News: Attitudes towards gay people

buzz  Posted: 01/12/2009 15:40

Sorry how are gays "naturally talented people"? Surely some are more talented than others, as is the case for straight people.

fairtrade  Posted: 01/12/2009 01:39

it shows, ireland still has narrowminded people, so what if someone is gay! Im gay! I never choose to be this way, of course Id love to have a normal family life but it's not the way things worked out for me. so I pick up the pieces and live with it!! I live a normal life like anyone else does! why shouldn't I? just because your hetrosexual doesn't make you any more appropriate in this world than a homosexual person or any kind of person!! everyone has their faults, people who seem to be homophobic usually tend to be people who have a lot of issues themselves and tend to stay clear of the limelight incase their defects are shown!! and for that comment about the bible and not accepting your own family if they were gay, who do you think would be condemned the most in our time of judgement!!

yes you meet gay assholes just as much as you meet a straight asshole, everyone is unique, all gays aint the same just as all straights aint the same, we all make our own decisions and all have different ways of living our lives!! people in general should be more concerned about their own lives without prying into the lives of others!!

SamSam  Posted: 21/08/2009 15:57

Gay people had the right to be treated equally. Being gay is being freedom with themselves, expressing their choice of how they wanted to be. Gays are naturally talented people and mind you they contribute a lot to our society.

Lou  Posted: 08/12/2008 14:22

Similar thing happened to me in college. There was this student in our class who was black. She was nasty and horrible and spread rumours about me behind my back. When I confronted her about this, she accused me of being racist. My answer was "I dont really care what colour you are, I care about how you treat me - I dont hate you because you're black I hate you because you're you".

Trinity  Posted: 11/09/2008 11:23

Lemmy, I had a friend like that once and he is no longer my friend! he used something similar to "you're just a bunch of homophobes" when confronted also but that was him scraping the bottom of the barrel as he knew he was being out of order. unfortunalty your situation is different as he is your friends brother!! he thinks he is being funny and all that, its a tough situation to be in buddy!!

Billybob  Posted: 22/04/2008 18:13

Lemmy I agree with Happy. A quiet word alone with the brother should suffice. And if your mate starts calling you a homophobe stop going out with him too, he'll soon get the message. I'm not saying you should stop being friends with him but, as a mate, he should be made understand what the problem is. He might not see it if he lived(s) with him.

Happy  Posted: 22/04/2008 16:14

I think you need a quiet word with his brother, who's your pal. Surely he must see it and be embarrassed by it, too.

Lemmy  Posted: 22/04/2008 15:21

trouble is Billybob, we don't invite him out, his brother brings him along, there's no explaining to them that it's his behaviour, not that he's gay

Happy  Posted: 22/04/2008 15:04

Lemmy, the problem there is not of course that the guy is gay - but that he is rude. If it were me, I'd spend as little time around him as possible. As I do with all rude people - gay or straight.

Billybob  Posted: 22/04/2008 14:18

Stop going out with him so. Not because he's gay but because he's annoying. I too am unable to be around OTT camp gay men for a very long time. I find them too hard to cope with. It's the reason I don't go out on the gay scene. But that's just me.

Lemmy  Posted: 22/04/2008 13:42

this might be slightly off-topic but a friend of mine's brother is gay, he comes out with us sometimes which can bother myself and a few of the other lads, not because he's gay, but because he's so annoying. you could be chatting to a girl in a bar and he'll either insult her or yourself (usually about your clothes) or just be a general nuisance by making lewd comments. in fairness to him, he can be quite funny but a lot of the time he's just downright offensive and as soon as you say something back to him he'll accuse you of being homophobic. we've approached both him and our friend about this, and again, he launches into his "you're just a bunch of homophobes" rant at us

Pheobe  Posted: 22/04/2008 13:37

Sometimes men love women Sometimes men love men And then there are bisexuals But some say they're just kidding themselves.......

Anonymous / toenails  Posted: 22/04/2008 12:43

They are your perceptions Kieran not mind. Fighting with my toenails - that's rather funny. You think I'm clearly not happy. AGAIN your perceptions - in this case misperceptions as nothing could be further from the truth Em, perhaps you are not aware of what bisexuality is. If a person was to date / be attracted by one sex, then they woudl be heterosexual or homosexual not bisexual. How exactly am I contradicting myself? Thank you for your good wishes - fulfilled many years ago, you'll be pleased to know.

Kieran  Posted: 22/04/2008 11:35

Anonymous, if you are with a partner for 12 years why do you come over as very angry and very alone, anyone as angry as you are would fight with his/her toenails. AND why do you hide behind the "anonymous" you are clearly not happy. AGAIN, third time lucky I am going to reiterate Stay with one SEX not necessarily one partner, although " you have been with a partner for twelve years". You are contradicting yourself with every word you type. I truly want you to be happy and when you are happy with yourself it will be noticeable in your postings, I look forward to your happiness.

Happy  Posted: 22/04/2008 10:36

Part of the agony that gay men and women suffer in coming out stems not from their sexuality but from the horrifically homophobic attitudes of the narrow minded in society. Attitudes which spurred on the attempt to "cure" (impossible as it is not an illness) which was not only a catastrophic failure and completely medically contra-indicated by absolutely every single reputable medical professional but lead to not only misery but horrific psychological damage, sexual repression, depression in some cases and worse. In China people abhorred large feet on women - they attempted to "cure" this by barbarically mutilating the feet of their little girls. Don't try to cure that which exists as a problem only in those so narrow-minded as to know no better.

Anonymous  Posted: 22/04/2008 10:26

Kieran, you said you were ok with someone being bisexual and then you say that one should make a choice to be with male or female (i.e. gay or straight). So which is it that you believe???

JamesH  Posted: 22/04/2008 09:33

Caritas, From my experience, gay people are born. I am a hetrosexual, who knows some gay paople. As 1 in 10 are supposed to be gay, I guess the chances are that we all know some gay people. You may well be correct about some gay people being "made" gay due to some early experience, I have no knowledge of that. However, homosexuality has been depicted in artworks going back centuries. There are pictures in pompeii showing gay activity. I personally know of people who did not want to be gay and struggled for years before finally coming out. Part of their struggle included attending sessions for treatment, where attempts were made to "cure" them. This only added to their misery, before they finally achieved contentment when they came out. This all shows to me that homosexuality is part of the human condition for some people and has been for centuries. I am not gay and do not understand the attraction. However, I do understand and accept that other people are gay and that is what turns them on. I like certain music, but I accept that other people don't like my kind of music. I am not going to try and "treat" or maybe "cure" them.

Anonymous  Posted: 22/04/2008 09:22

Caritias, a "higher power" and a persons belief in it, is entirely personal to them. The whole construct of morality - is that it is determined by the mores of a particular society at a point in time. This is and always has been subject to flux, since time immemorial. Nature, or natural law, allows for homosexuality just as it does heterosexulity. Lets face it, with 6billion people on the planet, the human race's survival is hardly under threat - from homosexuality at any rate. Aside from the fact that lesbians and indeed gay men, do become parents. Homosexuality might be of no use to you but seeing as you don't comprise the entire human race, you really cannot assume to be so arrognat as to judge whether it is "of use" to the rest of the planet. To say it has been been proven not to be genetic is completely and inherently WRONG on a number of counts. Chiefly because you cannot scientifically prove a negative and thus there is no scientific proof of it. Incidentally, just in case your erronious statement was a typo, heterosexuality has not been proven not to be genetic either. Your own view is simply that - your view based on your outlook (subject to your own ethnocentricity, upbringing, age, peer influences and prejudices) not a scientific principle or proven concept and like all points of view it can be wrong, not to mentioned unproven. Almost every person whom you treated who described themselves as homosexual (what's with your inverted commas?) had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse and given the statistics for homosexuality, then statistically, for every gay person who was a victim of abuse, there would be 9 or 10 straight people but just for the record, every gay man I know came from a loving nurturing caring family and there are gay posters on here who were never abused but two straight people I know (out of many) were victims of childhood abuse. Does this mean there is any corelation between heterosexuality and childhood abuse?

Ruggero Deodato  Posted: 22/04/2008 09:06

Well Caritas here's one homosexual who wasn't abused as a child. Perhaps you can update your records now.

Anonymous  Posted: 22/04/2008 08:39

But Kieran, I am not on my own, I am with a partner the last 12 years - as for attitude, look to your own.

Caritas  Posted: 21/04/2008 22:28

Many of your comments are entirely fatuous and lacking in any real depth. Relativism is the "religion" of those who have no higher power to guide them. It means that anything can be "moral" or "immoral", depending entirely on your subjective judgement. Unfortunately, most people lack the common (previously common?) sense that allows them to live in harmony with nature, via the natural law. Heterosexuality is necessary for the survival of the human race. Homosexuality is of no use to the human race, albeit that some people pefer to practice this form of sexual expression. You can call it congenital if you want but it has been proven not to be genetic. My own view is that it is due to the derailment of sexuality during the early years of sexual development. My clinical experience has shown me that almost every person whom I have treated who described themselves as "homosexual" had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse. Take it or leave it. It's not a judgement, it's an observation,politically incorrect though it may be. God Bless you all!

Kieran  Posted: 21/04/2008 15:47

My posting was edited, I mean Male or Female, and drop the attitude. You will remain on your own if you continue like that.

Anonymous  Posted: 21/04/2008 14:45

the person who acts like a spoilt child and wants everything?? MAKE A CHOICE AND STICK WITH IT?? What EXACTLY are you talking about Kieran? Does that mean that one should only ever date one person their whole life? Divorce is out then?

Kieran  Posted: 21/04/2008 13:58

I understand and fully accept a person being homosexual, to me that is how nature made them, I can understand and accept a person who is attracted to both sexes. What I do not agree with is the person who acts like a spoilt child and wants everything, MAKE A CHOICE AND STICK WITH IT.

Alex  Posted: 17/04/2008 12:52

Kieran you sounded good there until you said it was immoral to lie with both. 3threesomes are out then? Pity This moral attitude irritates me. If you dont like the idea of other pople having sex as they please then its ok. I dont need you to like my choices but to call me immoral? jus couse you dont like it does not make it wrong. If that was the case then i would say golf is immoral and golfers should be made feel bad aboud their choices. And for inflicting upon us such things as golf on television and golfing jumpers. guess its down to who decides whats moral?

Kieran  Posted: 13/04/2008 20:05

I always was of the opinion if my son or daughter told me that he/she was Gay, I wouldn't have a problem and I am still of that opinion. If one is bisexual I am o.k. with so long as you don't lie with both, I would consider that irresponsible if only from a health point of view, and immoral!

keano  Posted: 03/04/2008 19:00

florance.. i read your post with a lot of sadness,how can you be so narrow minded of the issue of a few people have said, a person does not set out to be gay or choose to be gay..they are gay,plain and simple.. i know of plenty of people(through working in a large factory for a number of years) who are gay but are afraid to come out because of people with attitudes like a person wrote earlier, would you prefer to hear your child committed suiside or that they were gay ?? it is such a bigger issue,especially with the likes of you around,of people not been able to come out about been gay but instead choose to take their own lives and if they dont do that,llive their lives full of want and need and they never get to experience what life is really like.LIVE AND LeT LIVE..

Chi  Posted: 03/04/2008 13:29

Hetrosexuality and homosexuality has been around as long as they ever have for centuries. just becasue homosexuality will no longer allow itself to be brushed under the carpet does not mean that it has never existed or that it is 'immoral' I'm a christian myself and i'm bi. there are many who will have faith and know that god gave us the right t love. that includes same sex. we shouldn;t bring sex into this. thatsd compeltely different. when you love someone, you love them. you cant help who you fall for.

Alex  Posted: 03/04/2008 11:40

So Florence why do you use religion an excuse for your homophobic attitude? Clearly the bible is a pick and choose affair. Do you also have strong beliefs regarding mixed cropping? oh wait, no you probably don't because that one isn't a useful cover for a disgusting bigotry. its is morally wrong (stuff religion i'm talking morals here) to have suh an attitude to a fellow human. I don't think if i was your kid i would tell you. how wrong is that? your children should be able to come to you no matter what, but something tells me that you will probably never know. How does that make you feel? Right, holy, just? or sad and ashamed?

kia!  Posted: 02/04/2008 15:22

firstly annonymous i loved your post on the comments from the bible, they really made me laugh!! second of all florance, my dad, who would be quite a strong believer in the catholic religion would prob also, unfortunately, have a negative view towards homosexuality but he would NEVER force his views onto me, nor would disown me or reject me if i was gay and although i am heterosexual i respect him entirely for this. knowing that he would accept me an love me for me and put his own beliefs aside, thats what a true christain does. if you put fear in your children about telling you things about your sexuality then they will have to deal with this pressure an anxiety themselves which can develop into depression an even worse suicide. an that, im sure you would agree, would be alot more terrfiying than your child telling you that he/she is gay!? sexuality is only a part of someones personality and to solely judge them on this is against christain ways, you have to get to know the whole person before you can judge someone. you could meet a gay person who is the kindest person in the world but are you saying that because they are gay you are going to dismiss their kind nature?i am a catholic myself,i attend mass regularly but i do believe that the catholic churchs beliefs are anicent, old fashioned and unrealistic!so no matter what the catholic church preaches, to all those gay people who are out there, be proud to be who you are!

Anonymous  Posted: 01/04/2008 15:11

Ah yes, anonymous - you are showing the bible as the work of ficton that it really is. No-one is allowed contact with a woman while she is having her period - excellent, Can I have that day off so? I workd lst Sabbath - I got the dinner but I didn't get paid. Do I still get put to death? It is also forbidden to wear a garment made from two different fabrics. There goes my polyester/cotton trousers. Oh wait, it's probably a sin for a woman to be wearing trousers in the first place. In wonder how that excuse would go down at the garda station when I'm arrested for travelling home half-nude!!!

Happy  Posted: 01/04/2008 14:04

So Florance what are these consequences with which your impugn your children with the fear of - not being gay - but of telling you if they're gay? Remember, in an atmosphere of fear you can never have real trust or openness. If the consequences you threaten are that you will cut them off or no longer love them then your rejection will mean one of two things. They will hide their sexuality from you - causing them untold pain but not only that, they will also hide other important things in their life or if they've been told, 'don't come home here and tell me you're you're gay', you run the risk of them effectively not coming home at all - i.e. once they move out, they will cut off all communicaiton with you.

Anonymous  Posted: 01/04/2008 13:16

The Bible is the word of God and should be followed as such, so if according to the bible, if god says being gay is a sin, then it is, mind you, the same book also says: you can sell your daughter into slavery (have loads of daughters, pay off your mortage early) you may buy a slave providing they come from a neighbouring nation (anyone fancy some English slaves?) if you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death (that'll put an end to sunday shopping) you may not approach the alter of god if you have a defect in sight (so if you wear glasses you're in trouble!) eating shellfish is an adomination (does that include prawn crackers?) you are allowed no contact with a woman while she is having her period (personally, I can see an upside to that!) planting two different crops in the same field is a sin (does this include different plants in your garden?)

Papa  Posted: 01/04/2008 11:33

Thanks Florence for just proving my point again, that religion causes more hate than anything in the world. Wow! You have "coloured" friends! I'm sure they would be highly offended if you called them black! And you love everyone, as long as they're not gay! What religion are you? Would your god not allow gay people into heaven? Anyone else he won't allow in there? Like people who use contraceptives for example? And what would you do if one of your children were gay?

Lemmy  Posted: 01/04/2008 11:23

interesting posts Florance, didn't know they had the internet in the 1300's

Anonymous  Posted: 01/04/2008 11:16

So you don't have a problem with peoples skin colour but somhow you do with peoples sexuality? There is no excuse for that kind of ignorance or narow-mindedness. Some of my friends are black also. They do not use the term coloured and in fact dislike it but that's irrelevant. How you take your religion dos not give you carte blance to make rules. If not for our faith what have we? I'll tell you shall I? A love for all of humanity - most especially the children we chose to have, REGARDLESS of their sexuality. Have you ever thought - if you force your own flesh and blood to hide that essential part of their being - their sexuality, from you, how can you ever hope to have a close and trusting relationship with them in the real sense. Rejecton teaches them that they have to hide things from you out of fear. If that is how you feel about your children I DO dare question why you or anyone with a similar attitude would bother having children they could not accept wholly regardless of their sexuality. Repression breeds repression. Society at large reaps what you sow.

JamesH  Posted: 01/04/2008 11:06

Florance, People don't set out to be gay. Gay people are just gay, because that is how God made them. If you are gay, you cannot become "not gay" just because the mother has warned you of the "consequances". By the way you never did articlulate what the consequances would be if one of your children turned out to be gay.

florance  Posted: 01/04/2008 02:22

i dont have any problem with peoples skin colour or fact some of my friends are coloured,and not BLACK as you put it. i take my religion seriously as do my family for if not for our faith what have we?actually my family are great,loving kind,helpful and far from isolated or attitude on the question asked has nothing to do with my decision to have children or dare you question me why i bothered having any.

Anonymous  Posted: 31/03/2008 12:56

Florance - you "definately dont agree with people being gay". That's a bit like saying you don't agree with people being black or people being tall. "if its not acceptable in religion . . . . . ." Frankly, I don't give tow tuppenny damn's wthether its; acceptable in religion or not. Your belief in your religion donesn't entitle you to make rules and regulations for every one else. You have warned your teens of the consequences of telling you if they're gay. Oh the poor unfortuate young people. I am so glad I am not one of them. That is one heck of a way to make teens feel isolated and unloved. If you are not willing to acept your children for ALL that they are, just a nature made them, then why did you bother having any.

Billybob  Posted: 31/03/2008 11:26

consequences????? such as????? god love your children is all i can say.

florance  Posted: 30/03/2008 06:19

i definately dont agree with people being gay if its not acceptable in religion why is it supported? I have teenagers and have warned them of the consequences of telling me they are... its disgusting

Anonymous  Posted: 06/03/2008 15:01

well said Alex. Your gift of common sense is a breath of fresh air

Alex  Posted: 06/03/2008 13:09

Good point Papa, I'm tired of the attitude that you have to be religious to be a good person. Humans created religion ergo we have an innate sense of right or wrong. could it be any simpler? Man wrote the bible, and everyone here will have to agree that it was indeed men who wrote it, not women! well there are parts written by women but they were not included, along with other writings, the bible was ultimately a political manuscript but that is a whole other debate. Bottom line sexuality is such a strong part of us we should not let it be poisoned by the rantings of celibate men! Whether it be the love of a man for another man or woman for a woman. Not forgetting the love of woman for a man (cause lets face it they don’t really approve of that either unless you want to be a baby factory). Its all good!! Enjoy our bodies and lives we only have one chance to do this.

Papa  Posted: 06/03/2008 11:31

I agree with Cork here. No one I know gives a damn about the holy spirit or what the bible says or religion. Religion has caused more conflict in this world than anything, and I think we're far better off without it. If Nathanael's attitude is anything to go by, it just proves my point. You don't need religion to know what's good and evil. All it does is scare people into doing what the bible (or whatever book) says is good.

Alex  Posted: 26/02/2008 17:05

Nathanael, your posts are both entertaining and disturbing. I am sorry to see someone being hounded off the forum, but I totally understand why sand feels the need to leave for her own wellbeing. It is sometimes better to avoid the uncompromising negativity. I made the same decision on this forum last year but in a different discussion, I left before I said something I would later regret. Nathanael I can see you have no understanding of true love..pity

Anonymous  Posted: 25/02/2008 12:34

I read in the paper this morning that a young boy, I think he was 15, was shot dead, simply for being gay. No matter what your feelings on homosexuality are it is no right to kill someone for it. My brother recently told me and my parents that he was gay and we are all very supportive, my only problem was that he told us the same week I started going out with my boyfriend and he stole my thunder lol. My mum gets upset that she can't tell certain people because she knows they are homophobic. She cant understand why they feel this way and neither can I. Soemone once said to me " I don't care what they do as long as they don't do it to me" which while it is not completley unhomophobic is a better view then most of the ones I have read here.

Anonymous  Posted: 11/02/2008 15:21

Oh dear oh dear Cork, it looks like your honest sense has let the Fundamentalist genie out of the bottle again.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 11/02/2008 12:38

Cork, the correct path is not determined by us. The Spirit traces for us the correct path. I stand not by what I want, but by what the Spirit dictates to my heart and conscience. That's my religion, and I know it is the best. I agree with you that "we have the right and joy to love whoever we want." The problem is, and I said it many times, whether we love truly or we love falsely. Every love of evil is false! Not all that is joyful is true. There is plenty of fool's gold. The person is never evil, but he or she may be possessed by evil. We cannot say that we love when we contribute to the evil that is in the person! That is not love! Love must be redeeming, leading the person away from what destroys his soul!

Cork (VDL68590)  Posted: 10/02/2008 15:36

Nathanael, did you ever consider a life outside of Christianity? All religions believe theres is the correct path so who are we to define what is right? Sexuality is a beautiful thing. It should be embraced by everyone. Some old fashioned scriptures artificially inflated to promote psychological terror and obedience do not apply to the lives of civilised people in this century. Someone has the right and the joy to love whoever they want and we are not in any position to catagorise them as evil or wrong, especially based on some religious 'evidence' written hundreds of generations ago. What i find funny is that members of your religion who believe in this anti-homosexuality crap are the same people who go to Priests for marriage advice.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 03/01/2008 17:23

Sand, you really break my heart, and I do not mean this cynically. So hear this, before you go. I write with the Holy Spirit in mind, the Spirit that is Love Itself! How can you say that I am against the homosexuals loving each other? I am not, and I never was! But love must be pure and profound, modelled on the Spirit's Love! A man can love a man in such a way, and a woman, woman! There is nothing in the Bible that prevents this! David loved Jonathan, and Jesus loved Lazarus! Mary is said to have befriended Elizabeth. Even if you leave this forum, remember this post: The Spirit wants you to love ... provided that you love God more!

Happy  Posted: 03/01/2008 13:57

Pity to see you go Sand, it's awful to think that such hateful narrowminded bigotry from the likes of Nathanel should drown out decent debate.

Sand  Posted: 03/01/2008 11:12

Well everyone, having been reading this for a while, Im sorry to say I will be reading it no more. Nathaniel's narrow minded and ridiculous attitude is exactly the kind of one I'm sick of hearing about and so I don't want to read any more of it, it's the kind of attitude to avoid. Full of waffle and no real answers to any questions posed. Thanks to all here who have written with an open mind and whatever kind of relationship you are in or want, I wish you nothing but happiness. As for Nathaniel, your opinion I respect (not its content but the fact that its your right to have one) but you I do not. You have no right to come to a forum like this and force your opinions on others. The lifestyle I and others choose out of love for another person is not for you or anyone to judge. I believe God to be someone who is open to love in any shape or form, just because the church have decided the shape and form of love they want to see doesn't mean its Gods will, after all the Church have done many despicable things over the years such as abuse of children which I certainly hope you will agree was not God's will.

Happy  Posted: 02/01/2008 14:07

Nathanel, I stated that you have no right to make moral judgements on anyone, and you don't.Nothing gives you that right. You use the bible as some sort of absolute standard. It is not. It is open to debate like any other literary work - like any book by Dawkins or Hitchens it is open to discussion and critique. Its standards are not absolute and for those who do not believe in it is contains utterly no relvance. As for it not preaching hatred, take a look at the old testament!

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 02/01/2008 12:46

You can't have it both ways, Happy. On the one side, you say that "the Bible is open to debate." But earlier you say that "I have no right to bring up the moral judgments that are in the Bible"! First of all, I am not inciting hatred! I only restate what the Bible says, and the Bible does not incite hatred! Mine is not a "criminal act"! What the Bible does, is to incite Love, and nothing else but Love! Since when is Love "criminal"? I can't believe what you people are saying!

Happy  Posted: 02/01/2008 11:05

Nathanel, if it is impolite to ask personal questions then why on earth do you imagine it could possibly be any of your business whether people on this discussion are homosexual or heterosexul. Personally I would have no problem answering any of Billybob's question were they addressed to me. The God you know is the God of the Bible - that is your belief. But not necessarily the belief of others, therefore what he says is totally and utterly irrelevant tho those who do not share your belief. Period. "since their blood is on them" what is that supposed to mean? that homosexuality is an abomination - is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You are not however entitled to insult others with it or incite hatred (in fact the incitement of hatred or discrimination on grounds of sexuality is a criminal act.) Nathanel, you have no right to make moral judgements on anyone and nothing gives you that right and to assume it does only compounds both your ignorance and arrogance. "the world will turn into a jungle and will implode soon after" "a moral pig stall and a cove of vipers"- your statements are so like the fundamental extremist bible bashers as to almost be funny. From what I have seen of jungle animals they are more civilised than a lot of humans. What the bible is source of and who is is written by is unproven and it is open to debate, like any other literary work.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 01/01/2008 19:19

Billybob, here is where your argument is wrong: the day a society and humanity stops pondering moral judgments, the world will turn into a jungle and will implode soon after! To this extent, the extent of a responsible and enlightened moral dialogue, my busines is not to remain silent! It's not about particular persons, you or me. It's about the whole human race! Each of us individually has a duty to contribute every wisdom that God gives him, to prevent the society becoming a moral pig stall and a cove of vipers, and it takes a moral consensus to do that! This dialogue is open-ended with all people being invited, religious and atheists! What we cannot afford as people, is to stamp out the dialogue! If some of us bring up the Bible, it is because the Bible is a credible source of wisdom, written by the Love itself! We would act unwisely excluding the Bible from any humanistic dialogue on what is moral and what is not!

Billybob  Posted: 31/12/2007 09:10

Precisely the point of my questions Nathaneal. It is none of my business who you sleep with or who you are sexually attracted to. Similarly if a man sleeps with a man or a woman sleeps with a woman it is none of your business. Uneducated eh? Ha ha

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 24/12/2007 20:13


Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 21/12/2007 17:15

Martha -Stewart, the only God we know is the God of the Bible. This God, and correct me if I am wrong, has said: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have caused themselves premature death [by this detestable deed], since their blood is on them." I should point out that most biblical translations convey an erroneous idea that "homosexuals must be put to death." This is not how the Hebrew text reads: in the Passive Causative Mood, Hophal, a person "brings the death upon himself," figuratively! The modern equivalent is "potential premature death"! In every case, while nowhere the Bible says that "God wants the death of a sinner," the Scripture makes clear that homosexuality is an abomination!

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 21/12/2007 16:32

Billybob, you seem to be an uneducated person. No one ever taught you that it is impolite to ask personal questions? It is not I who am "rambling." It is you who are invading other peoples' private space, and rambling besides! Argumentum ad hominem it is called, and you cannot have them, if you want to have any civilized discussion on issues! This blog is not about the private lives of the posters or "their private issues"! This blog is about societal issues! Grow up!

Ann  Posted: 21/12/2007 13:47

Nathanael, A few more questions for your list to date. What is wrong in your God's eyes of 2 people loving each other? What is wrong with 2 women or 2 men loving each other? It happens all the time. I love my female friends, is that wrong? Why get hung up on the sexual, biological aspect of anyone's relationship? Why is that anyone else's business? Are we not all meant to just love and respect each other? So, what is the big deal here? I do agree though about the use of the word 'Gay'. I don't agree with labels & I don't understand why anyone would want to call themselves 'Gay' or any other contrived word either. This, I believe, was just a media invention in order to stigmatise people & set them apart. When you meet a person for the 1st time, male or female, your first thought is not "What is their sexual preference"? Leave the sex out and bring back the love!

Happy  Posted: 21/12/2007 13:09

If you are a male, your natural tending is toward the female gender - if you are heterosexual. If you are gay, it is towards the same gender and the same with women. regard sexual feelings as an unwelcome distraction - a burden ; surely this is rejecting your Gods great gift of sexyuality and there a sin for you? You really are confused if you think that platonic human friendships are the same as sexual attraction.

Martha-Stewart  Posted: 21/12/2007 11:42

Nathanel, or anyone like you. God has nothing to do with anyone's sexual preferences! It's no ones business what sex I or anyone else choose to love. Stop bible bashing people, we've heard all the stories before. Gay people exist, you need to open your eyes...

