Women Damaged by Gay Father growing up.

I try not to be mean, but she deserved it.

 

You said that to me? I didnt remember. It's a bit hard for a post to have "tone" which refers to sound, body language, etc. I'm simply stating facts as I see them. In general, unless you're talking about someone who is as dumb as a box of hair, I tend to avoid personal insults because I find they are not conducive to discussion, exchange or expansion of knowledge, or debate.

 

Applause here. Let's all try to avoid insulting one another over philosophical differences? Don't we have enough problems in the world without name-calling each other?

 

Expected? Don't you mean took by force? Let's not pretty this up now. And since when is homosexuality 'a given"? Since when were men EXPECTED to HAVE male lovers?

And do you seriously thing Greeks invented democracy? Greeks may have formalized it, but didn't wake up and suddenly create it.

 

Not taken by force, it was a cultural expectation. Unusually for Wikipedia, they actually have a good, well footnoted piece on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

As for the roots of democracy, unless you are discussing tribal culture, there were some proto-democratic societies where councils of elders might be consulted by the king on certain issues, such as war (see: pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia), but western democracy itself as the idea of citizens electing representatives who *were* the government developed in Athens. It's thought that similar ideas were also developed in India in terms of gana; a raja and a deliberative assembly, but the evidence thus far is vague and inconsistent. Some historians feel these societies were more oligarchies or aristocracies rather than democracies as we understand the term.

 

We as the human race will continue to trip up on our own heels if we do nothing to stop the hate.

 

No you're not sticking to it- all you're focusing on is the anti-gay portion. But its only natural it would be that by default, since she is disputing the notion that gays raising children is all innocent and flowers - got that?

("Bitch, please!?" lol @ u biting me when I called you that in the Casey thread)
You breifly criticized 'all' bad households ONLY to appease those critical of this girl's parent's bad treatment, so as not to appear "biased". Then you bashed those critical. And you NEVER ONCE have addressed the possibility that her fathers' homosexual lifestyles contributed to it. Its not like a heterosexual parent would be discussing homosexual group sex bath houses and influencing sexual behavior - if they did, DHS would take their child!

OMFG, who doesn't KNOW ALREADY about Larry Craig, and all those politicians and their gay life, or hooker life - WE DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD YET AGAIN! Holy crap. So are you SERIOUSLY using prick Larry Craig as the poster-child for people who don't vote pro-gay, but really are?

He clearly voted 'against' because he is NOT supposed to let his private life influences his decisions on behalf of his constituents. Obviously you think HE SHOULD have, because you would have had you been the Senator. That's like saying Congressman Weiner should vote the allowance of adults sexting to tweens because he secretly did.

Oh woo is you - why are you denying your homosexuality? I thought you were pro-gay and proud and loud.
You're not consistent for equal anything, your agenda is self-serving. You claim complete support, but when it comes to your fellow animal and their rights, you're FUCK THEM, and encourage that they be tortured, abused, raped slaughtered, suffer and die. Cause you're BBW and you're bigger, better badder and more superior than all other and they are here only to serve your funky stanky cum filled ass. You'd rather support a degenerate that fights, hangs and electrocutes dogs for 'sport" because he's..human? Fuck off with your bile.

 

Wild applause. NO H8!!

 

Erm. Except many households DO influence sexual behavior, by insisting on gender norms, or on heterosexuality, or on dating only within one's racial, religious or ethnic group, or on no sex before marriage, etc.

None of the gay people I know have gay parents. If it's about the raising, how did that happen? None of the gay parents I know have gay kids.

 

Greece (Athens) may have been the birthplace of democracy/ founders of democracy but understand that Africa is a mere boat's throw away and the cultures interacted. Greek books were found in the first ever University (in Timbuktu) and as such I can fairly assume the knowledge exchanges went both ways. So while I respect history, it is not always all encompassing. (think if our history were to be written today, if it would accurately portray us ALL as a people)

As for homosexuality, the wiki page noted there were no sexual identity labels, only the act of dominance (giving) and submission (receiving). This supports my theory of dominant men taking boys. It even cites in its hereto example of men in their 30's taking tween wives...again, the dominant aspect I speak of.
So the question I ask is - were 'all' those men who partook in homosexual behavior born that way or became that way via cultural influences. This is why I don't ascribe 100% to the theory that all men who have homosexual sex are gay. Look at prisons. (for both genders). Often its companionship and a desire to bust a nut. My male friend fucks both genders because he says he's a a freak for sex. How do you explain these people who have homosexual experiences, but are no intrinsically gay.

 

The whole video itself gives off the impression that it's presenting anti-gay fervor based on the interviews. That's pretty much the whole point of the video. Why are you so damn knuckle-headed to even see that? Watching the whole thing may have been about a bad experience, but there's a lot more to be considered.

