The whole gay thing.

[ClassyMissFancy]

OK... Where to begin...

First, as to the notion that homosexuality is just a sexual attraction to the same sex ....

Homosexuality has been viewed and depicted as this by the PC media for years. It is utter horse ****.

Homosexuality isn't simply having an attraction toward members of the same sex. It is also... and MORE IMPORTANTLY... LACKING the EMOTIONAL ABILITY to intimately and romantically bond with the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not simply get together to have sex. They actually have relationships and bond in ways that they are incapable of bonding with opposite sex individuals. It would be absurd to attempt to explain this away with the notion that you can not bond in that way with people you aren't having sex with or to whom you aren't sexually attracted. Of course you can. You see people get married every day who, at first sight, could not possibly have been sexually attracted to each other yet were able to bond intimately and romantically to the point that the sexual attraction actually developed over time. (Tom Arnold and Rosanne Barr come to mind)

Regardless of what you have as a presupposition about the nature v/s nurture argument regarding the physical aspects of homosexuality... you MUST be willing to admit that the deciding factors in the people with whom we feel comfortable enough to bond intimately and romantically are psychological and so this INABILITY IS nurture.

You want to know who the real homosexuals are? They are the ones for whom same sex individuals aren't only their lovers or partners ... same sex individuals are also all of their closest friends and all of the non-familial opposite sex individuals in their social circles are also homosexuals. Real lesbians do not have male best friends and real homosexual males do not have female best friends because, while those relationships do not require romance, they DO require intimacy.

On to pedophelia....

The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are men. To me.. that says it is a nurture thing. The majority of child molesters are NOT pedophiles.

YES... I said MOST child molesters are NOT pedophiles. Here's why...

Most child molesters are not sexually attracted to children. Yes.. I said the child itself is not the attraction in the act of child molestation most of the time. Most child molesters victimize children for 2 reasons... 1. they are sexual cowards. 2. the child is available.

You may be wondering, But how can someone have sex with something he/she isn't attracted to?

Ask your hand that question.

The really violent ones get off on the act of forceable sex... the lesser violent groomers are turned on by the fact that they have either manipulated or tricked someone into doing something they didn't want to do... or scared someone into compliance with their wishes. It's all a power and control thing. Typically they would prefer to be doing these things to adults and if they were not cowards they would be attempting to do so. They don't because, if they try.. even once.. and fail... it blows the whole "I'm a big, bad, cunning, predator!" self image out of the water... and that fantasy of their self is the only source of self-esteem they have. Most of them do have sexual relationships with adults but those relationships don't satisfy their need to feel like they are out-smarting someone or physically in control of someone.

If Ted Bundy had been that kind of coward... he would have been a serial child molester/killer instead of just a serial rapist/killer

Pedophiles are an entirely different animal. In the same way homosexuals are sexually, intimately, and romantically attracted toward same-sex individuals and incapable of forming those relationships with the opposite sex... Pedophiles are sexually, intimately, and romantically attracted to children and are incapable of having those kinds of relationships with adults. They actually fall in love with children. In the same way women dress and behave in ways that will attract a man... And men dress and behave in ways that will attract a woman... Pedophiles will dress and act in a way that will attract children. Hold a photo of Michael Jackson next to a photo of John Couey and you will see the difference between a child molester and a pedophile.

Michael Jackson... There could not be a better text-book example of a pedophile than he is. He dresses like a toy soldier and talks and acts like an excited, effeminate 8 year old boy. His home is an amusement park and zoo. He arranges for children to sleep at his house… without their parents around… and in his bed. He lavishes money and gifts on children and always makes sure his victims come from a family that is less than protective .

So while child molesters aren't easily spotted... pedophiles tend to stick out in a crowd if you know what to look for. They are the 45 year old men who are dressed like a teenager.. in the name brands kids wear. With the baggy DKNY skater pants and the ball cap. They hang out at the b-ball court or city park. They always have the coolest new video game system and the newest games that kids just love... And they listen to all the new bands and know all the songs that kids know. And they are the nice guy who is always available to hang out with your kid when you need him to... the cool guy whose house your kid always wants to go to… the guy with no kids who volunteers to coach the t-ball team or be the scout leader. The teacher at school who seems to always find the extra time to spend with your kid... "He's such a good boy."

Pedophiles truly believe that what they are doing is good and right. They believe it is love and so it can't be bad. They believe the rest of society is just a bunch of ignorant oppressors and don't know what real love is.