Billybob  Posted: 21/12/2007 11:34

Stop rambling Nathaniel. Answer the following truthfully: 1. Are you a Christian? 2. Have you ever had a sexual relationship with either a woman? 3. If yes, how many children do you have? 3 simple questions Nathaniel which need only 3 simple answers.

Happy  Posted: 21/12/2007 11:20

As I mentioned Nathanael, I know several homosexual people. These are realise live flesh and blood people. Some of whom I've know since before :"culture made me think" anything. And every generation in history has known them in their societis too. This is a well documented historical fact. Do you think i "IMAGINE" the heterosexual people I know as well. Or perhaps the black people I know - did my imagination invent them as well? If you really belive what you are saying that you have missed your career in writing fairy stories. "Your image of God leaves no room for a homosexual human". My what an abhorrent image you have imagined. Thankfully not everyone's image of God is like that. How do you know whether of not a God did not create homosexuals in his image! After all aren't all human beings accoding to Cahtolic ideology supposed to be created in the imngage of God - ALL- male female, black white, asain caucasion, short tall, homosexualand heterosexual, blond and dark. A

Happy  Posted: 21/12/2007 08:55

Nathaniel, perhaps you were referring to Sand and not me. If so, you are very confused. If you read her post agains, as I have done you will see that she and her girlfriend (ladyfriend) ae not single women who have chosen not to marry any more than I am. They are two women in a loving commited relationship with each other. Just like my friends uncle, a man, obviously - in a loving committed relationship with his boyfriend for 22 years - and now married - to EACH OTHER. But of course Nathanael you never respond to anything in a discussion that you don't like, You just seem to continue on, on an utterly meaningless religiously obsessed round of waffle.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 20/12/2007 19:00

Happy, homosexuality is a figment of your imagination! That's how culture has made you think! The truth should be derived from the image of God in you (everyone has it), and not from culture. My image of God leaves no room for a homosexual human! Why? Because God, to whom the Image belongs, did not create homosexuals in His Image! They either created themselves, or were created by others! Neither am I comfortable with the expression "sexual preference." Gdo has no sexual preference, but for humans, manhood and womanhood is genetically defined. You are either this, or that. If you are a male, your natural tending is toward the female gender, and viceversa, if you are a female, you need a man. But there are people, male and female, whose Spouse is Christ. These are married not for procreation of children, and regard sexual feelings as an unwelcome distraction, a burden of having a soul intermingled with flesh. Their only real desire is to make glad the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to be more like Him! They may use their sexual feelings for platonic human frienships, at best ... and even sin occasionally in their thoughts or worse (Catholics have the Sacrament of Penance for that). But they are not discouraged by their bodies, and do not even regret having them, for God Who made them and Who became Man, understands!

Billybob  Posted: 20/12/2007 15:09

Nathaniel your posts get funnier by the day. I presume you are male? Why don't you enlighten us as to your own sexual preference? I recall you saying you are "married" to god. Then you said you were refused entry to the priesthood. If you're such a devout christian then surely you believe sex is for procreation only. So if you're married to God, does this mean you have never enjoyed a sexual relationship with someone, male or female?

Anonymous (Happy)  Posted: 20/12/2007 15:05

Nathanael, I'm not sure which anonymous you are referring to. How about I call myself Happy (*after the penguin film!). I am indeed a woman. Not sure which relation of mine you are referring to - I have both female relations and male relations. They all happen to be, to the best of my knowledge, heterosexual altho' I could be wrong. Not that it matters they are still family. I have no intention of attempting to change biology or evolution or pretend it is any different - it created me as a woman and created some women as heterosexuals and some women as homosexual (or lesbian) and indeed some men as heterosexual and some as homosexual. In my plan for life, I am in a long term committed relationship - neither married nor single, as I recorded on the last census document (a state document). You can call that in between if you wish. I simply see it as different, as is my absolute legal right. What the bible says is of absolutely no interest to me and a couple of other billion people on this planet - whatsoever. Nature, evolution or call if what you like created male and female and (some would say transgenedered) created some of them as homosexual and some as homosexual (and some short and some black and green-eyed and some asian featured too - I don't want to change them either). If you are referring to me and my partner we are not both single women. I am a woman in a long-term commited relationship and my partner is a man in a long term commited single relationship (with me).

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 20/12/2007 14:39

No, Anonymous, what I am telling you is that both of you are women, you and your relation! I am also telling you that you cannot change biology: God created you women, not men! In the plan of God, you are either to mary a man, or to stay single. There is nothing in between! That's your right. What you cannot do, is to pretend that God created you something else! He did not do that! The Bible says that He made them male and female, not male, female, and gay! Consequently, you and your relation are both single women, not "gays," but simply two women that have chosen not to marry!

Anonymous  Posted: 19/12/2007 16:18

Nathaniel, are you telling me that my long relationship with another woman is a "myth"???? I think you have been reading too many fairytales!

Anonymous  Posted: 19/12/2007 14:55

Well Nathanael, I know several and they are well documented in history - you yourself mentioned them in your last post and there are male ones and female ones (also referred to as lesbians). I believe Sand is one. My friends uncle and his husband are two more as is a good friend of mine, two school pals and a colleague. They are certainly not myths. Tho I can think of plenty of myths within institutionalised religion. If you seriously imagine that homosexuals only exist because they have been duped by the psychiatric, psychologic, and social establishment of the last decades - then you seriously are warped in your thinking. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have been in existence long before the field of psychology and psychiatry even existed and have existed in every free social establishment well well before ours. "These are the lies which I want to eradicate from the face of the earth!" - oh you really do sound like those extreme conservative right-wing fundies now. Very funny. Why so homophobic?

Anonymous  Posted: 19/12/2007 08:41

Good point Ann, I only went so far as to theorise that Jesus was heterosexual. The reason why priests in the catholic church have to be celibate has nothing to do with the life of Jesus but was an invention after several hundred years bought about fo rthe control of church property. The church of the time (the catholic / protestant schism not having yet happened and thus catholicism having not been invented) did not want the property of priests going to the widows and orphans of the dead priests and thus falling out of church hands - hence the invention of celibacy.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 18/12/2007 22:00

Ann, there are many sinners in the Catholic Church. May be this is why I was denied priesthood. I was a sinner also, but I only spoke of purity and holiness, and truth. This rubbed too many people the wrong way, and doomed my priesthood and my religious life. I was too "outspoken" and too "uncompromising," I was told. But this did not discourage me from loving Jesus and from doing what I can to rebuild His Church!

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 18/12/2007 17:30

What "gays" are we talking about? there are no gays! There has never been any gays! There are only men and women! Those so-called "gays" are the ones who have been duped by the psychiatric, psychologic, and social establishment of the last decades, that "gays exist"! These are the lies which I want to eradicate from the face of the earth! The "gays" are a myth, a Trojan Horse on the service of institutionalized immorality!

Ann  Posted: 18/12/2007 16:57

Nathanael, Perhaps the reason Jesus and John had a "chaste" relationship was simply because Jesus was married with children! Not something the Catholic church likes to tell us about even though there is proof to that effect because that would end their theory on why priests have to be celibate?? Your preaching mentions "Love thy neighbour". Yes, the only commandment we really need because if we do truely love our neighbour we wouldn't break any of the other commandments, would we? Love is love. It is, from a lot of peoples' perspective, a God given gift. Sex is a biological action and didn't God give us the ability to make our own choices in life that are answerable to our conscience and Him at the end of the day? Personally, I no longer subscribe to the Catholic version of events as I find the amount of sexual abuse by the clergy over the years too much to deal with. The suffering of little children at the hands of 1,000's of clergy, all over the world, who couldn't keep their own promises to their God and remain celibate. So shouldn't the Church get its own house in order now before making judgements on others? After all, that is not a Christian thing to do, to judge others. That is God's Job!

Anonymous  Posted: 18/12/2007 13:01

What you see as "state-sponsored disintegration of patriarchal family under pressure from the women's liberation movement" - i.e. the end of the enslavement of women as a sub-class by misogynistic dominance, is something I fully support. Any function is society - including the patriarchal family which seeks to undermine the liberation of any group in society has had its disintegration coming. And anyone who still believes that women should not be free as men are and should therefore be second class citizens should come into this century. a secular moral relativist education - long may it continue. Seeing however that the world has known it since the Englightenment of the 16 century how did it suddenly "pervert" minds. Bearing in mind that homosexuality has been with us for thousands of years. I have no interest whatsoever in either the Episcopal Church or the traditionalists and nitrher bears any relevance to the vast majority - either "the gays" or "the straights" on the planet. The clashes against the various religions have been around since religion was invented and human intolerance evolved. "The homosexual bubble" - oh that is just too funny. You are starting to sound like one of those evangelical extreme-conservative bible bashing 'fundies' now.

Anonymous  Posted: 18/12/2007 12:58

Congrats on your happy relationship Sand. I am a woman in a long term relationship with aman. We aree no different - love is love at the end of the day. Just last January, my friend's uncle finally married his long term boyfriend - of 22 years. Like any married couple I wish them happiness.

Sand  Posted: 18/12/2007 08:01

Nathaniel, the bible at this stage means nothing to me as it was written by stuffy old men who are heads of the church and want things there way. By now its probably nothing to do with what Jesus said and did but instead its like chinese whispers with the story having changed as time went on to suit what people wanted to hear. It's been written by the same church who want men to be celibate and will not allow women to be priests and will not allow contraception despite the prevalance of aids. I believe in God and Jesus, but I believe they want me to be happy and share love with someone,. I don't believe I'm going to hell because I share that love with another woman. There are far worse things I could do which would make me deserve that but loving someone wont. I have been in a loving relationship for 6 years now, I know others who have been in much longer ones, its not going to change and it shouldnt have to.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 14/12/2007 15:19

It's David's attitude that prompts me to respond. Attitudes as this should be a model for every enlightened discussion. The "changes" that David cites, have mostly happened in the last four or five decades, not "over millennia." Why so many people suddenly rebelled against the millenary admonitions against homosexuality will be a subject of study for many years to come. I see that, soon after the French and Russian Revolutions, the world has experienced two powerful World Wars. I also see the unprecedented, quantum expansion of never imagined before inventions. I see a state-sponsored disintegration of patriarchal family under pressure from the women's liberation movement. And I see a secular moral relativist education resulting, an education that has suddenly "perverted" millions of unsuspecting young minds! So David should not be surprised why, in countries like Spain, the gays are freely marrying! Even AIDS has been unable to slow down this process! Fortunately, there are already signs, that the powers of evil have bitten more than they could chew! The battle lines recently have been drawn within the Episcopal Church: on one side, the traditionalists who say that homosexuality "violates Scripture"; and on the opposite side the gays, who declare themselves "to be guided by biblical teachings on justice and tolerance." Can this clash of Bible against Bible last long? No way! Jesus has said, "it cannot"! So this is the beginning of the end! The homosexual bubble is soon to burst!

Anonymous  Posted: 23/10/2007 12:20

Nathanael (QGQ65434) why don't you take your nonsensical religious babble off with yourself. It is totally meaningless to most of the world's population and most people posting here.

Lucifer  Posted: 23/10/2007 12:16

Nathanael should be banned from this "health" site. This is not a place for preaching.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 23/10/2007 10:38

I think David provides some interesting analysis. But I am sorry to disappoint him: there are no other sources to go to for humanity, and there won't be, than Christ and His Cross! Just read the powerful introductory words of John Paul II in the Encyclical Redemptor hominis, 7-11! The Cross made possible the second reopening of God's Fatherly Mercy and Love for all mankind, since Adam! This chance shall never be repeated again till the end of time! Christ gained the second coming of the Holy Spirit for us also not to be repeated! It's the coming of the Paraclete! So David should not wonder that the rest of humanity is still groping in darkness! John Paul II has noted this also in the alluded Encyclical [8] (see also Romans 8:19). It will be so, until "the revelation of the 'sons of God"! Our Christian duty, though, is spread the message of Truth, which the Paraklete sent by Christ, brings! This is what the Church has been relentlessly doing, and nothing else, in hope that the non-christian rest of humanity see the light!

David  Posted: 22/10/2007 11:24

Thank you Nathaniel for your perspective on same-sex relations from the Christian point of view. As a non-Christian, historic figures such as Jesus or John or the Christian God have no relevance or meaning for me: their ancient teachings can only apply to the less than 1 billion or so Christians on the planet. The remaining 5 billion+ people will have to seek sage advice from other sources. But if we ponder awhile the Christian aspect, is it not fair to say that society has moved on quite a lot since the origins of that religion? Times, contexts, values and all that have surely changed in ways unimaginable to the authors of its belief-system. How do you reconcile that fact with the teachings?

Anonymous  Posted: 19/10/2007 15:35

Could some one please entlighten me as to what Nathanael is on about - or on?

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 19/10/2007 15:04

I see that there is interest in my comments and that's positive. The sooner the gay people hear "the other side of the story," the happier they will be afterwards! What matters is spirit, not the body. The body obeys the spirit, and is and acts in the manner the spirit is and acts! The nature of your spirituality determines how well you love! Love can be exalted, or degraded. You can honor and ennoble your partner, or you can turn him or her into a dormat! You can honor God, or you can dishonor Him. My heart go to all human beings who are enslaved by their bodies and minds, or by others! My heart suggestion to all homosexuals is: take a deep breath, slow down, sit down with your partner, and mutually discuss how your relationship and love can grow in terms of better spirituality, more in tune with God, Who created you in His Image, and Who gave both of you the wonderful sexual faculty to be friends and to procreate! Remember that orgasm is the best of that faculty, and therefore the first fruits! And remember that all first fruits rightfully belong to God!

Don da don don  Posted: 18/10/2007 23:46

Nathaneal: With regard your post might I say "Yawn". And further "yawn". And having read your posts on other topics might I also say "yawn". Another brainwashed member of that cult the catholic church.

Anonymous  Posted: 18/10/2007 10:59

It looks like Nathanael's extreme right-wing fundamentalist tracts have infected this discussion too. Have we found a breed of American evangelists over here? The reason if it were not obvious, as to why Jesus and John loved each other chastely - i.e without consummation, is because one of both was heterosexual. For the same reason that a gay man would love a woman profoundly and chastely but would consummate his love for his partner, just as you consummate your love for you wife - and I am presuming you do not love your wife chastely as you would a close female friend.

Nathanael (QGQ65434)  Posted: 17/10/2007 20:40

People sin. That's a given. It has been like that since Adam and Eve attempted to love themselves, God regardless. This was impossible! We cannot love ourselves and consequently our neighbors, lest we love God totally! Our love for God is actually our love for ourselves, and we are commanded by God to love the neighbor with the same love. I just wonder, do the gay people love God totally, as they should? I will give you an example, in case you do not. The Beloved Disciple, John the Evangelist, loved God more than himself, loved totally! Jesus, although of the same sex, welcomed John as a close friend. They loved each other, but they did not sin! Should not all gay people take example from John? Should they not pose, and evaluate their relations with themselves and with others? Does God come first for them, or the "partner"? If God does not come first, then they do not know what love is! And if they do not, know love, they are deluding themselves, and storing for themselves trouble ahead! Why can't men and women of the same sex love each other chastely and profoundly? I am sure they can, and should! But they need to look beyond themselves, and together embrace God! Then they will disccover, that they have lost nothing, but gained Paradise! For in God love is best!

Sand  Posted: 19/09/2007 14:05

Quite frankly after reading Razor's earlier posts, I think we are better off without them!

sophie  Posted: 19/09/2007 12:53

Razor, where are you gone???? I was reading through the earlier part of this discussion + found it highly entertaining. No disrespect to the people with different sexual preferences.

Sand  Posted: 08/06/2007 07:51

Anonymous, you put it better than I ever could have. You are exactly right, each person deserves as much respect no matter who they choose to spend their life with. My partner is female as am I. We got together almost 6 years ago when I was just 17. Before then I never considered that I might end up in a relationship with another girl. But it jsut happens. You dont choose who you fall for or how you feel and I would rather spend my life happy with her than miserable without her just because of the attitudes that some people have towards the idea of our relationship. People who are my true friends whether straight or gay have had no problem with the way I choose to live my life. They see how happy I am and thats all that matters to them. One or two of them were very against the idea before I told them about my relationship but seeing me happy has changed their views. I think people who have bad attitudes towards gay people need to open their mind and see that love is love and that is all that should matter. They seem to view being gay as something to fear because they dont understand it, a few have the ridiculous idea that it is a sickness that can be cured!! Well it isnt! At the end of the day, some people may not agree with it or like it but it gives no one the right to bully, harass or abuse someone in any way just because your choices dont match theirs. Someone earlier said that "Homosexuality would appear to be no more that a learned pathological sexual disfunction!" Nonsense, its just the ability to love someone and want to be with them without letting the narrow minded view of society dictate that they must be of the opposite sex.

Mary  Posted: 07/06/2007 10:37

Ditto Anonymous and I couldn't have put it any better myself.

Anonymous  Posted: 07/06/2007 09:32

I just want to say something here, men and women who are gay do NOT CHOOSE to be gay. Its not something you decide one morning when you wake up and go 'oh I think I'll be gay now'. I know many gay men and women, I myself am heterosexual if you want to get all scientific about it!! any way all these people I know are the most kindest, sweetest, loving people I know. They're friendships to me are worth more than all the gold in the world. I have had to see them struggle with their sexuality, having to tell their parents, get bullied, have abuse thrown at them, get beaten up. I could go on an on here as to how ill treated they are by 'heterosexual people'. Can't you just let them live their lives. At the end of the day whether you're gay or not you have the right to live as a human and as an adult you have the right to freewill and to live your life as happy and as healthy as you can. We do not have the right to judge people and it is extremly disapointing and shameful to judge someone just because of who they sleep with. People need to open their eyes and start seeing the world for what it is. Its full of so many different kinds of people, races, religions etc. This is the world we live in and its not going to change. Every life and every human on this planet is previous. Stop pulling out statistics for this that and the other. Seriously I work in the medical field and trust me - those statistics mentioned are wrong. There are more gay men that come in for tests and ensuring that everything is fine that 'straight people' They look after themselves a lot more than straight people. Please just treat every person with respect - everyone is just trying to get through life the best they can. Its really not nice for people bashing other people. And if you don't know a gay person well maybe you should try get to know one. Your view will change - because they're people, really great people the same as you and me

Anonymous  Posted: 11/05/2007 19:40

The world is overpopulated as is. Who cares where gay men put their penis?

Anonymous  Posted: 09/05/2007 12:21

Ann posted 08/05/2007 21:37 Well said!

Pat  Posted: 09/05/2007 11:18

Anonymous you state that in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections in England between 2003 and 2004 one-in-five HIV-negative men and four out of 10 HIV-positive men said that they had had a sexually-transmitted infection. This bears no relevance to homosexual people. Which non baised scientific studies attest to the fact that hoimosecxual people die younger and can they prove that it is solely becuase of their sexual orientation? Of course not - becuase it's nonsense. Secetatries of educaton are not sources of information on health anymore than ministers of transpott can be relied upon for agriculatural information

Ann  Posted: 08/05/2007 21:37

Anonymous, the statistics you spout for sexually transmitted disease can be doubled for heterosexuals. Where do you get your self righteous attitude? Its not even homosexuality you are attacking but also all of us people who either cannot or else choose to be child free. If you truely love someone you will realise that you cannot steer them away from anything that they choose to do BUT if you truely love another being, you love them for what they are and do not make judgements on them or feel that you are superior in any way (to think you can steer someone to do what YOU want them to do, is not love but rather, a control issue). Look at thyself and fix thyself before you even think about trying to fix any one else.

Anonymous  Posted: 03/05/2007 16:40

Yes Pat homosexuality as a sexual identity does and has functioned among homosexual people within society for many years. The result of this dysfunction is all too apparent. In a study published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections in England between 2003 and 2004 one-in-five HIV-negative men and four out of 10 HIV-positive men said that they had had a sexually-transmitted infection. Former US education secretary William Bennett declared the average age expectancy for gay men, was just 43. Study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone's lifespan. Here's a behavior that's killing people 2 to 3 times the rate of smoking, yet nobody seems to care. In fact, some people are encouraging and affirming individuals into the "gay" lifestyle. If you truly love someone, you would steer them away from self-destructive behaviors, rather than towards them, shouldn't you? The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a "victim" image for homosexual persons. They are victims, but victims of their own actions. Sexual acts are primarily but not exclusively for pro creation. There are no parallels between infertile couples, post menopausal couples and child-free couples and homosexuals.

mike  Posted: 25/04/2007 11:38

Hetrosexual relationships do lead to the procreation of children, Yes! Not always though, as a result of developement difference in either male or female person. Application of previous posters view would see such a relationship as pointless and should be considered taboo. There is human need and desire expressed in all supportive and loving relationships

Pat  Posted: 25/04/2007 11:17

Anonymous Posted: 24/04/2007 16:14 If that's your true view on sex and sexuality I pity your narrow view of life I really do. If sexual acts was really only for procreation, then infertile couples, post menpausal couples and child-free couples would " serves no purpose to mankind", nor would celibates but as anyone in the real world, knows, that is rather pathetic view of life and of sexuality. Of course any sex act which does in itself not result in procreation would "serve no purpose to mankind" including kissing, any form of oral or anal sex, sex with contracapetion and sex during menstruation. A hermahrodite is someone born with male and female organs. Our sex is genetically determined except in the case of transgender people - those who would be described as having the mind of one sex and the body of another. Culture is not scientific altho one can adopt another culture or be part of two cultures. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic has not been proven, just as whether or not heterosexuality is genetic has not been proven. Nor is it proven where or not one is born with a particular sexuality. Homosexuality is niether pathological (there are no pathogens involved - it is not a medical disease. that was a theory born out of ignorance and discarded as inaccurate many many decades ago) nor is it dysfunctional as homosexuality as a sexual identity does and has functioned among homosexual people within society for many years. What is dysfunctional is the sexual repression which displays itself so plainly to lend itself to insult and in some cases injury.

Anonymous  Posted: 24/04/2007 16:14

In its simplest form, sex is the ability to exchange genetic material between two individuals usually for the purposes of procreation. So in that respect homosexuality serves no purpose to mankind. Under most circumstances, we have as much control over choosing our culture as we do over choosing our sex. Our culture demands that we categorize individuals, and when male and female do not seem to apply well, we fall back on the term Hermaphrodite. However biological science states, that a true hermaphrodite cannot happen in humans. Humans can be born with a range of genitic defects, however homosexuality is not one of them. Homosexuality is not genetic. No body is born with the chemistry of a woman and the body of a man. Neither is any one born homosexual. Homosexuality would appear to be no more that a learned pathological sexual disfunction!

Anonymous  Posted: 23/04/2007 12:40

That certainly is one can of worms you have opened there Mick and one that was hidden / censored for many years as was any conversation / text regarding sex - hetero or homo; miscarriage & stillbirth, menstruation; contraception, divorce; transgender - having the mind (chemistry) of a woman and body of a man; hermaphrodotism - the medical condition wherby one is born with men and women's sexual organs.

Mike (ZUE14136)  Posted: 22/04/2007 16:44

Sex is about more than a woman and man copulating in order to assist her to fulfil her desire to reproduce. To me sexual pleasure is a normal human need. If we "honestly" think about all the single women and men who were prevented from sharing with each other because they were not married we might realise that the mental longterm side effects spelled disaster. The other and still officially denied reality, "Incest" is still a bridge to far for us in Ireland to be open and honest about. The number of adult females who turned a blind eye to "Yer Man getting at the young ones once they were developed enough" is a part of our oral history that has yet to be written about. To use the sexual activities of homosexuals as taboo to keep our attention away from the "Incestous" underbelly inherited from the catholic past is an Irish Sick Joke. Denying a human being their particular sexuality is a crime on a par with attempted murder by slow poisoning. The number of people born with the chemistry of a woman and body of a man is greater than is being admitted. The number of people born with men and women's sexual organs is also been hidden. So lets get on with life and allow people their Happiness and Pleasure

Anonymous  Posted: 20/04/2007 20:30

I know really great guys who are gay, you could not fine nicer people. I have friends and a family member who are gay and they are really wonderful. As a friend of mine said, he did not choose to be different, had no choice,he lived in agony before coming out. This takes courage, and should be respected. Good luck to them.

Anonymous  Posted: 10/04/2007 12:00

Sorry Caritas I disagree, I was never abused as a child either physically or sexually. I came from a nuturing family and all that I knew was love.

Anonymous  Posted: 10/04/2007 11:57

there has never been found a genetic focus for heterosexuality either - or any sexuality for that matter. "He" doesn't create anyone. Nature, evolution and the union of an ovum with a spermatozoa created us all. Going down the route of talking about sins, what are presumably biblical references and muddying the discussion with talks about abuse and paedophlia is atempting to go down the route of making judgement calls which you are in no way qualified or called upon to make. That there is the perception is that the "establishment" in Ireland has been infiltrated deeply by militant homosexual elementsreally is news to the rest of the population. Any evidence to support that conspiracy theory. Incidentally, the name you have taken - Caritas is presumably an attempt at wry humour

Caritas  Posted: 06/04/2007 19:13

I think it sad that anyone should see their identity primarily in terms of their sexuality, but this is often the case persons who have overwhelning problems which cause them to be preoccupied with the dysfunctional part of their identity instead of the more appropriate identification as one of God's creation, made in His image and likeness, according to the Christian Bible and indeed the Koran for that matter. As a doctor in psychological medicine, I have had to treat many men and women who have presented with psychological illnesses such as depression and anxiety, not to mention addictions and substance misuse, which they attribute to their life as homosexuals. This word is from the Greek, where "homo" " means "the same", not the Latin where homo means "man". All of these patients shared one thing in common, their early life experience of abuse, physical and/or sexual. Many of the males felt that their homosexuality resulted from a derailment in normal sexual development, with later experience of post-traumatic-like flashbacks to the experience which was sometimes experienced as pleasurable as children, albeit children being exploited. The women, on the other hand, had more frequently been abused physically and/or sexually by men and found that they felt safer and more loved in the company of other women. i think this indicates an intrinsic defference between homosexual male and female gender identity development. Despite prolonged research by eminent physicians, which does not include the "work" of Alfred Kinsey, whose contribution was counterproductive because of his lack of integrity with his subject matter, there has never been found a genetic focus for homosexuality. That's why it doesn't appear with increased frequency in families of homosexual individuals. The "nurture" argument wins hands-down in this case. The failure of some heterosexual relationships owes far more to the selfishness of individuals than to an intrinsic flaw in the union of man and woman. Where children are involved in the relationship their selfishness is compounded, and the current secular materialistic and egocentric "what about me?" generation have not grasped the essential truths of commitment. They make a commitment, a decision, and voice their commitment before "witnesses" and go on to break their vows. How sad for them, and sadder still for their children, whose own relationships are far more likely to self-destruct as a result. Homophobia is a misnomer, as it suggests an irrational fear of man/men/same-sex relationships. It is a label, like 'queer' , which is used to attack those who express their belief that homosexuality is not the preferred activity of He Who created us. As regards whether God loves "gay" men or women, the New testament tells us to love the sinner, whether he be abusive heterosexual, homosexual or even paedophile, another misnomer for their is no love in the predatory assault on children by adults. We must love the sinner but not the sin. Is homosexual behaviour a sin? That depends on your religious belief. Is the effort to normalise and give same-sex couples the right to "marry" and adopt children a good idea? Well, the rights of society come before the rights of the individual to self-expression, and way down from the rights of the child who is the guinea-pig in this latest social experiment which will take several generations to display its effects. Do we have the ethical right to engage in such social experimentation? According to research norms, absolutely not. I am not a homosexual, although my best friend when I was young, and my brother, are both active homosexuals. They were both the victims of sexual abuse by homosexual males when in their formative years. They both suffered greatly as a result of their abuse and both developed substance abuse problems as well as depression and severe anxiety disorders. So, I guess that my experience of 20 years in medicine has led me to believe that the evidence of the clinical experience is that most people with gender identity issues have been the subjects of sexual abuse. Mind you, there is no research foundation willing to finance my hypothesis, because it is not politically correct and the perception is that the "establishment" in Ireland has been infiltrated deeply by militant homosexual elements who do their lobby a grave disservice by polarising the debate, and generating more heat than light in their discussions.

anon  Posted: 14/03/2007 11:28

thank you I am taking each day at a time I have spoken to my roommate and they have been amazing I am not ready yet to tell my family but I know that will come. thank you all for your kind comments there is so much hurt out there that I don’t know why we continue to hurt each other my life would be 100 times easier if I was straight but I am not I have for so long wished that I could be but now its time to start accepting who I am and coming to terms with it. Thank you all for your messages it really means a lot . I got an email today from a friend and it really made me smile I am posting it below I am not sure if its genuine but here you go anyway. Thanks again everyone and Adolf I appreciate your comments especially. It takes a lot to say what you said. I hope you enjoy this little note. One day at a time for me folks! you have all really helped me. x Dave ____________________________________ Why Can't I Own a Canadian? October 2002 Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted fan, Jim

Adolf  Posted: 14/03/2007 09:43

Anon, please accept my sincere apologies. It was never my intention to hurt any one. I deeply regret any ill feelings my posts may have caused. I never imagined that views posted on this site would be taken seriously as I take the same than a pinch of salt! Read Lemmys post 12/03/2007. He appears to be the only one who has copted it! You right anon, you cannot change who you are. Why would you want to? Your family and friends obviously love you very much because of who you are and that’s all that matters. Unfortunately there are far too many young people in this country who consider scuicide for one reason or another. There is help out there. Please consider availing of it! Life can be cruel at times but there are always solutions no matter how bad things may seem. Here are a few contacts you might consider. Take care! National Office for Suicide Prevention, Dr. Steeven's Hospital County:Dublin 08 Tel:(01) 635 2139, (01) 635 2179 You may also find some of the following voluntary and community organisations may be of assistance. ConsoleAll Hallows College Drumcondra Dublin 9 Dublin Ireland Tel:+353 (0)1 8574300 Mon-Fri 9:00am - 5:30pm Fax:+353 (0)1 8574310 Homepage: Aware72 Lower Leeson Street Dublin 2 Dublin IRELAND Tel:+353 (0)1 6617211 Locall:1890 303302 Fax:+353 (0)1 6617217 Homepage: Aware operate a helpline providing non-directive counselling from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day all year round. SolasBarnardo's Christchurch Square Dublin 8 IRELAND Tel:+353 (0)1 4732110 SamaritansMarlboro Street Dublin 1 Ireland Tel:1850 609090 Homepage:

sonya  Posted: 13/03/2007 13:13

To Anon 16.23....Dont take any notice of some of the posts...Can only imagine how ur feeling at the moment.My brother is gay only came out in 05 and its the best thing that he could have done!All along myself and other family members had our suspicions so one day i asked him straigt out "r u gay".HIs answer was obviously yes and i asked him would he tell the rest of the family so he agreed.I know its a very hard thing to say to your family but just remember your their son,brother,nephew and they will love you no matter what!The relief on your part would just be amazing as i know from my brother it was like winning the lotto! My parents were shocked at first but then accepted it mam would say it would be worse if he was told he only had six months to live! Please cheer up theres nothing abnormal about you i bet your a very loving person! I hope all goes well for you in the future..please dont do anytin to harm yourself .x.

fionah  Posted: 13/03/2007 10:35

I would suggest that any gay person feeling bad about themselves should NOT read the comments here, which may be written in order to wind people up and can't be taken as representing majority opinion. Also that many of us have gay friends and relatives who have enriched our lives in many ways, for example i could tell you about a gay man i used to know who made me laugh and was a great listener. I'm sure your friends and relatives feel the same about you, if you are a good person it shouldn't matter, and your sexuality is just a part of you anyway. Please call the Samaritans if you feel suicidal, I'm sure they would tell you much the same thing and better than i can.

