Actually you have "expounded" my original posts more than I ever would have. LOL.

Exactly.

Naa prejudice against gays is based on the fact that it's an aberration. What is there not to know about "gay" that isn't self explanatory? Job, housing, etc discrimination might be bigotry to a certain extent though. But the feelings are pretty natural to find it aberrant that a human is attracted to other than the opposite gender.

I'll talk about it if you like.

Gladly...
It seems the grandkids and daughter in law thing was an afterthought. And the point of my post was that the feeling that brought those statements were caused by disappointment that her son might be gay. You seem to gloss over all the rest of that post and locked in on the grandchildren thing which wasn't really a significant thing. Much unlike the big friggin deal you have made about it. Anything else you need me to clarify?

So you are admitting that in your looking for BS crap to argue about, missed that sentence in my post above? What a load of feces. I reposted the post above, it's clearly there. And you call ME a bullcrapper? Your posts indicate who is more FOS.

According to a link presented I said "maybe she was disappointed". No evidence needed. We aren't really debating my post any more. We are well beyond that now. Your long winded bull laden posts that it seems are based on your not even reading my first one clearly have led us here.

I am not cowering. Who are you talking to anyway. Is someone actually giving a damn about little carps like that? They make you look like some kind of an idiot if you aren't really talking to someone. Cause I have not cowered. The link said he was gay, others made the uncontested leap to her disowning her son, I said his mom might be disappointed. I'll discuss it. But you seem to be stuck on grandparents and chinese people.
He said he's not gay. So does Clay Aiken. LOL. My origiinal post stands. If he's not gay, that came later. His sexuality is still in question and his mother is still disappointed.

I have answered all of your points while you just admitted you didn't read my original post completely. Tsk tsk.

No, the title of the story was about her gay son. That WAS the news. In case you forgot to read that too.
BGay.com News - Sally Kern Has a Gay Son?

And you are even funnier in your failure at actually doing it. LOL.

I got no problem with gay people. I just think there is something wrong with homosexuality. It seems I can separate the feelings about homosexuality from the person. That's a concept that is beyond your comprehension though.

Read above at the points that you said "no reason to brach o ut in that direction".
But I didn't, you seem to be stuck on it. You are showing you predisposition to use previous discussions to color what you present here. And in your zeal to try and prove THAT insignificant point you totally glossed over the rest of my post. Revealing yourself for the screwed in the head bullshit artist that you are.
The homeless gay kids simply show just how disappointed and devastated parents can be that they find out they have a gay child. But that is far from the only revelation that will get a child kicked out. Just if "gay" is only a small percentage of the genpop, the fact that they lead in homeless stats show just how disappointed some parent are.

But being disappointed that a child you created is gay is just a tad different than having a slow son running or a carpenter son when you wanted a shoemaker. There's another one of those lame analogies I guess.

Nope, I've been too worried about her grandkids. LOL. Her speech WAS anti gay. But I never discussed the content of her speech, just offered a "why" she might feel that way. Just as a racist might feel that way based on some life experience with another race.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Nope, my capabilities are just fine....
According to this site there are 1.6 million homeless kids in this country alone. Of which 40% are gay. That's could be considered 500,000 parents right there that were disappointed enough to kick their kids out. One country out of 195 of which 80 still criminalize homosexuality, and some nations are extremely homophobic. Now let's see your capabilities at refuting.

I didn't see you clamoring for proof for the posts before mine. And I don't see any proof for any of your statements. I went by the information provided. Don't like the information, consult the link.

How do you know, you didn't even read it. Liar. You skipped almost to the last sentence.

Yeah, but people aren't born "interracial couple". Gender and sexuality are a bit different. That's just another f'd up analogy. We haven't physically "evolved" into anything that would indicate homosexuality as something a human should be born as. Any male and female can create another one of our species.

You have yet to show me wrong for anything. But you have shown your reading comprehension skills aren't quite up to par though.

Yeah, but your analogy itself proves just how thick your analogy creating thought processes are. You aren't very good at it.

I'm talking about the ENTIRE FRIGGIN WORLD. Not a few cultures. I can name a few cultures other than Blacks that have been enslaved. Still doesn't comapare to the human species-wide aversion to sexual aberration.

It's not prejudice.

Homophilia is the actual name before "the vote". The lunping was already done. The "unlumping" I question.