A person's sexual orientation doesn't contribute to the "bad" upbringing, which you're horrendously mistaken. Show me any proof based on scientific evidence where gay parenting is harmful and I'll show you actual gay parents to prove you wrong. That's as bad as equating single parent households and interracial homes being considered bad for children to be raised in. A household with a good foundation is more consistent, but no you're fixated on their sexual orientation. Give me a damn break and stop being so childish.

Simply mentioning his name doesn't equate me using him as the poster child. He's one of the many examples who vote against his own personal conduct. If a law was presented in which he voted FOR which basically criminalized homosexuality and still do it, then it would tell you a major error in his career.

Wrong again. Politicians DO vote base on their personal convictions and it does coincide with their private lives. They represent the public and should reflect that not just on his policies and his personal life. If that were the case, then social issues like gay rights wouldn't be put on legislative tables at all and would be considered strictly personal freedoms. Contradictions...contradictions.

Yes, I'm pro-gay, as much as I'm pro-woman and other social areas. But, only a moron would equate that as me being gay. And lastly your piece of shit responses holds VERY little merit as I've said that I'm pro human rights for individuals, however, my consistency is that I'm NOT pro-life.

I never said life have intrinsic value in general nor would I consider it as such because value is personal and subjective. The only means of objectiveness on my part is that life is about survival as a whole and one person's treasure is another person's shit. You and I are both guilty of this. So go ahead back to your PETA quarters, put some puppy chow on your unwashed pussy and let a rabies infested rottweiler give you all the pleasure you need because your argumentative ass definitely need to stop thinking you're one of them.

And last, yes...I reaffirm that humans are at the top of the survival chain because we're smarter and significant in the evolution of society. We're selfish creatures, yet we also practice altruism. You're guilty of this as are everyone else on this planet.

 

Not quite sure why you think I'm dissing Africa. Egypt, Kush, there are a lot of very well known ancient cultures based there. We were specifically discussing democracy. If we had been discussing the roots Buddhism, we'd have been talking about India. Apples & oranges.

Yes, the did not there were no sexual orientation labels, which is sort of the point - those labels and the attendant baggage associated to them (like "gays shouldnt adopt kids) are *cultural*. They are not inherently true.

Kinsey would have said that we all exist on a line of 1-6 where bisexuality is concerned, with 1 being exclusively straight and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Most people, he posited, fall somewhere in the 2-5 range, which means they may very well have a strong orientation to one gender or the other, but that in certain circumstances they may find themselves involved with someone of a gender they'd normally not chose. (Additionally a lot of prison sex, from what I understand, is oriented more towards a dominance display than anything else).

My bisexual friends are bi not because they are "freaks for sex" but simply because they find themselves attracted to both men *and* women. They don't have any more sex or any more partners, than straight or gay people do.

 

True it may work for some kids but the women in the video was obviously hurt cuz she felt her own femenimity was not being acknowledged. You are intelligent but you put too much faith in the assumptions and constructs of men my friend. Read the book of isaih.

 

You've contradicted yourself. The Bible is book written by dick-centered men, albeit from a VERY broken and false guidance standpoint.

And as for the video, I think it's junk to be frank. Not being acknowledged her own femininity? It has more to do with her being in a broken household and the an unstable foundation. Either that or she's personally holding a bigoted worldview based on bad experiences. Again, the merit of this video is pretty damn poor and obviously holds an anti-gay adoption agenda.

 

Gee I guess the femininity of all girls raised by dads, and the masculinity of all boys raised by moms must be a problem too??

Those pesky missing proofs? Admission you were wrong?? Or just more of this......

 

I'm not going to apologize that you feel that way, paniro. As I've said, I do have admiration that you're at least demonstrating a great deal of individual rights on your conservative leanings. You personally are against it, yet you're not one to impede on someone's civil right. That's lost in modern conservative philosophy.

I'm not saying you should change your mind, but at least be more informed on the matters before you make a statement like "it's not natural" and giving a reply that's not all intelligible. When I debate, I actually bring in factual information to support my stances instead of going by emotions. I can be a dick, but when I do, I'd rather hold a logical grounding on it.

And lastly, thanks to media plurality and the information age, facts are generally ignored and people are more inclined to listen to just about everything. What's documented on subject matters like this have been debunked tremendously. There's always room for discussion, but at least follow up on the information instead of coming in blindly.

 

So fucken what if it is? We can all see the agenda - they don't hide it.

It will NEVER change the fact that "surprise" she didn't have a positive life based on her father's exposure to his lifestyle, no matter how much you try to deflect that point.
How is it we never hear the negative from the gay community?? If ANYONE from the gay community expressed reservations as do many heterosexuals organization who often bash heterosexual households (ex: single mother homes/absent fathers), I will stop right here.