Anonymous  Posted: 12/03/2007 19:21

anon Posted: 12/03/2007 16:23 Firstly let me start by saying I know exactly how you're feeling. Reading your post has made me remember my own struggle and heartache from my early teens until my mid 20's. Secondly, let me say, ignore the negative postings on here as they are the views of the minority and not the majority (thankfully in this day and age). Just know that you're not alone. When I couldn't fight my sexuality anymore, I hit the bottle big time attempting to block it out. Alcohol than magnified the problem which made me more depressed and then eventually alcohol nearly destroyed me though I don't drink now. I too did not want to be homosexual and tried every possible thing to "convert" myself including visiting prostitutes. I used the alcohol, I believe today, to block out the pain I was experiencing but this just caused me more problems. I felt all alone. I couldn't tell any of my friends or family for fear of rejection so I totally understand you in this regard. Eventually I had to tell them as I just couldn't live with the shame (I'm not suggesting that you should do this, this is just what I did). I won't lie, my parents took it hard. At first. They soon came to realise that I was no different and today we are closer than we have ever been, especially with my father. I expected all my friends to reject me but they didn't. They didn't care about my sexuality. Now, if I choose to tell someone I still expect rejection but it never happens. Can I ask how long you've been seeing a psychologist? Even after I told my friends I still felt very uncomfortable in my own skin so had to seek professional help. For me, I had to attended psychotherapy sessions to learn how to fully accept myself. I attended these for months and I feel so much better for it, they really helped me. Now I feel very comfortable within myself. I'm still straight acting, I do not advertise that I'm gay, I'm not camp and am quite big and stocky so people never know. Unless I tell them. Sexuality is a private matter IMO and I don't feel the need to advertise it like some people do. I sincerely wish you all the best, anon, things will turn around and you will learn to accept and love yourself again. It looks bleak at the moment but it will get better. Please post back to let us know how you are getting on.

Editor  Posted: 12/03/2007 18:06

All users of this thread, please note: any further inflammatory or abusive comments will be blocked and the people posting them may be de-registered from this site. We would ask all users to restrict their comments and use of intemperate and inflammatory language, some of which is tantamount to incitement. Thank you. Editor, 12/3/07

anon  Posted: 12/03/2007 16:23

I am 25 years old and I am gay I dont ever remember feeling any differently I have 2 brothers and they are a year older and 18 months younger than me we were all treated and raised the same and we had all the same friends I have always played GAA (football still but gave up hurling a couple of years ago) I love a few pints Im not a sensitive stereotypical "PUFF" but I am only attracted to men. Every day is a battle I dont want to be gay I have even seen a psychologist to help me but theres nothing anyone can do. I cant tell my parents as I know it would kill them and my 2 brothers I cant tell my friends they will reject me and I am now at the stage where I want to end it all 3 weeks ago I took an overdose I was drunk and didnt think it through properly my flatmate got me to hospital and everyone thinks it was an accident but since it happened I have realised that maybe I dont want to be alive anymore I have read back through your posts and the things that some people are saying make me feel like the lowest of the low. I dont know what to do. I am the life and soul of the party and Im the one every relies on to sort out their problems but I am so unhappy and I really feel sometimes maybe I would be better off if I was gone. the thing is I would never deliberately hurt anyone but I cannot change who I am and this is really hard for me. I know I am a good person I do anything I can for the people around me anyone that knows me will tell you that but nothing I do makes me feel any better about myself when I read people saying that I am abnormal or sick it makes me hate myself I truly hope none of these peoples children ever have to go through the turmoil I have had to endure. Maybe then they would choose their words more carefully

Anonymous  Posted: 12/03/2007 15:25

Adolf had there been no discrimination or bias towards homosexuals they wouldn't have married in an attempt to fit in with a heterosexual society. They would have felt comfortable enough to be themselves. End of Discussion!

Mary  Posted: 12/03/2007 15:24

Adolf, If you don't understand, read my post and Anonymous post again. Anonymous explains things very clearly for you. I am not the sick twisted one here. Homosexuals are not "afflicted" because it is not a disease. Having homosexual desires or tendencies does not make someone engage in casual homosexual sex any more that having heterosexual tendancies makes someone engage in casual heterosexual sex and to suggest so is more absurd rubbish. At last Adolf is seeing the light - there is no good reason for society to discriminate against people based on who they love or what they do in private. Why then such a sickeningly bigotted attitude from you? A couple of interesting points in your wording - you bear no malice towards me or any other homosexual person. Do I take it then that you assume I am homosexual? Also why would you bear any malice towards me - you don't know me And why would you bear malice towards any homosexual person, it is quite obvious from your posting that you don't any either. (Or you think you don't) No homosexual I know has ever regarded their sexuality as a burden and to suggest so borders on condescending. What is a burden however is the attitudes of others. Tell me Adolf, do you regard your sexuality as burden? You have yet to provide any evidence for your ascertion of shortened life expectancy. The points regarding HIV, drug abuse, suicide, mental and physical health have already been discussed, you will need to read the posts again. It is risky sexual behaviours rather than homosexuality and heterosexuality which contributes to the spread of HIV. Sensitive!! That is outright funny considering some of your posts have been the most insensitive I have come accross in a long while. we have already discussed "abnormal" and the fact that deviant merely refers to the mores prevalaneti n society at the particulat point in timre and is subject to shift. Many things are "POTENTIALLY" dangerous including my car but homosexuality or heterosexuality is not.

Lemmy  Posted: 12/03/2007 11:40

has it not dawned on anyone here that somebody using the nickname "Adolf" is just trying to wind people up and is better off just ignoring?

Adolf  Posted: 10/03/2007 10:44

Mary how sick and twisted can you get. The husband and wife Anonymous spoke of ARE victims of homosexuality. How could any one with half a brain even consider that that person’s wife is somehow a victim of bias or hatred? Absurd! As adults we are ALL responsible for our own actions, nobody else’s, and we must accept the consequences associated with those actions. Anonymous, these men you describe, are according to you are meeting up with strangers, engaging in casual sex, putting their own health and the health of their wives at risk. Why? Because they are afraid of what people might think or say? Being afraid of what people might think or say does not make someone engage in casual homosexual sex with strangers. Being afflicted with homosexual desires or tendencies does! The fact that these maggots are prepared to drag other decent people down into their murky world, and put the health of someone who loves them at risk compounds the issue even further. I agree with the theory that there is a possibility that some genes may predispose someone to homosexuality and environmental factors could increase or decrease this predisposition. And also that whether it's nature or nurture, there is no good reason for society to discriminate against people based on who they love or what they do in private, but provided that no harm comes to any else as a result of their activities! Anonymous I bare no malice towards you or any other homosexual person. Life can difficult enough without the added burden of being homosexual in todays world. My argument is with gay lobbyists and activists, who consistently ignore the overwhelming evidence relating to the spread of disease, AIDS and HIV, shortened life expectancy, drug abuse, suicide, mental and physical health, and accuse sensitive, decent people of bigotry, hatred, and bias for simply following their own moral consciences and intelligence and seeing homosexuality for what it is, an abnormal, potentially dangerous, deviant human behavior.

fionah  Posted: 09/03/2007 15:06

"There's no gay gene": well, first we don't know everything about the human genome yet. Second there's unlikely to be a single gene to cover something as complex as sexuality; there's no "intelligence gene" either and yet nobody would deny that intelligence is at least partially genetic. Thirdly, it's not an "either genetic OR environment", there could be some interaction between genes and environment, for example maybe some genes predispose someone to homosexuality and environmental factors could increase or decrease this predisposition. Finally, "environment" is not exactly the same thing as "rearing", other factors make up the environment, for example prenatal hormones. In any case, whether it's nature or nurture, there is no good reason for society to discriminate against people based on who they love or what they do in private. Interestingly, some American Indian tribes believed homosexuals were "two spirit people" in touch with both masculine and feminine sides and homosexuals in such societies often became shamen!

Anonymous  Posted: 09/03/2007 14:29

"another example of the hedonism of homosexuality"???? Don't make me laugh!!!!! For the first time Adolf I am quite disgusted by your comments. No this is not an expample of the hedonism of homosexuality. What this IS an example of is what your discriminatory and hateful (you claim you don't hate gay people and then post the above - yes disgusting is the only word) attitude is capable of doing to a person. These people chose to marry because they were afraid to live their life in the way that they were made. They were afraid of having to listen to comments like the ones that YOU have made here, maybe the pointing/laughing or even the bashings they expected to get if they told people their horrible secret. I'm one of the lucky ones in that I don't care one bit what you think of me or what anyone else thinks of me! Once my friends and family accept me, that's all that matters. There are others out there who do care what others think. If anyone is to blame for these men marrying and living a lie for their whole lives, it is YOU and all those others out there with the same attitude as you. The comments you've made here is exactly what they fear and choose to live the lie. I only hope that some young man or woman struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality don't somehow come across this forum and read your posts as you don't seem to realise the damage you are capable of doing.

Anonymous  Posted: 09/03/2007 14:20

Adolf, are you the same Adolf who, in a debate on abortion provided the horribly arrogant remark about how the solution to a crisis pregnancy was that a woman should "keep her legs closed"? Speaks volumes.

Mary  Posted: 09/03/2007 14:18

Adolf, if you are going to take part in a discussion, you could at least READ the other postings. As I and probably other, have said, the fact is that there is is no proof behind the fallacy that homosexuality is a mental illness and this theory was discounted as incorrect as far back as the 1950's. You have no proof whatsover hat itis is not organic - i.e. biological, the way soemone is made. "symptomatic of arrested development which is manifested in childhood and encompasses the child’s environment which is part of its rearing". I have never heard such unadulterated rubbish in my life. Clearly you have no knowledge of Development psychology or any field of psychology at all for that matter. The situation anonymous discribed is one where not only the wife but also the husband is a victim not of homosexuality but of the disgusting bias, hatred, bitterness and bigotry spewd out by so many ignorant narrow-minded people.

Adolf  Posted: 09/03/2007 13:40

Anonymous, if homosexuality is not a choice, and there is no gay gene, so its not biological, then it has to be the only reason remaining. A mental illness, symptomatic of arrested development which is manifested in childhood and encompasses the child’s environment which is part of its rearing! A theory upheld by many renowned psychoanalysts which I see no reason to doubt! The particular situation you describe is sad. Despicable actually, that a human being could treat another in this manner and for that poor unfortunate to be unwittingly exposed to potential deadly diseases by someone they love is yet again another example of the hedonism of homosexuality!

Anonymous  Posted: 09/03/2007 12:24

Lets hope it makes some difference Anonymous, so far I think I'd have been better off banging my head off a brick wall for the past few weeks since I joined this discussion.

Anonymous  Posted: 09/03/2007 10:26

Anonymous Posted: 08/03/2007 19:29 might I thank you for introducing a refereshing halthy dose of real life into this discussion.

Mary  Posted: 09/03/2007 09:00

Adolf, in addition to the fact there is is no proof behind it, the incorrect theory that homosexuality is a mental illness was discounted as incorrect as far back as the 1950's. And bar in mind the same school of thought believed that maturbation was an abherration and the female sexual response (orgasm) was a 'dark continent - both of which ae equally laughable as I'm sure any normal person woudl agree. If there is no choice or trauma involved and no evidece to suggest that is is a result of environment and surroundings - i.e. upbringing (and there certainly isn't with any homosexual men and women I know) which leaves only one logical answer!

Anonymous  Posted: 08/03/2007 19:29

I'm guessing you can't answer my question Adolf, I did not ask about the APA, nor did I ask for a history lesson on homosexuality. You said the following in a previous post which I have asked you to explain (twice) because, truth be told, I am interested in knowing the answer. "In most all cases homosexuality has everything to do with childhood and upbringing." Now that last statement seem to be your own views so naturally, I assumed, you'd have something to back up such a claim. I do have to give you some credit, you have been able to answer most of the questions put to you and, if you need to, back them up with what you consider to be facts (when they are merely a sample). Unfortunately,if you don't have an answer you tend to avoid or ignore the question. Speaking for myself - I did not choose to become homosexual. I fought it for years, in fact. I have been attracted to men since puberty though at the time convinced myself it was a phase. At 19, worried because the phase was still going on 6 or 7 years later, I visited female prostitutes convinced that all I needed to set me straight was some sexual contact with women. Did nothing for me. So yes, in a way I did experiment - just in the opposite direction to your last post. Here's some food for thought: I personally know of a few "straight" men, happily married with children. Now these men are in fact homosexual and have known it all their lives but, due to the stigma (disgusting/abnormal/dirty etc) and prejudices associated with it they decided to get married. This would mean they were normal, wouldn't it? Well no, it wouldn't. On the surface these men have the perfect life, the doting wife/2.4 children/house/car/holiday. Anything you would consider normal. But, these men are meeting up with other men, some of whom are strangers, for casual sex. Now we all know that casual sex is high risk, both homo and hetero. These men then go home, spend some quality time with the wife and kids, get their dinner, watch telly and then probably give the wife one before going to to sleep so she doesn't suspect he might be getting it elsewhere. So these men are putting their own health at risk and , more importantly, the wives health at risk. For what???? Because they're afraid of what people will think, afraid of what people will say, afraid of what people will feel if they knew!!!!! Comments such as those previously left by yourself and others probably confirms what they always feared, they will be outcast they will be banished and they were right to live this secret life (when in fact most do not share your views, in my own experience). Personally, I find this to be really really sad; quite heartbreaking in fact. These people are living a lie their whole lives, all because they fear being judged by other people. Very very sad indeed.

Adolf  Posted: 08/03/2007 16:44

Anonymous, in recent decades, many hotly debated topics have come under the scrutiny of sociobiologists, trying to determine their causation and origins. One such topic is homosexuality. Originally thought by the American Psychological Association (hereafter referred to as APA) to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development and political pressure have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders. Many different theories can be found regarding the root of homosexuality, as far back historically as Ancient Greece. The current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a result of nature: a person's environment and surroundings, or of his biology and genetic. At least three answers seem possible. The first, the answer of tradition, is as follows: homosexual behavior is a bad habit that people fall into because they are sexually permissive and experimental. This view holds that homosexuals choose their lifestyle as the result of self-indulgence and an unwillingness to play by society rules. The second position is held by a number of psychoanalysts (e.g., Bieber, Socarides). According to them, homosexual behavior is a mental illness, symptomatic of arrested development. The third view is "biological" and holds that such desires are genetic or hormonal in origin, and that there is no choice involved and no "childhood trauma" necessary. So it boils down to which one you believe. Since no gay gene has been found and homosexuals claim that it’s not a choice, then by a process of elimination, there is only one answer left!

Anonymous  Posted: 08/03/2007 10:56

Adolf - going back to your claim that "childhood upbringing" causes homosexuality. Please explain this: I have a friend who is gay, he is 2nd youngest of 4 boys. Their upbringing was the same - now, of these 4 boys my friend is gay - none of the brothers are. They're all heterosexual, married with children (and love and accept their brother). So what I'm asking you, Adolf, is what exactly did my friends parents do wrong (seeing that you understand the homosexual so much better than I do!) - they raised all their children the same way and yet ONE of them turned out gay (shock, horror!). If we were to believe your claims surely my friends parents would have four homosexual children? I look forward to your response.

Mary  Posted: 07/03/2007 12:37

Adolf, do you read the postings at at all? Never once did Anon mention pregnancy. Tho' just for the record any cancer which is oestrogen dependant will of course be aggravated by pregnanacy due the very level of oestrogen produced in the womans body at that time. You say "Homosexual behaviour, serves no purpose, and contributes nothing to humanity?" How do you know? What about people in homosexual relationships. Are you saying the love, happiness, companionship, joy and everything that goes with the behaviour involved in a relationship is nothing? How about you ask a couple of homosexual friends this week if their relationship means nothing to them and let us know their reply. Of course you have yet to answer anaymous question as to what eactly you regard as being homosexual behaviour AGAIN - please explain how it "defines humanity". It's a very glib phrase bandied about which no one seems able to justify. The depression, isolation and suicide risk we have aleady discussed. How does homosexuality prey on children? Do you have any facts whatsoever to prove that or is it just another glib phrase tossed into the debate to insult? Also there are plenty of heterosexual relationships which don't produce children. Are they somehow "worthless" and "serving no purpose" in your eyes How horribly demeaning your attitude is, in that case. You say "Instead of promoting health and stability (as does marriage),", are you forgetting that in some EU countries we now have same-sex marriage which therfore would surely promote stability according to that view of marriage. In what way, exactly does homosexuality thrive on aggression? Unless you are referring to the aggression promoted by people who thrive on the discrimination, hatred and bias which seems rife among some. No - Homosexuality does not spread disease, any more than heterosexuality, risky sexual practises do. So how would you claim to claim to care for homosexuals or have their best interests at heart when you dissenminate lies and promote hate-filled bigoted biased attitudes filled along with discrimination and derogatory remarks.

Adolf  Posted: 07/03/2007 11:54

Anon, according to cancer research UK, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that pregnancy causes cervical cancer. It’s just that abnormalities in the cervix become more visible during pregnancy and are more likely to by diagnosed at this time. However even if it were true, are you suggesting that humanity should cease procreating? That would be a bit pointless exercise wouldn’t it! The human race would be extinct in just over a century. Absurd! On the other hand homosexuality, or to be more correct homosexual practice or behaviour, serves no purpose, and contributes nothing to humanity! What is the point in promoting a lifestyle that defiles humanity and results in the premature death of its victims! According to GLEN, yet another gay rights activist group, homosexuals are 2-3 times more lightly to attempt suicide, and account for 30% of youth suicides! They also claim that mental health risk factors, such as depression, isolation and substance misuse, which increase the likelihood of suicide, are also higher among the LGBT population. Homosexuality is a unique manifestation of hedonism. Instead of producing children, it preys on them. Instead of keeping to itself, it proselytizes. Instead of promoting health and stability (as does marriage), it thrives on aggression, spreads disease, and destroys its practitioners, emotionally and physically. How can anyone claim to care for homosexuals or have their best interests at heart and at the same time promote a lifestyle that defiles the very basis of humanity?

Anonymous  Posted: 05/03/2007 10:48

Adolf, were you at the whisky before you posted that last message?

Mary  Posted: 05/03/2007 10:32

And you have managed to repeat yourself five times and still make absolutely no sense whatsoever in addition to not answering the questions asked of course. . The first steps to eduation is admitting you are ignorant And yes, you are indeed full of it. The more you post the more I come to realise that.

Anon  Posted: 03/03/2007 00:20

Adolf, There is a direct correlation between heterosexual consensual sex between 2 consenting adults and the rise (huge rise in Ireland) of Cancer of the Cervix. It has been well proved for a number of years that virgins and nuns do not have a problem with cancer of the cervix because they do not indulge in sexual practices. So, following your logic, then consentual sex between adult heterosexual adults carries as much if not a greater risk to society than does homosexual habits. Where do you stand on that? You pick on 1 group of people simply because you are ignorant of the other groups and ignorance is not a basis for legislation or christian values. Don't tell me Adolf that you have never had consensual sex between yourself and a consenting adult female because if you deny this, I simply will not believe you. You persistantly pick on 1 group without taking into account all the other groups which is totally irrelevant. Why is this?

Anonymous  Posted: 02/03/2007 21:43

Sigh........ Enlighten me please Adolf, exactly what sort of childhood upbringing results in said child 'turning' homosexual?

Adolf  Posted: 02/03/2007 17:59

“Perhaps you didn't read all the posts but as I pointed out numerous times, homosexuality is not an act it is a sexual state of being” + “Again, you are confusing homosexuality with homosexual behavior – CONTRADICTION NUMBER 1 “Once again to correct anonymous who does not seem to be reading the posts - homosexuality is not an act - it is a state of being + Again, you are confusing homosexuality with homosexual behavior CONTRADICTION NUMBER 2 “Factually speaking, homosexuality is not an act but a state of being” + “Again, you are confusing homosexuality with homosexual behavior – CONTRADICTION NUMBER 3 “Which part of it don't you understand”. In one sentence, you claim it’s not an act or behavior but a state of being, you then state that I’m confusing homosexuality with homosexual behavior (homosexual acts) and to top it off you have the temerity to ask “Which part of it don't you understand”. In order for anyone to understand something Mary it has to make some sort of sense! However I do understand one thing! “FULL OF IT” springs to mind!

Mary  Posted: 02/03/2007 14:48

Could you manage to explain how being homosexual could take 30 years of soemone's life. Of course as you are not homosexual it does not affect your lifespan surely? Again, you are confusing homosexuality with homosexual behaviour - which part of it don't you understand. Surely, it is a misnomer to say that homosexuality shortens your lifespan - or heterosexuality for that matter. Rather it would be correct to say that certain high-risk sexual behaviours - such as unprotected sex in non-monogamous situations - may shorten your lifespan but this applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to show that In most cases homosexuality has everything to do with childhood and upbringing. None.

Adolf  Posted: 02/03/2007 09:22

“You have still not explained your reasons for disapproving of homosexuality" Well here is just one reason Mary! “This is tough news and, it's not pleasant to hear," said former Education Secretary William Bennett on ABC's This Week Nov. 9. "But it's very important, and its part of telling the truth." Homosexuality "takes 30 years off your life." The average life expectancy for gay men, Bennett declared, was just 43. Study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone's lifespan. Here's a behavior that's killing people 2 to 3 times the rate of smoking, yet nobody seems to care. In fact, some people are encouraging and affirming individuals into the "gay" lifestyle. If you truly love someone, you would steer them away from self-destructive behaviors, rather than towards them, shouldn't you? The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a "victim" image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay" gene. Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a "gay" gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no "gay" gene. The truth is no one is born "gay" - no one. In most all cases homosexuality has everything to do with childhood and upbringing. On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims -- but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.

Mary  Posted: 01/03/2007 14:51

What "overwhelming abundance of sickening facts surrounding this issue" are you talking about? So far you have come up with precisely nothing except your opinions which have not been based on fact and evaded or avoided every question put to you. To the best of my knowledge if you read over the discussion again that have been more than one decent homosexual person posting on this, Anonymous was simply the most recent.

Adolf  Posted: 01/03/2007 11:22

Yes Mary at last you got something right! I am fighting a lost cause- People like yourself who persistently refuse to accept the overwhelming abundance of sickening facts surrounding this issue! The opinions of one decent gay person, does not alter the facts one iota! Bear in mind these facts are general information obtained from the internet and in no way elude to or detract from to any individual person!

Anonymous  Posted: 28/02/2007 14:11

Admittedly, I used the most extreme (IMO) fetish I've heard of or had the mispleasure of viewing (a friend thought it would be funny to show me a video, I didn't find it funny to be honest it made me rather nauseous). I apologise for any unpleasant images I may have caused. I simply wanted to find out if you would consider such acts to be more 'normal' than homosexuality. It's hetero because it's male and female getting sexual pleasure from it. All that I wanted to accomplish here, was to get you to realise that gay people do not stop at the activists or ILGA/LGBT groups (despite what they may claim). There are millions of us worldwide who simply want to get on with our lives like any other person, not to be looked upon solely on the fact that we're gay. Like everyone we want to live life to the fullest; find love, have fun, be successful and not focus on sexuality. Sexuality is a very small part of a person IMHO. I sincerely hope you can take this on board for the future. Take care

Mary  Posted: 28/02/2007 12:43

You have still not explaind your reasons for disapproving of homosexuality or indeed what you actually consider to be 'abnormal' sex. I imagine the connection between the acts Anonymous described is that they are carried out by some heterosexual people (presumably), making them heterosexual acts. Do you therefore approve of them because they are heterosexual acts? I do indeeed condemn vile and degrading acts - peadophilia, rape, murder, vicious assualt and acts of that nature, as would any decent person who respects and accords dignity to other people. Ahh the ol' "I have nothing further to say on this subject." - the classic line used by people who cannot admit that even they cannot answer the unanswerable and thus are fighting a losing cause.

Adolf  Posted: 28/02/2007 09:32

Fair point Anonymous. However I don’t hate anybody, gay or otherwise. I posted the facts about gay rights activists to show that people who mistrust or disapprove with homosexuality are not just bigots, as some gay protagonists claim, as there are justifiable and understandable reasons for this mistrust. I must admit I never thought about the vile and depraved acts you described, but I fail to see any connection with heterosexuality. Either way no group or sect of human beings has a monopoly on depravity. Although I do believe certain sections may be more prone to it than others because depravity breeds depravity. I agree that no one has the right to judge another person but you can’t claim to understand dignity and respect and not condemn vile and degrading acts! I like you do respect all human life but there is a mark difference between respecting human life and condoning, by apathy or silence, any vile and depraved acts conducted by particular human beings. Yes I agree the world would be a very boring place if we were all the same. A point some gay activists should consider before they condemn those who disagree with their agenda. Every member of society does deserve respect and dignity, regardless of race/religious beliefs/sexuality/colour as human beings and nobody should be demoralised for being different. However, we also have an obligation to ourselves, others and to the whole human race, to stand up for what we believe to be right and to condemn any actions that defile or degrade humanity. I have nothing further to say on this subject.

