ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

Stadio Giuseppe Meazza, Sani Siro, Milan - 11st July 2006
© Dave Hogan with special thanks to Gypsy!
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Is homosexuality genetically determined? Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
27th June 2006 09:57 PM
rocker Ok, folks Im posting this from the end of the "rehab thread" because the thread got way off target. I pick it up with an AP story that someone posted on it. I responded to it with a quite lengthy personal story, and then there are some other posts that follow it. Im looking for input to the questions i posed.

Thanks,

Rocker

Here is where it starts:


A man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.
Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.

But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely down to biological rather than social factors.

The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either "biological" brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or "non-biological" brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.

These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men

Professor Anthony Bogaert

He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.

The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.

'Maternal memory'

Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: "If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."

"But the question of mechanism remains."

Andy Forrest, a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, said: "Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."



-----------------------------


I only have eyes for ewe!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5843 | Registered: Oct 2001 | Profile | PM | IP Logged
pdog
Resident Cretin

Posted 27th June 2006 09:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone spends their entire life in denial about sexuality, even the most open of people.
It's what makes us interesting and intriguing, w/o that, we'd be like every other animal on the planet.

-----------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________"Whatever side I take, I know well that I will be blamed."_______________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 32703 | Registered: Jun 2005 | Profile | PM | IP Logged
rocker
Rocks Off Member
Posted 27th June 2006 10:52 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far too complex of an issue to pin it only on genetics, or conscience chioce. Many, but not all, who research in this field are themsevles homosexual and sometimes let their bias get in the way. On the other hand, there are some who are homosexual and do research on the origins of homosexuality and they will tell you that they dont see conclusive evidence to support genetic determinism, and they would also acknowledge that choice and environment are factors that cant be ignored.

I would like to share a personal story im dealing with as a pastor (Please dont trash me for this because im a minister!).

heres the story:

Im dealing with a situation in the congregation where an elderly couple has recently signed up to be a "big brother" to a young 13 year old male. This young boy has never had a positive male role model in his life. The man who he thought was his biological father has turned out to not be his biological father (discovered through recent dna testing), and besides that the man has never taken an active role in the boy's life anyway. (Consequently the boy was just deemed a wardon of the stae and now will be eligible for adoption.) Also this young boy was sexually abused as a child by another male. This information was obtained from the local gov't agency that handles the foster parenting program. Most recently the boy was living in a foster home where he was living with two other boys, and the single mother who was raising them. In short, the boy had to leave this home because he was caught performing oral sex on the other two boys. It was also discovered that the 13 year old iniated this act. In other words, he was the perpetrator. Consequently, the boy was removed from the house, and this prompted the elderly couple to ingvestigate as to why the boy was moved because they were concerned about the boy needing stabilty, as opposed to the instabilty of being shuffled around from home to home. Upon their investigation they discovered the information that i just shared with you about the boys past. So then it made sense to the couple in my church as to why the boy was removed from the family.

Here are my thoughts:

(1) There is no way this boy wouldve done this unless he had some sort of homosexual attractions; if not he wouldve acted on young girls instead of boys.

(2) I think you would have to be stupid to think that environment in this case doesnt have something to do with his homoreotic feelings. Come on, he was molested by another man, has had no positive male role models, been shuffled from home to home, and has been raised primarily by single females. He also has a very strong proclivity to graviate toward female adult figure heads than he does males. In other words, he connects more with "grandma" as a parent than he does "grandpa," so to speak.

(3) Personally, what i think has happened is that he is developmentally retarded (excuse the political incorrectness) as it pertains developing in his masculinity, and he is seeking this mascuinity, which he did not and has not gotten in his life, through homosexuality. Of course he's not consciensly aware of this and he certainly didnt just wake up and say, "Hey i think i'll be homosexual. Rather it is a situation where certain things have happened in his life set all this stuff in motion.

(4) It is my belief that unless he gets some real life intervention he will likely continue in this homosexual trajectory. For some of you that may not be a bad thing, but my question to you is what is best for this kid? To affirm him in his homosexuality, or to deal with the very difficult issues and circumstances in his life that led him to this place? In choosing the latter choice i think it is possible for him to move away from homoseuxality, develop a postive masculinity, and an eventual attraction for females.


here some questions to the Stones community:

(1) In this situation where has the boy gone wrong? Was it just giving a blow job at too early of a young age?, or was it his acting out homosexually with all this baggage that he's carrying from his past (that surely has had some influence on what he has done)? In short, should we affirm his homosexual feelings and just tell him to restrain himself until he's a little older? Or should we help him work with some deeper issues that is probably driving his homosexuality?

