The whole gay thing.

[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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking discern fantasy from actuality.

[ClassyMissFancy]

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

 

Do you mean "FOR those WHO can't fucking 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 shit 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".

[RoyalOrleans]

So all of you back down from your stance and give a little ground to prevent this from becoming a full on scrum.

 

In actuality, I don't have a stance or an opinion on the "whole gay thing". I pretend to have an inkling of concern when I blast or fling shit, but in all honesty I don't have an opinion.

 

Why? I believe in the sanctity of privacy. What an adult does in the privacy of their own home is their own matter. The adult can deal with his/her Leviathan however it may suit them.

[hugo]

If you notice in the scientific studies on homosexuals, regarding bonding issues, it is the lack of bonding with the father that is most often cited as the major bonding difference between straight and gay males. Of course, the viewers of "Will and Grace" would dispute that.

 

You can find the definitive answer to many gay issues right here http://www.geocities.com/willgracescripts/frame.html

 

From Loving v. Virginia

 

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

Replace race with sex and eliminate the emboldened words and ya just might have the USSC's decision on gay marriage.

[ClassyMissFancy]

She's a fucking moron who tries to redefine the word homosexuality and claim all true homosexuals are completely incapable of bonding with the opposite sex.

 

First of all I didn't say you are completely incapable of bonding with the opposite sex. I said you are incapable of bonding intimately and/or romantically with the opposite sex. There are many levels of bonding that do not reach that depth.

 

Her evidence of this is episodes of "Will and Grace".

 

I didn't use Will and Grace as evidence. I used it as a cartoonish characature because you appeared incapable of grasping the concept without a visual aid. You then asked for evidence. I asked what you would accept as evidence.

 

(This is where you say "Well Will and Grace sure as hell isn't evidence.. even though you know it was not intended to be... because you are intellectually dishonest like that)

 

If you do not know what you would be illing to accept as evidence, why should I waste my time playing trial and error until you decide something is good enough to fit into your notion of evidence ?

 

please define me how you seperate the real homosexuals from the false ones

 

Statememts like this are what got you the Will and Grace response. Again, I have already defined it for you, both in adult adult terminology and in adolescent example. You do not accept my definition and you claim you want evidence....

 

and why don't you submit some evidence

 

Yet you have no fucking clue what you would be willing to accept as evidence.

 

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

 

Who would have to say it in order for it to be gosple? I don't want "Not you." I want to know exactly who would have to make a statement in order for you to take the statement as factually accurate.

 

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.

 

Again... what do you need as evidence?

 

If you don't know, then don't waste my time asking for evidence.

[Jhony5]

It is clearly a biased source but they cite evidence from more reputable sources than "Will and Grace".

Biased, ya somewhat. Considering the authors are a homosexual couple, it is inevitable that they inject some of their own personal beliefs into the mixture of "study" subjects.

 

Actually I think its great that ClassyMissFancy mentioned 'Will & Grace'.

 

Why? Because it speaks volumes as to how so many misconceptions are perpetuated. Unfortunately I have been subjected to many viewings of this soggy sitcom by way of my ex-girlfriends insistence to watch that dribble every night. I made her watch football, so in turn I had to watch the gay theater that is Will & Grace. The show highlights the friendly and clean aspects of homosexual relationships. Political correctness has a dual edge to it. It was controversial for NBC to produce a sitcom based on a lead homosexual character. When they decided to do so they had two lobbies to be careful not to offend. The morality police that is the good Christian viewers and the homosexual audience. Ironically both of which would be offended by too accurate of a portrayal of the sexual aspects of gay relationships.

In essence they took the sex out of homosexual. Yes they still had gay relationships and all the ensuing hilarity as part of their show. But reality had been dodged in order to maintain sponsorships of the program.

In the end they did end up convincing many people of an entirely separate demographic of a false reality. Which is where ClassyMissFancy fits into all this. She is lumped into the same demographic as my ex-girlfriend, of the hetero female that asks her television for its opinion on reality.

[Jhony5]

This is where you say "Well Will and Grace sure as hell isn't evidence.. even though you know it was not intended to be... because you are intellectually dishonest like that

Its not that you thought it to be a strict reconstruction of reality. However it obviously penetrated you psyche, as it was the very first source of reference you drew upon.

[ClassyMissFancy]

Of course, their arguments would be stronger if heterosexuals had not already turned marriage into a temporary contract. It is clearly a biased source...

 

 

So in your mind.. "evidence" is something there is a link to... ?