Mary  Posted: 28/02/2007 08:49

So Adolf, you think that people are not entitled to respect and dignity as a human beings? That really is despicable. And which human beings do you think are not entitled to dignity and respect? Is it specific categories or all people? Or should all people be treated with disprect and indignity until people like you decide they have somehow "earned" the right to be treated with the dignity anfd respect to which everyone IS automatically entiled. It looks like you have a whole heck of a lot of absolute basics to learn. What moistakes of history are you talking about?? I would hope someone would look back on our history and see all the bias, bigotry, discrimination and hatred for what it was - one very big mistake on the part of the group of seriuously misguided individulas who perpetrate it. If all our parts are for reproduction and to use them for pleasure is surely abnormal, then surely Adolf for a man and women to have sex at a time other then when the women is fertile (5 days either side of ovulation) is abnormal, as is masturbation and female orgasm - the latter not being strictly required for reproduction???

Anonymous  Posted: 27/02/2007 17:31

So, Adolf, anything that is non hetero sex is abnormal? Surely that means vaginal only (after all our parts are for reproduction and to use them for pleasure is surely abnormal????) Some men and women engage in oral. Is this abnormal? Some men and women enjoy a bit of anal. Is this abnormal? Some men and women 'P' on each other, others defecate on each other for sexual kicks. Nothing abnormal or disgusting - it's hetero after all. Now I've nothing against people who engage in such practices but I wouldnt practise them myself - but who am I to judge others? I'll tell you what I DO find abnormal - individuals who in this day and age do not respect ALL human life. Every member of society deserves respect and dignity, regardless of race/religious beliefs/sexuality/colour of hair etc. Nobody should be demoralised for being different END OF! Personally, I'd find the world to be an extremely boring place if we were all the same. Would you not agree? While I may dislike some people for some reasons I will never ever put them down for any reason outlined above. (by the way for someone who dislikes gay people you spend a lot of time doing research for reasons to pour fuel on this hatred, sounds kind of obsessive to me!). As the old saying goes, Live and let Live. That's my motto Adolf.

Adolf  Posted: 27/02/2007 16:59

“Every human being is automatically entitled to respect and dignity as a human being. It is a fundamental human right and recognised as such”. No Mary every human being is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity because they are human beings and not, for argument sake, as animals. These human rights you speak of are respect of a life form as opposed to respecting a person. Much like Hindus respect cows as a creature, not as individuals. Personal respect and dignity are earned from your fellow human beings. You cannot force anyone to respect you as an individual person. That respect is earned! Learn something new every day Mary! Anonymous I consider anything other than heterosexuality to be abnormal. I’m not too sure what point your trying to make in regards the condoms! Is it that using condoms as a contraceptive in the fifties was considered abnormal and that as we developed 57 years later they are now normal. Thousands of years ago in places like Sodom and Sparta in Greece and ancient Rome homosexuality was largely considered normal. But as we advanced as human beings we now know this is not the case. If we don’t learn from the mistakes of history we run the risk of repeating them!

Mary  Posted: 27/02/2007 10:39

True for you Anonymous. Even then it was only pharmacies which were supposed to stock condoms. Still waiting on answers from Adolf . . .

jane  Posted: 26/02/2007 20:20

Oh Adolf..just wake up and smell the coffee...ur not going to get the better of mary so why dont you just give up!!??

Anonymous  Posted: 26/02/2007 19:41

Good point Mary re contraception. But we don't need to go back as far as the 50's to see that. Remember the uproar the Virgin megastore caused in the 80's when they started to sell condoms?

Mary  Posted: 26/02/2007 16:55

Because so far Adolf you have NOT explained and do not seem to be able to explain - as no-one can explain the inexplicable. You have merely attempted excuses and prevaricated. Using contracpetion in the 50's in Ireland would have been considered "abnormal". This is not wild unsubstantiated assumptions, it is fact. Every human being is automatically entitled to respect and dignity as a human being. It is a fundamental human right and recognised as such. Fundamental Human Rights are not something anyone has to earn, they are an automatic given. A society that does not accord human beings the fundamnental rights to repect and dignity is neither civilised nor worthy of being called such.

Anonymous  Posted: 26/02/2007 16:53

Ok so, Adolf, please define abnormal sex then. You earlier mentioned that anything that's not "hetero" was abnormal so I'm presuming you mean vaginal intercourse? Or is everything ok providing both parties are male and female?

Adolf  Posted: 26/02/2007 16:25

Why should I explain AGAIN why it is abnormal? Once should be enough for anyone! What part of abnormal don’t you understand? I don’t know what life in Ireland was like in the 50’s as I wasn’t born then and I’m not in the habit of making wild unsubstantiated assumptions! No one is automatically entitled to respect and dignity. Such attributes are earned, otherwise there worth nothing!

Mary  Posted: 26/02/2007 15:03

There is significant evidence to suggest that homosexuality or indeed heterosexuality is the way you are made. Afterall, would you willingly choose to be part of a group of society who have been discriminated against, reviled, abused, attacked - sometimes physically and are shown bias against, hatred and bigotry, if you realy had a choice? Yes, they are like the rest of us, part of the human race and as such as entitled to the same respect and dignity as a heterosexual person. AGAIN - could you explain why is is "abnomal". I know that abnormal being unusual or not regular but as I also said using contracpetion in the 50's in Ireland would have been considered "abnormal" in that it was neither usual or regular but do you really want to go back to that kind of society where to do so would have made a person the taget of bias, discrimination or bigotry.

Adolf  Posted: 26/02/2007 14:55

Jane, in just two posts you have managed to use words such as pitiful, childish, rubbish, narrow minded etc and you have the audacity to accuse others, who object to having pro gay retheroic shoved down their throaths, of criticizing? Says it all!

Adolf  Posted: 26/02/2007 14:43

Mary, I see the point you’re trying to make but the argument doesn’t hold up! Homosexuals are not a particular race of people. They are, like the rest of us, part of the human race. The colour of a person’s skin is genetically determined. There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. No “gay” gene was ever found. If there was then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. My point is this, ordinary decent people should not be labeled as bigots, accused of showing bias or hatred because they view homosexuality as abnormal, because for human beings to be homosexual is abnormal. Like it or not, that’s the way it is! No bias, no discrimination, no hatred, just calling a spade a spade!

jane  Posted: 26/02/2007 14:06

Anonymous 13:59 My post was aimed at Adolf,Petra and one or two more narrow minded people who have nothin better do to with their time only criticise others ....SHAME ON YE...!!

Mary  Posted: 26/02/2007 11:40

Adolf, this is exactly my point. If a proportion of the human population is gay (just as a proportion of the poulation is black) then it is perfectly normal for that segment of the population. Let me see if I have this right - parallels between Black skinned people could be racist but you inferring the same thing about homosexual people is somehow not discrimatory?? Are you for real??? You really do need to take a good long look at your attititude.

Adolf  Posted: 26/02/2007 09:08

Mary, black is a normal colour for human skin! So is white, brown, red, yellow etc. However green or purple are not normal human skin colours. Human beings are also normally heterosexual. For humans to be anything other than heterosexual is abnormal, simple as that! You persistent attempts to somehow draw parallels between Black skinned people and homosexuality is irritating at best and could be contrived as racist!

Anonymous  Posted: 23/02/2007 15:49

Jane just who are you speaking to there? If you've been following the posts you'd notice that there are only two people here who are speaking badly of gay people.

jane  Posted: 23/02/2007 15:38

I cant see why all you people sending posts that gays r this and gays r that just leave them alone!! If their not interfering with yere pitiful,childish lives then whats yere problem?? And dont go blabbering on again they r what they r and knowbodys goin to change them..and why should they change them..they dont want to be changed and their familys dont want them changed.So why dont all of ye stop talking rubbish and leave them get on with it.

Mary  Posted: 23/02/2007 13:49

Yes Adolf, homosexuality is not typical, usual or regular just as being black in Irish society is not not typical, usual or regular but is that any reason to show bias, bigotry, hatred or phobia towards black people? I hope not. Why then do some regard it as an excuse to show bias, bigotry, hatred or phobia towards homosexual people?? incidentally, as Anonymous Posted: 23/02/2007 12:15 posted what is abnormal sex? 50 years ago, using contraceptives in ireland was considered abnormal - i.e. not typical, usual or regular.

Mary  Posted: 23/02/2007 13:05

Exactly Adolf To YOU all homosexual activities are abnormal. Just as to a homosexual, heterosexual activity would be abnormal. What exactly do you man by "In fact all non-heterosexuality activities are abnormal". Surely non-heterosexuality activities automatically implies homosexual activity Or are we missing something?

Adolf  Posted: 23/02/2007 12:30

Anonymous, I can’t speak for the men you know so perhaps you should ask them? To me all homosexual activities are abnormal. In fact all non-heterosexuality activities are abnormal, simple as that! I don’t know why lesbian porn is such a big seller. I don’t even know if it is a big seller!

Anonymous  Posted: 23/02/2007 12:15

No organisation represents me, I can do that very well myself thank you very much! I've already said those organisations do more harm than good for gay people. When I talk of the bigger picture I am not talking about whom the LGBT groups claim to represent. I'm talking about me and millions of others worldwide who are sick and tired of being associated with gay rights activists and being immediately labeled by people, "ah sure he's gay he must feminine, he must be camp, he must be in your face, he must take it up the arse and so forth". We get on with it and try to live our life to the fullest just like you. We work hard and we try to have fun. We go down the local for a few pints (not gay bars in case your wondering), why we could be that group of lads sitting beside you, god forbid! How would that make you feel Adolf? Incidentally, what is abnormal sex?

Adolf  Posted: 23/02/2007 09:11

A question no one seems able to answer Mary? Got me there? Perhaps it’s because most people are not in the habit of stating the blatant obvious? Or perhaps you don’t understand the definition of the word abnormal. Allow me to explain: Abnormal – Not typical, usual or regular, not normal. Deviating from the usual behaviour. Any clearer? If not, perhaps try a dictionary! Anonymous you said “I think you and Petra need to start looking at the bigger picture and take on board that those activists who tarnish the image of millions of respectable, hard working gay people are in fact a minority”. I just recently discovered that ILGA represent over 400 LGBT groups in 90 countries world wide. Exactly how big of a picture do we need to look at?

Anonymous  Posted: 22/02/2007 16:46

Yes, they're turned on by women. But they're even more turned on by women engaging in this "abnormal" homosexual sex. They have (the men i know) described seeing women engaging in such acts to be 100 times more arousing than seeing a naked woman or women just standing in the buff. Why is lesbian porn such a big seller? Why do staight men enjoy lesbian porn so much? - because they enjoy getting off looking at these women doing these things to one another. Simple as that! So any man who speaks about male homosexuals being abnormal and then jerks off to a bit of lesbian porn IS a hypocrite. No other word for it.

Mary  Posted: 22/02/2007 16:39

Again Adolf, a question no one seems able to answer - why do you believe all homosexuality is abnormal? "If homosexuality was normal or became the norm then their wouldent be much hope for the human race would there?" Is about as silly as saying, if everyone in the world was black there wouldn't be any white people. You could also say if everyone was infertile or child-free by choice their wouldent be much hope for the human race The fact is, not everyone is homosexual and not everyone is child-free by choice any more than everyone is balck beucase people are made differently. Phobia refers to a fear or hatred. That's not my definition. Argue with a dictionary if you wish.

Adolf  Posted: 22/02/2007 15:35

No anonymous that is NOT what I said. I said, they are just turned on by women. Nothing to do them being lesbians or anything else! I believe all homosexuality is abnormal! No hypocracy there! If homosexuality was normal or became the norm then their wouldent be much hope for the human race would there? Mary “homophobia” is an invented word that is used as a smear term. It is used to intimidate those who oppose the agendas of homosexual activists. It is quite normal human behaviour to be suspicious or uncomfortable with things you don’t or can’t understand! Some people can’t comprehend or understand homosexuality and are therefore understandably uncomfortable with it. This is NOT a phobia. That’s the way humans are made and such reactions are perfectly normal.

Mary  Posted: 22/02/2007 13:54

The word homophobic refers to a fear of, bigotry towards or hatred of homosexuals Just as for example arachnophobia refers to a fear or hatred or spiders. we hardly need a dictionary to know what a phobia is.

Anonymous  Posted: 22/02/2007 13:24

So two men having sex is abnormal, yet two women having sex is arousing? I'm sorry Adolf, but that just stinks of hypocrisy! I must say though, I feel perfectly normal, not abnormal. I enjoy my life. I'm a normal functioning member of society. I don't "broadcast" that I'm gay, but why should I - heterosexual people don't broadcast that they are hetero. I don't have any of the "stereotypical" characteristics (ott campness etc) that people associate with homosexulaity. Most of the gay men I know are the same, I know very few camp gay man as I can't be around them for long. I have a friend who is a doctor, another is in advertising another is a guard and another is a retail manager. All of us look like men and act like men and would never be picked out as being gay. Who knows Adolf, you may be dealing with a lot more gay people on a daily basis than you'd care to think of. I'm not sure about homophobia being "mythical" though I've never had first hand experience of it. A very good friend of mine used to go "gay bashing" when he was younger. Even when I met him (before I told my friends and family) he used to say that gay people made him uncomfortable. When I was telling the people who mattered to me I was extremely worried about telling this friend. He was quite strange around me initially and I worried that our friendship would never recover. But he soon realised that I had not changed and we're still good mates today. Recently, he thanked me for changing his perception of gay people. Like most people who "don't understand" gays, he immediately thought of the camp OTT gay stereotype. He says he thinks that he was homophobic back then. I'm not sure, perhaps he was just frightened of the unknown.

Mary  Posted: 22/02/2007 12:18

As I and possibly others have mentioned, homosexuality may well be abnormal for you Adolf, but it's perfectly normal for homosexuals. Just as heterosexuality would be normal for you but abnormal for a homosexual.

Adolf  Posted: 22/02/2007 11:29

Anonymous, to answer your question, you claim all the straight men you know find the thoughts of two women having sex to be a major turn on. I agree, but then again all the heterosexual males I know would be turned on, just by women having sex, or being sexually aroused! They're just turned on by women, period! You also claim that the vast majority of gay people have nothing to do with gay rights movements and that those activists who tarnish the image of millions of respectable, hard working gay people are in fact a minority. I would certainly like to believe that you’re right. Personally I have no issues with any homosexual or homosexuality simply because it doesn’t affect me one way or the other! However I cannot say the same about so called gay right activists, apologists and promoters alike. It has already mentioned about the mythical disease of” homophobia”. This smear word was coined as recently as 1967. No one should ever be intimidated by epithets, although many people are, including powerful politicians. The word homophobia as a smear term used to intimidate those who oppose the agendas of homosexual activists. One academic, Masters, makes the point that: “The cruelest form of injustice employed by the gay lobby is to accuse sensitive, decent people of bigotry, hatred, and 'homophobia' for simply following their own moral consciences and seeing abnormal as abnormal”.

Adolf  Posted: 21/02/2007 14:19

Adolf, can you please tell us what statistics you have to prove that gay people are more inclined to be paedophiles. To make any such an allegation about any group of people without evidence is tantamount to libelous. As I have said peadophilia is wrong - always. No debate. No discussion and I can't imagine any sane decent people (of any sexuality) could claim anything other than that which harms children is wrong and I would imagine that anyone would find paedophilia disgusting.

Anonymous  Posted: 21/02/2007 14:17

Adolf the vast majority of gay people have nothing to do with gay rights movements. I have no time for them just as I have no time for gay pride marches. I also don't think that gay people should be allowed to adopt children but that is for the sake of the children growing up in schools and on the playground which is hard enough for them without the extra complication of having 2 mammies or daddies. I agree with you when you say that for some people the only exposure they have to gay people is through these gay rights activists and that's unfortunate because as soon as they hear the word gay they immediately make the association to this. The only people who know that I am gay are the people who I want to know - my close friends and family. All were very surprised when I told them, I am not camp or affeminate in anyway, I am quite big and masculine actually. So while I can understand were you are coming from, I think you and Petra need to start looking at the bigger picture and take on board that those activists who tarnish the image of millions of respectable, hard working gay people are in fact a minority. Just like those who are paedophiles. What about my question about 2 women?

Adolf  Posted: 21/02/2007 13:37

Anonymous, don’t shoot the messenger! I’m not saying that gay people are more inclined to be paediophiles, although there are statistics to suggest they are, I’m meekly pointing out the fact that gay rights activists groups such as ILGA, and there are others, have had paedophile groups, not a group, as members for over a decade! That’s a fact! ILGA only agreed to expel these groups only after they were threatened with having their funds removed! Now what does that tell you? You should also remember that for many people their only exposure to homosexuality is through such groups and organisations! Gays are hardly projecting themselves in a good light associating themselves with these vile paedophile groups now are they? Mary it’s these gay rights group, through their own actions, who have associated themselves with paedophilia, not me Petra, the tooth fairy or any one else! If homosexuals find these facts disgusting then do something about it! If you witness an injustice and stand idly by then you’re as guilty as the perpetrator! Again dont shoot the messenger!

Anonymous  Posted: 21/02/2007 11:37

Adolf is it just male homosexual sex that you find "disgusting" or "deviant behaviour"? What are your thoughts on 2 women getting it on? ALL straight men I know find the thoughts of 2 women having sex to be a major turn on.

Anonymous  Posted: 21/02/2007 10:35

Petra/Adolf, you saying that gay people are more inclined to be involved in paeodphillia is disgusting and wrong and is an insult to all decent gay people out there. There may be a minority of gays who are paeodphiles but the same applies to hetrosexuals. Seriously, you need help. Thank God I don't know anybody like you, you are probably the most narrow minded people I've ever had the mispleasure to come across online and I;ve come across a lot.

Mary  Posted: 21/02/2007 08:42

No diversion. As I have stated, peadophilia is wrong - always. There can be no debate or discussion on that point between any sane decent persons. Anything which harms children is wrong. And abhorrent, to any decent person, to state the obvious. Yes, your homophobic attempt to associate homosexuality with paedophilia is as insulting as it nonsensical. Peadophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. Any homosexual I know would be as appalled by paedophilia as you or I. And indeed any heterosexual I know would be appalled by it as well. Of course ordinary decent human beings be they heterosexual or homosexual do not violate children. Adolf, at least was able to give us a straight answer to the question you asked. If you want to know why the IGLA had a group who supported peadophilia as members of their organisation, why don't you write and ask them. And when you get an answer, please tell us. Incidentally, the senators reputation has nothing to do with my perception. He has always been quite open about his right-wing conservative racist views.

Petra  Posted: 20/02/2007 16:29

Adolf, looks like you have opened a whole can of worms. Rather you than me, to state the obvious! Interesting, that Mary should attempt to divert attention from these disgusting facts about these so called “gay rights groups” to her perception of the senator’s reputation. Do you still believe my “homophobic attempt to associate homosexuality with paedophilia is as insulting as it nonsensical” or perhaps “your attempt to associate paedophilia with homosexuality is as insulting as it is wrong”? Guess not Mary! Sometimes Facts are stranger than fiction! After all “Ordinary decent human beings be they heterosexual or homosexual do not violate children” now do they! Trouble is you can hardly call members or supporters of these groups’ ordinary decent human beings now can you? Point made!

Mary  Posted: 20/02/2007 09:16

On the whole though, I can't say I particulary care for your senators overall reputation otherwise. A right-wing conservative, racist supporter of Pinochet & D'Aubuisson and someone who voted to slash school lunches for impoverished children, prescription drugs for the elderly and wages for working families.

Mary  Posted: 20/02/2007 08:49

I have never heard of NAMLA but as I have stated before, had you been reading my posts, paedophilia, which harms children is wrong - always. End of story. I agree, no UN agency (or agency of any kind) should grant any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of paedophilia. Yes, young people - all people in fact - have the right to sexual and social self-determination, but age of consent laws are in place to protect, not oppress, those under age. Of course the IGLA or any organisation for that matter would expel any group that promotes or condones (I am borrowing your quoted senator's words here as I don't know anything about NAMLA) paedophilia. What is disturbing (to any decent human being, I imagine) is why on earth the IGLA had anything to do with any organisation (or indeed individual) which would promote or condone harming children.

Anon  Posted: 19/02/2007 21:39

Dah! Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I was really sure this was a discussion about "Attitudes towards gay people". I have not been contributing lately but still reading the posts and to be honest I feel not that the plot has thickened but rather been totally lost! Are we in Cloud Cuckoo Land girls and boys? Why is the word "paedophilia" being bandied around? Who was talking about paedophilia? Its an obvious tactic in an argument when you keep clouding the issues by bringing in as many irrelevant tangents as possible. But Adolf and whoever else is in your army, you prove one point and that is that there is most certainly a nasty undercurrent out there with very negative and downright prejudicial 'attitudes' to 'gay' people. I am neither gay nor an apologist but if I had to choose from joining your army or that of a gay person, I would most certainly find myself on the side of the gay person.

Adolf  Posted: 19/02/2007 16:21

In 1993, ILGA, of which NAMBLA, a paediophile organisation had been a member for a decade, achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's association with ILGA drew heavy criticism for obvious reasons. Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in U.N. contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of paedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994. Previously in 1985, ILGA in association with their paediophile cohorts passed a resolution which stated that "young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect." In spite of this apparent agreement with NAMBLA on the age of consent issue just nine years before. The ILGA, when threatened with the witholding of funds, decided to expelled NAMBLA and two other paediophile groups from its membership. Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the U.N. reversed its decision and refused to grant ILGA special consultative status. It would appear that repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the U.N. have been twarted because they have been unable to successfully convince the UN that all ties with paediophilia have been severed!

David  Posted: 19/02/2007 14:46

It's getting a little catty in here. Petra, would you please be so kind as to solve our conundrum about international bodies and international NGOs and how and why they don't seem to be able to recognise each other...or whatever it is they do or don't do. Eitherway, of course, the answer will have no relevance to reality...much like the United Nations itself. Wasn't it permnanent, pensionable staff from this organisation who were prostituting under-age girls in the Balkans some years ago? If it happens in one place... Anyway, this is all besides the point - are you going to provide the triumphant answer you keep teasing us about?

Mary  Posted: 19/02/2007 14:20

You seem to be obsessing on a point, Petra, and yet incapable of reading my posts. As I stated before you appear know far more about it than I do, so why don't you tell us?

Petra  Posted: 19/02/2007 14:15

Well Mary, it would appear that George Weinberg obviously did! Is it homophobic to expose the historical facts? Again Mary, why was ILGA (International Gay and Lesbian Association), a world-wide federation of LGBT groups, stripped of its UN status in 1994, less than a year later after it had gained entry! They applied again in Jan 2006 and were refused again.

Mary  Posted: 19/02/2007 12:35

Again Petra your homophobic attempt to associate homosexuality with paedophilia is as insulting as it nonsensical. No one needs to invent words to know the meaning of phobia.

Petra  Posted: 19/02/2007 09:44

Mary, the word Homophobia WAS invented by George Weinberg in 1972, who defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." It grew to mean a general "fear of homosexuals or of homosexual behavior". It is predominantly used within gay activism to apply to their critics and people who simply disagree with their views - as resentment, or fear, of gay and lesbian people or which "can be just a passive dislike of gay people or their ways. Perhaps paediophile lobbyists will invent Paediophilophobia in the future to describe their critics, and to suit their own deviant end?

Mary  Posted: 16/02/2007 12:18

Petra, phobia is a illogical fear or hatred of or bias against something. Homephobia is an illogical fear or hatred or bias against homosexuals. It's that simple. No invention by anyone. The idea that someone connected to gay activism could be homophobia is of course not only contrary but laughable to any logical person. It would be a bit like saying only racists would be involved in the black rights movement. Abd I'm sure that racist people would have been thankful not to have been at the time too. Morality is a personal judgement, If you believe something to be immoral for you then you don't do it but nothing gives you the right to attempt to enforce your ideas or notions about something on someone else. The word deviant is merely a reference to societal norms at a given time and place and thus is largely both irelevant and meaningless as it is subject to change.

Petra  Posted: 16/02/2007 11:24

Mary homophobia is a term invented by George Weinberg, an iconoclastic clinical psychologist and gay activist in 1972 which is now a recognized term in social theories and gay activism. Thankfully I have no association with gay activism so the term is irrelevant and meaningless to me! If you have to invent words to make a point, then you have no point! I agree, to discriminate, show bias, bigotry or bitterness towards another human being is wrong. But it’s equally wrong to allow people who support and promote what I believe to be immoral and deviant behavior to go unchallenged!

Mary  Posted: 15/02/2007 15:33

It is precisely Lack of research or factual knowledge that has never stopped you Petra. If you are going to play word games, I could call you a homophobia apologist. I know little to nothign aboutnthe IGLA except that you mentioned them. What I do know is that to discriminate, show bias bigostry, bitterness or a phobic attitude towards another human being on grounds of their sexuality (or gender or colour or nationality) is wrong. Thatis exactly what I support and make absolutely no apology for that.

Petra  Posted: 15/02/2007 14:08

Lack of research or factual knowledge has never stopped yourself or David before Mary; don’t let it hinder you now! You and the rest of the homosexual apologists obviously support such movements as IGLA and other so called “gay rights” movements. After all they do promote gay rights don’t they? I suggest you find out for yourselves what exactly you are supporting. As decent human beings, who I have no doubt you both are, you owe it to yourselves.

David  Posted: 14/02/2007 16:06

I'm rather curious to know - would you make it easy for us and just tell us, Petra, why that totally useless organisation, the UN, refuses to let the ILGA to participate in one of its councils...?

Mary  Posted: 14/02/2007 14:13

Why don't you tell us Petra, you clearly know far more about it than I do as you appear to have done some research. I can't answer the question because I don't know the answer but as you're are implying that you do, then please tell us. Associating normal people with the likes of whom? Again, can you please tell us exactly what you are talking about?

Petra  Posted: 14/02/2007 11:04

Why were they stripped of their status Mary? Why have they been repeatedly refused on several occasions since? What’s the reason Mary? Why won’t you answer the question? Your refusal to answer the question can only be one of two reasons, either you don’t know, or you do know, but you just can’t bring yourself to speak about it. Can’t say I blame you for that but if you do know then please refrain from associating normal heterosexual people with the likes of them!

Mary  Posted: 13/02/2007 14:25

So the ILGA are not an NGO. And your point IS?

Petra  Posted: 13/02/2007 13:37

I think you know what the point is Mary. Why were they stripped of the status in 1994? Why were they refused again in 2000, 2003 and again in 2006? Check it out and perhaps you wont be so insulted by my previous post! Discusted may be, but not insulted!

Mary  Posted: 13/02/2007 10:29

Petra, what is your point - exactly?

Petra  Posted: 13/02/2007 09:08

Mary, ILGA (International Gay and Lesbian Association), a world-wide federation of LGBT groups, succeeded in its effort to gain entry to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as a Non-Governmental-Organization in the early nineties only to be stripped of the status in 1994, less than a year later! ILGA attempted to regain status in 2000, and again in 2003, but were refused. They applied again in Jan 2006 and were refused again! Why Mary????????

Anon  Posted: 08/02/2007 16:50

I guess, Petra, it is akin to why they tell us that divorced and remarried people cannot receive the sacraments though a murderer can be welcomed into the church with open arms. They also tell us that priests cannot marry. Unfortunately in certain parts of the world priests marry with the consent of the church, openly and the church turns a blind eye. The church preaches forgiveness for all. That is the only point worth merit in todays context.

Mary  Posted: 08/02/2007 14:54

Petra, your atempt to associate peadophilia with homosexuality is as insulting as it is wrong. Ordinary decent human beings be they heterosexual or homosexual do not violate children. Your statement makes about as much sense as saying we'll ban heteroexuals from a particular place to stop women being raped - and would be about as insulting to men. To correct a point, neither the catholic church or any other mainstream christain sect banned homosexual men from becoming priests. The catholic church have of course banned women, both heterosexual and homosexual from becoming priests.