Child molesters know what they are doing is wrong and harmful to their victims... they just don't give a **** so long as no one else knows they do it. Pedophiles believe they are right and so they don't think they have victims. They think they have forbidden love... so they form organizations to fight for their right to love children... as if it is a noble thing to do.

What both power-and-control driven child-molestation and pedophilia are… is PSYCHOLOGICAL… and thus ENVIRONMENTAL.

Hello... BTW

 

[hugo]

OK... Where to begin...

You want to know who the real homosexuals are? They are the ones for whom same sex individuals aren't only their lovers or partners ... same sex individuals are also all of their closest friends and all of the non-familial opposite sex individuals in their social circles are also homosexuals. Real lesbians do not have male best friends and real homosexual males do not have female best friends because, while those relationships do not require romance, they DO require intimacy.

And what the hell led you to those conclusions?

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

And what the hell led you to those conclusions?

I believe I made myself clear but I will say it again...

Homosexuals arent just attracted only to the same sex. They are also only capable of forming intimate and romantic relationships with the same sex.

Best friends IS an intimate relationship.

Let me get out the fat crayons and draw you a picture....

Will and Grace ... Will... He is capable of having a close intimate relationship with a woman. Grace is his best friend. He lives with a woman. He cuddles on the sofa to watch tv with a woman... He wrestles and plays physically and cries on her shoulder and offers her a shoulder to cry on. He is loyal to her and he defends her to detractors... The only thing he doesn't do is screw her. He is a classic example of someone who has chosen to be gay.

 

[Jhony5]

Did you just cite a ****ing stupid ass god damn TV show in the middle of a serious discussion? You have got to be ****ing joking right?

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

Well.. I had to find some way to make the simple even simpler. Hugo seemed to have a hard time understanding it the way it was.

 

[builder]

Well.. I had to find some way to make the simple even simpler. Hugo seemed to have a hard time understanding it the way it was.

You're mistaken, CMF. Hugo understands, but he needs to be convinced, to change his point of view.

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

I could not give two shits less whether or not Hugo changes his point of view.

If he wants to go through life being wrong... he has the right to do so. It's a free-ish country.

 

[hugo]

I could not give two shits less whether or not Hugo changes his point of view.

If he wants to go through life being wrong... he has the right to do so. It's a free-ish country.

Most people require evidence. Not wildass statements from an admitted child abuser.

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

What would you be willing to accept as evidence?

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

And I havent abused you... yet.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

but leave my horrible spelling out of it, i know most of it is wrong, but i never exelled in that regaurd, and i have NO spell check or admin privalages to get one. and no that does not mean i'm stupid.

You may not be stupid, M60, but you're pretty damn close. You can download the Google Toolbar and it was a free spellchecker on it.

 

[Msixty]

that requires administrative privliges, i don't have them, i said that.....

and i'm not stupid or close to it

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Will and Grace ... Will... He is capable of having a close intimate relationship with a woman. Grace is his best friend. He lives with a woman. He cuddles on the sofa to watch tv with a woman... He wrestles and plays physically and cries on her shoulder and offers her a shoulder to cry on. He is loyal to her and he defends her to detractors... The only thing he doesn't do is screw her. He is a classic example of someone who has chosen to be gay.

Your argument held water and seemed eloquently put, that is, until you cited Will and Grace as an example. If anything, Will and Grace is the perfect example of flagship grandeur designed to subvert the status quo of the dominant paradigm.

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

Look, You idiot... Before I wrote the part you quoted... Did you see where I said I was going to get out the fat crayons and draw him a ****ing picture? That means I am going to use an example that is overly simplified and cartoonish in nature in order to make a point to him... because he didn't get it.

Goddamn I am going to have to buy a whole ****ing crate of fat crayons if I am going to be debating here.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Look, You idiot... Before I wrote the part you quoted... Did you see where I said I was going to get out the fat crayons and draw him a ****ing picture? That means I am going to use an example that is overly simplified and cartoonish in nature in order to make a point to him... because he didn't get it.

Goddamn I am going to have to buy a whole ****ing crate of fat crayons if I am going to be debating here.

What you call debating, I call bullshitting.

Television programs, no matter how real reality shows are to your feeble little noggin, are fictional. Citing Will and Grace does not add credence to your argument, but takes away from it.