Yeah like beastiality and pedarasty. I look up to them allright. And the Mayans had a hell of a calendar while they ate people. And you are the last one to talk about sloppy Mr. Foundit Read-a-Little.

Actually a "civilizations opinion on gays" can be molded just like the "civilizations opinion on pedophiles" is currently undergoing. Your point means nothing.

Only to those that aren't.

Ask grandparents. Stepkids aren't "the same" in many families. In fact there are many websites that deal with the issues in mixed families. You just deal with it. If you didn't know that, maybe you are as dense as you try to make me out to be.

No, what you need to do is stop posting, you are wasting both of our time. And I'm actually just doing this to waste time. So never mind. Keep posting. This is fun. Maybe we can stretch this few early sentences out to like 6 posts or something.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

From a logic stand-point, your statements are bizarre and lacking in common sense. Insinuating unproven connections.
Specifically, the "since" in your statement denoting a causal link between the two issues.
You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that a desire to have kids is innately connected to a desire to have sex with a woman.
MULTIPLE ways such an allegation can be disproven, but you refuse to realize that your assumptions are wrong.


It's been pointed out before (and you have predictably cowered from addressing it) that this "argument" of yours has no inherency towards homosexuals.
It applies to straight men as well.

I could take the same idiotic approach and ask you "Why would a heterosexual man want kids when he has no evolved physical system to support one?"

Wanting a kid has nothing to do with having boobs.


This is the same mentality as seeing the "Virgin Mary" in a piece of toast.
You WANT to establish justification for your prejudice, so you see a "sign" wherever possible. Ignoring the contradictory evidence in OTHER parts of nature.


Like with many things, when fxashun realizes he has no traction on his absurd arguments, he quickly runs from them.
But he learns nothing, as inevitably he just repeats the same repeated stupidity in the future.

Here, Chuck accurately responded to a specific concept that fxashun has repeatedly put forward. An idiotic ideal that not being attracted to the opposite sex somehow means a desire to have or raise kids is absent.
Any intelligent person can realize that a guy wanting to bone a woman has nothing to do with giving him a desire to raise kids, just like a guy wanting to bone a guy has nothing to do with that desire being absent.

And I think fxashun has finally realized how pathetic his belief is, so he attempts to change the subject to "sterility".

Fxashun, you DID have a point that attempted to pretend that gays not being attracted to the same gender somehow muted a desire for kids.
That IS what chuck was responding to.
Your cowardice in running from your previous point, by obfuscating the issue, is recognized.

Again, quote me ANYTHING in your original post which I did not address.
I'll take your incapability to do so as an admission that you're back-peddling, and trying to blame me for the stupidity of your argument...


Again, I am amused you have the gall to ask such a question, and then your ignorance on the subject is REPEATEDLY pointed out.
It's like a student asking "What don't I know about algebra?" as the teacher hands him back a test that the student flunked...


"natural"?
Funny how in nature, we see NO sign of gay animals being the recipient of bigotry or prejudice.
There is nothing "natural" about prejudice towards gays.


Are you seriously going to imply that we haven't "talked about it" before?
Let me recap.
You try.
Your statements are quickly exposed as idiotic and ignorant.
You change the subject, only to bring up the same arguments all over again later.

If you have something new that hasn't been refuted before, bring it up.
If you want to say something else stupid, please continue...


1) You just quoted your entire first post, which ONLY talked about an imagined "disappointment".
So where the heck did I supposedly focus on something you said, ignoring other things?
Oh wait. THAT was yet another of your LIES attempting to obfuscate the issue of your back-peddling, and changing the subject off of some stupid stance you had.

2) "was an afterthought"? It's your IMAGINED thought. There is no proof that she ever had such a thought.

3) There is no "might be gay".
You claimed, point-blank, that he WAS gay.
Yet another thing you cowardly back-peddle from...

4) Again, WHAT did I supposedly ignore?
Name me a point in that post that I ACTUALLY ignored.


1) No. I said nothing of the sort.
2) I seriously did not think you were arguing that idiotic attempt.
Forgive me for over-estimating your intelligence.
3) To expound on your argument:
Why would a pianist want to have a kid that is an engineer?
Why would a right-handed person want to have a kid that is left-handed?
Why would a guy who enjoys jogging want to have a kid that prefers bike-riding?
Why would a guy who enjoys writing want to have a kid that prefers playing the piano?
Why would a guy want to have a kid that's a girl?