Petra  Posted: 08/02/2007 12:31

"The Catholic church can tell us till we are blue in the face that homosexuality is wrong but it ain't half as wrong as the paediophilia it has perpetrated for years." Yes Anon I totally agree. To me paediophilia is pure evil and perpetrators are the lowest form of life. In fact any group or institution that has anything to do with this sick and vile act are just as guilty. However have you ever wondered why the Catholic Church in an attempt to adress this issue banned homosexuals from becoming priests. Is it because of historic connections or do they know somthing we dont?

Mary  Posted: 07/02/2007 09:12

There is a difference between promotion and enforcement. Someone can promote chocolate to you. if you dislike it you need not eat it. That is not the same as a person holding your mouth open and forcing you to eat it. When the enforced chocloate eatign ends, you go back to not eating it. Enforced bisexual practice has (I presume) ended in Greece and no surprise, the entire population of greece is not bi-sexual today. I'm sure some of them are and based on worldwide statistics, a certain percentage (5% - 10%) of them will be homosexual. Again, I see some things which need clarification. Alcoholism and cystic fibrosis are diseases. Homosexuality is not. Obesity is a physical condition, frequently with physical causes with can be addressed - Drunkeness and 'gluttony' are terms which attemtp to oralise on that and violence harms other people. Anger mangement and therapy can help with that. Homosexuality does not compare with that in any way.

Anon  Posted: 06/02/2007 23:33

Actually I agree with the Docs posting. I don't believe that ALL gays are born gay. Some definately are. From my experience with Gay people/friends and long discussions with same about this topic, some 'turn gay' because of the dominant mother, weak father experience. Some are conditioned by other experiences and some are inherently innately gay. Some maintained perfectly normal heterosexual relationships for years but when those relationships broke down, through no fault of the male for example, they found the rejection so profound that it caused a deep and lasting distrust of the opposite sex. Same applies to lesbianism. I think the same applies to heterosexuals also. Lots of people are heterosexual because it is the way they are conditioned and they never question it. It is not deviant. It is not wrong. We are not all the same and we certainly do not experience the same life experiences. We all deal differently with what life dishes out to us. Isn't it funny though that those here that bring in God into the equation and the 'sinfulness' of it in their eyes, do not take to task the amount of so called sinfulness perpetrated by religious men on children. The Catholic church can tell us till we are blue in the face that homosexuality is wrong but it ain't half as wrong as the paediophilia it has perpetrated for years. It is also irrelevant whether you 'turn' gay or are born gay. Its a personal choice and nobody elses business so long as it only involves consenting adults.

People Are Born Gay.  Posted: 06/02/2007 16:34

Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data's not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene "linkage" studies.Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn't have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results. Dr. Simon LeVay's famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn't sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn't know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality. Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X- chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first. Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn't make it a normal condition. Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.

10% of the Populatio  Posted: 06/02/2007 16:33

In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual. He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average "Joe College" student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists. The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Kinsey's figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%. But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it's valid. It's not.

Petra  Posted: 06/02/2007 14:44

Mary, you claim homosexuality and bi-sexuality are states. So therefore, according to your logic the Spartan nation were somehow born into a bi-sexual state? Surly even you can see that argument doesn’t hold up? Perhaps it is you that is a little confused! The Spartans believed that homosexuality among their army made them bond better and made them better warriors. Young Spartan boys were forced into homosexuality. It was the Spartan culture, something that could be learned. I quote “Petra, AGAIN, I seem to need to explain to you that homosexuality is NOT behaviour. Is is a sexual state and you certainly did not explain why you believe it is not a natural. Sexuality like skin or hair colour cannot be "promoted", like chocolate or washing powder”. Really Mary? Perhaps someone should have told the Spartans that, because that is exactly what they did! David, to date, as far as I know, no gene has been found. In the absents of this “gay” gene could homosexuality be behavioral? I would like to believe that homosexuality is genetic or that homosexuals could somehow be genetically predisposed to be gay. If that were the case then no one could argue that it is unnatural and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion!

Mary  Posted: 05/02/2007 16:40

Homosexual couples can and do love one another, just as heterosexual couples do. I presume then then you feel they have also been given this as a gift from God. Deviant is defined by the mores in a society at any given time. In Ireland at one stage, to have sex outside of marriage was considered deviant. Do you want to go back to that kind of society? Yet, again you seem a bit confused. Paedophiles harm other people. If you are a person who has an emotional and physical attraction to the same sex, then by definition you’re homosexual. If however, you are a person who has an emotional and physical attraction to the same sex and the opposite sex then by definition you're bi-sexual. The fact that Spartans had wives completely alters the facts as it makes them bi-sexual rather than homosexual. Again, paedophila harms children, but it would seem that despite re-stating it, you either don't read it fully or unserstand that. It is because it doesn't suit your agenda.

David  Posted: 05/02/2007 16:03

Very interesting Doc. In fact, I had never thought of the twins aspect. I follow this thread (from Brussels) with interest. It's amusing - more than anything else - to read the people who spout that being gay is a lifestyle choice or a sexual disorder of some kind. I am not a masochist, seeking to be discriminated against in this world - so, I did not choose to be gay. And I do not believe that I have a sexual disorder when the sexual chemistry bubbles between myself and another consenting male. My mother is a strong woman. But so is my father a strong man. I had the most wonderful, generous, happy childhood. So, I can't attribute a dominant mother or upbringing in this equation. My aunt, to whom I am close, is a liberal lady and has many gay friends (couples who have been sharing each others' lives for decades). And I knew these people when I was young. It seemed to me then that these couples were more my kind of thing than a husband and wife. As much as I tried to not think like this, I did...and after a while of fighting against it, it all just seemed natural. It was part of my chemical make-up. Perhaps my environment predisposed whatever genes I had to become gay. I don't know. All these comparisons with the animal world/nature seem silly, if you realise that the human being is an animal so advanced in terms of its genetic make-up. We are uniquely sentient, I believe. We are therefore not creatures to compare with others (although, it does seem that homosexuality does exist in other species). But, yes, the twins. Your words on that just made me realise that I personally know a couple of gay twins over here. And I know of a good few more in Brussels. What do the people who say it's a choice/unnatural in the case of twins? Perhaps that one influences the other to make the choice? Because there is no such thing as an unatural gene, is there? By their very nature, they are natural, surely?

The Doc  Posted: 05/02/2007 11:51

Psychologists have different views of why people are gay. Freud had a few ideas on homosexuality. Early in his findings, he felt that homosexuality was a non-pathological variation of behavior with innate foundations. But later on he came to see homosexuality as a psychological development caused by inadequate or inappropriate parenting. He felt the "castration complex," which a man develops when he realizes his mother doesn't have a penis. For fear of losing his own penis, it drives the man to have sex with other men not women. An even more popular theory is that homosexuality is caused by a failure to breath the sexual bond with a smothering or dominant mother. This is supported by a weak or absent father who does not provide a male role model. Freud's theory gave people the idea that gay people were sick, and could change and be happier for it. Behaviorists believe in a couple of theories. One is the shaping of the individual. This theory states that the adult sexual preferences are shaped largely by early pleasurable erotic experiences. Social learning theory focus more on the homosexual development as a result of societal expectation. People are gay or straight because they are taught to be that way. The question remains of whether homosexuality is a choice or is it genetic. Many people argue that it is not a choice. Nobody would choose a life that is difficult and faces ridicule and discrimination. We do not know the cause of homosexuality, but scientists are starting to reveal some very interesting research that may proved that being gay can be genetically determined, or an individual my be genetically predisposed to be gay. It has been shown that among families, family members who are gay is very high. Over 60% of identical twins, if one is homosexual, the other is too. Non-identical twins, 22% are gay. Several genetic studies have been done that appears to genetically link homosexuality

Petra  Posted: 05/02/2007 11:36

No Mary, real love is a God given gift and can only flow in a bi-polar environment just as God/Nature intended. Homosexuality is a distortion. To suggest that homosexuality is any thing other than deviant is completely untrue. Attaching different labels doesn’t alter this fact and only serves to obscure the truth. If you are a person who has an emotional and physical attraction to the same sex, then by definition you’re a homosexual. Because some homosexuals may also have other deviants doesn’t change the fact. Homosexuals, bi-sexual, paediophiles, are all deviants in my opinion. The Spartans did choose, for reasons previously explained, to engage in homosexuality. Just because they had wives doesn’t alter this fact. A paediophile is still a paediophile whether they have wives or not. Because the Spartans had wives, they could also be labeled bi-sexual. Another one of your so called “states”. Amazing how a whole civilization were born into this state, isn’t it? Must have been something in the water?

Mary  Posted: 02/02/2007 15:26

Human animals possess a genital differentiation, obviously for purposes of sexual reproduction and for the purposes of sexual pleasure and emotional bonding with their partner. Yes, most people have a corresponding and appropriate emotional differentiation but not all. hat makes you think that Love can only flow in a bi-polar environment. Clearly this is inaccurate as homosexuals in relationships can and do love one another. You are wrong when you state that spartans chose to be homosexual. Spartan men had wives, with whom they had sex (as they managed to produce children), they were therefore bisexual, not homosexual or heterosexual. And again, bisexuality is a state, like homosexuality and heterosexuality. As I have stated before except you do not seem to read the posts: Acts bestiality and paediophilia harm other - hence they are deviant. Homosexualiy and heterosexuality are not. Except of course in the case of rape - obviously.

Petra  Posted: 02/02/2007 12:30

Human animals possess a genital differentiation, obviously for purposes of sexual reproduction, it seems reasonable to expect them to have a corresponding and appropriate emotional differentiation. Heterosexuality would seem the appropriate biological attitude. God/Nature made Humans bi-polar. You may call it sexual, Yin / Yang, male / female or man and women - the meaning and physiology is exactly the same. Love needs to flow and love can only flow in a bi-polar environment, same as electricity. As with every other phenominen in the universe unlikes attract, likes repel. That’s the law of nature! The Spartans believed that encouraging the older, accomplished men of the city to have loving relations with adolescents was conducive to their education and the good of the city. Consequently, the title of the older lover was, "inspirer," and for the younger beloved , "hearer." Male-to-male homosexual relationships served as a way to reinforce the masculine education of the Spartan boys and make them better warriors. This is only one of many examples of historic examples of choosen homosexuality. An act not a state! Do you consider other sexual diviants such as bestiality and paediophilia as states as well?

Mary  Posted: 01/02/2007 15:07

Petra, to state homosexuality is not confined to homosexuals makes about as much sense as that heterosexuality is not confined to heterosexuls? Do you believe this also? If this is the case, then you believe that the sexual state is a fluid non-fixed entity. Is that what you mean? That we are all somewhat bisexual? Petra, AGAIN, I seem to need to explain to you that homosexuality is NOT behaviour. Is is a sexual state and you certainly did not explain why you believe it is not a natural. Sexuality like skin or hair colour cannot be "promoted", like chocolate or washing powder. I do not know of any pagan rituals that require its members to be homosexual. Could you be specific. Yes, certain Christian churches - catholic & coptic churches have regarded homosexual sex as sinful. They also regard heterosexual sex as sinful if they are outside marriage, between divorced people or involves contraceptives. Thankfully this country shed the stranglehold of theocracy a long time ago. As for U.S. Southern Baptists and Evangelicals. Some of them believe its wrong for women to work, preach or wear trousers and that the earth is 6000 years old. Which speaks volumes. As for stories from a book that's nearly 1700 years old about which nearly every sect disagree on. It does not have any relevance for me. Nor does anthing which fosters hatred, discrimination, bias or bigotry.

Petra  Posted: 01/02/2007 11:46

Anon, I don’t find homosexuals offensive! Each to their own. God/ Nature love diversity. Yes there are gay people in the world and yes they are part of our community. What I find offensive is the pro gay retheroic. Blatant lies and untruths, the deceitfulness, the crass conceited opinion of gay rights apologists, who promote this rubbish, knowing it has no basis in fact what so ever. To me, for reasons explained previously, homosexuality is not “natural” behaviour and should not be promoted as such. Remember homosexuality is not confined to homosexuals. In ancient times Greek warriors known as the Spartans encouraged homosexuality as they believed it made them better fighters. Many pagan and satanic cults practice homosexuality during rituals. You should also be aware Christian churches have regarded homosexual sex as sinful, based on particular interpretations of certain passages in the Bible. This position is today affirmed by most Christian groups, including the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and most Protestant denominations, especially among Evangelicals such as the Southern Baptist Convention. Genesis 19:1-13 tells the story of angelic visitors who came to visit Lot in the city of Sodom. They wanted to sleep in the city square, but he insisted they come to his home, where he fed them and gave them a place to rest for the night. In the evening, however, the men of the city surrounded Lot's home and called for the visitors, so they could "have sex with them." Lot was appalled and offered his daughters instead, but the men of the city refused and would have broken in except that God brought a blindness upon them, and the men inside the house pulled Lot to safety. The next day, God brought judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed the cities with fire.

Anon  Posted: 30/01/2007 15:48

Petra You state "A fact is a concept whose truth can be proven." Yes, I agree. This discussion is called "Attitudes towards gay people". Yourself and Bert are definitely displaying an 'attitude' towards gay people and a negative attitude at that. That is indeed a fact. We are all entitled to our opinion. According to yourself & Bert, being 'gay' is not a natural state. Thats fine. You are entitled to your opinion but it does not change the fact that there are 'gay' people in the world & part of our community. Being prejudicial about them & considering them as not being as 'normal' as you consider yourself, does not change a thing. It just displays a complete lack of awareness, understanding & bigotry in you both. That is a reflection on you both as human beings & is certainly not in line with christian values. According to my own beliefs I find that both of you display an attitude that I find even more offensive to me, than you find homosexuality to you.

Mary  Posted: 29/01/2007 12:46

"people who have an over inflated ideas about themselves and their opinions" is, sadly, exactly how many would describe you, Bert - which may explain your apparent lack of common sense on this subject. What on earth do you think homosexuality has to do with pathological sexuality. A pathology is a medical term generally for a disease. Homosexuality is not medical disease any more than heterosexuality is and indeed was not defined as such since the 1950's, when it was erronously classified thus. In what way does homosexuality define people as sexually dysfunctionate in your eyes? Again sexual dysfunction is a medical term - homosexuality is not. How does homosexuality defy the 'laws of nature'. Bear in mind the same 'laws of nature' once thought that the earth was flat. How on earth does homosexulaity defile humanity. That displays not only the height of ignorance on your part but it also borders on insulting. How are homosexuals excluding themselves from society? Any homosexulas I know are as fully participant in society as the heterosexuals I know.

Bored with Petra  Posted: 29/01/2007 11:58

Petra get a life, you're starting to bore us all. As a gay man who doesn't sleep around and still takes precautions with my partner, I am highly insulted by your posts.

Bert  Posted: 29/01/2007 11:35

Dear Mary, I’m afraid common sense and pseudo-intellectual piffle are not the same thing. Common sense is not a virtue possessed by people who have an over inflated ideas about themselves and their opinions. What on earth have Black people and Afghanistan women got to do with pathological sexuality? Are you somehow attempting to draw parallels between the horrendous abuse of women under the vile Taliban rule and homosexuals in today’s society? There is NO comparison at any level. Do I think being black or being female cause’s depression? Of course not! Do I think being sexually dysfunctionate, defying the laws of Nature, defiling humanity and self imposed exclusion from mainstream society causes depression, I don’t know? But I can’t imagine it would help!

Mary  Posted: 29/01/2007 11:29

Can you prove it Petra? There is big difference between a factual documentary and a fiction drama and if you cannot see that then it the nonsense you type shouldn't really surprise me. Tell me if nature really did intend all females to be with only males and vice versa, why then did nature create 10% of the human population homosexual or bisexual?

Petra  Posted: 29/01/2007 10:49

Yes Mary, facts are facts. A fact is a concept whose truth can be proven. The unadulterated rubbish you posted has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. It may surprise you but other television programs written by journalists and filmmakers such as Coronation Street are not true either! How can anyone even contemplate that “animal homosexuality is not exception to normal animal behavior but rather part of it just as with human homosexual behaviour”, when there isn’t even a shred of scientific evidence to support it? Desperation perhaps? Wishful thinking? As for you’re gay penguins? I assume you’re talking about Roy and Silo, the chinstrap penguins in New York zoo. Are these not the same penguins who tried to hatch a rock? Another example of confused animal instincts no doubt, although I sure you’ll find another angle on it! Either way guess what happened when Scrappy, a female penguin, was introduced to the “gay” penguins???????? Yes Mary, Silo a male penguin and Scrappy a female penguin made a nest together. Just as God/Nature intended!

Anon  Posted: 26/01/2007 18:41

Petra, I have little to add what Mary has already stated. Swans are a species that mate for life. It is an accepted fact that some male swans take another male swan as their life mate. As for your assertion that animals are limited in their thought processes, well you obviously know as little about animals as you do about human beings. By the way, nobody actually mentioned National Geographic though they would know somewhat more about animal behaviour than you appear to know. You seem to just base your opinion on prejudice. What difference does it make to you or your life, what sexual preferences consently adults have anyway?

Mary  Posted: 26/01/2007 14:31

Petra, facts are facts. YOu can call them 'light tv entertainment' or anything you want but that does not make them any less factual. What makes you think that it is confused animal instinctual behaviour? Animal homosexuality is not exception to normal animal behavior but rather part of it just as with human homosexual behaviour. The comparison with "filicide" and "cannibalism" is nothing short of plain silly. What exactly do you mean by: They the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on. well if you are in fear or aggressive while having sex then there is something radically wrong. It many have escaped your attention but among humans in the modern world sex is no longer solely about reproduction and the survival of the species - unless you are part of a cult / sect that imagines that to be so. If you read the thread again you will see that homosexuality does exist among animals, penguins are one example and it has nothing to do with dominance at all.

Petra  Posted: 26/01/2007 09:13

Dear Mary and Anon, “documentaries” made by National Geographic filmmakers and journalists are light TV entertainment, not science. Attempting to read homosexuality into confused animal instinctual behaviour is nothing short or ridiculous, but it sums up the validity of the pathetic pro gay argument! The homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science. Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. It is simply Clashing stimuli and confused animal instincts. At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality." Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on. Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Mary  Posted: 26/01/2007 09:09

Bert - answer to the first question - common sense. Depression, suicide, and drug abuse was high among the black community when they were being discriminated against, abused, undermined and degraded. Do you think being black caused depression, suicide, and drug abuse. Interestingly depression and suicide was high among women under the taliban in Afghanistan. Do you think being female causes this also? Why to you think that homosexual couples do not have all the ingredients to experience real meaningful loving relationships? Are they not loving, not sincere, not genuine, not sensitive, not kind, not of a generous nature, not caring? Take, for example the homosexual couples you know - but how many do you actually know? You haven't told us.

Bert  Posted: 25/01/2007 16:51

Mary have YOU any evidence to suggest that the depression, suicide, and drug abuse among the gay community IS down to the way they are mistreated by society? What makes you think that nature did intend homosexual couples to experience real meaningful loving relationships? If you want to bake a cake you need all the ingredients!

Anon  Posted: 23/01/2007 19:31

Bert, You display an amazing amount of bigoted ignorance in your last posting. Homosexuality is rife in the animal kingdom. Look back over some of the previous postings for evidence of same or search the net. In fact, RTE did a radio programme only last week on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It most certainly is not a rarity. Nature never intended everyone to be heterosexual either. In nature, there are multiple conditions that prove this. There are males born with both sets of genitally ie. equipped as women and as men. Obviously you know nothing about medicine either. Also, according to you the only relationships that nature intended were heterosexual with children. Nature does not allow all females or indeed all males to be fertile. Are these people also to be scorned by people with narrow minded bigoted beliefs as you? You should look at yourself carefully. You display neither a christian nor caring demeanour towards human beings in general. Where did you get your right to play God because in my understanding, God would not turn his back on any of his children because of their sexual preferences between consenting adults of any sex?

Mary  Posted: 23/01/2007 15:04

Bert, the anaimal kingdom does indeed have several examples of homosexuals - read the entire thread. I ask again, what makes you think that real meaningful loving relationships can only be experienced by heterosexual couples? o you have anything to back up this ridiculous assertion other then repeating yourself. Again, how many homosexual couples do you know? What makes you think that nature did not intend homosexual couples to experience real meaningful loving relationships when so many patently do. Have you any evidence to suggest that the depression, suicide, and drug abuse among the gay community is not down to the way they are mistreated by society? Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions to a great extent but you seem to be getting mixed up again - we are not talking about actions here we are talking about a sexual state.

Bert  Posted: 23/01/2007 11:30

“What makes you think that homosexual members of the same sex are not meant to be together?” Eh, let me see now. “What makes you think that Nature didn't intend homosexual couples to have real, meaningful loving relationships?” Now you’re twisting what I said. I don’t think nature intended homosexuals at all. It didn’t produce them in the animal kingdom, despite some ridiculous interpretations by some members of the gay community to muster some sort of credibility or purpose, so why in humans? Real meaningful loving relationships can only be experienced by heterosexual couples. That’s the way God or Nature intended it. Man, Woman children, family etc, etc. Homosexuals exclude themselves by their homosexuality. You seem to believe that the depression, suicide, and drug abuse among the gay community is somehow down to the way they are treated by society! Now that’s laughable. We are all responsible for our own actions. All illicit acts that degrade human beings or humanity have consequences. All humans have a conscience!

Mary  Posted: 22/01/2007 15:59

No Bert, homosexuality is a sexual state just as heterosexuality is. Neither is an act. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals engage in risky sexual practices and a lack of monogamy just as both homosexuals and heterosexuals enegage in non-risky sexual practices and monogamy. What makes you think that homosexual memebers of the same sex are not meant to be together? No Bert, Homosexuals are not deprived of real, meaningful loving relationships and to say that only heterosexual couples can only experience real, meaningful loving relationships is not only the height of ignorance it's also laughable. How many homosexual couples do you know? What mankes you think that Nature didn't intend homosexual couples to have real, meaningful loving relationships??

Bert  Posted: 22/01/2007 15:23

“The problem is risky sexual practices and a lack of monogamy”. Is that not what homosexuality is, a risky sexual practice. Surely it’s obvious, even to homosexuals or their apologists, that members of the same sex are not meant or designed to be together. Same sex, been the operative words. Hence male and female! Homosexuals are deprived of real, meaningful loving relationships that can only be experienced by heterosexual couples, just as God and Nature intended.

Anon  Posted: 18/01/2007 20:04

Bert, you said "In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV." By definition, you are not talking about lesbian women here as lesbian women do not have sex with men. Obviously you are mixing up lesbians and bi-sexuals. The rest of your posting is about as nonsensical as it can get. Yourself and Petra would make a damn fine couple!

Mary  Posted: 18/01/2007 16:30

Why do you think that depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians?? Living in a society where they are abused, derided, undermined, seen as somehow socially unacceptable, denied human dignity and human rights, it's not surprising. Black people in certain parts of the world suffer the same depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts. Do you think being black causes that?? The problem is risky sexual practises and a lack of monogamy - not their sexuality. Some straight people also engage in risky sexual practises and the same sexual acts as homosexuals. Hang on a sec, first you are saying that they are unfaihful and don't form long term relationships - then you are saying that those in long term relationships somehow should not be recognoised as such??? Mixed messages. Appear more socially acceptable. Why are they somehow socially unaccepptable in your eyes?

Bert  Posted: 18/01/2007 15:46

Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV. It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems. The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years. Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.

Anon  Posted: 21/12/2006 20:12

Well, this should put the cat amongst the pidgeons & its only a tiny bit of the article. "Homosexual behaviour does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[12] Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males. Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[13] German and Japanese zoos have also reported homosexual behavior among their penguins. This phenomenon has also been reported at Kelly Tarlton's Aquarium in Auckland, New Zealand. Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison." Petra, you seem to be blinded by a dislike for behaviour that you deem 'unfit & unnatural' but you don't seem to take the point in regard to the bigger problem globally of STI's in the heterosexual community. Why your obsession with demeaning 1 group over another? Syphilis was the 'aids' of its time until it was understood & treatment found. Why are you persisting with the gay issue over all others? Mary - Fair Play to ya.

Mary  Posted: 21/12/2006 16:46

Again, you somehow imainge that being homosexual causes aids. The spread of HIV is cuased by the exchange of infected bodily fluids. Blood, Semen and vaginal fluids. To put it as simply as I can - unprotected sex with an infected person, the recipt of infected blood, either via infected donation or needle exchange among drug users and it can alos be passed between a pregnant women and her child. Interestingly lesbians are less likely to contract aids - do you somehow have less of a mental block them about homosexual women than you do about homosexual men or perhaps you are now developing ideas that lesbians are some how more natural than heterosexul women - or men. Why don't you go and read some of Davids postings before you post any more inaccuracies. Sodomny is a legal term referring to anal rape and I hope we all abhor the crime of rape in all its forms. I also dislike promiscuity but I recognise that not all homosexuals are promiscuous and indeed there are quite a number of heterosexuals who are but Ah now we are getting down to the nub of the problem - you issue is in fact with anal sex is it not. It may surprise you to learn that heterosexuals, yes even those in long term commited monogamous relationships also practise this with their female partners. Wheras lesbians (I am assuming) do not practise this (it being physically impossible). Do you have an issue with this as well. your right, there are there are many, respectable, decent, loving homosexual human beings out there just as there are a great many respectable, decent, loving heterosexual human beings out there.

Petra  Posted: 21/12/2006 16:15

Mary, the rampant spread of HIV can hardly be considered as harmless. Neither can promiscuity or sodomy be considered as acts of love. Although such acts are not confined exclusively to homosexuality they are generally considered by media publications to be synonymous with the same. In response to your bonobo chimps example, in 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the “evidence” gathered on animal homosexuality, pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality: Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science. However, that said, we are not mere animals and answers for human behavior cannot be found within the animal kingdom. I’m sure there are many, respectable, decent, loving homosexual human beings out there and everyone cannot be tarred with the same brush. However this is not the image portrayed by so called “gay pride” and “gay rights” parades and publications nor by so called gay activists to the general public.

David  Posted: 21/12/2006 16:04

And another question (now that I have begun to get this research bug): why is AIDS/HIV infection in China, India, Russia and other large countries mainly attributed to three causes: 1. Intravenous drug use 2. Blood donors 3. Unprotected heterosexual sex (mainly due to contact with prostitutes, it seems) And why is it that, in these countries (as in others), an important proportion of those infected are women? Yes, I suppose you can say that's because gay/bisexual men infect the women...but that defies the centuries-old heterosexual transmission of many other sexually-trasnmitted diseases, where no gay or bisexual encounters took place. Well, I suppose you could try to argue that all STDs originated from gay/bisexuals having sex with women since humans sprang onto the earth... Anyway, while the exact numbers of infected people in these countries are difficult to determine (due to an inability to carry out adequate testing), the trend of rising infection is very clear: drug users and unprotected heterosexual sex present the biggest risk-groups. But I'm not interested to read your rebuke to these findings: I am more interested to learn of your suggested solutions for dealing with the curse of homosexuality.

David  Posted: 21/12/2006 15:18

Do some research on the very alarming rise of AIDS in Russia and China, Petra. Large percentages are caused by drug abuse and rather too much unprotected heterosexual sex. And of course, homosexual sex. And then look at Africa. Once you've done this, to say that AIDS is a 'gay disease' is just silly. It is as easily passed via unprotected heterosexual contact as homosexual contact. I think we must all admit that while humans are still animals, we have evolved to such an extent that making comparisons with the animal kingdom is often redundant. Perhaps even more so when looking at human sexuality. By and large, animals don't masturbate. Whereas the majority of male humans certainly do. And just because animals don't masturbate, does that make in unnatural for humans? Of course not. Your statistics, Petra, sometimes confuse me. Lies, damn lies and statistics, as Mark Twain said...statistics have been used forever to give one view of things. As you can see from the previous postings, statistics come from all sides. Which to believe? Some of your statistical references don't really 'add up'. You repeatedly assert that only 2% of the population is gay. Yet then you refer to the 9-10 million gay men in the USA. But surely 10 million is considerably more than 2% of the male population of the US. If we take the US population as close to 300 million, halve that to take out the ladies, then you have 10 million of 150 million. More like a 7% figure to me. And of that figure of the male population, how many should we take out again, because they are too young to know what they are or to be classified as anything - i.e. let's say males under the age of 12. That would bring down the 150 million figure by a bit. Rather broad, sweeping figures there. No doubt you'll do the real calculations. But however you do them, you will come to a figure quite higher than 2%. I have a question. With all these facts you have, firmly-held convictions and all that - what is your solution? What ideas do you have to prevent this gay choice you think people make? What is the way forward?