Save your simplified illustrations for those who can't ****ing discern fantasy from actuality.

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

Save your simplified illustrations for those who can't ****ing discern fantasy from actuality.

Do you mean "FOR those WHO can't ****ing discern"

If you and those like you could understand the original versions... the simplified versions would not be needed.

My next step would have been to use Bert and Ernie as an example of two fags who have no female friends.


Grow an adult brain and I won't have to talk to you like a child.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Do you mean "FOR those WHO can't ****ing discern"

Yes, I did.

If you and those like you could understand the original versions... the simplified versions would not be needed.

Oh... I understood the original version.

This is just another version of an age old debate. The arguments presented are boring and droll.

My next step would have been to use Bert and Ernie as an example of two fags who have no female friends.

I think Ernie is more of a fag-hag. Bert seems so taciturn and gruff.

Grow an adult brain and I won't have to talk to you like a child.

Plant a tree. Feed a deer.

 

[hugo]

She's a ****ing moron who tries to redefine the word homosexuality and claim all true homosexuals are completely incapable of bonding with the opposite sex. Her evidence of this is episodes of "Will and Grace". Miss Bimbo, please define me how you seperate the real homosexuals from the false ones and why don't you submit some evidence to back up your stupid theory besides a TV sitcom?

You saying something does not make it true. Try turning off TV and abusing children and read a book.

Once again here is the bimbo's statement.

You want to know who the real homosexuals are? They are the ones for whom same sex individuals aren't only their lovers or partners ... same sex individuals are also all of their closest friends and all of the non-familial opposite sex individuals in their social circles are also homosexuals. Real lesbians do not have male best friends and real homosexual males do not have female best friends because, while those relationships do not require romance, they DO require intimacy.

Back it up.

Let me give Webster's definition:

Main Entry: 1ho

 

[Jhony5]

An awful lot of insisting and "I know I'm right" going on in this thread. When you consider that none of the posters in this thread are homosexual. Or at least not admitted their homosexuality cough cough Hugo cough. Excuse me I have a nasty cold.

This was a reasonably intelligent discussion and exchange of ideas. That is until it became a very immature **** flinging contest. Sometimes keeping an open mind is the best angle to approach from when discussing something that you cannot seriously say you know for sure. Unless your gay, you don't know for sure. So all of you back down from your stance and give a little ground to prevent this from becoming a full on scrum.

 

[hugo]

Back on track.

One of the best arguments against gay marriage:

Same-sex unions are different from heterosexual marriages. Don’t take it from us, but from the experts on the topic – a homosexual couple themselves - a psychiatrist, Dr. David McWhirter, and a psychologist, Dr. Andrew Mattison, who had been cohabiting together for a twelve-year period at the time they studied 156 other homosexual couples. Their findings were described in their book, The Male Couple, published by Prentice-Hall in 1984.

Although the book was published some time ago, there is no reason to believe that the conclusions reached would be different today, especially since we now live in an even more permissive society than when the study was conducted. Moreover, no one can claim that their study is biased, as it is written by homosexuals for the benefit of homosexual couples.

The study reveals, first of all, that since homosexual couples lack models for their relationships, other than the traditional heterosexual one, they are required to establish different ways to maintain their relationship. In effect, the values and practices that are the cornerstone of heterosexual relationships are generally absent from male unions. According to the authors, some of the qualities identified with stability and intimacy between opposite-sex partners are actually detrimental to homosexual couples.

Male relationships the study finds, acquire unique features that distinguish them from heterosexual couples, and, apparently, lead to a quite different social script, These differences include the following:

Sexual Infidelity

One of the most explicit differences between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is that heterosexual couples enter their relationship both expecting and generally remaining sexually faithful to one other. However, few homosexual couples remain sexually monogamous throughout their relationship. According to the study, ninety-five percent of the couples studied had an arrangement whereby the partners had sexual activity with others outside their union. Only seven couples had totally exclusive relationships, and these had been together for fewer than five years. Simply stated, all homosexual couples in the study with a relationship lasting more than five years, had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationship.

The findings also described that outside sexual encounters to male couples were regarded as stimulating and thought to improve relationships by broadening and varying their sexual repertoire. Understandably, jealousy can result from these outside sexual encounters. To avoid jealousy, some of the male couples studied engaged in three-way sexual activity with a friend or outsider, which then rendered the outside sexual encounter a “shared event” between the partners. That is, many homosexual couples maintained their sex life together by introducing other sexual partners and experimenting with new sexual opportunities. According to the authors, “fidelity” to male couples means an emotional commitment, but not sexual exclusivity.

