I see the RW religious nutbaggery admit over and over again their ignorances...then deny the damage they do for being so ignorant.

It's all part of that bizarro world some religious people live in...their "norm".

What ignorance? Instead of insulting me like a child, why don't you address what I said. If the normal gender identity for humans is straight, nobody would have to make a decision to be straight, right? How is that logic flawed? What have I said that is ignorant?

Nature is like a big salad, you never know what could be in it...

(now I have said it in a way even a child could understand it.)

You still have said nothing.

Let me explain it to you, since you and I aren't on the same page.

1) We don't know the cause of homosexuality.
2) We don't know if humans have a normal sexuality.

Neal Bortz assumed the answer of #1, based on an assumption he made about #2. My point was that a wrong assumption on #2 would lead to a faulty conclusion on #1. By stating that heterosexual must choose their sexual identity in order for homosexuals to choose theirs, Neal Bortz is assuming that humans don't have a normal sexuality, which may or may not be true.

You seem to add meaning to my previous post, which wasn't put there by me. I was commented on Neal Bortz's thinking process, not taking a stance on the subject. It's a really really good idea to try to address someone's actual post, not comment on what you believe their motivation is in making the post.

Aside from the cryptic spin to justify hate and ignorance I recalled a situation that happened that I now view differently. Of course as a hobby I expose GOP hypocrisy but lately with all the bullying I myself have a different view of the situation below.

I often ripped on GOP Senator Larry Craig for his hypocrisy. Remember him? Here's his police photo from being caught engaging in a homosexual act at a Minneapolis Airport.

This pic was circulating around after it happened.



Well, I now feel bad for him. He grew up in a religious and insisting society in regards to "normal" sexuality. All those years he had to hide his sexual ID from friends and family...constituents etc...he was relegated to bathroom stalls because of this status as a Republican and a Christian. Even if he's been "cured" he's still gay or bisexual.

So now I apologize to him for the things I wrote..no, not to the GOP but him personally. I feel bad that he was not able to be who he is and still achieve his status as a Senator in the Republican Party.

I am thankful he did not kill himself and I hope him happiness.

I am sure some people here would have hoped he'd have killed himself.

I feel sorry for anyone battling to find the right path for them in this world that insists the only requirement is 'feelings'

But I doubt pity is helpful or necessary. I will say all day long that people SHOULD NOT eat high sugar or high fat foods, and that it is not HEALTHY for them,,,,and yet today I did both,,lol

I dont feel GOOD about having done it and still stand by my logical assessment that such behavior is not healthy for me or any one else though,,,,,,,

now , If I said people who eat sweets and fried foods are SCUM, I would indeed be calling myself scum, but just saying I believe it to be unwise and unhealthy just means I am human enough to be doing unwise and unhealthy things just like everyone else,,but that I at least can acknowledge that its perhaps not the best choice,,,

I just had to laugh out loud - that's funny.

back to the topic,


Redy, I have been thinking about your position on the issue and I think, in the name of consistency, that I can hold religion RESPONSIBLE for some suicides and some bullying that goes on

the same way I hold american politics RESPONSIBLE for some of the acts of terrorism on our soil

the issue I have is that people take that responsibility as the only catalyst for such a decision, when in fact it is MANY things, and those things would exist with or without religion, and with or without american politics

many things can CONTRIBUTE to a decision, but it becomes all too simplistic too play the BLAME game instead of being honest about the underlying humanity of all humans who make such decisions and the reality about why and how they come to make such different decisions than others who have gone through the same experiences, or had the same faith, or lived through the same american politics

a more relevant question was when was the first time you decided to have homosexual/heterosexual SEX,,which is different than when you first had a 'feeling'

whats funny is that is EXACTLY what millions of young teenage girls do EVERY DAY,,, they decide they would like to TRY it,,,for whatever reasons,,, and the more SOCIETY expresses to these girls that its the natural and normal thing to do,,the more curious they become about trying it,,,

Perhaps the flaw lay in the use of the term 'normal'. Normalcy is a description that covers a range of characteristics or attributes which occur with enough regularity to be included within the range.

For example, what would be abnormal natural hair color? In other words what color of hair falls outside the range of ‘normal’ but has been known to occur on very rare occasions?

The placement, shape and size of our internal organs has a wide range of possibilities which can all be considered within the range of normal.

There are few statistics regarding the number of homosexuals that are actually present within a population. First, the lack of a known genetic (or other) factor does not allow for a test to determine homosexuality at birth. Secondly, the number of homosexuals who fear the repercussions of acknowledging their sexual orientation is also unknown.

Surveys about the total number of homosexuals within a population have been conducted in several parts of the world. Areas that tend to be accepting of homosexuals get results at about the 10% range, places like Amsterdam, San Francisco, Australia. But the UK reports are lower, between 1.5 and 3% of the population. Their attitudes tend to be more like America.

When surveys are conducted to determine the number of people admitting to degrees of bisexuality, their number can go as high as 18 or 19% of the population.

Obviously there is no way to confidently determine percentages. So if we look at sexual orientation in terms of ‘range of normalcy’ we would have a human spectrum which ranges from one end as absolutely completely heterosexual merging into bisexuals who admit to greater attraction to one or another sex, merging with homosexuals who have questioned their orientation and perhaps experienced a heterosexual relationship, all the way to the other end of the spectrum in which there are absolutely completely homosexuals who have NEVER questioned their sexuality.

Normal does not carry a definitive description, normal is what falls into the acceptable range for the category.

Given the figures we have – even at the lowest end, we are still talking about over 20% of the human population. It’s difficult to consider that percentage as abnormal.

Redy,

Would you agree that it's normal for a human to be born with two hands? Two eyes? A tongue? If a child were to be born without hands, eyes or a tongue, would that child be considered physically normal? The answer is no.

IF sexuality is genetic, then that opens the possiblity for a "normal" sexuality, which would be statistically normal and genetically dominate in the species. Is it normal for someone to be right handed? Yes, most people are right handed. Does that make left handed people monsters? No, it just makes them different.

And I think you missed my point. My point was that Neal Bortz is ignoring possibilities and creating a false dilemma with that argument.

That last line is most certainly true.

Thx. Personally, I don't get what the big deal is. Except, perhaps a whole lotta sexual insecurity.
In any case, while I don't believe it is a choice in the slightest, it wouldn't matter to me if it was.

Not exactly. Sex is not like a menu at a resteurant. You can prefer spaghetti over meatloaf, but if they're out of spaghetti, you can still eat the meatloaf.
Not so with sex. Whatever sex you "prefer", that's pretty much all that's gonna do it for you, bisexuals excepted, of course.

Actually, I'm thinking you have not thought too hard on this.
Your premise is false. The only reason hetero is the "norm" is because it occurs more frequently. Like brown hair over red hair.

It's flawed because the underlying premise is flawed. You're confusing the meaning of "normal" with the meaning of "only".
This shows your ignorance of human sexuality.

I thought it was a box of chocolates...

Actually, we're pretty sure of the cause homosexuality. A combination of genetics and how much and what kind of stress the mother went through during pregnancy.

And normal sexuality is a broad broad thing. Google porn.

Seriously, your abilities at logical thinking leaves much to be desired. You make assumptions not based on facts. Seriously, Google porn. I got your "normal" sexuality right there.

You know most GOP'ers wanted him to kill himself...

Why thank you.