Your argument is idiotic because it ignores the fact that NO CHILD OUT THERE is going to be a carbon-copy of the parent.
None.
But does that cause parents to say "Engineers / Left-handed / bike-riding / pianists / girls are worse than terrorists?"
No.

Parents have no right to expect that their kid has to turn out a certain way, just like them.



In other words, you have no evidence. None whatsoever.
Her son SAYS she isn't gay, so you pull a "maybe" approach...

I guess I'll just say "maybe fxashun is a child molestor", and then leave it as a "maybe" and ignore everything else that is wrong with making such a statement...


I am talking to you. And you DO cower.
Pointed out in my post just above, and REPEATEDLY elsewhere, when the going gets tough, you change the subject.
And quite frankly, there are a variety of posts here showing support for me.
I have yet to see ANY support for you.

And that goes WELL beyond what you might want to blindly refer to as a gay applause section.
Even the owner of the board, who could never be referred to intelligently as a "gay applause section", has noticed your crap.
I realize YOU DO NOT "give a damn". But don't try to pretend that others do not...


I am laughing so hard now it's busting a gut.
"The link said he was gay"???
Did you notice the QUESTION MARK in the SUBJECT LINE of the "link"?
Furthermore, did you LOOK at the link?

It was ASKING THE QUESTIOn of whether or not she had a gay son.
It quoted an "anonymous" source making an allegation, but NOTHING MORE.
Normally, you'd be tripping all over yourself to ignore "gay" resources.
But I guess when they agree with you, you automatically assume they are true.
And even when the SON HIMSELF comes out and says "I am not gay", you insist he is.


1) No. You have not answered all of my points.
2) No. I never said ANYTHING about not reading your original post "completely". Quit with the stupid lies, as they only destroy any credibility you could hope to have.
(Unless of course this has nothing to do with credibility, and it's only about you talking to somebody cause you're just that desparate...)

3) You haven't addressed my point that a kid being gay THAT IS NOT A CHOICE would be LESS of a disappointment issue than a kid CHOOSING to be celibate in a way that IS a choice.
If the kid has NO choice in having a kid (which isn't the case for gays), that is not as bad as a situation that a kid HAS the capability to have a kid, but CHOOSES not to.


You notice the QUESTION MARK at the end???
You know what a "question mark" means?


The falseness of this "I got no problem with gay people" is proven by examining how much of your time you spend complaining about them, and trying to lump them in with pedophiles.
Tristan makes ONE ANALOGY about blacks, and you label him as a racist.

If ANYBODY believes fxashun doesn't have a problem with gays, please let me know.


What fxashun said: "A gay son means no daughter-in law and less chance of related grandchildren."
You are proven a liar. AGAIN.


Again, I don't know how to get this across to you.
I ACKNOWLEDGE PREJUDICE EXISTS.
I ACKNOWLEDGE BIGOTRY EXISTS.

I am not saying "no parent is ever disappointed by having a gay kids".
I have repeatedly acknowledged that some bigots DO kick their gay kids out of their home.


The "difference" being that there is not a large segment of society which is GROSSLY BIGOTTED against "slow" or "carpenter".
The point, you slow-witted fool, is that talking about "disappointment" is idiotic.

When you try to talk about kids being KICKED OUT OF THE HOME by referring to the parents as just "disappointed", it's an attempt to avoid the accurate categorization of BIGOTRY.
The "analogy" only exists when YOU use the word "disappointed" to try and categorize something that obviously transcends "disappointed" well into the land of BIGOTRY.

(And I don't know if you haven't gotten it or yet, but your reply IS PROVING MY POINT by exposing YOUR use of the word "disappointed" as an understatement. It would be like saying "radical terrorist Muslims are cross with the U.S.".)


It's amusing to note that in the analogy you just made, you are analogous to a "racist".
I couldn't agree more that your position towards homosexuals is analogous to a racist's position against blacks.

I swear. It's funny watching you work, cause you repeatedly just miss the boat.
Lights are on, but nobody's home.
Elevator doesn't go all the way to the top...