The authors concluded that, far from undermining the relationship, the outside, sexual contacts contributed to the stability and longevity of their relationship. The authors stated:

As a result of this study, we believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel.

In short, homosexual couples regard sex as recreational without emotional content. The partners regard their mutual freedom to express their sexuality with others as one of the most important factors in maintaining their bond.

Another difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is that “equality” between two men is very different from that of opposite-sex partners.

Due to biology, tradition or practicality, in most heterosexual relationships, the woman is usually dependent upon the man for financial support of the family since he often has the greater earning power. While modern feminism has demanded changes to this arrangement in the heterosexual partnership, only a small percentage of male-female couples have succeeded in establishing a substantially different pattern – especially when children are born to that union. Lacking a difference in gender, however, the expectation in same-sex unions is that each partner will take care of himself financially. That is, male partners in a relationship remain as single financial entities. Male couples retain this financially separate independence indefinitely, unless they are able to establish that rarity in same-sex unions, a relationship that lasts twenty or more years. Only at that time does there appear to be any attempt to share finances.

In summary, the money in male unions is managed differently in that it does not go into a joint financial arrangement as it does in traditional heterosexual unions. Instead, each partner puts in 50%, regardless of his income. Male couples apparently do not believe that they are “in this together”, as do heterosexual couples, but remain independent of each other both financially and sexually.

Skills Compatibility

Since there are no set “husband and wife” roles, each man usually can perform all necessary tasks at some level of competence. As a result, one of the male partners must develop what the authors describe as a “planned incompetence” so as to unlearn his level of competence in order to show appreciation for his partner, and to satisfy the other partner’s wishes and/or needs.

Finding “compatibility” in skills with each other which does not arise naturally as it does between different sexes, is frequently one of a male couple’s greatest challenges. According to this study this achievement is one of the most important factors in keeping them together as a couple.

Duration of Same-Sex Unions

The median for the length of time same-sex relationships were maintained in this study was 5.0 years. However, according to the authors, other researchers have found that male relationships commonly end at the end of the third year.

Male couples who have remained together the longest and who report the most satisfaction, usually have a wide disparity in ages. The authors believe that “gay men’s homing fantasies and longings for liaisons with their fathers may prove accurate for some male couples.” Moreover, the authors found that another characteristic of the homosexual partners was that they had experienced little or no male bonding during their formative years. This all suggests that a homosexual’s attraction to other men is based on psychological needs, not met as a child from his father and other male influences, rather than genetically based, as claimed by homosexual activists.

Same Sex Unions are Consensual Sexual Liaisons Only

Homosexual activists claim that their relationships are marginalized in society because they are not recognized in legal marriages. They also fiercely argue that their relationships are very similar to heterosexual relationships. This is not the case.

Homosexual activists want to make marriage “user-friendly”, tailored to the needs and wants of the self-interested adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Their cultural message is clear: marriage must have no essential relationship to long-term heterosexual bondings and children, but must be reduced to a cluster of perks and benefits for adults who happen to be in a consensual sexual liaison.

In a genuine marriage, however, there is set in motion a deep and permanent sexual and emotional bond between one man and one woman which is a life-long, complex, intimate, cohabitational, day-to-day, bonding of two sex-opposite lives. It is tailored to the complex challenges and struggles of long-term heterosexual bonding and the rearing of biological offspring. The heterosexual act in a marriage generates procreation, which weaves men, women and offspring into complex genealogical histories and kinship, forming bridges, from past, present and future generations.

Conclusion

Homosexual activists claim that their relationships operate from the same dynamics and meet similar needs as heterosexual unions and, therefore, should be treated the same in law. This study of 156 homosexual couples published in the book The Male Couple shows clearly that this is not the case. Not only are these homosexual unions, due to their biological limitations, unable to provide the important contribution to the continuation of our society by producing children, their relationships are essentially different in structure, values, practices, and longevity. Such relationships lack the cornerstone of heterosexual unions and should not be regarded as “marriages” in law.

Of course, their arguments would be stronger if heterosexuals had not already turned marriage into a temporary contract. It is clearly a biased source but they cite evidence from more reputable sources than "Will and Grace".