(2) How many of you think this boy, in spite of what you now know about him, is homosexual because of genetic determinism?

(3) How many of you think that men and women are fundamentally different and that in order for children to develop wholely and healthy they need positive interation with both mom and dad? And that when this balance is tipped, or distorted, the potential for real problems begin to emerge. Or do you think there is no fundamental difference between the sexes and that it doesnt matter who raises the child?

(4) How many of you think that with the growing cultural acceptance of homseuxality (as a result of the sexual revolution) we have now created the kind of conditions where it is much easier for folks to "choose" being homoseuxal, heterosexual, or bi-sexual? My point is that if getting a good orgasm is all that matters (which is what the sexual revolution espouses) then does it not become much easier to experiment with all kinds and ways of sex? If this is the case is this really good for our culture? Certainly you would agree, objectively speaking, that some forms and practices of sex carry greater degrees of risks than others.


Final point, for every story you find like this you can find another to debunk it. It's just that usually they dont get printed. Wionder why? A few weeks ago there was an article that ran about a Sweedish study of how gay men and staright women repsond to the pheromones of other men. In short, the AP writer of the story said it was more evidnece that homosexualtiy was biological. Someone who was familiar with the story and its findings here in America contacted the researchers in Sweeden to show them how the article portrayed the findings, and the Sweedish researchers contacted the writer and told him that their study didnt not, in fact, prove gentetic determinsim. But how many folks do you think ever read the tiny retraction the writer later wrote?

Its too complex to paint this in an "either" "or" deal. I am certain that enviroment has alot to do with it in may cases. BTW did you know that Sonny Bono loved to dress Chastity in boys clothes?, throw the FB with her, and tell her how she was going to be the first female NFL QB? Did you know that Melissa Etheridge said that Brad Pitt was one dude who could mkae her change her mind about lesbianism? She wouldve never said that unless sexual attraction were in some cases mutiable. Stuff like this presents a real challenge to genetic determinism.


Rocker


-----------------------------
you bit my lip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2004 | Profile | PM | IP Logged
rocker
Rocks Off Member
Posted 27th June 2006 11:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "every story you find like this" i was referring to the story about homosexuality being determined in the womb.

What would happen if they found a "youngset sibling" who is heterosexual who had the same kind of chemicals in his mom's womb as the chemicals that were in the mothers' womb of another "youngest sibling" who was homosexual?

-----------------------------
you bit my lip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2004 | Profile | PM | IP Logged
rocker
Rocks Off Member
Posted 27th June 2006 11:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone spends their entire life in denial about sexuality, even the most open of people. It's what makes us interesting and intriguing, w/o that, we'd be like every other animal on the planet."


Thats because human beings are moral creatures. We are different from animals. We dont always act on every urge. Did you know that some animals are cannibals? They eat each other, no "if, ands, or buts." Human beings are different. We dont act on all of our urges.

I would prefer that pedophiles, people who are sexually attracted to children,remaim "in denial about their sexuality," and not act on thier urges. Wouldnt you D-Dog?

Respectfully,


Rocker


-----------------------------
you bit my lip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2004 | Profile | PM | IP Logged
Saint Sway
Rocks Off Member
Posted 27th June 2006 12:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow! And I thought I had seen every thread drift imaginable!!

this is getting good....

P-Dog, dont leave the Minister waiting....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rocker wrote:
I would prefer that pedophiles, people who are sexually attracted to children,remaim "in denial about their sexuality," and not act on thier urges. Wouldnt you D-Dog?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------
27th June 2006 10:00 PM
pdog I never chose to like burying my face in a womens crotch, I was born this way!
If it wasn't for our sexuality, humans would be like any other animal on earth.
Fuck who you want, when you want, as often as you want... As long as they want, of course!
27th June 2006 10:52 PM
VoodooChileInWOnderl
quote:
rocker wrote:
Ok, folks Im posting this from the end of the "rehab thread" because the thread got way off target.



That never happens here!! Where is that thread?


27th June 2006 11:02 PM
rocker P-Dog did you even read my scenario?


Also what makes us different than animals? the fact that some people are in "denial" about their sexualtiy, and they, unlike animals, dont act on every urge they get?

Please read my scenario closely so you dont misunderstand what im trying to say. Are you telling me that there is no way enviromental factors can influnence one's sexual preferences? Is the scenario i set forth just one big coincidence?
28th June 2006 01:39 AM
pdog
quote:
rocker wrote:
P-Dog did you even read my scenario?


Also what makes us different than animals? the fact that some people are in "denial" about their sexualtiy, and they, unlike animals, dont act on every urge they get?

Please read my scenario closely so you dont misunderstand what im trying to say. Are you telling me that there is no way enviromental factors can influnence one's sexual preferences? Is the scenario i set forth just one big coincidence?



Every gay person I know realized they were gay and had always been gay, some sooner than others, they weren't changed or had an outside factor.
I'll re-read your post, it was long and I suffer from ADD on Tuesdays.
28th June 2006 01:40 AM
glencar Who cares? What if a guy has an older brother & a younger brother? What's he got then? Middle child syndrome, sure, but is he bisexual?
28th June 2006 01:47 AM
pdog I just realized I'm conversing with someone who is saying pedaphilia is a sexual orientation.
Rape is not sex, it's violence. And people who rape children are scum of the earth.
I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is...
Gays are taking over, just like the blacks have been. And it's awesome!
My one goal in life is to be the white male hetrosexual minority...

[Edited by pdog]
28th June 2006 01:51 AM
glencar Yes, but he's saying it's an unacceptable orientation. I think clearly some men are sexually attracted to young kids and nothing else.
28th June 2006 02:00 AM
pdog
quote:
glencar wrote:
Yes, but he's saying it's an unacceptable orientation. I think clearly some men are sexually attracted to young kids and nothing else.



It's not an orientation, it's a sickness... And it's not just men... Orientation, would be a consenting act.
There's a gray area with the laws, that differ from place to place, when it comes to the age of consent. Some places it might be 16 and other are a bit older. Pedophelia is not the same as finding a 16 year old girl attractive. I would be a pedophile... I can see beauty in a yuong women. Pedophiles are diseased, broken minds. It's not even a sexual orientation, it's not even about sex. Rape is not sex! It's about power and control and hurting people.
It's odd, this is brought up at all. Gays aren't evil, we know that. The evil people are the ones attacking homosexuals.
Blue, we still on for that date next week at the leather bear lounge?

28th June 2006 02:03 AM
the good I did not have time to read your entire post, but I'm a psychologist and I'm interested in this topic. Needless to say, human sexuality is a complex subject matter. Consequently, there is no simple explanation for any expression of it, including homosexuality. The PC police are determined to say that its genetic and or biological, and the pressue they have placed on the academic community has had an adverse effect on any attempt to seriously investigate the subject matter ( see man made global warming, et al). The current thinking is that any human trait reflects the combined influence of genetic and or biological factors and environmental pressures. Some traits, dispositions, illnesses or behaviors may have a largely genetic/biological component and a smaller environmental contribution (e.g., schizophrenia) , while others have a large environmental component and a smaller genetic or biological contribution (e.g, anxiety disorders). While there has been some compelling data which suggest that homosexuality is largely genetically/ biologically determined, there is also evidence which suggests that in many instances there is an important environmental component to it. Thus, in many cases, biology may be a necessary but not sufficient component of a person's homosexual orientation, and in some cases, the phenomenon may be caused entirely by environmental factors. Now, you don't hear about the data which suggest that environmental factors play an important role in orientation for two reasons 1) the data are largely clinical and therefore considered "anecdotal" or "suspect", and 2) the left has placed pressue on those in the psychological community to say that homosexuality IS biologically/ genetically determined. But a clear answer as to what causes homosexuality hasn't emerged, and there likely won't be a single answer, because many factors are involved. Its the classic example of what Freud called an overdetermined phenomenon.
28th June 2006 02:27 AM
corgi37 I'll fuck anything.







I bet any "He-man", stranded on a deserted island, or in a lonely, cold prison for a few years would yearn for a nice warm load of cum down their gullet and a hot, stiff, penis ramming into their rectums.

P.S. I think i just made myself sick.
28th June 2006 02:29 AM
corgi37 I'll fuck anything.







I bet any "He-man", stranded on a deserted island, or in a lonely, cold prison for a few years would yearn for a nice warm load of cum down their gullet and a hot, stiff, penis ramming into their rectums.

P.S. I think i just made myself sick.
28th June 2006 02:50 AM
glencar "Oz" always scared me from a life of crime.
28th June 2006 02:56 AM
Dead_Flowers I have had male cats, dogs, and rabbits hump their own sex and even different species.I'm sure they weren't trying to procreate they were just horny! It happens in nature all the time. I always understood male and female to be a lot closer then most people think. Maybe I have been watching too many National Geographic shows.

