DimaNYC>Fucking SCUM BAG OF NY! A big FUCK YOU, >>FAGGOT STYLE!! BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DimaNYC]

cmb1975 you're being very rude when you conclude that others have as bad of a memory as you do. To refresh your memory you can do a search on the topic that is mentioned in the first post of this thread.

thughes, must there always be a significance in everything we discuss or debate over? In any case if you're interested how this discussion got started do a search on the topic that is mentioned in the first post of this thread.

[thughes]

if your point had no significance why did it upset so many people.

discussing points with no significance seems to me to be an exercise in futility, no?

Tom

[cmb1975]

Originally posted by DimaNYC

cmb1975 you're being very rude when you conclude that others have as bad of a memory as you do. To refresh your memory you can do a search on the topic that is mentioned in the first post of this thread.

thughes, must there always be a significance in everything we discuss or debate over? In any case if you're interested how this discussion got started do a search on the topic that is mentioned in the first post of this thread.

I dont think I am being rude at all. On the contrary. I was trying to be helpful. Since topics fly by so fast on this board, and todays posts end up on page 5 tomorrow, I was trying to be helpful. But since you are obviously out to argue with everyone, you couldnt possibly agree with that.

[DimaNYC]

Originally posted by thughes

if your point had no significance why did it upset so many people.

discussing points with no significance seems to me to be an exercise in futility, no?

Tom

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.

[thughes]

no, it's not an oxymoron.

read my first sentence again, paying extra attention to the 'if' at the start of it.

[DimaNYC]

Originally posted by thughes

no, it's not an oxymoron.

read my first sentence again, paying extra attention to the 'if' at the start of it.

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

[thughes]

oh and it wasn't a rhetorical question either. You implied that your point had no siginificance, that it was what it was. I provided an arguement against that in the form a question that you have not answered.

Tom

[DimaNYC]

Originally posted by thughes

oh and it wasn't a rhetorical question either. You implied that your point had no siginificance, that it was what it was. I provided an arguement against that in the form a question that you have not answered.

Tom

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.

[barvybe]

Originally posted by DimaNYC

And yes I do read a lot. Dinosaurs ruled the world some time ago (is this out of place? Well so were your examples.) 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. I also have a quote for you, "Out of sight out of mind" and another one "Don't ask don't tell"... and a personal one "Be, just don't rub it in my face!"

Oh and one more thing, I think I missed where 'the politically correct bunch' "expressed reasons why" (if not only for my views that differ from theirs, my popular views I might add [i'm not being sarcastic.]) they speak so highly of me. Mind pointing it out?

One last thing you've said "of course, this isn't really thinking at all but just convincing yourself that the views of really conservative institutions, like the church for example, are right all the time." Do you really believe that? Do you actually believe that most do not think for them selves?

OK, a couple points then -

1. my examples aren't out of place. they are examples of things that the VAST majority of people believed for a long time. People who believed otherwise were persecuted, etc.

2. why do two fags have to be able to procreate to make could parents? do you really think that you have to be the biological parent of a kid to raise them effectively? until you explain that i can't follow your reasoning. Tons of couples adopt. Are you suggesting that they can't raise the kids either?

3. of course you're being negative - you're telling everyone how they are idiots - sarcasm is really funny, but telling people they are dumb isn't really sarcasm man.

4. i think that a ton of people base the answers to difficult questions on what they are told. using the religious example, anyone who answers questions about creation, abortion, or any of the miracles / events in the bible with "well that's just the way it is" "well its just wrong" or "i take it on faith" is essentially avoiding the effort of thinking through difficult issues for themselves. If you can't give me reasons (logical ones) then you obviously haven't formed your opinion yourself. Its like using a word you can't define.

That doesn't mean that i think people who are religious are idiots - i just think they need to question what gets preached a little bit more.

5. your out of sight out of mind quote and the others show me that you would rather live in ignorance of things that are going on then try to deal with them. How are people rubbing this in your face? is it just by walking down the street or doing an interview? why don't you just avoid them instead if that feels safer to you?

[DimaNYC]

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).

[barvybe]

Are you kidding?

"I have not called anyone an idiot"

how about: "Guy read your post, don't make me outline your idiocy. Anyway, too late" Or was that someone else posting? Now you are playing language games - why bother?

_____

And:

"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."

Then you shouldn't have used this as your example:

"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" If its not relevant, then don't state it.

_____

5th avenue parade shouldn't bother you unless you choose to attend or watch the coverage

_____

so, since you seem to indicate that many of your views come from reading, what would you say are the things that most influenced you to form these opinions?

and, since you are referring to things as not really being your point (even though they are things you wrote), why don't you concisely tell me what your poiont is?

[DimaNYC]

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.

[wackydream]

Originally posted by DimaNYC

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.

Dima - is that Russian Dima? cause babe, if you move off brighton beach, or even look closely at the people walking around there, you might actually (omg, hold on to your seat) come in contact with someone who is gay! none of the posts in this thread tried to glamorize the gay lifestyle, however, you are spending a lot of time trying to glamorize being straight...find me proof that being gay is a genetic disorder, i triple-dare you! there is no such research in existence. also, make sure that the psychologist you site saying that its a mental condition, if you want to argue that point, has not been expelled by the APA for distorting the facts of research (another thread on the same topic mentions a few names). we dont need a cure for a "genetic disorder" of being attracted to the same sex, but a cure against ignorance and bigotry might help. by the way, im straight. really.

[bigpoppanils]

genetic disorder? so youre saying that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured. perhaps we can give our children homo-vaccines when they are born i guess? or play around with their genes before they are born? anything else youw ant to change while youre at it? maybe we can make everyone white while were at it. give everyone blue eyes. make us think and act the same way.

i'm sorry but i'm really shaky with this genetic cleansing idea. its seems to Nazi-ish for me.

oh, i bet u think youre perfect too.

[bigpoppanils]

and as far as my "everyone want to kill each other" reference, thats the just the way we are. its exciting. its entertainment (to quote the great george carlin). we have a history of killing each other. from cain and abel to capital punishment, it all there. and for the incest reference, i was being as scarcastic as you are.

[wackydream]

have to agree with the nazi thing...hitler had a big problem with homosexuality - anyone wants to vote dimanyc into political office?

[DimaNYC]

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.

[wackydream]

DimaNYC, im in shock...you havent read the article at all, or you skimmed though it at best. i asked for "proof that being gay is a genetic disorder" - the research summary (the link) makes no mention of homosexuality being a genetic disorder

and i quote:"Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or psychological phenomenon. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis, which in turn may influence the development of psychological dispositions and the expression of behaviors. There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a disposition or a behavior, and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving. The terms ‘gay gene’ and ‘homosexual gene’ are, therefore, without meaning. … No one has … presented evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation." (Edward Stein, Ph.D.)

and again: "Biochemist Neil Whitehead, in his book My Genes Made Me Do It!, writes,

Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the one-gene-one-trait variety have been found only in very simple organisms. The closest thing to a genetically-caused human behavior that science has come up with in humans so far (aggression in Dutch men related to a mutation of one gene), is far too responsive to counseling and varied in its expression to be genetically determined. This raises the obvious question: is there really any such thing as a genetically-caused human behavior?"

and more from YOUR article: "Stein criticizes LeVay for concluding in his study that "sexual orientation in humans is amenable to study at the biological level," as well as for making even stronger claims to the press. For example, LeVay is quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1991 in an article that states,

Psychological literature is replete with material suggesting that male homosexuality is triggered by relationships with an overly protective mother or with a distant, even hostile father. ‘Here is a whole other way of looking at the question,’ says LeVay. ‘These children may already be determined to become homosexual or heterosexual. The development plan that is laid out for them may be what causes them to develop certain troubled relationships with their parents.’

Stein writes in his book,

LeVay has at best shown that there is a correlation between INAH-3 and sexual orientation; he has not, as he admits when he is careful, shown any causation. Further, and relatedly, he has no evidence that biological factors directly affect sexual orientation. Even if he could prove that INAH-3 size and sexual orientation are perfectly correlated in his sample population (and I have argued that he fails to do so), this would not establish any direct causal account of homosexuality."

if you think i missed something, your comments are welcome

[DimaNYC]

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]

DimaNYC, here we go again (funny how hamer study is the first one mentioned):

THE HAMER STUDY

In 1993, geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute released a study that claimed to have found a genetic component to some instances of male homosexuality. That is very different from saying that he found a gene that inevitably determines that a man will be homosexual. Hamer never claimed to have done that."

emphasis on the "That is very different from saying that he found a gene that inevitably determines that a man will be homosexual... [skip to last paragraph]

One of the earmarks of a scientific study’s accuracy is its replication by other scientific studies. One study alone does not prove anything. Hamer wrote in his conclusion, "As with all linkage studies, replication and confirmation of our results is essential." The findings of one study must be reproduced in another study to determine its accuracy. Hamer’s study of Xq28 has not been replicated. "

im glad you are enjoying your moment. and you are right, alcoholism is a bad example, mostly because there is no gene that predisposes you to homosexuality (as stated in the same research summary). i hope i didnt make you look like an ass with this one. and if there was conclusive proof of that homosexuality is genetically predisposed, unlike alcohol, you cannot call it a disorder. alcoholism is triggered by alcohol consumption, whereas homosexuality would be classified as "human variation" or something along these lines.

[DimaNYC]

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.

[bigpoppanils]

"LEARNED BEHAVIOR"

HMM....HOW WOULD A CHILD FROM A HETERO COUPLE BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL?

[DimaNYC]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

"LEARNED BEHAVIOR"

HMM....HOW WOULD A CHILD FROM A HETERO COUPLE BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL?

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.

[bigpoppanils]

SO IT IS GENETIC AND LEARNED BEHAVIOR THEN

[wackydream]

Originally posted by DimaNYC

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.

Dima, your sarcasm is lost on me...

this shall be the last post on this topic (from me anyway). i liked it more when you were really enthusiastic about the subject matter, but now you are contradicting yourself and making personal attacks, you are boring me. we've mapped the genome, but we havent found proof of genetic causation of homosexuality - so hold off your conclusions and attacks until sufficient proof is found, or go ahead and conduct your own study, find proof, then put labels on things. when you ignorantly classify things to be what they are not proven to be, you make yourself look like an ass, i dont have to lift a finger to help you there.

and as far as learned behavior - bigpoppanils has a valid point. and if you reason that childred of hetero couples learn from the gay people they come in contact with, then by the same logic, children of gay couple would learn from the hetero people they encounter, so that argument is over before it even starts.

adieu