Not orientation, where are you getting that from? It's behavior. Of course that can contribute. Why do you keep denying it?!

There is no special vacuum for gay households that absolves them from bad behavior which might be attributed to their lifestyle if exposed to children. Holy shit when did they become mother Teresa's. You keep wanting to deflect and bring other circumstances, when you again will not acknowledge that there are issues raised that directly correlate to their lifestyle. Do you see single mother's who happen to have single mother issues affecting their child get a pass by psychologists like you're giving this girl's father?? FUCK NO. Do some single mother's have household issues by being single? Hell yes! If a child is damaged by his/her lack of father, I won't discount it and carry on like you and say; "Oh but...but 2 parent households have problems, toooo". Take your head out of the sand, ostrich.

If if if. If a drug addict Senator was presented with a bill that criminalizes drugs, should he sign it on behalf of his voters, or vote with his crack-pipe?

You better believe they vote on what their voters demand, personal convictions be damned. See if they have a job next election if they do otherwise. For example, I'm positive there were legislatures who voted for gay marriage whom don't personally believe in it, but based on the overall feedback they got, it was one they were fine with approving. And vise versa on gay politico's voting for heterosexual bills.

You being gay is not based on this thread. I am still baffled as to why you feel its fine to deny your desire for men. Only a moron would keep denying it. And to think you bashed Larry Craig, lol. If you're gay, so be it. I don't think however you are entitled to special privileges for it and are not accountable for your behavior in all aspects of life.

What the fuck is "I'm pro-human rights but I'm NOT pro-life"?? Youre a fake, a phoney and confused as you are your orientation. Your fellow animal is denied life in a brutal way because YOU say you're at the top. Arrogant much?
How are you the top of the chain when your bare hands or teeth can't compete with a tiger's? That's right, because you have a trap or knife or gun, which incidentally are NOT part of your human evolutionary chain.

Humans are significant in the evolution of society you say? What society is that...explain to me how we have evolved into better beings than our original forefathers who essentially respected the land and their fellow animals. You mean the one where building high rises in the desert is more important than feeding starving fellow humans in Sudan? That importance is the one you speak of? Is this the "life is about survival as a whole" mantra you preach? Pro my ass...Have you contributed to feeding them? Or did you feed your own mouth today. Yep, air conditioning and driving from a-b is so important to this planet (its actually destroying it), yet we are so one with the earth, unlike the animals, who pilfer it and build concrete jungles and depletes its water and food, and slaughters other animals to eat that it DOESN'T need, you know because their palate is bored and it comes packaged in Styrofoam.

How is your ass sitting on the computer arguing with me reflective of you being the top of the chain on this planet? Survival? Tell that to a lioness who is spending days looking for food for her cubs. No scratch that - make that the mother in Sudan looking for WATER for her babies. Fuck out here with your 'pro'. You're pro BULLSHIT!

 

I'm not saying you are dissing Africa, but you threw in Greece as the inventor of democracy (as if to say gays are being denied it, so really, your comment was actually apples and oranges). I was countering that Africa was more than likely, as the oldest civilization, the creator. The Greeks just modernized it.

***
So Kinsey says "Most people fall into 2-5 because "in certain circumstances they may find themselves involved with someone of a gender they'd normally not chose." How does he know?
Again...MOST PEOPLE? I call bullshit on that one. To actually BE INVOLVED/HAVE SEX with your same gender..is not most people's inclination. Some, fine. Most, no.

 

As far as we know, the Greeks invented democracy as we know it. None of the cultures uncovered in ancient Africa have yet shown that not to be true. To be sure, massive climate change in the area of the Sahara may have covered entire civilizations, as the jungles did in South and Central America. Nevertheless, as far we know as of know, there's no reason to think the Greeks didn't invent it.

No one is suggesting that "most" people are homosexual or bisexual, but Kinsey's work was groundbreaking. You're missing the gradations on the scale.

The Kinsey Report, originally published in 1948 and 1953 (men and women surveyed separately) was a blockbuster in its time, especially as people were far *less* likely to admit to homosexuality in those days. I'm putting in a link to the Kinsey Institute below, and you can go check out data for yourself if you like. The Kinsey Institute has been involved in sexuality research since the 1940s

The Kinsey Scale

FAQ Sexuality Questions Most Frequently Asked

And a bit on the history of the Institute and how it came by the original data for the first studies:
The beginnings of The Kinsey Institute can be traced to 1938 when the Association of Women Students petitioned Indiana University for a course for students who were married or contemplating marriage. Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, a Harvard-trained professor of zoology, was asked to coordinate the course.

In preparing for the course, Dr. Kinsey discovered that few scientific data existed on human sexual behavior. What studies did exist were in general either extremely value-laden or based on very small numbers of clinical patients, so Dr. Kinsey began collecting his own data. Eventually he and his research associates obtained more than 18,000 sexual histories based on in-depth, face-to-face interviews.