I could really care less is someone is gay. Love is love, hate is hate. We have too much hate in the world. I am not going to diss on anyone loving another person.
28th June 2006 05:51 AM
egon I'm not gay

except on weekends & only afer having had a fair amount of alcohol.
28th June 2006 07:45 AM
StonesChick My brother was the oldest in my family and was born a homosexual. I think in some cases, it is due to environment, however, truly gay people are born gay. Who cares anyway?
28th June 2006 10:53 AM
Joey " however, truly gay people are born gay. Who cares anyway?"



28th June 2006 10:55 AM
Joey " I'm not gay

except on weekends & only afer having had a fair amount of alcohol."


28th June 2006 10:57 AM
rocker hey folks, im sorry my post was long. But i think one of the problems is we talk in sound bites on this subject, thus people's thinking cant be challenged. None the less I would encourgae you to go back and still read my scenario, consider all the facts, and then tell me what you would do in my situation should you find yourself counseling the young lad. What kind of guidance should the boy get?

If you dont read my post then im afraid i might be misunderstood. So let me say this up front i do not hate homosexuals, bi-sexuals, heteroesoexuals, beastiality-sexuals, or pedophile sexuals. Just because I may question the wholeness and goodness of someone's sexual preferences doesnt mean I hate them. That can be a little disingenuous.

I could just as easily argue that the person who approves of "any and everything" is the one who hates because they are responsible for creating cultural conditions that allow people to walk head first into "any and every kind" of risky sex. I could accuse you of hate for not affirming NAMNBLA (Noth American man Boy Love Association) and their sexual preferences. This knife cuts both ways, so we shouldnt go there.

Now a few thoughts on some responses:

The pyschologist is right concerning research into the origins of homosexuality. Its much scewed by the gay agenda. He and I both recognize that it is a complex issue, and not a one size fits all deal. The weakness with the "genetics only" arguement is that it undermines the possibilty of helping people out of homosexuality who may have gravitiated to it for unhealthy past enviromental experiences. Case in point- read my story in my first post.

Many here say why does it matter whether or not you are gay? let me offer five reasons as to why it may matter:

(1) perhaps it matters because homosexual intercourse, especially male homosexual intercourse, is hugely risky.

The rectum was not made to recive a penis. It bleeeds, that is why aids is more easily spread through male homosexual intercourse. Also rectal cancer, and the insides often fall apart in male homosexuals. I dont want a culture that encourages the kid in my example to continue to experiment with this stuff. It is dangerous.

(2) Perhaps it matters, because promiscuity in the homosexaul community makes secular, non-religious, sexual revolution affirming heterosexuals look like puritians.

Promiscuity amongst homosexuals if off the charts, especially amongst male homosexuals. Most male homosexuals have had hundreds of lovers, many have had several hundred lovers. This is the norm in the homosexual community whereas it is the exception in the heterosexual community. A good example of this is "barebacking." This is not healthy.


(3) perhaps it matters because the homosexual community has a much higher degree of pyscho-social disorders than does the heterosoexual community.

In the past gays could blame this on homophobia. (i.e. heterosexual opproession made me depressed, or turn me into an alcoholic.) This excuse will no longer work because our culture has changed, and now, for the most part affirms homosexuality. Even though homosexuality is now affirmed i do not believe it will cause their pyscho-social disorders to dissipate becaue I believe their "issues" arise from other things besides homosexual oppression.

(4) Perhaps it matters because men and women are different and more readily compliment one another in relationships than do homosexuals. here is what i mean:

Male homosexuals give permission to sleep around with one another in their relationships.

Surly this is not good. That is why male homosexuals have had so many sexual experiences with different partners. (This is a verifiable fact, and if you are a male homosexual then you know it to be true yourself from just being in the gay community) In short, if you put two men together in a homosexual relationship they both give one another permission to freely fuck around because that's what both men want to do. Women do not give their male lovers permission to do this, they demand fidelity from us. That is a good thing unless, of course, you think having a gazillion lovers involves no phyisical, pyschological, emotional, and familial risks and consequeneces, no matter how "hot" the sex may be.

The promblem with female homosexual relationships is this- Women place much more demands on a relationship then do men.

