suffice it to say and to you and BDunnell I hold no malice towards people of different sexual orientation. That includes all.
If I offended anyone it was not my intent and I apologize to those that felt aggrieved.

Of this I'm aware already, so there's no need to apologise; however, I simply don't understand how this squares with your desire always to stress that gay people have a 'serious anomaly' and related comments.

[race aficionado]

. . . .

So sorry, carry on. This thread aint lasting much longer looks like.



Sorry for my presumptuous behavior.
If this thread is to continue in peace and some good is to come out of it, who am I to assume anything.

peace dammit!

[Bagwan]

One good friend of mine wouldn't exist if there wasn't homophobia .

Her father is gay , and led a double-life , as a professor at the university of Toronto during the week , and on weekends , was her father , in a suburban household .
Had he been born perhaps just ten years later , he would never have bothered with that suburban life .

He was beaten for being gay .
He was arrested for the same issue , at an infamous bath house bust in Toronto .
It wasn't easy .

And , he considers her as his greatest gift , and despite all the hardship associated with being gay in that time period , he states he would not have had it any other way .

She is a published writer , and performance artist .
"Confessions of a fairy's daughter" just played recently at our local United church .


It's not easy being green , either .

[Spafranco]

Of this I'm aware already, so there's no need to apologise; however, I simply don't understand how this squares with your desire always to stress that gay people have a 'serious anomaly' and related comments.
I feel like there is a disconnect and you are of the impression and some others that I personally view homosexuality as a serious anomaly.Like the movie "Lost in translation" title of the movie.
It would be true to say that every person born is an anomaly since no two are identical,not even identical twins even though they share the same DNA, they have different areas of their metabolism that are always unique.

[BDunnell]

I feel like there is a disconnect and you are of the impression and some others that I personally view homosexuality as a serious anomaly.

Well, this was what you said, without (as far as I can recall — no time to look it up now) the qualification that it wasn't your own view, in one of your first posts in the thread.

[Spafranco]

Fine. If I posted in error then it is my fault.

[Spafranco]

To me it looks now like we've all been here before. Same donkeys too. Same quoting of medical articles, claims of character assassination, cherry-picking, not reading people's posts...
I'm sorry I fell for it and didn't realise earlier.

Here's how that thread ended:


Funnily enough, I just got a PM :laugh:

(which I shall dutily ignore... whatever :dozey :)

Why don't you stop your whining and moaning about me and address the thread. The only thing you have done since it started is trying your damnedest to involve me in an argument that you with your 8,000 posts feel that you have an insight into everything.
At least when you try to engage me use my name. I spafranco did PM you. Why have you put up someone else who has not posted here?
Do you actually go around trying to find posts by others and use them to cast aspersions on their character? That is sad.
You have never answered the question posed by me earlier. You attributed a quote to me but would not identify it.
You also have made suggestions that I am using more than one screen name. I can assure you I am not. If you are using IP addresses as your method of identifying me you will see that I live in the Southern State of Arkansas. I do not have a personal server and my IP address is the same as my neighbors and most homes on my street. These people as well as me have XFINITY. They are the one with my address.
So please just answer the questions posed and stop your blatant attempt at disruption. Do you want me to be banned? Is that it? LOl.

I recall an old saying about people victimized and bullied. It was in another language. The translation is "Our day will come". I'll let you know who said it.

[donKey jote]

Why don't you stop your whining and moaning about me
whatever :dozey:


So DonKeyote, seems that you should be reprimanded.
Who's whining and moaning? :laugh:



You have never answered the question posed by me earlier. You attributed a quote to me but would not identify it.
... So please just answer the questions posed and stop your blatant attempt at disruption.


I HAVE DONE. I gave you the post number, here (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157435-homophobia-17.html#post1116895) and here (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157435-homophobia-18.html#post1117028). Now leave me alone. You're beyond help http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/smilies/dozey.gif

As I said, I'm sorry to have fallen for it and not realising who/how you were beforehand.
Bye :wave:

[donKey jote]

You have never answered the question posed by me earlier. You attributed a quote to me but would not identify it.
... So please just answer the questions posed and stop your blatant attempt at disruption.


I HAVE DONE. I gave you the post number. Now leave me alone. You're beyond help :dozey:

[Spafranco]

Except you haven't ! :p

Again, you have not supplied anything to support your (I assume personal, subjective) view of homosexuality as a very serious anomaly or a mishap.

very serious / mishap

very serious / mishap

and one last time:very serious / mishap

Got it ? :)

Bold letters and all. Seems as though you're taking your ball and running off home.

I'm sure you're aware of the old adage pertaining to assumption.

[Spafranco]

whatever :dozey:


Who's whining and moaning? :laugh:



I HAVE DONE. I gave you the post number, here (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157435-homophobia-17.html#post1116895) and here (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157435-homophobia-18.html#post1117028). Now leave me alone. You're beyond help :dozey:

As I said, I'm sorry to have fallen for it and not realising who/how you were beforehand.
Bye :wave:

Who I am? When people go into withdrawals from many types of drugs be they meds or illicit they tend to become paranoid and imagine all sorts of things.
Oh, and boo hoo to you.

[Spafranco]

Donkey has been looking for links for my comments. He seem ignores what I have given and selectively tries to undermine anything said by me. Do I care. Not in the slightest.
Since he has scurried off and will not read any posts by me o the subject; wink ; wink, I am providing yet another link for those interested. The contents and the opinions are not mine as the ass I mean donkey tries to assert.
Epigenetics - Genes and homosexuality (http://www.mygenes.co.nz/epigenetics.htm)

epigenetic link to homosexuality? ... the same result, so that if one process is knocked out by some biological accident, the process as a whole would still survive.

[race aficionado]

Sparfranco.
Choose your battles I say.

Don't chose this one.

This thread has gone way past topic.