smoking healthier than gay marriage says christian lobby

comebackgirl

BinauralJam wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

you guys don't remember the broke back mountain picture with Romney's face on it or the other pictures making fun of politions insuating that they're gay ????
it's cool by me I was just pointing out the way things are really seen by some.

Godfather.

That was Me

No - I don't think I was visiting AMT during that time

Bad BJ :nono:

Moonpig

comebackgirl wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

you guys don't remember the broke back mountain picture with Romney's face on it or the other pictures making fun of politions insuating that they're gay ????
it's cool by me I was just pointing out the way things are really seen by some.

Godfather.

That was Me

No - I don't think I was visiting AMT during that time

Bad BJ :nono:

nothing worse than a bad BJ

BinauralJam

comebackgirl

Moonpig wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

That was Me

No - I don't think I was visiting AMT during that time

Bad BJ :nono:

nothing worse than a bad BJ

I thought they were like pizza...even when it's bad it's good :think:

Godfather.

BinauralJam wrote:

ha ha haha ha ha ha oooohhhhh shiiiit that was great !!!!!!

Godfather.

Godfather.

BinauralJam wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

you guys don't remember the broke back mountain picture with Romney's face on it or the other pictures making fun of politions insuating that they're gay ????
it's cool by me I was just pointing out the way things are really seen by some.

Godfather.

That was Me

awesome !!!!!

Godfather.

comebackgirl

BinauralJam wrote:

Good form

hedonist

comebackgirl wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

nothing worse than a bad BJ

I thought they were like pizza...even when it's bad it's good :think:

And again, we think alike!

(then I thought about teeth...so yes, there CAN be a bad BJ )

comebackgirl

hedonist wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

nothing worse than a bad BJ

I thought they were like pizza...even when it's bad it's good :think:

And again, we think alike!

(then I thought about teeth...so yes, there CAN be a bad BJ )

Thinking about the Churchill quote again :shifty:

MotoDC

comebackgirl wrote:

cbg wrote:

We refer to things as having a biological basis if there is some root in our biology (heredity, genetics, hormones, brain structure, etc).

MotoDC wrote:

So really you just meant genetics, since aren't all those other things derived from there? I'm honestly trying to understand how sexual orientation is so different from any other part of what makes us who we are. What are some other "biologically based" facets of our "identity" that cannot be considered malleable or under our control? Intellect, perhaps? Memory capacity? The way we interpret color? Degradation of vision?

cbg wrote:

Not meant to be snarky - sorry if it reads that way. It's just that they're not my definitions. The APA website gives a good overview of personal identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, biological basis, etc if you're interested.

It's not just genes. If that were the case, we would see 100% correlation in identical twins, when it's more like 52%. The prevailing thought is that it's a complex interaction of perhaps one or more genes, hormones (of the individual and exposure in utero) as well as other environmental conditions in utero that can impact brain, personality and temperamental development. So while genes likely play a big part, it doesn't come down just to genes; it involves other biological mechanisms as well.

That is my point - that it's not that different than other parts of identity. There is always going to be a combination of nature and nurture at play (genetic disposition impacted by environment), but that doesn't make it a lifestyle choice, nor something that we should change. The idea of trying to change sexual orientation only makes sense if we view it as defective. While some in society may believe that, the WHO, APA and NASW staunchly disagree. It was removed from the list of mental illnesses by the APA back in 1973 - 39 years ago. and by the WHO in 1981 - 31 years ago. Society in general is lagging far behind the medical community in this regard. Being different doesn't make one defective. According to the APA "homosexuality is not an illness that requires treatment, nor is it a choice. Rather, homosexuality is a biological condition that is not subject to change by therapeutic modalities that seek to reverse a homosexual identity to heterosexuality. Further, these therapies could potentially harm patients. "

Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.

Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.

I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.

comebackgirl

MotoDC wrote:

Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.

Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.

I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.

I get what you mean, and didn't mean to imply that *fixing* people was your intent. The idea of doing aversion therapy, etc usually stems from the belief that being gay is about choosing a lifestyle, so I just wanted to address that notion in my post and explain why I took issue with the terminology.

I understand what you're saying. I *alter* my height (sort of) every day that I wear heels. I mean partly I just love shoes, but I also want to be taller I think the desire to change some of those superficial traits is tied to societal messages about what attributes are more valued, but ultimately it would be our choice rather than someone telling us we have to change our brown eyes (for example) or can't marry because we have brown eyes etc. I agree - I also struggle to find an aspect of our identity that would be comparable, other than things like ethnic identity.

BJs always steal the focus :roll:

cincybearcat

This isn't a surprise. When smoking, you know exactly where the butt has been!!!!

Godfather.

cincybearcat wrote:

This isn't a surprise. When smoking, you know exactly where the butt has been!!!!

:shock: waooo thats for sure.....


Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

comebackgirl wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

No - I don't think I was visiting AMT during that time

Bad BJ :nono:

nothing worse than a bad BJ

I thought they were like pizza...even when it's bad it's good :think:

Kinda true...well then again, just imagine trying to enjoy a pizza where they substitute teeth as a topping. Teeth arent good in Bj's or pizza..

Go Beavers

MotoDC wrote:

I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.

The thread was moving along nicely until they had to shove their heterosexual lifestyle down our throats!

comebackgirl

JonnyPistachio wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

nothing worse than a bad BJ

I thought they were like pizza...even when it's bad it's good :think:

Kinda true...well then again, just imagine trying to enjoy a pizza where they substitute teeth as a topping. Teeth arent good in Bj's or pizza..

uh oh :? must take note of that :shifty:

MotoDC

Go Beavers wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.

The thread was moving along nicely until they had to shove their heterosexual lifestyle down our throats!

I see what ya did thar.

pandora

I don't like the article or the points made.

Others here discussed orientation and lifestyle...

I must say though that I do not believe being gay is never a choice.
It is not that absolute.
Nor do I think everyone was born that way, who is gay...
but it is a damn catchy tune.

Far more than a majority that would hold true, yes, genetics etc

but our experiences in life from the time of birth
directly effect our choices and vice versa.

There was a time when a population could say no one would choose to be gay
for the sheer fact of being outcast, that time is passing and being replaced
with power and unity.

Choosing to live a gay lifestyle is purposely being chosen
by some for different reasons, one is the path of least resistance.
Ironically it is the same reason some chose not to accept the gay lifestyle in
decades past.

Prince Of Dorkness

Gay is something people are. NOT something that they do.

There is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle." Any more than there is "The blond lifestyle" or the "Pearl Jam fan lifestyle."

Suggesting that the very state of being gay and alive at the same time would cause cancer shows just how dumb and out of other arguments those people are.

To the question of "why is using lifestyle a bad thing?"

When they use the word "life style," the obvious connotation is that we're talking about a chosen series of activities like "staying up all night while flying on Crystal Meth, getting banged by 50 total strangers and surviving on a diet of steroids and will power." The intent is to suggest that not only do gay people CHOOSE their bad behavior but to spread the idea that they' deserve the consequences."



But this isn't anything new. I remember back in the 80s, the lie started to spread around the Christian groups and handout literature that gay people live an average of 41 years. This "fact" spread around so widely that there are still people who believe it to this day. Years later, someone from the group that released this dubious factoid admitted that they came upon this number by buying a copy of the village voice, going to the obituary page and averaging the ages of the men who had died of HIV. Which tells you just about all you need to know about the people who release figures like that.

Who Princess

comebackgirl wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Just to be clear, "fixing" gays is not where I'm attempting to go with this line of thinking. I tend to treat this forum as a quasi-academic setting, wherein ideas can be discussed without concern for their outcome's impact on the outside world. That's probably unrealistic, but it's just how my brain works.

Anyhow, the idea that I'm trying to discuss is whether there are "identity" traits, rooted in genetics and hormones and etc, about which we can inoffensively discuss our ability or desire to change, modify, improve. I'm trying to come up with examples of non-superficial aspects of our identity that are not inherently negative or immoral, but nevertheless that we as a society are okay with being changed or just entertaining the discussion of being changed. For example, weight, hair color, eye color -- these are genetically influenced superficialities that for the most part no one thinks twice about changing and thus are pretty poor parallels/analogies for this conversation. That is to say, technically speaking they are parallels, but they are so superficial as to carry almost no weight.

I'll admit I am having trouble completing my little academic exercise of coming up with an example, but as I can see this thread has already devolved into Hillary and BJs, which I happen to find uproariously funny, I think I'll focus on that for now.

I get what you mean, and didn't mean to imply that *fixing* people was your intent. The idea of doing aversion therapy, etc usually stems from the belief that being gay is about choosing a lifestyle, so I just wanted to address that notion in my post and explain why I took issue with the terminology.

I understand what you're saying. I *alter* my height (sort of) every day that I wear heels. I mean partly I just love shoes, but I also want to be taller I think the desire to change some of those superficial traits is tied to societal messages about what attributes are more valued, but ultimately it would be our choice rather than someone telling us we have to change our brown eyes (for example) or can't marry because we have brown eyes etc. I agree - I also struggle to find an aspect of our identity that would be comparable, other than things like ethnic identity.

BJs always steal the focus :roll:

Just speculating here about the kind of example that MotoDC is searching for. Would "addictive personality" (ie, the predisposition to become addicted to a substance based in part on your family history) qualify as one of those traits that has a biological basis? I know that children of alcoholics/addicts are at greater risk of becoming addicted themselves, yet not everyone from that background becomes addicted.