By 1941, Kinsey's pioneering work had earned the financial support of the National Research Council, at that time funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This support continued until 1954. In 1947, in order to guarantee absolute confidentiality to individuals interviewed and to provide a secure, permanent location for the growing collection of interview data and other materials Dr. Kinsey was collecting on human sexuality, the institute was established as a not-for-profit corporation affiliated with Indiana University.

Several names for the fledgling institute were discussed ("Indiana Sex Research Institute," "Kinsey Research Institute," "Institute for the Study of Human Behavior," and "Sex Research Institute") before the "Institute for Sex Research" was decided upon. Dr. Kinsey transferred ownership of all his research materials to the new institute for $1.00. The first trustees of the Institute were Alfred Kinsey, Paul Gebhard, Clyde Martin, and Wardell Pomeroy.

 

Oh god dammit you little shit, listen to yourself! You're obviously falling for that nonsense! You're fixated on their "lifestyle"? Why not disregard the fact that they are gay and rather see the REALITY that the parents weren't great at all because of their careless, poor parenting skills, huh? How fucking hard is that for your retarded ass to get? If you didn't get it once, then you'll NEVER get it at all.

No you Casey Anthony look-a-like that rummaged Oscar the crouch's can for crackpipes. That sort of bullshit is as bad as saying a gay kid in a heterosexual household will automatically be confused and fucked up. But no your simple INSISTS that being gay contributes to it.

Show me empirical evidence that a person's sexual orientation contributes negatively to the household. You simply. And I say this too, asshole, because a person's sexual orientation is predominantly biological AND given the fact that the VAST majority of gay parenting is overwhelmingly positive, it debunks whatever nonsense you'll assert.

You still think praying will "correct" a person's sexual orientation. Why in the hell would I argue with someone who believes in fairy-tales, Nemesis?

Poor analogy. But to humor you, given that he actually represents a district, he/she can educate the public by voting on the effects of it, instead of going by party lines. That's how it really works.

Correction. The New York gay marriage situation, some Republicans within their district ACTUALLY crossed over in FAVOR of it, not because of what the constituents believe, but the fact that they actually voted based on personal reasoning. The only you see what you've mentioned on your post is through political pressure by speculation from the media (David Dreier) OR a family member who's for a cause contrary to the parent who's in office (a Minnesota state rep.)

Such childish comments like that only shows that you're too immature and incapable of recognizing fact from fiction and for YOU to even think I'm gay only further proves how incapable you are rationalizing your claims. Oh yeah, that's right...I put a little dent in your ego because of your overly passionate damn near bestial obsession with animals. Little girl, if you EVEN want to be taken seriously and not be labeled as an unstable nut that escape the mental ward, then I'd suggest some prozac and some a black dick that doesn't belong to a black dog.

No jackass, we have this thing called a brain. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of intelligence here. We use the brain to THINK, CREATE, and means to SURVIVE. Simply having claws and teeth don't make us the best and on top. Our ability to survive make us better than other creatures.

See, the brain allows us to operate and think and that kept us alive for a long time. Apparently you think that we still haven't evolved from the African ape and rather we were born from incestuous relations with brothers and sisters. Oh and that the first human being came from dirt. Okay. Good job making a mockery of yourself.

And yes, there's a difference between being someone who wishes for humans to get equal rights as oppose to think all life is sacred, which is a horrendous contradiction to the reality of things and how we exercise it through exhausting our resources yet created things to help others and other animals.

Now you're being VERY silly and now I'm really certain you have a mental problem. You didn't read the last comment thoroughly. I've stated that we practice selfishness as well as altruism and for you to ignore that fact only tells me you're WAY out of left field and your posts shows. And we're not talking about me personally, as an individual kiddo. Rather, I'm speaking collectively as the human race. We all have done our part in society to help out others through conventional and unconventional means.

And secondly, you sure as hell don't know what you're talking about. Non human animals contribute to the productivity as well as the destruction of the world. Remember the food chain? Some animals are carnivores in need to survive and certain animals, air, land and sea can be VERY deadly for the natural habitat. Case in point? Nutria rats! How stupid are you really, Anne? How is it that you're willing to make all these retarded assumptions and still insist on talking out your ass? In case you didn't know, you have been branded a nut on here and it's definitely not a good thing. You have shown that you're not able to hold your own at all. I've provided information for your dumbass, but you're only making yourself look more stupid if you continue to post ridiculous jargon to save face.

How is your ass sitting on the computer arguing with me reflective of you being the top of the chain on this planet? Survival? Tell that to a lioness who is spending days looking for food for her cubs. No scratch that - make that the mother in Sudan looking for WATER for her babies. Fuck out here with your 'pro'. You're pro BULLSHIT![/QUOTE]