Mary  Posted: 21/12/2006 13:00

The difference Petra, as pointed out ad nauseum is that those other acts are both non-consensualand harm other people and could not be said to be in any way loving as a result. It most certainly does exist in nature. The Bonobo apes are one example. But clothes don't exist in nature, nor do shoes, office work, books, tv or a host of other things? Do you also have some sort of objection to those? I doubt it very much. People say "matural" as if it is some sort of utopia. Remember "nature" in it's raw form has not existed since humna beings evolved and as such we and our actions are part of it. You think (and it's a big presumption as you cannot substantiate it) that people aren't born that way and you agree they don't choose to be homosexual. Then I take it that you assume there were some other mitigating factors which must have had an influence in you and I "becoming" heterosexual at some point? Do you think then that we are arall born "sexual-identity neutral". Well if you don't choose a state how can you possibly even with the smallest smattering of anythign approching logic reason or sense imagine that someone can be responsible for it. If I take too much to drink and fall over - then I am responsible for that. However, I can not be responsible for being female, Irish or caucasion. Then you talk about beimng responsible for our own actions? I think you are becoming confused again. We are not talking about actions but the stae of sexual identity - homosexuality and heterosexuality. As has been explained to you before. These are somethign you ARE not somthing you DO.

Petra  Posted: 21/12/2006 12:38

Mary, do you also believe that other pathological sexual orientations such as bestiality, necrophilia, paediophilia etc are ethically neutral, fixed, unchosen, and are normal and natural for a minority of adults? They probably believe they are! I believe homosexuality is unnatural quite simply because it doesn’t exist in nature. Despite the ridicules, unsubstantiated claims of some pro homosexual groups’ animals are not capable of homosexuality. They are purely instinct driven. But its part of human nature, right? Well unfortunately so are the other sick depraved acts mentioned above. Mother Nature, God, or millions of years of evolution, or whatever didn’t design human beings to be to be that way. To suggest otherwise is a slur. I don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice either, nor do I believe anyone is born that way. So if one is not born that way, and no one is, and no one chooses to be that way, then some other mitigating factors must have had an influence in someone becoming that way? Either way we are all responsible for our own actions.

Mary  Posted: 19/12/2006 14:38

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation which is ethically neutral, fixed, unchosen, and is normal and natural for a minority of adults. Precisely. That comment, at least, makes sense. Just as heterosexuality is (for me and the heterosexuals I know anyway) ethically neutral, fixed, unchosen, and is normal and natural for a majority of adults. Homosexuality is deviate because it as a deviates from the majority of sexual behavour in society at present. Just as women wearing trousers would have been deviate in 1950 in rural ireland - no more, no less. In what way do you think it it "disordered". It is not a disorder, medically speaking so why do you call it that? Immorality is defined only by the mores of socety at any particular point in time which are subject to change. It was once considered "immoral" to have sex except for procreation within marriage - do you subscibe to that notion too? You really think it is changeable? That is sadly laughable, it realy is? And is your heteroexuality changeable because if you think homosexuality is changeable then it must follow by logc and reason that your heterosexuality is too. Do you really think with the bigotted, biased and sometimes downright hateful discrimination espoused by some - that anyone chooses to be homosexual? If one truely had a choice, it would be so much easier, within society, to be hetereosexual It would follow then that you choose to be heterosexual and could change your mind and and be homosexual in the morning if you wanted to?? Again - normal refers to the norms of society which again, are subject to change as a society progresses. I will ask again why you think homosexuality is "unnatural" because you have most certainly NOT answered the question. You have avoided the question, you have evaded the question but you have not answered it. I know homosexuality is not natural for you or me (because heterosexual is the way I am made and is what, allegedly, you chose) but why do you think it is unnatural for homosexuals because I assure you, if you talk to any whom you know (and maybe you think you don't know any), heterosexuality does not feel any more natural to them than homosexuality might feel to you. Yes, it IS natural to homosexuals just as heterosexuality is natural to heterosexuals but if you want to see sick and twisted logic perhaps you should look at the posts a little closer to home - i.e you own, sadly. If you choose to talk about reasonable and non-judemental, it is there you'll see the paradox.

Petra  Posted: 18/12/2006 15:46

It is only since about 1950 that homosexuality has been seriously studied by human sexuality researchers. Liberal individuals and groups generally regard homosexuality as a sexual orientation which is ethically neutral, fixed, unchosen, and is normal and natural for a minority of adults. However conservative individuals and groups generally regard homosexuality as a deviate and disordered behavior, which is immoral, changeable, chosen, abnormal and unnatural. Depends which side of the fence you sit really. Mary why do you insist on asking the same question, when it’s been answered several times? How do you consider homosexuality to somehow be natural? Is it somehow natural for homosexuals? Do you apply the same sick twisted logic? Do you believe yourself to be one of these reasonable human beings who choose not to judge others? What a paradox!

The Doc  Posted: 18/12/2006 15:12

No autoimmune disease has ever been shown to be contagious or "catching." Autoimmune diseases do not spread to other people like infections. They are not related to AIDS, nor are they a type of cancer. Transmission of autoimmune diseases does not occur from person to person. Although these diseases are believed to be caused by white blood cells in the blood, autoimmune diseases, unlike HIV, are not even believed contagious by blood or body fluids. The only examples of contagion of autoimmune diseases are laboratory transfers by immune white blood cell transfer in immunosuppressed mice, and rare mother-to-fetus contagion of some autoimmune diseases such as lupus. You don't actually "get" AIDS. You might get infected with HIV, and later you might develop AIDS. You can get infected with HIV from anyone who's infected, even if they don't look sick and even if they haven't tested HIV-positive yet. AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: Acquired means you can get infected with it; Immune Deficiency means a weakness in the body's system that fights diseases. Syndrome means a group of health problems that make up a disease. AIDS is caused by a virus called HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. If you get infected with HIV, your body will try to fight the infection. It will make "antibodies," special molecules to fight HIV. A blood test for HIV looks for these antibodies. If you have them in your blood, it means that you have HIV infection. People who have the HIV antibodies are called "HIV-Positive. Being HIV-positive, or having HIV disease, is not the same as having AIDS. Many people are HIV-positive but don't get sick for many years. As HIV disease continues, it slowly wears down the immune system. Viruses, parasites, fungi and bacteria that usually don't cause any problems can make you very sick if your immune system is damaged. These are called "opportunistic infections."

Mary  Posted: 18/12/2006 14:36

Gay men account for less that 2% of the population - did you find these stats from IGLA too? I very much doubt it as I seriously doubt the percentage is as low as that. Further more, I have asked you ad nauseum and you refuse to answer (because you most likely have no answer) why you consider homosexual mem to be engaging in "unnatural behaviour". Why do you consider it "unnatural". It is logical to suggest that in order to reduce the spread of AIDS, we ALL, regardless of sexual identity, race or gender, practise safe sex. "Moral" or "immoral" depends purely on the standpoint of the mores of any given individual society at any point in time and are subject to change. It as once considered perfectly moral to burn people at the stake as witches for practising cures and old remedies. Thankfully we now live in a society where most reasonable human beings choose not to judge others in the way uou choose to do so. Could you explain again what exactly is "defining humanity" and how.

Petra  Posted: 18/12/2006 13:54

Anon, of course anyone who is ill, no matter what illness they have, deserve care and support! Has anyone suggested to the contrary? What’s your point? According to ILGA, almost 70% of AIDS cases in the UK are gay men. Gay men account for less that 2% of the population. Is it therefore not logical to conclude that AIDS is mainly spread as a result of homosexual activities? Is it reasonable to suggest that homosexuals bare no responsibilities for their actions, or indeed for the spread of HIV? Is it not logical to suggest that in order to reduce the spread of AIDS, homosexuals should be encouraged to refrain from this unnatural behavior? Would it not also be reasonable for society to stop condoning this unnatural, immoral behavior that defiles humanity and tell it like it is, instead playing to the gallery of homosexual apologists and supporters, hiding under the cloke of so called liberalism?

Anon  Posted: 15/12/2006 21:02

Petra, You say Aids was preventable. I refer you to 1 of my last postings In 1999, it was shown that HIV-1 had probably originated from the Pan troglodytes troglodytes species of chimpanzees, in which the virus coevolved over centuries.[22] Because chimpanzees are killed for food in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the species jump probably occurred by accident." Saying that Aids was preventable is much the same as saying that tsunami's are preventable. Illness/disease is just that. It is of no relevance to anyone to pick on 1 group of sufferers over another. There is a host of strange and awful diseases on this planet. Many of which the medical profession cannot understand or treat. Lots of the ones they do come across are called 'syndromes' simply because they do not understand the aetiology of the disease or how it evolved. As Mary also mentioned, there is no cure for most auto immune diseases either. In fact, up until the 80's/90's there was quite little known about SLE or the treatment of same. Patients would have had to be referred to centres of excellence outside the country (most would not have even been diagnosed!) The Medical World is still trying to figure out a human immune system would suddenly start to attack itself. Some of the results that have been gained from Aids research has helped in treating other auto immune diseases. On another note it is only in the last decade that they have discovered that haemochromatosis could be treated successfully and easily before it created major problems leading to fatalities. Up to that most people with that condition died from systems failure and the actual cause was never detected. In the case of haemochromatosis which is most predominant in people of celtic origin do you think it is relevant to pick on sufferers of that disease and accuse them of being responsible for their own illness? Do you think that people who develop lung cancer from smoking should be treated with scorn and ridicule? If not, why do you think you should pick on Aids sufferers? Do you honestly believe that anyone chooses to be ill? Anyone that is ill, no matter what illness they have, deserve care and support. Who gives anyone the right to make judgements on any group of people, particularly those that are living with serious illness?

Mary  Posted: 15/12/2006 16:15

Petra, unless you know different, you'll find there is no cure for lupus (SLE) or hashimotos or Reynauds syndrome either

Petra  Posted: 15/12/2006 14:09

Mary, The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) is an international organization bringing together more than 400 lesbian and gay groups from around the world. ILGA is represented in around 90 countries across the world.

Petra  Posted: 15/12/2006 12:37

Anon, the statistics in the last post were from the CIA. The others in previous posts were from medical sites. The center for disease control (who fund aids research) and the institute for the scientific investigation of sexuality. Others were taken from united press reports. They all say the same thing. Have they ALL got it wrong? Even the international gay and lesbian association claim that statistics in Briton show that almost 70% of aids sufferers are gay men. Now when you consider gay men account for less that 2% of the population that’s pretty conclusive by any standards. This discussion is not about auto immune diseases. Comparing AIDS to other auto immune diseases is ridicules. There is no cure or satisfactory treatment for AIDS. However the basic difference is that in the vast majority of cases, AIDS was preventable and need never have happened.

Mary  Posted: 13/12/2006 14:08

Petra, you rely on the CIA for medical facts? That really is too funny. All human beings merit a certain level of respect - becuase they are human beings - be they black, white, gay, straight, male, female, tall or short

Mary  Posted: 13/12/2006 09:11

Petra, perhaps you could enlighten us as to your theories as to why the gay rights movement is "sinister". Do you also think womens rights are "sinister" or black rights are "sinister" or like a certain individual in history, that jewish rights or the rights of gypsies are sinister?

Anon  Posted: 13/12/2006 00:43

Petra, you take your 'facts' from the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY...... I haven't laughed as much in a long time. Is this the same Central Intelligence Agency who failed spectacularly to centralise intelligence in regard to an attack on the USA such as happened in 9/11? (despite the evidence that was in their faces but because they did not want to converse or collude with the FBI) Give us a break. What on earth do you think the CIA know about Aids/Hiv? I would rather read medical stats and medical research findings. Something tells me that research stats derived from medical research into an illness would have more to do with the illness than stats produced by the CIA which result in brainwashing people into picking on 1 group of people in our society over another group (for some ultra contrived reasons unknown to the rest of us heterosexuals!!) I wonder what stats the CIA would have on SLE, MS or Motor Neurone Disease for example or indeed on the incidence of alchoholism in Ireland or even better the incidence of delusion in lets say Co. Laois!! On the same medical site that I posted the last posting from it also said that the incidence of Aids/Hiv in the USA had fallen since the mid 90's. But by your logic, that is only a medical site and a medical viewpoint reached by medical research and treatments which wouldn't count as obviously the medical world is busy trying to convince us all with lies whilst the CIA are trying to tell us the truth?? Yet again you have not answered my question as to why you think it is appropriate to pick on the sufferers of 1 auto immune disease over any other auto immune disease? Neither do you tackle the question of why the Aids/HIV crisis is far worse in Africa than it is or ever will be in the US.

ainebeag  Posted: 13/12/2006 00:34

Petra, It is quite obvious you don't show respect to anyone. My attitide is to show respect until I'm proven wrong. At the moment I'm teaching 30 children in 1st class, I don't REALLY KNOW any of their parents yet, but I certainly show them respect, they don't have to "EARN" it. Will you please explain what you mean by yor last sentence "these so called gay rights movements are far more sinister than they appear"?

Petra  Posted: 12/12/2006 16:27

Anon, the stats I posted were taken directly from the Central Intelligence Agency of America. Hardly what could be called unfounded or totally irrelevant? But then again I’m sure there are people out there who still believe the world is flat! Each to their own, I suppose. By the way the word “probably” has no relevance when discussing facts! There are many theories as to the origin of aids, the hunter theory, the oral polio vaccine, the colonialism theory etc. Not are they only completely irrelevant to the aids epidemic the world faces today but there just theories! However if you choose to believe theories over recorded statistical fact that’s your prerogative! Ainebeag, respect is earned! Otherwise it is worth nothing! Your feelings toward all your neighbours are the same, live and let live. What if, a gang of drug dealers moved in beside you? Would you still show them respect? Look, I’m sure your gay neighbours are genuinely nice people. However this whole gay attitude issue is not about any particular individual or couple. It’s about society’s attitude to the whole gay issue and gay rights movements. These so called gay rights movements are far more sinister than they appear and people should recognise them for what they really are.

Anonymous  Posted: 12/12/2006 09:55

"shallow and empty headed". Well you truley know someone is losing the debate when they can do nothing but stoop to personal insults.

ainebeag  Posted: 11/12/2006 23:59

Petra, The topic is "Attitudes towards gay people", is it not?. My "NEW" neighbours are here since July!! You're right, I "didn't know them from Adam", but I know them now, they are lovely, friendly people, AND THEY ARE GAY. Aids certainly doesn't come foremost to my mind when I meet them. I certainly don't see people in the same light as you do. My feelings towards all my neighbours is the same LIVE AND LET LIVE. I give respect to people, and I get it back in return.

Anon  Posted: 11/12/2006 20:49

Petra, Instead of spouting statistics that are totally irrelevant I have just posted a small section of an article taken from a medical research site. The sort of site I would rather rely on than your unfounded stats. "The study of the molecular virology of HIV also opened the door to the study of the molecular epidemiology of HIV.[19] The science of molecular epidemiology was essential in defining the evolving heterogeneity of HIV throughout the world, including the presence of circulating recombinant forms of the virus[20] and the origin of HIV in the human species. With regard to the latter, the zoonotic nature of HIV was established by the close phylogenetic relationship between HIV-2, first identified in West African individuals in 1986 (ref. 21), and the simian immunodeficiency virus in sooty mangabeys. In 1999, it was shown that HIV-1 had probably originated from the Pan troglodytes troglodytes species of chimpanzees, in which the virus coevolved over centuries.[22] Because chimpanzees are killed for food in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the species jump probably occurred by accident."

Petra  Posted: 11/12/2006 15:50

Simply Anon because this particular auto immune disease, AIDS, is preventable! AIDS infections are known as "opportunistic" because they are produced by commonplace organisms that do not trouble people whose immune systems are healthy, but which take advantage of the "opportunity" provided by an immune defense in disarray. AIDS is a contagious disease, spread by intimate sexual contact, by direct inoculation of the virus into the bloodstream, or from mother to child during pregnancy. Most of the AIDS cases in the United States have been found among homosexual and bisexual men with multiple sex partners (13,594 deaths in 1990), and among intravenous drug abusers (4,102deaths). Others have involved men who received untreated blood products for hemophilia (119deaths); persons who received transfusions of inadvertently contaminated blood-primarily before the AIDS virus was discovered and virtually eliminated from the nation's blood supply with a screening test; the heterosexual partners of persons with AIDS; and children born to infected mothers. Heterosexual males not involved in IV drug abuse accounted for 101 deaths. There is presently no cure for AIDS. Truth is that although unprotected sex is very dangerous, statistically in the USA, the chances of getting AIDS as a heterosexual with having sex with another heterosexual with no known risk factors, is statistically insignificant, 0.0001%. You have a much higher chance of being hit by a car, or drowning!!!!! Yet they spend Billions on the research, which kills 18,000 Americans each year??? It is estimated that 30% of the 9 to 10 Million gay men in the States are HIV positive...That is staggering!!! A gay man, with a condom, having sex with a gay man without any "other" known risk factors, you have a 25% chance of getting HIV... Getting the picture Anon???? See the problem???????

Anon  Posted: 11/12/2006 12:17

Petra, You persist in peddling nonsense. Firstly the USA might be the centre of gay rights in the Western world but remember they also have a much bigger population, so that is all that says! More people = more campaigners. As for the 80% figure you quote for the rise in Uk. What about the early 80's when Aids was first detected in the UK? It was nothing to do with immigrants from Africa or indeed from anywhere else. As I said before, Aids is an auto immune disease. Why are you so obsessed with 1 auto immune disease compared with any other auto immune disease? What exactly is your problem?

Petra  Posted: 11/12/2006 08:39

SL, David’s “facts” are unsubstantiated nonsense. Yes their has been an increase in AIDS in the UK but according to the BBC, over 80% of this is due to emigration of infected people from war torn parts of Africa. There has been a massive increase of AIDS in this country also. This is also due to the similar reason plus the fact that AIDS suffers receive free medical treatment here. Anon, the USA is the home of gay rights! There is little point is researching facts from Africa were documentation is poor at best and where many people don’t even have a birth cert. Ainebeag, you’re NEW neighbours whom you obviously don’t know from Adam, are gay, are the most loving contented couple you’ve met in a long time and are somehow your friends? New being the operative word. Do you seriously believe that anybody that shallow and empty headed can afford to be patronizing? Says allot!

ainebeag  Posted: 08/12/2006 00:59

Merry Christmas All, Ah Petra..what can I say to you that hasn't been said? I think you lost the plot ages ago. YOU are the one who nitpicks every posting. Do you still think aids did NOT come from chimps? I AM being patronising now when I say I feel very sorry for you. You're missing out on so much, being SO HOMOPHOBIC. My new next door neighbour (two houses up) has just introduced his partner. I did not know until then that he was Gay. Well, a more loving and contented couple I hav'nt met in a long time. Sadly, you will NEVER be lucky enough to know friends like them. You don't seem to have anything else to do besides looking up statistics, well now HETROSEXUALS have been proven to be the main carriers of HIV and many STDs. I didn't learn that through my 3rd level education, it was too long ago. Thanks again to the UNI of LIFE, and moving with the times, in the real world. PEACE. AINE.

Anon  Posted: 07/12/2006 22:42

Petra, Why do you keep spouting American so called facts? This is an Irish website and no relevance whatsoever to the spurious USA 'facts' that you keep mentioning. Secondly, you didn't seem to read the posting when I mentioned the arrival of HIV into the UK. Neither did you address the African issue? Why have you got this obsession about 1 auto immune disease over any other auto immune disease?

SL  Posted: 07/12/2006 09:13

Petra is there any reason you chose to ignore the facts posted by David re hetrosexual sex now being a primary method of transmission? Perhaps because they prove you're wrong! Seriously though, I think you're just making a fool of yourself in this modern day.

Petra  Posted: 06/12/2006 15:24

Angie, nobody knows where AIDS came from! According to statistics from the UK almost 60% of HIV sufferers, who account for 1-2% of the population, are gay/bisexual. The bisexual bit obviously contributes to the spread of this disease to heterosexuals. In the USA the CDC (Center for disease control and Prevention) statistics indicate that homosexual behavior far exceeds every other exposure category for contracting AIDS. The categories "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men and inject drugs" together comprise 52 percent of all AIDS cases. In addition, the category "heterosexual contact" includes the sub-categories of "sex with bisexual male" and "sex with HIV-infected person"--many of whom presumably were homosexuals. Finally, the risk factor of 9 percent of AIDS cases is listed as "not reported or identified," and it is generally accepted that homosexuality may well be a causative factor in many of those cases. These statistics or sanctimonious drivel as you choose to call it is available on the internet for any one to read. I just post the facts. Take what you want from them but don’t shoot the messenger! “Apportioning blame to one group of society is not a Christian standpoint” you say, well neither is wishing sickness or disease on a person who chooses to ignore the pro homosexual rhetoric and looks to facts for answers instead, so please spare me your pathetic curses!

Angie  Posted: 06/12/2006 03:43

Petra, where did Aids originate? It didn't originate in humans for a start. (try researching the rhesus monkies). Also, the first aids case (as a nurse) that I cared for (also the first case reported in Britain) was not in a homosexual male but in a heterosexual male who acquired hiv status from a blood transfusion. He brought it back to the Uk when he came back for surgery (unrelated to aids by the way). Also are you for a moment implying that the Aids epidemic is soley amongst homosexuals? If so, you are completely wrong. The aids epidemic in Calefornia escalated amongst homosexual men in a time when it was an unknown disease. Anyway, where do you get your sanctimoneous drivel. Sexually transmitted disease is as old as man. It used to be syphilis, now its aids. When syphilis was in epidemic proportions it was at that time equivalent in its effects (ie no treatment) as Aids is today. If you can't see the plank in your own eye, I suggest you stop looking for the splinters in other peoples eyes. Are you saying that anyone with Aids is not worthy of treatment? If so, then I would contend that any illness you might ever suffer from (and you will) is not worthy of treatment either. Being judgemental gets nobody anywhere. Aids is just another auto immune disease, of which there are many so why do you feel the need to pick on 1 auto immune disease rather than another? Nobody goes out of their way to acquire this terrible illness any more than anyone else chooses to suffer from any of the multitude of other terrible illnesses that any human being can contract. I hope you have never suffered from pre cancerous cells in your cervix? Apportioning blame to 1 group of society is not a Christian standpoint and who are you to judge anyone.

Anonymous  Posted: 05/12/2006 15:00

How right you are Mary! Certain behaviors - namely the exchange of bodily fluids, not your sexuality, puts you at higher risk of becoming HIV positive, leading to AIDS. However it just so happens that these certain behaviors you speak of, are the exact behaviors that caused the deaths of 420,000 homosexual people in 2002. It’s not simply the exchange of bodily fluids, but rather the method of exchange! That is why people who engage in such acts, be they homosexual or otherwise have a 50/50 chance of contacting HIV, while those who refrain from such acts have an almost zero chance of contracting HIV. Now that’s a medical fact!

Mary  Posted: 20/11/2006 10:18

Petra, regardless of what is on billboards in the U.S. AIDS is not a "gay disease". Being homosexual does not cause aids any more than being black causes cancer or being a man causes emphysema. Yes, homosexuals gets aids and heterosexuals get aids. Certain behaviours - namely the exchange of bodily fluids, not your sexuality, puts you at higher risk of becoming HIV posistive, leading to aids. This is medical fact. Incidentally, considering the rate of HIV transmission is lower among homosexual women, does that then somehow mean that the HIV virus is more prejudicial towards men?

David  Posted: 17/11/2006 09:54

You're extremely well briefed on all this Petra. All that in-depth research must take loads of time. Great to be so pationate about something, isn't it. I find Internet pornography more to my liking, I must say. Now, here's a new bit of news from Europe, which can compliment your detailed information about awareness-raising campaigns on the west coast of the USA: It reports that the number of reported HIV cases in EU member states has doubled since 1998 and half of the new cases affect people aged 15-25. The most common method of transmission is heterosexual sex, it says. Desperate, only, isn't it. That all these straight people have been consumed by this filthy gay disease. And so many so young too...Must have something to do with the television. Or computers. Possibly that programme Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is the cause. Or that ballroom dancing progamme. Either that or the European God got bored baiting just the gays. What do you reckon? Global warming maybe?

Petra  Posted: 16/10/2006 10:33

Probably not Mary but I’m sure a fountain of knowledge such as you good self will surely enlighten everyone! In Los Angeles, California, October 4, 2006 the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.” According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men. The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported. In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.! The number of deaths among people with AIDS remained relatively stable in the period 1999-2003, before dropping slightly to an estimated 15,798 deaths in 2004. Since the beginning of the epidemic, an estimated 529,113 people with AIDS have died in the USA. In the USA, it is estimated that nearly 300,000 men were living with AIDS at the end of 2002, and another 420,000 had died. Almost 60% of men diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in the USA were exposed to the virus through male-to-male sexual contact.

Mary  Posted: 10/10/2006 11:35

Petra, your medical report and it is only one report mind - is over 20 YEARS OLD! Do you have even the tiniest concept of the degree to which medical knowledge has changed and medical science has advanced in that time?

anne (WEV52065)  Posted: 09/10/2006 01:01

EuropeanGreen, I agree totaly with you. Aids was transfered to humans and its immaterial what sex you are, everyone has to be so careful, and EVERYONE has to take responsibility for themselves.

EuropeanGreen  Posted: 08/10/2006 15:30

Petra, the fact that people are homosexual is irrelevant when it comes to the spread of HIV. The virus did not originate in humans. It was passed on to humans and now it is killing millions of humans around the world. The reason that the gay community would have a higher rate of HIV is because the community is so small. So one is ten times more likely to come into contact with a HIV positive person if one is gay. And because of the lack of knowledge of HIV in the sixties and seventies etc, HIV exploded among the gay community because noone knew about the disease. The factor of ten would have been multiplied again by this unknown aspect so that's why the gay community has been plagued by HIV. So you see it is a matter of numbers, not because they are gay. Nowadays, we have those who are very conscious of protecting themselves from HIV and a minority who are not. And it is because they are human like you and me, that this is so, not because they are homosexual. Heterosexuals are promiscuous and asexual too and so you have the same kind of careful clean activity and dirty dangerous activity in that community. The onus on yourself should be to argue with your friends and family to all use protection, regardless of their sexuality because it does not matter what their sexuality is. What is important is that the spread of HIV is stopped through condoms and whatever other methods you might prefer, not distasteful homophobia that is both a waste of time and morally wrong.

ainebeag  Posted: 06/10/2006 22:47

Petra, I do respect other peoples views. I resent the fact that you said I should have got "a proper education"- I did. I also firmly believe in the University of Life. You learn so much from schools and colleges, but you learn so much more when you're out working, and/or rearing a family. Now back to homosexuality, I honestly believe people are born that way. My friend is lesbian, she said she knew she was different from childhood, she did not choose to be lesbian. In fact she fought it all the way, she was with a boy for a few years and they had a daughter. My friend knows in her heart her 11yr old is NOT lesbian. Surely that counts for something?

Petra  Posted: 06/10/2006 09:25

Anne, like you I also believe in “live and let live” provided no harm comes to anyone of course. However unlike you I don’t find anyone disgusting because they don’t share the same view as I do. While your been comfortable with yourself and respecting people regardless of their orientation, religion or colour, perhaps you should try respecting peoples different views? The statistics I posted were taken directly from the “medical aspects of homosexuality” report in 1985, issued by the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in the United States. As I said don’t shoot the messenger! To the best of my knowledge no one knows if homosexuals are born that way of they become that way. Personally I believe the latter. However its irrelevant. The fact remains homosexuality exists!

anne (WEV52065)  Posted: 05/10/2006 00:17

Petra, while you are spouting statistics, that you got from God knows where, I was simply talking about my family. Sorry if I came across as conceited or patronising. I have two sons and a daughter, only one of which practices some little form of religion. I am a primary schoolteacher. I was educated by nuns in the 50s and 60s , if you know anything about convent life, then you will understand some of what I posted. My motto for life for my family was "live and let live". I never sit back and think smugly that we are like THE LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE. Everyone is wellcome in our house, we never ask what sexual orientation or religion or politics people have. We try to be open, it doesnt always work. I suppose the fact that my best friend through school was lesbian was a help. Both you and Adolf disgust me. Are you related?

Nonnie  Posted: 05/10/2006 00:10

Petra, What comes across strongly to me from reading your postings is that you are not comfortable in your own skin. Tolerance is certainly not a virtue you have. God help you if you or rather a child of yours ever needs any sort of support in this world!

Petra  Posted: 04/10/2006 16:10

ainebeag, are you suggesting that sexual orientation, religion and creed only matter to people who are not comfortable within themselves? So, as soon as they become as comfortable as your family is within themselves then religion, creed and sexual orientation wont matter any more? That could be perceived as patronizing even conceited. May a proper education as opposed to the one you got in the University of Life might have served you better? Best of luck

Petra  Posted: 04/10/2006 15:38

Nonnie, are you not the one who claimed that S.T.D’s are just as profound among heterosexuals? What basis have you got for such an unfounded statement? Where’s the evidence to support this? I quote “You are being blinded to the reality by believing in statistics that are not real or indeed not reflective of the trends in our society” How do you know their not real? Contradict them! Have you been blesses with a special insight into trends in our society?

Adolf  Posted: 04/10/2006 11:51

Good for you ainebeag cast off those Catholic moral shackles and welcome debauchery at will. Whatever makes you happy! Sure didn’t the Romans do the same for centuries? Did you learn that AIDS came from chimps from the University of Life? If so you should look for your money back because the fact is nobody really knows where it came from! I don’t find you patronizing at all. A little naive maybe.

ainebeag  Posted: 03/10/2006 02:30

Hiya all, I have spent all night reading all postings. I'm 55yrs old. While i was growing up, I knew about two or three "gays" all men, and we feared them, just like we feared Protestant Churches (there was one right opposite my Catholic school) We did'nt understand what it was all about. We ridiculed what we didnt understand. In a Catholic school, of course we were never taught about different faiths or anything to do with sexuality. We constantly prayed and collected for "The Black Babies". I, and many others had to re educate ourselves through "The University of Life" and forget a lot of our Catholic teachings. There are a lot of people I would like to show admiration for to-night, and I presume I will leave out a lot, unintentionaly. Firstly, Jeff (ffm35307), congrats on having a 17yr relationship, I bet the work put in was well worth it. I'm married 31yrs. I would not doubt for one second that God Loves you. Secondly, Chris (dgo3775) 25/12/05. You tought me the little things I did'nt like to ask, and I agree sex is for adults. Fifi, good teaching by parents and glad you're proud to be you. SL-enjoy life. Luk4rmsumwhrelse, aids did come from chimpanzees, not homosexuals. Mary, oh Mary! I admire you so much I could read your postings all night, you really gave Anon and Razor, and a few others a run for their money. I admire David Norris so much. I have three grown up children, and one of their very close friends is lesbian, they all went to school together. I hear most of their love lives, fears etc. and our lesbian friend shares her stories as well, I do not want to come accross as patronising, just my family are comfortable in themselves and sexual orientation does'nt matter, nor does religion or colour. T.G. Best of luck to all.

Nonnie  Posted: 30/09/2006 22:31

Petra, you stated in your posting, quote "Prejustice towards anybody, gay or otherwise should not acceptable in any society. Information is what it is. Information! No more no less!" Unquote. Exactly! Shouldn't you be following your own advice? Where do you get the right to judge anyone?

con  Posted: 29/09/2006 15:18

point taken but can you not see aswell where iam coming from ?? it is extremely hard to come out in ireland where there is so much prejudice in place and lack of understanding for the way people are..there are numerous married women and men in this country who are homosexual but live hetrosexual because of the way they are viewed by society..yes drink is a huge problem but the question has tobe asked why are these people drinking so much,again i am not saying that they are all gay or anything but can be one of the reasons as they are not getting one of their essential physical and emotional needs..they are in fear of coming out about their sexually..

Petra  Posted: 29/09/2006 11:24

Con, according to the National Documentation center, Ireland has had a 41 per cent increase in alcohol consumption and a 44 per cent increase in suicide rates in young people over the last 10 years, an Oireachtas health committee was told recently. Dr Conor Farren, a consultant psychiatrist at St Patrick's Hospital in Dublin, said: 'No other country in Europe has had the same increase in alcohol or suicide rates over the last 10 years. Because of our culture of drinking, we are particularly susceptible ...' He argued that, in the absence of other factors, the association between high alcohol consumption and high suicide rates in Ireland could not be dismissed. The four main factors contributing to suicides and suicide attempts are alcohol/ drug abuse, unemployment, physical and sexual abuse and custody. I fail to see any connection or merit what you’re suggesting! Prejustice towards anybody, gay or otherwise should not acceptable in any society. Information is what it is. Information! No more no less!

con  Posted: 28/09/2006 18:25

petra..get a ireland there is huge amounts of men who commit suiside due to the fact that they are afraid to admit they are gay because of the prejudice against them..think about it ..most suisides are men between 18-35..think about it..

Petra  Posted: 26/09/2006 13:53

Nonnie, wallow in ignorance and ignore the facts at your perl but myths they are not! The agenda is simple, information! No more no less. Pro gay retheroic is potentially dangerous and people should be aware of the FACTS surrounding it before they form opinions!

Nonnie  Posted: 25/09/2006 22:50

Petra, you are simply wrong in your assessment. When you go to have checks in a medical clinic,nobody asks you what your sexual preferences are. So, as with many of the 'statistics' that are bandied out there, they are totally flawed in their outcome. The rise in sexually transmitted disease amongst heterosexual couples is just as profound. You are being blinded to the reality by believing in statistics that are not real or indeed not reflective of the trends in our society. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases have been around far, far longer than Aids has been. Aids is only 1. There are mulitude of s.t.d.'s. As for lesbians, the statistics you give are completely off the wall. What is your agenda here in perpetrating these myths?

Petra  Posted: 25/09/2006 14:25

The facts speak for themselves Nonnie, dont shoot the messenger! Homosexual males, who make up less than 2% of the US population, account for 56% of the adult AIDS cases. As of January 1, 1997, 324,728 men who have sex with men have been diagnosed with AIDS. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report (1997) , US HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1996. Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices. Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary. These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior of homosexual activists.

Nonnie  Posted: 22/09/2006 23:11

Petra, your knowledge on this is extremely flawed. There are just as many heterosexuals that are spreading sexually transmitted diseases/virus and illness as there are homeosexuals.

Petra  Posted: 21/09/2006 14:38

To my knowledge, homosexual men are more likely to be diagnosed with sexually transmitted gonorrhea, syphilis, dysentery, hepatitis, and viral infections.

Mary  Posted: 21/09/2006 07:49

Petra, you don't really expect me to believe what Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America is saying do you? What is he a Dr. of? Does he have any proof at all of what he claims? Has anyone looked into some other beliefs of the same religious organsiation ? The belief that somemone who has sexual intercourse - including rape except where there are four male witnesses - should be stoned to death. The belief that it is acceptable to behead people in public. The belief that it is right to cut off the hand of the thief. There are even certain subsections who believe that the genital mutilitian of children is right, not to mention the subjugation of women. Do you really want to take your beliefs and standards from an organisation with those ideologies. Homosexuality is not a habit it is a sexual state. Nor does it have anything to do with education. Heterosexuality is also dangerous for the health of the individuals if they don't practise safe sex. Tell me this tho', why on earth does MR. Muzammil Siddiqi imagine that it's any of his business whether people are homosexual or heterosexual?? Homosxuality does NOT cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases - in the case of AIDS - infected bodily fliud does. That is medical fact. Homosexuality does not stop men being men or women being women. It no more deprives them of their manhood or womanhood than heterosexuality does. And as I siad before, it is perfectly natural for homosexuals, just as heterosexuality is perfectly natral for heterosexuals as you similarly state in the latter part of your posting. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life if the hatred, bigotry, prejudice and bias forces people to hide it and compels them to get married therby making themselves and others miserable. But then hatred, bigotry, prejudice and bias causes misery everywhere.

Nonnie  Posted: 20/09/2006 16:23

Bontanini, you jumped on my posting but you missed the point. Maybe I did not make it clear enough. My point was that regardless of the reasons why someone is or is not homeosexual, it is irrelevant. You are what you are for whatever reason that is. At the end of the day, its nobody elses business. I don't see the point in judging people negatively for being homeosexual any more than we should judge them for being hetrosexual. Its a personal thing and what I am or am not, surely is not anyone elses concern.

Petra  Posted: 20/09/2006 12:16

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) has written: "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.""There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases. It is disgraceful for both men and women. It degrades a person. Islam teaches that men should be men and women should be women. Homosexuality deprives a man of his manhood and a woman of her womanhood. It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life." More liberal movements within these religions often tend to stress logic, reason, and personal experience. This includes scientific findings. It is only since about 1950 that homosexuality has been seriously studied by human sexuality researchers. Liberal individuals and groups within Christianity, Islam and other religions have been quick to incorporate scientific findings within their ethical and religious beliefs. They generally regard homosexuality as a sexual orientation which is ethically neutral, fixed, unchosen, and is normal and natural for a minority of adults. More conservative movements tend to stress revelation and tradition. Their beliefs are anchored to the past. Their beliefs are much less liable to change rapidly. They generally regard homosexuality as a deviate and disordered behavior, which is immoral, changeable, chosen, abnormal and unnatural.

Mary  Posted: 18/09/2006 09:32

Actually Nonnie, at 6, I felt I didn't like boys - 'cos they were "rough and bold" (of course they were just boisterous - but my childish eyes saw it differently) but this didn't make me a lesbian. At 16, I admired certain women becuase of the way they looked and behaved but this didn't make me a lesbian either. I don't know about fear, loathing or apprehension. In the case of one male homosexual friend of mine whom I chatted with about this, (I was curious) there is no fear or loathing - not even dislike in fact in his case, women no matter how beautiful or sexy they may be percieved simply do nothing for him sexually - there is simply no atttraction there unlike with a man. I don't know if the same is the case for homosexual women, I haven't actually spoken to any about it.

EuropeanGreen  Posted: 17/09/2006 23:19

Hear hear Bontonini.

bontinini  Posted: 17/09/2006 16:45

Is nonnie short for nonsense? That a man might be attracted to another man out of 'fear and loathing' of women is just prepostuous, as much so as saying a hetrosexual is attracted to the opposite sex because of a fear or loathing of their own sex. How ridiculous is that? Homosexuals do not CHOOSE to be homosexual, just as heterosexuals do not choose to be heterosexual, you fancy who you fancy, simple as that, apart from people who would try anything sexually, regardless...who would be in a minority...If a heterosexual couple, choose to indulge in anal sex, as many do, in the privacy of their own homes, that is no-ones business, just as what homosexuals do, privately, and sexually, is theirs. Why are people so narrowminded? It is way more important that people love and respect each other, than what type of sexual preferance they might consenting adults...

bontinini  Posted: 17/09/2006 16:37

dominant mothers, fear of women...blah blah...the fact is that homosexual men, and women, are attracted to their own sex, because they are...why are heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex? Just becuse they are...It shouldn't be any big deal..and as for homophobic heterosexuals, who feel disgust at the thought of homosexual sex, many heterosexuals enjoy anal sex. Also, when it comes to speeches about 'God made man and woman to procreate', yes, he did, but God also made homosexuals...lots of variety, its great...and if anyone thinks that god didn't make homosexuals, and that its a choice, God love them! Who would choose to be bullied, spat on, jeered at, and vilified for their sexuality? As still happens in our sweet country...also the 'in' term used by all children at the moment, to describe something that is stupid or nerdy or plain horrible, is 'gay', just listen and you will hear it being used everywhere..Its a sad day that having finally legalised homosexuality, thanks to the great david norris, that we now have to have the word 'gay' used incessantly, as a term of abuse...we have a long way to go....

Nonnie  Posted: 14/09/2006 23:39

I felt different when I was 6 too but it wasn't for sexual reasons. At 6 and up to puberty at the very earliest, I don't believe that any child feels or can feel in a sexual way. Confusion reigns! Can you tell me at 6 you were fully assured that you were heterosexual... no, because you weren't even aware of sexuality at that time. Again, most girls have crushes on other girls or female teachers in the teen years (boys frequently have crushes on male teachers too)but this again is not a sign of homeosexuality. However, it is a sign to me that we as humans are open to homeosexuality if the circumstances exist. For the most part there is something that makes us 1 thing or another somewhere along the lines. Something tips the balance. Most teenage girls and indeed boys, feel attraction to the opposite sex during their teens less so because of any sexual urges they might have but moreso because that is what their peer group are doing and at that age we tend to fit in as best we can with our peer group. There are a multitude of reasons why someone decides what they are and that takes a great deal of time, in the same way, it takes a great deal of time to figure out exactly who we are as people. The sexual act between 2 men is exactly the same as that between a man and a woman. So, why does a man decide that he is only attracted to that act between himself and another man? What is the fear, loathing or apprehension of doing the same act with a woman? Something causes this mind shift for him and he obviously feels safer with another man than with a woman. For women it is completely different for obvious reasons. But the end result is that we are all entitled to be different if that is our choice. My comment about homeosexual men having dominant mothers is not something you would hear a man stating as he is not aware that his mother is any more dominant than any other mother but in my experience with a large number of homeosexual men over the years, the 1 common denominator was that they had domineering mothers and they chose a different path for themselves as they did not want to be the 'wimpish' man they seen their fathers protrayed as. It makes total sense to me but I am fully aware that that is not the case for everyone. Given the right or wrong set of circumstances then "there but for the grace of God go I" so for that reason alone I would never make judgements on anyone for their sexual preference. I like people and take people as I find them, their sexual preference is not high on the agenda with me any more than my sexual preferences should be high on the agenda for them.

Mary  Posted: 14/09/2006 12:20

To further answer your post 82BU, AGAIN I ask why do you regard homosexuality as pathological or dysfunctional. 20 years ago it was a criminal act to practice homosexuality in this country, 15 years ago you couldn't get a divorce, 50 years ago it was illegal to import certain medication - ie. contraceptives and 200 years ago in the states slave ownership as perfectly legal in some states, do you think these are good things too? Again - paedophilia hurts children. That is a pretty vast difference. Given that it existed in ancient times, homosexuality could by no means be called modern. Just to comment on Nonnie's point, the homosexuals I know, both men and women attest that they felt different and knew they were somehow different to other boys and girls from a pre-pubertal stage, in one case as young as 6. I don't re-call that any of them were in situations where one parent or the other was particularly dominant but this along with Nonnie's point, I think, goes to show htat everyone homosexual or heterosexual is different with different sets of circumstances.

Nonnie  Posted: 14/09/2006 01:52

To 82BU Posted: 13/09/2006 16:55. Why would you feel sorry for homosexuals any more than I should feel sorry for you? I don't agree with your views so do I feel sorry for you? No because you made your own choices depending on your own personal decisions. I agree that not all homosexuals are born that way, but some are. If they are not born that way then you have to look at the parents and wonder what they did that swayed the child to be homeosexual? I know lots of homeosexuals who had 1 thing in common and that was a dominant mother and weak father. So in cases like that, the onus falls directly on the parent and the parenting. There are well documented conditions in which a man can be born with the same sexual organs as a woman and also the same sexual organs as a man? I have seen this. They have to decide which they want to be in order for 1 set of sexual organs to be removed (this does not make them homeosexual either by the way) Those that 'become' homosexual do so for a variety of reasons that really is none of our business. Again you managed to lump in the word 'paedophilia' in the same posting as the word 'homosexual'. That is ignorance on your part as you do not seem to understand the difference. Most paedophiles are not homosexual and you must have gathered that from media coverage over the years. Lots of paedophiles are married men with children of their own. My most poignant question to you is:- What would you do if you had a son who arrived home to you and told you he was a homosexual? Would you kick him out or would you support him? I would just be happy if my child was happy and healthy and not hurting anyone by his actions. What his sexual preferences were, is irrelevant and should also be irrelevant to everyone else. Sexual preferences between 2 consenting adults is a private business, just the same as your sexual preferences are also private provided that you are with a consenting adult who is above the age of consent. Stop being so judgemental about other peoples lives. Think about your own and live according to your own set of values and leave those that have different values to live their lives according to their values. Its as easy as that. I am neither a homeosexual nor do I have any homeosexual children but I believe in live and let live and in sorting out my own life first before I start telling others how to sort out theirs. What someone else does with their lives has absolutely nothing to do with me so why on earth would I attack people with different values to me? I just think that to be that judgemental says more about you than about anyone else.

Mary  Posted: 13/09/2006 17:13

A waste - why? They live happy fulfilled lives in many cases just like me or anyone else. Why do you think it's waste? Do you consider any human being who does not produce offspring to be a waste or is a person somehow a waste if they are not attracted to the opposite sex. Why fele sorry for their families. The role of parenting is to love - regardless of sexuality. Anything else is just conditional. Many families accept it so much better and more readily than you seem to. Wht maks oyu think that homosexuals are not born that way? Do you think that heterosexuals somehow "become" heterosexual? From being what? Asexual? It DOES exist in nature - human nature

82BU  Posted: 13/09/2006 16:55

Nonnie I don’t hate homosexuals. Apathy maybe but hatred definitely not. I feel sorry for them. To me it’s a waste. I also feel sorry for their parents and family. For many heterosexuals, homosexuality is impossible to understand and therefore accept. If homosexuals were born that way it might be easier for some people to accept but the fact is their not. People somehow “become” homosexual. Despite various unfounded claims that homosexuality exists in nature, and is therefore natural. It’s NOT. Animals are not capable of being homosexual. It only exists in humans and therefore can only be described as a pathological, sexual dysfunction. Something gone wrong! All sexual dysfunctions, admittedly some to a greater extent than others, are potentially dangerous. 20 years ago it was a criminal act to practice homosexuality in this country. Now, through clever political negotiation, it’s become acceptable. Who is to say in 20 years from now some paediophile group wont gain them the same status? The erosion of moral fabric of society has begun with the acceptance by modern culture of homosexuality. Where will it stop?

Nonnie  Posted: 12/09/2006 19:40

Its quite amazing that the ones that are so avidly homophobic on this topic are using men's names. What is your problem men? If you are not homosexual then good for you but for those that are, its really got nothing to do with you. What do you fear? You are so pointedly anti-human in your debate. Quoting religious beliefs is a bit pointless if at the end of the day you cannot love for the sake of love alone. Who you love is irrelevant, its the loving that matters (and I am not talking about sex). Perhaps you could love a little more and hate a little less. Your hatred won't change anyone or anything except yourselves!

Mary  Posted: 12/09/2006 17:08

The values I have as a human being and indeed groups such as humanists and nature worshippers have deplored bigotry, discrimination and hatred. Just for clarity of definiton, sodomy refers to the act of anal rape and rape as every decent human being knows, has no place in a loving relationship. But perhaps now we are getting down to the nub of anonymouses problem - his problem is not that two consenting adults of the same sex love one another, his problem appeatrs to be with the sexual acts done by certain homosexual men? Is that not the case Anon. For some bizarre reason he seems fixated on the intimate sexual acts carried out by consenting adults in privacy. Is this the case, Anonymous and if so could you enlighten us as to why? If it is the case, could you tell us are you equally fixated with lesbian or heterosexual acts? Becuase if so, and as another contributor pointed out - heterosexual couples do a lot of the same things, sexually that homosexual couples do. it my surprise you to know 'tho', that in the U.S. there a number of openly homosexual Christian groups Could you please explain what on earth you mean by the phrase "morally diseased" Evil has indeed many guises and hatred is one of them.

Anonymous  Posted: 12/09/2006 15:26

It’s very difficult to support, or believe in any religion, without possessing strong moral values as a human being. It would be nearly impossible to support sodomites or any other depraved human activities and claim to be religious. Religions set moral standards and codes by which we enhance our lives and grow as human beings. There is no place for the opinions for the morally diseased or their misguided and wicked beliefs. Evil as it has many disguises! Beware!

Mary  Posted: 12/09/2006 11:35

Just to point out Smeg that it was Adolf and the various Anonymouses whoi brought in the religious references.

Mary  Posted: 12/09/2006 11:31

I am not a bigot, regarding 'other' religions. I dislike anything not grounde, evenin small part, in reality, homophobia and organsied religion are two of these. Racismm, for example is another. However, I particularly dislike when one pretext is used to bolster up another. I don't particularly care for organised religion of any sort - mainly becuase of the very bigotry so many of them espouse but whne they are used to bolster discriminaiton of any kind that is particularly disturbing.

82BU  Posted: 12/09/2006 09:28

Obviously, homosexuality and paediophilia is not the same thing. No more that bestiality and necrophilia are the same thing. However they share a common denominator- pathological sexual dysfunction! . To suggest any comparison to heterosexuality, the love between a man and a woman, the basic family unit, the building blocks of any society, is a slur on the human race and a degradation of humanity. Shame on you!

Smeg  Posted: 11/09/2006 17:08

Mary-I don't believe you can argue your point about homophobia very well while looking like an out and out bigot of other relgions. Stick to the argument lady!

Mary  Posted: 11/09/2006 16:01

Ok, VERY obvious point, for a person of eiher sex to have sex with a 12 - 14 year old, of the same or opposite gender is paedophilia (child abuse). That is quite plain and simple - regardless of whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. Some cultures men take wives of 12 or 13 years old, even today. That does not make it right simply becuse they are heteroesexual. Another very obvious pointl, for a person of either sex to have sex with someone over the age of consent - A consenting adult, of the same or opposite gender is NOT paedophilia. Quite simple. Homosexuality and paedophilia are NOT the same thing. Hetrosexuality and paedophilia are NOT the same thing. To attempt to lower homosexuality or heterosexuality to the same level as paedophilia or any other sexual dysfunction, is a slur on the humanity and ought to be treated with the contempt it deserves.

82BU  Posted: 11/09/2006 12:27

Ancient people, such as the ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality. In literature, it is called "love of a man for a man." When homosexual men wrote about their love for other men the most loved boys were usually age 12-14. It is written that some homosexual men wouldn't even try to have sex with a boy over the age of 17, which probably gave rise to the secondary and greater pathological sexual dysfunction, Pedophilia! To attempt to lower heterosexuality to the same level as homosexuality, or any other sexual dysfunction, by claiming that are just a state, is nothing more than a slur on the humanity, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves!

EuropeanGreen  Posted: 10/09/2006 18:21

Tom, I am gay. This does not make me camp. I am out to all my friends and most of my work colleagues. They don't see me as camp. But most people don't have a problem with those that are camp. There are no statistics on how many gay men are camp. But from my experience I would say it is 1:10 or 2:10. No it is not because there are camp individuals that society discriminates against gay people. It is because society hasn't yet thrown off homophobia that it discriminates. We are different and many do not like that. Move on Tom.

Mary  Posted: 08/09/2006 13:42

I have never followed trends - Adolf, I ahve never followed trends, I have always believed that bigotry and discrimination are wrong. Your so-called facts have never been substantiated and I am not the one spewing rubbish. "Major religions"-now there is a prime example of an entire belief system based solely of mythology brqinwashing and lack of fact. What 'major religions; believe is neither here nor there. It is proof of nothing. Some of them believed that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around it and women were inferior. It was also used to excuse slavery. Do you beleive these things are ok too? No Tom, I didn't say that - I said it as a sexual state just like heteroexuality. From what I can see from Adolf, for him the debate does revolve around their behaviour.

Tom  Posted: 08/09/2006 10:00

Mary, homosexuality you say is not behaviour but a state of mind. Perhaps you are right but doesn't this debate really and truly revolve around the behavior of homosexual individuals? Isn't it for their behaviour that they are castigated? In fact, if it was not for their distinct identifiably camp behavior, they would not be targeted as a seperate group to the rest of us and therefore not discriminated against. If it was all about a state of mind, would this discussion thread even exist?

Adolf  Posted: 08/09/2006 09:51

Mary this site is about people’s attitude. People develop attitudes based on their beliefs. Its opinion. So called open-mindedness can be just a cloke of indifference, and can be every bit as dangerous as racism. “Wildebeest syndrome”. It’s easy not to think for yourself and follow the popular or modern trends. To have an opinion, especially one which may be averse to popular thinking can be difficult to express at times especially without offending. What you are suggesting as fact is nonsense. Facts can be substantiated. The rubbish you spew cannot. All the major religious denominations state that homosexuality is wrong, a sin as it were. So do you have some enlightened insight that thousands of years or theological studies somehow missed? It must be wonderful to possess such intellectual insight! Perhaps you should inform all the ongoing studies on homosexuality that you know all the answers and therefore there is no need to for them to continue. Your distorted opinions are NOT fact, there opinion. To attempt to pass them off as fact is conceited at best! Have a nice weekend.

Mary  Posted: 07/09/2006 16:50

Adolf, so - everyone is out of step bar you. I suppose the world is flat and and the sun revolves around it t. Talk about an 'altered world-view'. If evolution does not exist do you have any creditable explanation as to how we got here? I may be quoting a selection of researchers as proof wheras you have none whasoever excpet your own disproven outmoded theocratic nonsense. There are plenty of aspects of humanity which are not genetic - it doesn't mean they do not exist as evidenced. homosexuality is NOT behavior AT ALL. It is simply a sexual state like heterosexuality. Why is this very simple fact of life so difficult for you too grasp. h ys, all down to belief - some peple believe that man never landed on the moon and others still beleived that being black-skinned or female was inferior. Your bigoted belief does not alter fact.

Anonymous  Posted: 07/09/2006 15:22

Mary, "homosexual Animals" do NOT Exist. In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay, while studying suspected homosexual animal behavior admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, and not to homosexuality: Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: Properly speaking, homosexuality does NOT exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets rather than on science.

Dorothy (DSX51572)  Posted: 07/09/2006 12:00

I discovered this thread while doing research for college... and was so seriously shocked. Although I dont know why i would to be honest. I can't understand the level of hatred and discrimination that some people obviously feel towards those who are homosexual. My attitude is and always has been that you are who you are... People have a right to express their sexuality in whatever way they please. Homophobia is as dangerous and as... wrong as racism and prejudice of any kind. I honestly don't care if people consider me "PC" or whatever nice words I'm sure they will put on it... but people's insane attitudes towards homophobia only prove one thing: They themselves are narrow minded and are scared. People's sexuality should not matter.. just like it doesn't matter if you are male or female etc. Equality is something which obviously does not exist in some people's minds.

Adolf  Posted: 07/09/2006 09:50

Mary, if these “creditable” medical, psychological and psycho-resources agree with your nonsense then, yes, in my opinion, they are crackpots! Or perhaps it’s just that the so called “evidence”, if it does exist, is not that creditable! Attempting to justify your unsubstantiated piffle by claiming it has some basis in scientific fact is laughable! Then again you also thought the theory of evolution was a fact as well! As for other “homosexual” creatures, surly your not suggesting that the reported actions by a handful of researchers, of an almost extinct ape, of which very little is known, is somehow proof of other homosexual creatures? Sounds more like scraping the barrel. You may have deluded yourself into believing that homosexuals are made that way, but no “gay gene” was ever found was it? So if its not genetic, then human beings are not designed to be homosexual are they? Basically it’s down to beliefs. To some people homosexuality is an acceptable behavior and to others its not. All depends on what you believe really.!

