• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

somebody please correctly define gay!

Because I doen't want anyone to get mad at me I will use the politically correct term "Reproductively Challenged"

It scares me that more and more people are "reproductively challenged" by choosing to have a lifelong commitment with a partner of the same sex.
Click to expand...

You are a troll. You're not here to debate.
I don't think you'll be around long, so I won't bother to respond to your irrelevant malarkey.
Since joining the forum, you've done nothing but post deliberately inflammatory statements in hopes of getting people riled up. This is not what mature, intelligent debate is comprised of, and it accomplishes nothing.


Dismissed.
 
creativedreams said:
If this continues to spread...a generation in the distant future may suddenly all be infected with this syndrome.
This is alarming because then the human race may be headed for extinction.

I don't have anything against anyone with this predicament I just have some concerns.
Click to expand...

Infected? Do you have any evidence that people become infected with homosexuality, that it is spreading, or that it is contagious?

Ahhh, perhaps you feel that you might have been infected, and are hoping that someone on this board will point you toward a cure you haven't tried yet?

What are the symptoms of your infection? Please be as honest as you can, otherwise we won't be able to point you in the right direction.
 
creativedreams said:
Because I doen't want anyone to get mad at me I will use the politically correct term "Reproductively Challenged"
Click to expand...

And by "politically correct term" you of course mean "term I just made up that sounds medical-ish." Seriously, if you think there's something wrong with gay people, just say that. All the dancing just makes you look like a troll
 
creativedreams said:
Because I doen't want anyone to get mad at me I will use the politically correct term "Reproductively Challenged"

It scares me that more and more people are "reproductively challenged" by choosing to have a lifelong commitment with a partner of the same sex.

I believe there should be studies to determine the causes of this.

If this continues to spread...a generation in the distant future may suddenly all be infected with this syndrome.
This is alarming because then the human race may be headed for extinction.

I don't have anything against anyone with this predicament I just have some concerns.
Click to expand...

Is homosexuality a government conspiracy like 9/11?
 
RightinNYC said:
Is homosexuality a government conspiracy like 9/11?
Click to expand...

Is "anything" the government is accused of nowadays a conspiracy theory? How brilliant! What a way to eliminate or deter "Checks and Ballances" by the people. Over a million I might add.....whats happening to this country?
 
creativedreams said:
Is "anything" the government is accused of nowadays a conspiracy theory? How brilliant! What a way to eliminate or deter "Checks and Ballances" by the people. Over a million I might add.....whats happening to this country?
Click to expand...

Over a million what, you might add?

:confused:
 
creativedreams said:
Because I doen't want anyone to get mad at me I will use the politically correct term "Reproductively Challenged"

It scares me that more and more people are "reproductively challenged" by choosing to have a lifelong commitment with a partner of the same sex.

I believe there should be studies to determine the causes of this.

If this continues to spread...a generation in the distant future may suddenly all be infected with this syndrome.
This is alarming because then the human race may be headed for extinction.

I don't have anything against anyone with this predicament I just have some concerns.
Click to expand...

And your term "Reproductively Challenged" is still ridiculously inaccurate, as is everything else you have said so far. If it wasn't still amusing to watch you be so wrong, it would be sad.
 
1069 said:
Over a million what, you might add?

:confused:
Click to expand...

American people... and well funded organizations with many prominant people.
He's referring to a thread where I titled "untouchable?" That I posted in the Government and Seperation of powers section. He moved it with the consp threads below. I asked why isn't there anyone in our government willing to take another look at 9/11 when there is so much more evidence now in terms of witnesses, temperature readings, seismograph readings, melted steel, complete new security personal three months prior, new insurance three months prior, never in history has a steel framed building collapsed from fire yet three in one day did almost at the speed of gravity,the list of evidence is compelling and goes on and on about every aspect.

So I just asked what it would take to get a new investigation and a seperate report from NIST which was biased and tainted in ways mentioned.

Was it too much to ask just to look into it?

Or is the top of our government truely untouchable?

It's not me it's litterally over a million americans that want further investigation.
 
Last edited:
creativedreams said:
American people... and well funded organizations with many prominant people.
He's referring to a thread where I titled "untouchable?" That I posted in the Government and Seperation of powers section. He moved it with the consp threads below. I asked why isn't there anyone in our government willing to take another look at 9/11 when there is so much more evidence now in terms of witnesses, temperature readings, seismograph readings, melted steel, complete new security personal three months prior, new insurance three months prior, never in history has a steel framed building collapsed from fire yet three in one day did almost at the speed of gravity,the list of evidence is compelling and goes on and on about every aspect.

So I just asked what it would take to get a new investigation and a seperate report from NIST which was biased and tainted in ways mentioned.

Was it too much to ask just to look into it?

Or is the top of our government truely untouchable?

It's not me it's litterally over a million americans that want further investigation.
Click to expand...

Wow - that's a lot less than I would have thought. I'd guess that more people than that want a new investigation of the JFK assassination.
 