I DO NOT NEED to refute ANY of that.
Bigots kick gay kids out of their home. Like I said earlier, I think I was the one who brought that up in the first place, so WHY should I refute it?
(another question you can't respond to or grasp)

Yes. Some countries criminalize homosexuality.
BIGOTRY exists.
I would love to see you stop referring to those countries as a "number", and start NAMING those countries so we could compare the QUALITY of those countries to the quality of other countries.
On the list of those who do NOT criminalize homosexuality: U.S., Britain, Sweden, Australia.
On the list of those who DO criminalize: Iran, Pakistan, Syria.

Your approach is like saying "20% of Americans use pot", and then failing to recognize that the majority of them might be living at home in their mom's basement.

I have no need to "refute" what you say.
I recognize the TRUTH and the CAUSE behind it.


1) Again, you lie.
I linked to the son EXPLICITLY DENYING allegations of his homosexuality.
Your reply was to say that he was gay anyways.

2) "consult the link"?
Did you even look at the link?
It was ASKING THE QUESTION as to whether he was gay, and then quoted one ANONYMOUS source which claimed he was.
That's like saying "fxashun is a child molestor? I've got an anonymous source which says he is."


Why do you think that is somehow a better thing?
So people CHOOSE to engage in aberrant relationships with somebody of another race.

Is there any negative factor (that you claim) of "homosexuality" which would somehow be mitigated if homosexuality were suddenly a "choice"?


Yeah. You don't have a fricken' clue what "analogy" means. I see that plainly now.
An "analogy" is not invalidated by the existence of generic "differences".
If the two items were identical in every way, it wouldn't be an "analogy" in the first place.

analogy: Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar


In your opinion.
I have repeatedly given the BENEFITS of the homosexual evolution, which is another argument you cower from and avoid.

In fact, the last statement is more of an argument from MY end of the issue than yours.
Any male and female, gay or straight, can create another one of our species.
The only "benefit" from heterosexuality is that it can result in ACCIDENTAL births. And even then, it invokes the issues of contraception and abortion.
Gay is more flexible.


Over and over again in your responding post, I see statements which are akin to "Is not" or "I know you are but what am I".
Here, you present no explanation as to why I am wrong.
You present no way in which my "analogy" shows anything about being invalid.
All you do is attempt a lame and stupid rejoinder.


Meaningless.
That's like bringing up pedophiles and zoophiles as a defense against homosexuality categorization.
It doesn't address the underlying point.

Furthermore, considering BLACKS SOLD THEIR OWN into slavery, maybe that's proof that blacks THEMSELVES ACCEPTED their slave status...
At least, if I was thinking with my head up my ass like you do...


You bring examples of countries OUTLAWING homosexuality, and parents KICKING gay kids out of their home.
You try to have it both ways.
You use words like "disappointment" to describe parents KICKING gay kids out of their home, and try to pretend it's not prejudice.

It IS prejudice.



And yet another example of fxashun's impotent debating style.
He "questions" it, but fails to even attempt an argument against the move.

Add on to the list of things fxashun cannot debate the item of WHY the APA should be criticized for "voting".
I challenge him to name a better means than "voting" for gaining a scientific community consensus assessment of a situation.


ROFLMAO!
At that stage of the game, EVERYONE was a barbarian. The people who were against gays weren't much better...

And I laugh, because we need to apply the EXACT SAME ANALYSIS to today's MODERN condemnation of gays.
You want to talk about the number of countries against homosexuality, but WHAT TYPE of countries are those?
And do they really compare to modern, civilized, FREE societies that have no problem with homosexuality?


1) There he goes again.
If he can't make a real argument, all he does is say "pedophiles" and pretend he made a point, even if his claim is grossly inaccurate.
Can you show a "civilization" change that is "currently undergoing" regarding pedophiles?
Let me guess. Another dumb lie?

2) "molded"? By who?
Is this another one of those great "gay conspiracy" theory approaches, whereby 2-5% of the population somehow magically makes an entire rest of the population change its intelligent mind on a position?
Whereby you ignore the fact that it is CIVILIZATION ITSELF that is changing ITS OWN MIND by simply applying simple concepts of freedom and equality unilaterally, instead of just to issues they aren't prejudiced against...


Another of those one-liner, no-brainer replies. A "no it isn't" type mentality.
I'm right-handed. Left-handed isn't normal. I don't give a crap if a person is left-handed.
I'm brown-haired, like a lot of folk. I don't give a crap about those red-haired "not normal" people.

Quite frankly, I question if there is ANYBODY out there who doesn't fit into some category of "not normal" because of some characteristic they have.
YOU fixate on "normal" because it's the only safe arguing point you have. But it's an impotent one. A pointless one.
"Normal" is irrelevant. The reasons why presented numerous times. You cannot counter those reasons.
Instead, all you do is hype on how important you think it is...


Quite frankly, I classify this "dealing with it" in the same way that some people "deal with" a family member marrying outside their race.
They may "deal" with it, but the REASON they have to "deal" with it in the first place is irrational. Based on prejudice and ignorance.

Some folks are just stupidly intolerant.


The last bastion of he who cannot handle the truth.
I will continue posting. Deal with it.
If you choose not to respond, that is your choice.
But I will continue to expose you as the spineless, lying coward that you are.
If you can't cope with that, maybe then "what you need to do is stop posting"...


Getting back to my theory that you're just desparate for somebody to talk to...

Thanks, foundit. You saved me a lot of time.

And back to the dropped issue of abortion, if gays are to be aborted for a simple matter such as "disappointment", then how much more justifiable is it to perform abortions for the purpose of lowering the crime rate for issues like murder, rape, robbery, etc...

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Media Matters - Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Surely the justification for this idea would be a lot stronger than just complaints of parental "disappointment", right?

And I think your attempt to diminish my argument to that one aspect shows your own deficiencies. You do that on every topic. You make the argument that my argument is one dimensional while arguing each dimension separately. That shows your own problem not mine. Hell, you don't even read my entire posts. LOL. how do you know about my skill when you display such weak ones of your own.

So you ARE saying you are disordered then? If a group of human have evolved with a sexual orientation that renders procreation impossible, common sense tells you they are f'd up. Like a sterile human still wants kids, but his body renders it impossible. A gay person has his instinct crossed rendering any sex he has with the object he/she is attracted to sterile. Sure you can force yourself to have coitus, but then again a diabetic can just eat less sugar. Diabetes is still disordered.

Your feeble attempts at demeaning my intelligence amuse me when you are the one basing mile long posts on an incomplete reading of a single paragraph. You are clearly the unintelligent one.

For someone who makes so many references to my intelligence you seem to be spending a lot of time in the idiot box. The original comment had nothing to do with bigots or anything. The original comment was when you said "Gay people usually have more class...."
I've never heard that stereotype. You even took that bullcrap to several lines of drivel. You are so full of crap.

Not the one in Atlanta a couple years ago...It was a freakshow. Statistical norm and "known for" are two different things.

What analogy?


No it points to the fact that black people were imported against their will. Wanna talk about a weak analogy. You just made one.

You seem to have a problem grasping why the entire world up until recently had anti gay laws. You seem to have a problem grasping why a parent would be so devastated hearing that they have a gay child. You seem to have a problem grasping why most other human being finds "gay" to be at least a bit off for humans. Blacks weren't only discriminated against, they were imported to be discriminated against. Whereas gay people fall out of the womb of their parents with a birth defect. The difference is quite clear to most.

When have I assumed the worse. I assume that homosexuality means attraction to the same gender. Is that worse? Sounds like a scientific fact to me.

You seem to not recognize that I am talking about the entire species and not individual countries. It's f'd up to a gay human not a gay American/Canadian/Israeli. What an individual country decides to do won't change that. Even if gay people get married, most people will still find it a bit off.

See above. Interracial marriage in the U.S. wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't genocide and slavery first. But that is just this country. Hell for that matter homosexuality is pretty much moot for any other species on the planet, not just humans. That quite a wider scope.

Has nothing to do with forests or trees. It is different. People change religions all the time. Gender...not so much.

I support civil unions as the legal recognition of the union that is quite obviously not a marriage. That's much more lenient that hanging.

Moral high ground is quite a new feeling for a gay person huh?

Mainly because gay requires a reorientation of how a person thinks of the genders. Which is pretty much universal all the way to plant life.

It's on much more solid ground than "God said so" though. See my sig below. I don't care about consensus.

And you don't refute it. You imply that all my reasons are singular, as you debate several of them in one post. Bullshit.

The gay union can't. No ignorance there. Any workaround is just that a substitute brought about by the gay disorder.

No, that's not true. The actual workings of the vagina as a sexual organ vs. the anus are quite obvious. Especially compared the jerry-rigged sex by the "other" sexual orientations. A man "can" have sex with a car. that doesn't justify the act.