For example a man can come home plop down on the lazyboy and read the newspaper and not say a word and completely be happy. For women this is not good enough. Women demand "communication" and "emotional connectedness" and if her man doesn't give it to her then she is pissed. When you put two women together in a relationship they both make heavy emotional demands on the realtionship and thus they have high degree of breakups, more so than heterosexual relationships. The lesbian relationship isnt built to handle it. In a heterosexual relationship the man doesnt demand as much from the woman and this is good because woman can't take it, but she can sure can dish it out!- "Talk to me dammit! I need communication! All you do is watch the damn TV!"

In short, men and women compliment one another much better, and they temper or restrain one another's weakness much better than do same-sex relationships. Why would we want to affirm people to move in this direction when its already, in many repsects, prone to fail?

(5) Perhaps it matters because kids are involved.

With the increased acceptance of homosexuality comes increased acceptance of gay parenting. Do you or do you not believe that men and women are different? I think a child needs both a man and a woman to develop wholely. Some might object, "What about single parents?" Well, at least a heterosexual single parent can have the other "ex" in the child's life, and at least they can uphold the ideals of a female mom and a male dad, but this is something that two same sex parents can't do.

Children will not be for the better because of gay parenting, of course, unless you believe it is true that men and women are no different. But for me i dont buy it. Somebody please prove to me that men and women are the same! Wheres the empirical evidence? The child needs oppposite sex parents my friends, and homsosexuals short change kids no matter how kind or nice they may be.


Finally as to P-dog's understanding of the meaning of the word "orientation" you are wrong. Orientation does not refer to consensual sex. You are not free to redefine words to mean something they don't mean. If you are allowed to get away with that then we can't have an intelligent discussion on any thing.

Orientation in this context refers to the belief that our sexual preferneces are gentically determined. This means if there is any validitly to the idea of orientation then it would be true that a pedophilia could, like homsoexuality, have a genentic component to it. Do you think that there arent pedophiles who wished they werent pedophiles? and who feel doomed to thier "genetically pre-determined" fate? What makes you think that a pedophile would be any more likely than a heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, beastiality-sexual to stand up and say, "I chose to be a pedophile!"?

Also P-dog your are wrong about rape. Rape is sex. Rape is not just violence, though it is that. Rape is violent, non-consensual, forced sex. It may be violent but none the less it is still sex.

Also, P-Dog you would do well to pay attention to the next gay parade in San Francisco. Im sure you could find NAMBLA. They belevie that sex between men and boys can be consnesual and loving. So to them, pedophilia is not as "sick" as you see it.

Also, one other point on pedophilia. Did you know that in countries where the morality of sex is very liberal that the age for consensual sex keeps getting lower and lower? This isn't a good thing, and it is more evidence that the sexual revolution is an utter failrue, and a decaying plague on our society. It bodes well for the eventual acceptance of pedophilia.

Well gang ive said all im gonna say on this one. If you dont read my story in my previous post, and consider the issues that were raised there then so be it. I think we are way off base on this caving into the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality. It is not good, for all of the aformentioned reasons. Im open to intellectual, not sound bite, challenges and rebuttals to the points i've made.

peace to everyone All Down the Line,

Rocker
28th June 2006 11:08 AM
Jerry in Boston My parents are still happily married after 42 years. They never fight or argue or raise their voices at each other and they have always played the typically accepted man/woman roles in their lives. My mom did the cooking, the cleaning, and the nurturing of her children, while my dad did the chores, the fixing things up, the working on the cars, the tool-time stuff so to speak.

My father was a marine in vietnam. He was also the QB on his high school football team. He was an all american boy who became an all american positive male role model in his home.

I am the oldest of 3 children and I am the gay one. I have always been gay. I had a stable home life, a positive male role model to look up to and admire, a loving and nurturing mother, a younger brother and sister to protect and watch out for, and I am gay. I was never dressed in girls clothes as a child (my dad was a Marine for crying out loud!) but I am gay. I don't have any attraction to cross dressing queens or feminine guys but I am gay. I am a proud masculine man who was raised in a loving and positive environment but that same environment did nothing to make me straight - I have always been gay. It's who I am, not who some or some things made me. I didn't choose to be attracted to men, it's who I am.

Maybe the environmental aspect of this had something to do with me loving baseball and football and the so-called manly stuff, but in the end that positive and traditional male role model did not infulence my sexual orientation; it influenced my likes and dislikes in other areas (the sports and rock and roll, I guess) but it did not and could not influence my physical attraction to other guys. That's just who I am. I am very proud to admit that the Statue of Liberty is the only woman I've ever been inside of!