I don't think I've met any gay people that are "Reproductively-challenged".

In fact I've known quite a few gay people that have had children. You see they do this mythical process in which they beat it into a cup and a turkey basting apparatus is used to deliver the goods into a willing female host. Or in the occurance of one of "them female reproductively-challenged" members of society, they find a sperm bank and BAM!! A baby is conceived!

Just go back under your bridge already.
 
My sperm won't penetrate a condom.

I'm so reproductively challenged. :(
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, I am no challenger...I am the champion. :2razz:

The inaccuracy of your post is based on it's premise: orientation and lifestyle are not interchangeable.One's sexual orientation is a subset of one's lifestyle. For example, heterosexuals live many different lifestyles that relate to their sexual orientation, such as transvestitism, assorted fetishes, S&M and the like. These are lifestyle choices, whereas the heterosexual orientation is not. This is similar with the homosexual orientation. It is not a lifestyle, How one chooses to behave based on that orientation, is. Re-read the definition you provided. It speaks of behaviors and choices. One's sexuality is neither. How one acts on that sexuality is. That's the difference.

Further, there is nothing in what you posted that contradicts my position on the origins of human sexuality. I've read the articles and, as a practicing therapist for 18+ years, am very familiar with all of the APA literature. As I said, the flaw in your position is equating lifestyle to sexual orientation. Beyond that, I agree with one of your points...we don't know how sexuality is determined...I already said that, and I disagree with what you seem to be alluding to; that the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder was purely political. It wasn't. It was as I said it was.
Click to expand...


I'm going to concede on the lifestyle stance as an official category for the APA. I will state now that it is orientation not lifestyle. I will still point out how often it is used in peer journals but the "official" stance is strictly orientation.

You're misunderstanding what I'm "alluding to". My stance on the subject is pretty firm that politics played a major hand in stonewalling sexual orientation research. If you have been a therapist for that long then you would have been around during the controversy between the APA and other psych institutions on its decategorization. Heck we both agree that sexuality determination is not really understood but there's a reason why there is very little comprehensive research (for a subject this large). Despite this there are many that guiltily have that niggling thought in the back of their brainpan wondering the exact same thing.

This is scientific subject that is now taboo due to politics and social pressures which is cause emotions to run rampant. Now before some of the usual wingnuts go all crazy I'm not talking about "curing" homosexuality, advocating that it be recategorized as a disease, or burning gays at the stake. Even touching on the subject I can feel heat building up despite being in an air conditioned room.
 
creativedreams said:
All I am asking is for it to be correctly defined like it is:

a mental and/or physical defect no different than...

a: being born with six fingers, etc.

or

b: being born with schizophrenia, etc.

Simple as that. If I was a certified professor or doctor I would push for these definitions so the world can make clearer decisions when the prospect of gay marriage comes up in the courts.:doh
Click to expand...
I think we have a troller here.
 
Somebody please gayly define correct!
 
creativedreams said:
Because I doen't want anyone to get mad at me I will use the politically correct term "Reproductively Challenged"

It scares me that more and more people are "reproductively challenged" by choosing to have a lifelong commitment with a partner of the same sex.

I believe there should be studies to determine the causes of this.

If this continues to spread...a generation in the distant future may suddenly all be infected with this syndrome.
This is alarming because then the human race may be headed for extinction.

I don't have anything against anyone with this predicament I just have some concerns.
Click to expand...


There is NOTHING "correct" in your use of the term "reproductively challenged" at all.
I'm not reproductively challenged. I reproduced just fine, thank you.

It's odd that you're so concerned with my (supposed) choice rather than for those who actually are "reproductively challenged because of medical conditions which prohibit reproduction or even the choice of two adults (regardless of gender) to not procreate. What's more, is that you actually find non-reproduction a problem at all. It's really none of your concern what any two consenting adults do or not do in the privacy of their bedroom...again regardless of their respective genders. What I see is a more serious issue with your gender discrimination.

Again you spout your rhetoric of some sort of "infection" or "illness" by being gay/lesbian. As if it's something that needs to be "cured" or "treated."

You go on about your supposed concern about "a generation in the distant future" stating that you believe the human race is in some way in jeopardy of going extinct because of gays and lesbians who don't procreate.
Ignoring the fact that there are THOUSANDS more Heterosexuals who either can't or CHOOSE not to procreate. Not to mention your total ignorance of the rate of procreation as a whole, which is in no way in any jeopardy whatsoever.

There's no "predicament" here at all.
There are hundreds of gay/lesbian couples in America ALONE who are happily raising children, either adopted (meaning unwanted by heterosexuals who procreate indiscriminately), through invetro-fertilization, surrogacy or even through "natural" means.
These children overwhelmingly grow up to be heterosexuals themselves, meaning being gay/lesbian is in no way because of how a person is raised. It also eludes to the idea that being gay/lesbian is not a dominant gene trait. So, again, your "concern" is baseless and insulting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom