DimaNYC

test

Alright guys, it's been fun debating with you. I've said all there is to say on this subject. All your questions on this topic are answered in my previous posts. I can not continue repeating my self. Thank you everyone.

Alright guys, it's been fun debating with you. I've said all there is to say on this subject. All your questions on this topic are answered in my previous posts. I can not continue repeating my self. Thank you everyone.

bigpoppanils, I'm not the one to give free advice. But just for you. Learn to read and pay attention to what you read and actually absorb it, it does wonders. Note how I didn't say nor imply that that is the only way. I mean I've only made around 15 posts how I view it as a genetic disorder as well.

Give it time. It has already begun. We only mapped the human genome not too long ago. Let it develope. Studies will continue. Besides I never neglected the fact that it can also be a learned behavior. Also try to refrain from flattering your self with your miniscule attempts to make me "look like an ass." Salvage your composure.

sd, you got me. I couldn't resist not posting here. Let me clear up a few things. All I was trying to get across is that publishers at NY Times are not for the rights of same sex parents or I should rather say for their right to adopt children. That is the sole reason for which I printed those quotes out of context like that. And also "the last quote (that) puzzles...", I should have put emphasis on the latter part of that statement. "will provide ammunition for opponents of adoption and foster-parenting by homosexuals." Again, this is only to discredit those who claim, or even slightly imply that NY Times advocates same sex parents ability to adopt. Considering that article was brought to my attention as some sort of proof. Lastly, when you said, "i would have a much easier time accepting your views if their was some sort of foundation for them." Okay. Let me make it easier for you. I believe that it is a disorder, being gay, not to discount that it can not be a learned behavior. From that I base my views and opinions. Oh I almost forgot. One more thing. You said, "most opinions such as the ones that you have displayed, are ones associated w/ closed mindedness." Have you ever thought that it isn't close mindedness. As I already stated previously. I'm very aware of my surroundings. And I base my views because I'm aware of all the facts.

wackydream, I am still enjoying the moment of making you look like an ass. I read everything hence my statement in the previous post, let me quote my self for you, "It has views from both sides leaning more towards the view I disagree with." My emphasis are on "THE HAMER STUDY". There is no mention of the word disorder per se. But, when you find a gene that predisposes you to alcoholism? Is that a genetic disorder? That might be a bad example, but should get the point across.

wackydream, spare me the personal attacks. Here's a link to a web site which I found in less than a minute. Clearly confirms what I've stated. It has views from both sides leaning more towards the view I disagree with. http://www.frc.org/iss/hsx/retrieve.cfm?get=IS00D2 And let me gloat a little by making you look like an idiot for making this statement "find me proof that being gay is a genetic disorder, i triple-dare you! there is no such research in existence." Follow that link, that's your proof.

lavendermenace, it wasn't clear to me what that article was supposed to prove. It had mixed statements. In any case I will not discuss this here any further as there are clearly strong opinions which I strongly disagree with, especially considering I already discussed this thoroughly in an other thread. You're welcome to post there. sd, spare me oh wise one. Since when did you begin to assess ones intelligence and knowledge based on their opinions? Ever since you were introduced to those opinions that differed from yours? Do not make such childish conclusions. I give you more credit than that. For every doctor that supports raising children in a family with same sex parents there are 100 that do not. If that's the article that was in New York Times, it is very clear why it was printed, if not for anything but this quote "probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves." Believe me, publishers at NY Times aren't siding with the idea of raising kids in the household with same sex parents. I believe the reason for that article in NY Times was to lobby against same sex parents ability to adopt children. And this quote confirms my beliefs "Some gays worry that the report, in the latest issue of the American Sociological Review, will provide ammunition for opponents of adoption and foster-parenting by homosexuals. " And since I won't bother discussing this here further, let me remind you that these are my views, popular views, that majority agree with. Take it as it is.

barvybe, no language games. Calling someone an idiot and pointing out idiotic statements is two completely different thing. One can be an educated, intelligent person and yet still make idiotic statements. When I said "As soon as you tell me how two fags can procreate (and don't tell me they'll impregnate two dykes and they'll all live happily ever after) I'll write you a thesis on why I think the way I think" it was completely relevant. It was not an example it was a continuation of my point from my previous posts. Stating that if we lived in a perfect world fags just would not last. The 5th avenue parade was a poor example. I retract it, I shouldn't have even said that. It is not the topic of the conversation. My views are formed not only by reading, but also by social surroundings, and just education in general. I can not be more specific. My point is that we should not glamorize gay life style. Or praise it, or celebrate it. It's a disorder, a genetic disorder. For which we should find a cure. That's my view on this topic, every other point that I've stated arouse from the debate that pursued.

lavendermenace, you are kidding, correct? That is just so ridiculous. Please tell me where I can look at the results of that preliminary research. And who conducted it. And what was it based on. And who were the subjects and the duration of that research. Thank you in advance. Please don't insult us, straight people, by saying what you've said.

barvybe, as you can understand it is very difficult the get my point across and have everyone understand it since you can't hear my tone and emphasis. I'll emphasize, understand it not necessarily agree with it. Firstly, just to get it out of the way. I have not called anyone an idiot, you did. Try not to speak for me in the future. Secondly, to answer your point number 2. You don't have to be able to procreate to be good parents. I have no idea why you're even asking that, I'm sure you knew the answer to that one very well on your own. I guess you made an assumption based on something I've said or thought I implied that somewhere, even though I do not see where. Thirdly, I already agreed with you on point number 4 in my previous posts, well in a way I did. Yes, "a ton of people base the answers to difficult questions on what they are told." I agree. But I have to repeat my self "a ton of people" does not constitute a majority. And lastly, I do not live in ignorance I am very aware of my surrounding. I choose to ignore fags, hence my quotes. "How are people rubbing this in your face?" By having a parade on 5th avenue. Just to name the obvious one. Anyway, that isn't really important, that is not the point I was making. I already forgot the point I was making (not really).

thughes, you are being very difficult, I like it. Your statement/question even with the "if" in the beggining of it was an oxymoron. Care for a lesson in english grammar? Also, have you heard a saying "Assumption is the mother of all mess ups?" And lastly to answer your question, obviously my point had significance since it did upset so many people.

thughes, lets not argue over your play with words. Thanks.

thughes, how do I approach this correctly. Do you see an oxymoron in your last post? I will point it out to you. In one sentence you managed to make a conclusion and answer your own statement. You first concluded, wrongly, that my point had no significance and contradicted your self in the same sentence by saying "why did it upset so many people." I hope that made sense what I've just said. A little confusing, even to me. Or wait, was the a rhetorical question you posed? cmb1975, was I not being helpful as well by pointing you in the right direction? Thank you for bringing it to my attention, that was very inconsiderate of me. I should have thought of that on my own, that not everyone is familiar with my first post. I apologize.