As for this kid in your post, being gay just might be who he is or isn't. Even he might tell you that he's too young to know for sure but I do think that he will probably resent anyone trying to force him to be something other than his heart tells him he really is.

PS - I find it funny that some took that quote from Melissa Ethridge seriously. LOL
28th June 2006 11:17 AM
rocker thanks for the reply

"I am very proud to admit that the Statue of Liberty is the only woman I've ever been inside of!"

You dont know what your missing.
28th June 2006 11:27 AM
GotToRollMe Rocker, regarding the boy you described who's been in and out of foster care: I don't know if he's homosexual or not, but the fact that he preyed upon the younger boys whom he was living with is not necessarily an indication of homosexuality; rather, it was learned behavior from his own abuse, and he probably would have done the same had they been girls. As for homosexuality per se, it is a predisposition that you either have or you don't (just like heterosexuality); it's not a life choice or a lifestyle.


[Edited by GotToRollMe]
28th June 2006 11:41 AM
Jerry in Boston
quote:
rocker wrote:
thanks for the reply

"I am very proud to admit that the Statue of Liberty is the only woman I've ever been inside of!"

You dont know what your missing.





(ahem)... I could say the same to you! haha

Seriously, I'm not missing anything. Your comment suggests that because you're straight and enjoy straight sex therefore it is better than gay sex. It's simply not true; it's relative. I am gay and therefore straight sex is completely out of the question for me just as gay sex is out of the question for you. See how that works?
28th June 2006 11:42 AM
Joey " ... simply not true; it's relative. I am gay and therefore straight sex is completely out of the question for me just as gay sex is out of the question for you. See how that works? "

www.MaxLugar.com


Sniggles


28th June 2006 11:46 AM
pdog Rocker , you're an idiot! An extremely inteligent, narrow minded hateful fool!
Actually you make me sick... You are cloaking a serious hate for homosexuals in some veiled connection to pedaphiles and rapists. You talk a long diatiribe, but the simple fact is you're afraid of your own sexual compulsions. Anyone who thinks that much on the subject, who isn't a professional in the medical or psych, has some serious issues.

You think NAMBLA has infiltatrated SF Gay Pride, you may be right... They could be anywhere... Like here, on the internet soliciting children... I think I saw one at a Stones show! I wasn't sure, so me and my friends beat him up...

I was going to write a theasis to contradict yours, but then I realized, you're trying really hard to convince yourself you're not gay! And that homosexuality is wrong!

I read your post, using the Evelyn Wood spead reading program. B/c you posts are boring, self justified hate of a group of people!
28th June 2006 11:55 AM
rocker woow!! That was strong. Keep rockin dude. I didnt start the issue. Someone posted the latest scinetific finding on homosexuality.

Ive never denied that homosexuality doenst have a genetic link, nor have i equated homosexuals to pedophilia any more than i have heterosexuals. Im just making the point that just because something may have a genetic componenent doesnt make it an acceptable reason for justification. Should they find a genetic link to pedophila or beastiality we would not, i hope, give approval to it.

In any case, it sounds like you have the problem with hate, not me.

Also, your A.D.D would prevent you from repsonding with any thing of substance.


28th June 2006 11:58 AM
pdog Is your ignorance genetic or envoirmental?
28th June 2006 12:11 PM
rocker probably a little bit of both, how about yours?

Theres no need to attack me, just the ideas.
28th June 2006 12:13 PM
StonesChick It's genetic and in my case, we feel it is from my mother's side of the family. Here's a case study for you:
My mother's uncle was gay.
He had two girls. One girl had 3 boys, the youngest being gay.
The other girl had 5 children, the 2nd youngest boy being gay.
My mother had 5 brothers and 2 sisters, 1 brother which was gay.
A different brother had 5 kids, the oldest daughter being gay.
A different brother had 2 boys, the youngest being gay.
A different brother had 2 kids, the oldest daughter being gay.
A sister had two boys, the youngest being gay.
My mother had 3 kids, the oldest son being gay.

All of my cousins came from very loving, "normal"lol families and have been gay since I met them when I was born. They would have much easier lives if this was not the case and we have had to live with this stigma for so long. I remember being 6 and having kids ask me "what's wrong with your brother" He was born that way. Yeah, I guess gay gene runs in my family.
28th June 2006 12:14 PM
rocker probably a little bit of both, how about yours?

Theres no need to attack me, just my ideas. Your generating a lot more heat than light.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)