 

 

OK well I can get you that....

 

http://Off Topic Forum.com/showpost.php?p=1173540&postcount=42

[RoyalOrleans]

So in your mind.. "evidence" is something there is a link to... ?

 

 

OK well I can get you that....

 

http://Off Topic Forum.com/showpost.php?p=1173540&postcount=42

 

That was pretty fucking funny.

[ClassyMissFancy]

Its not that you thought it to be a strict reconstruction of reality. However it obviously penetrated you psyche, as it was the very first source of reference you drew upon.

 

 

It was the very first reference I posted. While thinking of intellectually insulting responses to his request for further clarification, the first that actually came to mind was Bert and Ernie, but I wanted to save that in case he didn't feel truly insulted by the patronizing "Will and Grace" reference.

 

Again.. I made myself clear in my first post. He really should have needed no follow-up explanation.

[Jhony5]

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/10/17/bert-and-ernies-first-appearance-ever/

 

What, Bert and Ernie are gay?

[ClassyMissFancy]

Well... they lived their entire lives with a gay guy's hand up their asses...

[hugo]

It was the very first reference I posted. While thinking of intellectually insulting responses to his request for further clarification, the first that actually came to mind was Bert and Ernie, but I wanted to save that in case he didn't feel truly insulted by the patronizing "Will and Grace" reference.

 

Again.. I made myself clear in my first post. He really should have needed no follow-up explanation.

 

Just give me one piece of evidence in that 1st post and I will shut up. There ain't one. You simply make statements with no evidence to back it up. Will and Grace is the only evidence you have submitted.

 

Her opinions are quite clear. They are also unsubstantiated by facts.

[ClassyMissFancy]

Just give me one piece of evidence in that 1st post and I will shut up. There ain't one. You simply make statements with no evidence to back it up. Will and Grace is the only evidence you have submitted.

 

Her opinions are quite clear. They are also unsubstantiated by facts.

 

Once again.. as I predicted (damn I'm good) you assert that Will and Grace is evidence.

 

For the last time... you twit... What will you accept as evidence?

[hugo]

How about like scientific studies? Ya know some sort of statistical evidence to support your opinions. Why don't you simply answer my first question? How did you come to your conclusion that homosexuals are incapable of bonding with the opposite sex?

 

Basic debate 101 rule 1: Be prepared to back up your opinions with facts. Ya know try to have something stronger than TV sitcoms as evidence.

[ClassyMissFancy]

How about like scientific studies? Ya know some sort of statistical evidence to support your opinions. Why don't you simply answer my first question? How did you come to your conclusion that homosexuals are incapable of bonding with the opposite sex?

 

OK.. how's this for statistical studies.

 

The Logic and Reason institute of common sense has found that 100% of people who are gay... Not BI... GAY.. bond with their own sex in ways they do not bond with the opposite sex. The institute has discovered that intimate and romantic relationships require a level of dept that does not exist in casual friendships.

 

The head of this research project, ClassyMissFancy - (LJSOC, YGL/PTTS) has worked in treatment settings specializing in services to adolescents with psycho-sexual abnormalities for some 14 years. She states as follows.

 

"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)"

 

Miss Fancy came to these conclusions because, after having,over the years, counseled hundreds of teenage boys who claimed to be gay she was able to note that the teenagers who are able to be open and talk candidly with female counselors always.. yes AWAYS were willing to admit that they Used to be BI or used to think they were STRAIGHT but for various reasons at some point they DECIDED they were gay. Contrary to that, the youth who stated that they always knew they were gay and never thought they were BI were ALWAYS... yes.. ALWAYS.. as in ALL OF THEM were more comfortable, more open, and more candid with MALE counselors and MOST of them requested male counselors right off the bat.

 

This revelation has caused quite a stir in the homosexual community. One homosexual in particular, a strapping young fellow with fabulous boots, by the name of Hugo was in stark opposition to Miss Fancy's article.

 

It is unclear at this point whether his opposition is due to his unwillingness to accept that he is not a real queer... or his denial of the fact that his opposite-sex relationships are shallow.

 

 

 

I don't need a link to evidence. I am the link.

[hugo]

.(Idiotic babbling)

 

As I suspected, no evidence beyond Will and Grace episodes. Of course, her stupid assumption that I would take being referred to as a homosexual as an insult reveals her prejudices. I feel sorry for the children she is allowed to abuse. Social workers and counselors..the dumbest fucking people on the planet.