Mary  Posted: 06/09/2006 16:52

Are you saying that ewvery creditable medical, psychological and psycho-analytical resource in the U.S., UK and EU are all crackpots?? That indicates very definitely what is pathological to me. If human beings were not designed ot be homosexula then homosexuality would not exist in 10% of the population. And remember that humans are not the only creatures on the planet who have a homosexual population You are the person who needs to get over yourself and get your head out of the sand or wherver it is you have it positioned. No, there is no Israeli gunship shooting at you - possibly because you refrain from invading their territory and you are not being threatened by a suicide bomber but the glaring and starkly obvious difference there is that suicide bombers and gunship operators are not made that way - unlike homosexuals and heterosexuals and similarly unlike gunships and suicide bombers they are not harming anyone by their sexual state.

Adolf  Posted: 06/09/2006 15:16

Mary, the idea that homosexuality is somehow NOT pathological IS a crackpot idea. If men were intended to be with men why have women or visa versa? Humans are not designed to be homosexual. Thats why we have TWO opposite sexes within the same species. Homosexuals are still humans so your idea that homosexuals are somehow designed to be with other homosexuals is nothing short of crass! Homosexuality by its very nature is pathological. No, there is no homosexual stealing from me nor harming me in any way. Then again there is no Israeli gunship shooting at me nor am I been threatened by a suicide bomber, but somehow, amazingly I believe thats not right either! Get over yourself!

Mary  Posted: 06/09/2006 13:22

Yes, There are people out there who believe that the Bush administration brought down the twin towers. And there are people who beleive that man never landed on the moon and there are people who believe with laughably little or no evidence at all, every single crakpot notion - including the idea that homosexuality is pathological. Afterall, it wasn't so long ago that plenty of people believe that being black or female was inferior - much of that was for political ends. Tell me what political agenda to do you have for your idea? Is there a homosexual harming you? Stealing from you, assulating you, burgling your home? If so, I strongly suggest yu take immediate steps to prevent it / defend yourself and report it as soon as possible to the relevent authorities to ensure appropriayte steps are taken.

Adolf  Posted: 06/09/2006 12:57

Aut2bHE, thanks for the snapshot of the gay rights struggle for equal status here in Ireland. However all political parties are capable of supporting any agenda to promote their own needs or to maintain/enhance their own power or status. It doesn’t make its right! There are people out there who believe, not without good reason I might add, that the Bush administration brought down the twin towers, killing thousands of people for political gain! Because I believe homosexuality is pathological doesn’t make it discrimination! I believe the same about all other sexual orientations outside heterosexuality. Having said that I agree with Luk4rmsumwhelse in the theory of live and let live, providing, and that’s a big providing, no one comes to any harm because of it.

Mary  Posted: 04/09/2006 09:36

More faulty "logic" form Anonymous. Homosexuality is a state - it does not spread or contain anything. The HIV virus is spread by bodily fluids - e.g. blood, semen and vaginal fluid. This is medical fact.

David  Posted: 01/09/2006 16:47

Obviously a good researcher, Anon. However, you neglected to inform that AIDS originated as a result of infection passed to humans from chimpanzees. It spread, mainly in Africa to begin with, as a result of more blood infections. And heterosexual sex. Would be useful if you provided us with figures and percentages about the current state of AIDS in Africa today. You know, there are now many, many 'gay' websites out there. Dating websites, I mean - not pornography. Do a bit of research on one called Quite a lot (many thousands) of Irishmen have 'profiles' there. And that is just the part of the population who is computer-literate and who uses computers. And it is just one particular website. There are many more. And it is mostly made up of male members. So, it does not include many gay women, gay people who don't use computers, gay people who might be subscribed to other websites, the entire population under the age of 18, and probably a large segment of the population over the age of 70, say... That might help with all your statistical gathering. Enjoy your weekend.

Anonymous  Posted: 01/09/2006 09:40

Mary, more twisted truths, and distortions of facts. The appearance of AIDS in the USA and Europe coincided with the introduction of crack cocaine, the use of alkyl nitrites by homosexuals to enhance anal sex. The first case of AIDS in the United States was documented in 1981. This disease was most prevalent among homosexual men in the 1980s. However, many other unfortunates such as hemophiliacs and intravenous drug addicts who inadvertadly became affected. In the USA, it is estimated that nearly 300,000 men were living with AIDS at the end of 2002, and another 420,000 had died. Almost 60% of men diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in the USA were exposed to the virus through male-to-male sexual contact. The vast majority of the remainder were intravenous drug abusers. In the UK, by the end of September 2004, more than 32,000 diagnoses of HIV had been in men who had become infected through sex with another man. Overall about 25% of all UK HIV diagnoses have been in young men under 29 years old. In 2003, there were 465 new diagnoses of HIV in men who were both under 29 and had had sex with men. Homosexuality spreads AIDS. Unfortunately it has spread to others, through no fault of their own through blood transfusions, dirty needles,etc. However it never would have existed in the first place if homosexuals abstained from their sexual acts!

Mary  Posted: 01/09/2006 08:52

Rusty, what makes you think men an women are not designed to be homoexual if that is the way nature created them? Perhaps you didn't read all the posts but as I pointed out numerous times, homosexuality is not an act any more than heteroseuality, it is a sexula state of being. Again and agian and again and again I ask but no one seems to know the answer, what makes think homosexuality is depraved? In the meantime, you are engaging is some very fuzzy not to mention faulty logic. Homosexuality has nothing to do with bestiality. The only people suggetin a slut on human dignity by casting such aspersion is ythe homophobes in society. So, the use bodily parts in a manner other than which they were designed to be used is abuse? Do you think then that as my uterus was designed to carry a foetus and it has never dome so - am I somehow abusing it?? Also my clitoris is designed to orgasm. Does that mean everytime I have sex without orgasm, my partner is abusing me??

luk4rmsumwhrelse  Posted: 31/08/2006 19:10

1st, I am not gay! 2nd let me put everyone at both sides of the argument in view. We have gay people, we have straight people and deviants! Story is, my mate recently hung himself; he told a guy who he got on great with 1 week before hand he was gay. He also came out with it to his parents but since then he ended up dead. What a waste of life for the guy and his family! He was well liked and very good at many things he even went out with girls. My opinion, life is about living. Having arguments about who is right and who is wrong at the end of the day is getting no body nowhere; its trapping those who are considered weak into a tight psychological trap so much that they may snap; depending on their temperement. I know of people who are straight who have had families etc but who have had extramarital affairs-GAY ONES! If a man can do that he is obviously so trapped by stigma and "morals", that he decides to hide his feelings, get married, have a family and live "his own needs" behind his wife and "societies" back. This so called society is a word to describe a bunch of people who create laws, build buildings and bridges but who also set standards for people to live by. Some bridges and buildings are dodgy, and some of these builders and business men are dodgy, not to mention some politicians, some governments and from what Ireland was years ago "our clergy", but who questioned them. The clergy who were run with paedophilies, declared homosexuality a sin. Wouldn't life have been better if we didn't suck up to their views and preachings back then, do what we thought was right for "us" and keep to our mates and familiy and try to be postitive?? We obviously didn't need the "church" back then! Look what harm it done! My point is we are all human beings. PERIOD! After that its individuality. Life is about ups and downs but its not about making other people feel as though they are wrong. Homosexual sex doesn't appeal to me, the same as bondage doesn't but many straight guys like that too! Or are paraphilias limited to the homosexual community? Live and let live, there is no point in condeming homosexuality, these people can be genuine, loving people but with a different attraction which science does not fully understand yet! How can any open minded intelligent person comment on this without being biased. Live and let live, life is TOO SHORT for making others life hell or declaring them immoral or unnatural, just like what contraception was regarded in the EARLY NINENTIES IN Ireland. I give evolution some time. Homosexuality may be a mutation to combat overpopulation which is necessary. And genetic mutations are possible, where did the rhesus negative gene arrive from? And it didn't come from an alien ship! Be good

Andra  Posted: 31/08/2006 18:26

Mary you said "Does that mean everytime I have sex without orgasm, my partner is abusing me?" Well no but it could be you abusing yourself...

Aut2bHE  Posted: 31/08/2006 17:35

FYI Adolf (and Rusty, who seems to want to repeat the same discussion!) Criminal Law: In Ireland homosexuality was formally decriminalised in 1993. The decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993 was the result of a campaign by Senator David Norris and the Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform which led to a ruling, in 1988, that Irish laws prohibiting homosexual activities were in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights (Norris V Ireland), ruled that the criminalisation of homosexuality in the Republic violated Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to privacy in personal affairs. Discrimination & Family Law: Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is outlawed by the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000. These laws forbid discrimination in any of the following areas: employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services and other publicly available opportunities. A civil partnership bill is currently under consideration too. Political parties positions on LGBT rights: Most of the political parties have a liberal social policy (and I'm not entering into a political discussion here!). The Fine Gael Party supports extending to same-sex couples a "Civil Partnership" or civil unions option, as does the Progressive Democrats, Labour Party, Sinn Fein, Socialist, Communist and Green political parties. While the Labour Party is in favour of Civil Partnership, highly active sections of the party such as Labour Youth and Labour LGBT call for full same-sex marriages & adoption rights. So Adolf, homosexuality not pathological, nor a disease, and is accepted by the majority of society. It is also against the law to discriminate against someone for being gay. You might want to remember that next time you start your ravings!

Aut2bHE  Posted: 31/08/2006 17:33

Adolf wrote: If you use anything in a manner other than that, for which, it was designed, thats abuse. So taking that statement to its logical conclusion, say whenever we use a butter knife to tighten up a screw, instead of a screwdriver, we're abusing the butter knife then eh? Next time you want your partner to perform oral on you you'd best remember that you'll be the abuser! Adolf: it may come as a surprise to you but the reason any plants or animals have sex organs IS to reproduce. I dont recall mentioning anything about anybody having to be with a partner or having kids! No surprise to me. I got my qualifications in biology, human biology and nursing, thanks all the same. Now open your eyes and read your statement "Surly if men were designed to be with other men, or women to be with women, they would have both female and male sex organs, like some plant species." That *does* say that you think the only reason anyone has sex is to reproduce, otherwise why make the point about same genders needing two sets of organs. Adolf: "Homosexuality is pathological, a dysfunction, a perversion, somthing gone wrong somewhere!" So looking in my medical dictionary, the definitions of the words you use mean you consider homosexuality as a disease? I see. Well Adolf a resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association in August 1997 states that "homosexuality is not a mental disorder. So where's the pathology now? Are you aware that the German Nazi party sent homosexuals to concentration camps and performed experiments on them (so they could find the supposed gay gene to "cure" any future Aryan born gay)? So you liken yourself to people such as that do you? Adolf?

Rusty  Posted: 31/08/2006 16:35

Men and women are NOT designed to be homosexual, no more than they are designed to be involved in other sexually depraved acts such as bestiality. The fact that they are not inhibited from doing so dosent alter the fact. To suggest so is a slur on the dignity of human race! I agree with Anon 15:30 to use bodily parts in a manner other than which they were designed to be used is abuse, and also defiles humanity!

Mary  Posted: 31/08/2006 16:27

The statistics are those from social science not a pro or anti anything magazine. Someone forgot to the tell the arab world about a lot of things including a humane jucidicial system and womens rights in addition to respect for people regardless of their sexuality, which is why gay men and women in the arab world do not reveal their sexuality, marry to conceal the fact and live very unhappy lives much of the time with equally unhappy spouses - not becuase they are homosexual but becuase the society around them has the same bigotry bitterness, discrimination and narrow mindedness as you reflect. Anyone who is different in such a society could not be happy. I don't suppose black skinned people were very happy in a society which enthused slavery either. HIV, thae cause of AIDS, is spread by the exchange of blood, semen or vaginal fluid between infected persons not by homosexuality. In fact far more heterosexuals are HIV positive than homosexuals and intravenous drug users and heamophiliacs contract HIV regardless of their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact HIV is lower among homosexual women. Does it follow them in your mind that I as a heterosexual women am somehow more harmful than a homosexula woman? Mu uterus was designed to carry a foetus, it has never dome so - am I somehow abusing it? My clitoris is designed to orgasm. Does that mean everytime I have sex without orgasm, my partner is abusing me? Would you ever go and cop yourself on.

Anonymous  Posted: 31/08/2006 15:20

Mary where do you get your statistics from? Some pro gay propaganda magazine? What utter rubbish! Then again you seem to be good at twisting and distorting facts. Homosexuality exists happily and harmlessly with heterosexuality! Does it really? Perhaps someone just forgot to tell the Arab world. Also, I don’t consider the spread of AIDS harmless! “If men or women were not designed to be homosexual, then homosexuality would not exist”. Is that a fact? Your right, men’s and women’s bits don’t inhibit homosexuality. The use of anything in a manner, for which it is not designed, is ABUSE. If you can’t see that then yes there is something wrong, something very, very wrong!

LouthChick  Posted: 31/08/2006 14:41

Ah...Anonymous Posted: 31/08/2006 10:58. We're sick of hear your 'narrow' minded opinion (that's all it is)Talk to the hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mary  Posted: 31/08/2006 11:12

If ALL men were designed to be with ALL women then homosexuality would not happily and harmlessly co-exist with heterosexuality. Sure women have the bits they have and men have the bits they have and those bits do not in any way inhibit homosexuality - what is it that makes you think they do? The reason you exist is solely to be ith women?? Don't you get any other joy out of life? How sad. If men or women were not designed to be homosexual, then homosexuality would not exist. 10% of the human population would not be homosexual, but they are. Now tell me what is it that makes you imagine it is pathological or dysfunctiona or even, laughably, perverted Oh yes, there is somethign gone wrong somewhere indeed - and perhaps rahter cloaer to you than you think! As clearly there is a lot which YOU do not get.

Anonymous  Posted: 31/08/2006 10:58

Mary men are designed/created to be with women. Thats the way God/Nature/Evolution designed it. Thats why women have the bits they have and men have the bits they have! Simple! Thats the reason men and women exist. Two opposite sexes of the same species. Neither men nor women are designed to be homosexual. Homosexuality is pathological, a dysfunction, a perversion, somthing gone wrong somewhere! What part do YOU not get!

Mary  Posted: 31/08/2006 10:20

I ask again and again and agai and again - why do YOU think it is depraved and why do you think homosexual men were not designed to be with other homosexual men and the same for homosexual women.

Adolf  Posted: 31/08/2006 09:37

Aut2bHE, it may come as a surprise to you but the reason any plants or animals have sex organs IS to reproduce. I dont recall mentioning anything about anybody having to be with a partner or having kids!

Anonymous  Posted: 31/08/2006 08:32

Mary, its also pathological to be attracted to members of the same sex! As I said before it only difference is in the dept of the depravity! As for logic. If you use anything in a manner other than that, for which, it was designed, thats abuse. Same logic applies!

Aut2bHE  Posted: 30/08/2006 17:45

Adolf wrote: Surly if men were designed to be with other men, or women to be with women, they would have both female and male sex organs, like some plant species. So everyone *has* to be with a partner to simply reproduce? Nothing more? There's more to a relationship than having kids! You'll be telling us next that anything other than the missionary position is perverted!

Mary  Posted: 30/08/2006 17:04

NoAdolf, paedophilia hurts children. It is also pathological for any adult to find a prepubescent attractive. However, women are attractive to you - are they not. Why thne is it surprisoing that homosexual womne would find women attractive? As for logic. I don't see Anon displying much of it when he has been asked the same question over and over and over and refuses to answer - or cannot answer.

Adolf  Posted: 30/08/2006 16:51

So what your saying is because we have homosexuality, therefore its natural? Some logic! We unfortunately also have paediophiles, necrophiliacs etc. Would you apply the same "logic" here? Do you see these perversions as natural simply because they exist?

Mary  Posted: 30/08/2006 15:23

And Adolf, I don't see how homosexuality is unnatural. Those things I mentioned culd be deemed unnatural becuase the human being would not do them in the wild. Of course, if men were designed to be with other men and women wiht other women, then we would have homosexuality. Oh wait a second - we do!

Adolf  Posted: 30/08/2006 15:00

Surly if men were designed to be with other men, or women to be with women, they would have both female and male sex organs, like some plant species. I dont see how sitting on a sofa, living in a house or wearing clothes is unatural? Looks like some of the pro gay lobbyists here have completely lost the plot!

LouthChick  Posted: 25/08/2006 13:35

As far as I know the answer is NO. Once HIV Tests comes up as negative before they get things 'together'. Things are ok. Unless of course they are with someone who is HIV positive and have unprotected sex.

Jack  Posted: 25/08/2006 03:22

i posted this ages ago under a differnt thread but got no response so ill post it here again. Could anyone tell me if 2 HIV negative men have sex, could they become HIV-Pos, what im really saying is, is that in itself enough to start the HIV virus. and why? is it becus of a mixing of bodily fluids or sumthing,and is it the same with hetro couples, like a hiv neg man and hiv neg woman... assuming that everyone is monogamus or virgins, or never had any exposure to potential Hiv infection, like say blood products or IV Drugs?

mimi  Posted: 24/08/2006 22:45

Just to say my brother came out about 5 years ago. He was then 32. And i still love him and think the world of him. Gay people are the nicest people you could meet. Before i knew about my own brother , some of my own friends are gay.

Aut2bHE  Posted: 24/08/2006 16:20

Anon wrote: All religions condemn homosexuality as wrong and sinful! Ah. No. There you'd be wrong. One word. Paganism. :)

Mary  Posted: 24/08/2006 12:10

No apology neccesssary Mario, I sort of guessed you were replying to Anon.

mario  Posted: 23/08/2006 19:07

Forgive me, my dear Mary. My retort was much, much to quick. I thought I was replying to Anon as I thought (hoped against hope) that he/she had responded to my reply in a positive light. For a while, it seemed to me that the world was indeed a much nicer place to be. But I have learned from my mistake and will not make the same one again. Apologies once more.

mario  Posted: 23/08/2006 16:40

Take solace in the knowledge that a cure for your narrow-mindedness may be upon you sooner than either of us had hoped. Two admissions in one day is fantastic progress. Thank you once again.

Mary  Posted: 23/08/2006 16:23

Ah Mario, if only there was a cure for narrow-mindedness. We would have half the worlds problems licked with one stroke.

mario  Posted: 23/08/2006 16:07

Thank you for admitting that you’re no theologian. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy thing for you to do. You say you’re ‘RIGHT THINKING’ and ‘REFUSE TO ACCEPT’ yet you claim that you’re NOT narrow-minded. Methinks you are confused, or perhaps merely uneducated. Being narrow-minded means that one is ‘rigid in one’s views and sympathies, not tolerant’. It is my duty, as a fellow human being, to alert you to the sad fact that ‘YOU ARE MOST DEFINITELY NARROW-MINDED’. I hope that one day you may be cured.

Mary  Posted: 23/08/2006 15:43

Anonymous, the story of "Adan and Eve" and "The garden of eden" was just that, a story, a parable, a fable, written is a book that has little bearing on reality, questioned background and certainly has no provable facts, scientific or otherwise. If it's an atempt to explain the notion of "original sin", it's done a very bad job of it. No one I have ever met has ever been able to explain how on earht an ainnocent nwly born child can somehow "inherit" sin like it's an genetic factor when they themselves have never done anything to harm or hurt anyone. I mean, todays newspaper probably has what's in store for my star sign today but I'd be very foolish to take a great deal of notice of it. Remember, ther ere billions of people in he world for whom the bible has no relevance or meaning whatsoever beyond simply being book like any other. And there are hundreds of thousands of people in the world for whom organised religion with its controlling theocracies, myths and hypocrisies mean nothing. As I said previously, the catholic Pope's opinions mean nothing to me. He is simply a man like any other. Still, you do not answer my questons why do you believe men are not designed physically to be with other men. Surely if soem men were not designed to be with other men, then they simply would not be homosexual - but they ARE. Similarly for homosexual women. Wearing clothes is not "natural", working in an ofice is not "natural", taking contraceptives is not "natural". Watching TV is not "natural". Having surgery is not "natural". Living in houses is not "natural". Sitting on sofas is not "natural", having MRI scans is not "natural" but we do these things to preserve or enhance our lives. "Culling the herd" - what an odd expression to use for human beings. It may surprise you but homosexual women do become mothers, Homosexual men do become fathers. Some heterosexual men and women do not have children, either out of choice or due to unfortunate fertility problems. Do you somehow consider this "cullign he herd" also? Youare not along in your uncarign attitude. Similarly there are people out there who don't care about the plight or many others who are discriminated against - be it homophobia, sexism, ageism or racism. But thankfully there are anti-discriminaiton laws to protect people now. Genuine right thinking people are not uneducated, narrow-minded or behind the times but those who are uneducated, narrow-minded and behind the times most certainly are NOT right-thinking. The phtrase "right-thinking" is rather amusing. It's a bit like the phrase "decent and upstanding". It can mean whatever people want it to mean. I'm sure phrases very similar to that were used in the past by peple who wished to discriminate against other of a different colour to the point of using it to justify slavery!

Anonymous  Posted: 23/08/2006 14:28

Mario, I'm no theologian but I think the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is an attempt to explain the concept of original sin through an innocent metaphorical story. If you choose to interpret it as somehow promoting or approving of incestuous behavior, well, sad as it seems, that’s your prerogative. All religions condemn homosexuality as wrong and sinful! The Pope described recently as it as an eclipse of God! Are they all wrong? Even if they are, men are not designed neither physically nor biologically to be with other men. How can homosexuality within a sexual reproductive species be considered natural, or in accordance with nature? Perhaps it’s one of nature’s ways of culling the herd so to speak? Personally I don’t care about the plight of the homosexual one way or the other. What annoys me is delusional, liberal, pseudo-intellectual morons who try to dismiss right thinking people as uneducated, narrow-minded and behind the times because they refuse to except pro gay rhetoric! So as you say, let’s agree to differ!

mario  Posted: 22/08/2006 14:20

I didn’t say there was proof that homosexuality was genetic no more than I said there was proof that heterosexuality was genetic. I said it was impossible to argue convincingly that homosexuality is ‘un-natural. I hope this clears up Anon’s misunderstanding? There will always be a ‘for’ and ‘against’ on this topic. But being ‘gay’ is much more than having sex with the same sex, just as being ‘straight’ is much more than having sex with the opposite sex. It is about caring, sharing and loving with a fellow human being. What makes that so sinful or wrong? Is it one’s belief in the teaching of the Bible? If so then one must surely believe that incestuous relationships are perfectly normal. After all, Seth (son of Adam and Eve) married his sister Azura and they had 3 children, Edna, Enosh and Noam (who married each other and gave birth to Cainan and Maualeleth who, in turn, married each other). Adam’s and Eve’s eldest son, Cain had a son, Enoch, to God knows who. Although incest and inbreeding was the order of the day poor Abel was murdered by his brother Cain before, it seems, he got a chance to partake in any of it. Wouldn’t it be great if we could all agree? But that would depend on what we were agreeing on, wouldn’t it? So let’s agree to differ!

LouthChick  Posted: 22/08/2006 11:26

I realise that there are many unfortunates who have to put up with Anons stubborn ways, I empathise with them! Ignorance is Bliss for Anon as he just 'sticks' his head in the sand.. He refuses to accept any change, very conservative. Now is using the 'scientific route' I knew he would. I did wonder how long it would take, people like him always take the science 'route'...

Mary  Posted: 22/08/2006 11:12

Oh Louthchick, his ignorance is far from bliss, especially for the poor unfortunate people who have to put up with it.

LouthChick  Posted: 22/08/2006 10:22

Anon, people like you live for 'facts' especially 'scientific' ones etc. Knowledge as in 'life knowledge'. Which you do not have. Ignorance is bliss, especially in YOUR case. It's a waste of time, people like yourself are stuck in a time warp.

Mary  Posted: 22/08/2006 10:20

Anonymous. Very few reputable scientist based burely on fact rather than superstitious personal belief disregard evolution on the basis of no substantiated evidence. Tell me, if you don't believe it, how do you sppose we actually come to be here - do you imagine that aliens dropped us off? That aside, how does it fit in wit your ever more bizarre ideas on homosexualiy and it does not explain why you have repatedly refused to answer any quesitosn put to you in this discussion. Your lack or response leads me to only one conclusion - you do not in fact have an answer.

Anonymous  Posted: 22/08/2006 09:28

No Mary I don’t think evolution is a theory, evolution is a theory. That’s a fact! Yes some scientists continue to peruse this theory but many others disregard it on the basis of no substantiated evidence. Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Kitts, David B. [Professor of Geology, University of Oklahoma], "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p.467) ".. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition. Are these not reputable scientific bodies? If the theory of evolution was fact surly palaeontologists could support it! In fact the opposite is true. The more facts uncovered by palaeontologists, the more cracks appear in the theory of evolution!

Mary  Posted: 21/08/2006 17:00

That homosexuality is inherent, genetic and unchangeable is no longer a theory but scientifically undisputed. Do you really think evolution is only a theory rather than factual???? That truely says even more about you. Evolution has bene accepted by every reputable sciendtific body in the world. I am glad to hear you realise that beliefs are not fact and you are not tryign to pass off your ideas as such.

Anonymous  Posted: 21/08/2006 15:52

Mario, many people now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception. The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Funny how "theorys" about gay pengins, insects, monkeys etc are all promoted by these same groups! Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? I dont know but I know there is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And whats more none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain "researchers" do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. Do some people realy believe the earth is flat? I seriously doubt it! As for evolution! Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Your right about one thing though, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but beliefs are not fact nor should they be passed off as such!

Mary  Posted: 21/08/2006 13:02

Again and I mist have asked this a dozen times, why do you think the nature-given state homosexuality is morally or biologically wrong? Is the reason you don't answer becuase you know you have NO logical answer? Gernerally gays call people by their name. But of course you don't even have the decency to provide yourself with name in this discussion. As for "normal". I don't see anything normal about bigotry, bias, hatred. homophobia or discriminaton. For those whom I have offended by using the term gay or straight I apologise and will use the terms homosexual or heterosexual in future. Incidentally Anon, does the word 'gay' mean that heterosexual people are somehow unhappy? Of course it doesn't. You are talking utter nonsese yet again.

mario  Posted: 21/08/2006 11:18

It is with a heavy heart that I read some of the postings on this thread. The bitter, twisted and hate-filled comments by some leave me weary. But although I am sad, I am not surprised. Even today there is still discrimination against black people because of the colour of their skin. How much more discrimination there must be then towards someone whose sexuality goes against the ‘norm’ of society. Perhaps because it makes us question our own? But normal and natural are not always the same things. Normal is conforming to what is standard or usual. Natural is in accordance with nature. Out of 2000 or so species whose sex acts have been studied in detail, same sex pairings are found in more than 450. And same sex pairings are found in virtually every human social group so it is essentially impossible to argue convincingly that such a wide-spread behaviour is ‘un-natural’. But argue we will! All the major professional medical, psychiatric and psychological bodies in the western world now accept that being gay is as natural as being left handed. Whilst there are more straight people than gay guys, just as there are more right-handed people than left-handed, both are quite natural in humans. But in spite of all the logical, scientific and rational explanations there are a lot of people who think being gay is a choice, is un-natural or is a sin. But then there are also people who think the earth is flat and that evolution never happened because God created the world as it is now. In that instance we’re dealing with ‘belief’ and everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But ‘belief’ is a choice being homosexual or heterosexual isn’t!

Anonymous  Posted: 21/08/2006 09:31

Knowledge is power, wow, what an insite! Do you know about the mating habits of the lesser finned guippy fish? Not so powerful so! Knowledge is what it is! Knowledge! Without understanding its not applicable. You dont need to sleep with dogs to know you'll wake up with flees! I dont need to know anything more about homosexuality than I do about beastiality to know its moraly, biologicaly, and physiologiclly wrong! No man is designed in any make shape or form to be with another man! Mary whats this "straight" rubbish! Isn't this what gays call normal people? Does that make them bent? A subtle recognition that there is somthing wrong with them perhaps?

LouthChick  Posted: 18/08/2006 16:52

Mary, Anon really knows nothing about homosexuality. If he did he wouldn't post the rubbish he does. Knowledge is power Mary.And Aanon lacks that knowledge. Anons comment ''Both are the result of disturbed, misguided sexual desires'' is enough. I have so many Gay friens as I have said here before. None of them were 'ever' interested in women, only men. Some of them have been in relationships for a very long time. Just let Anon keep is head stuck in the sand, it's more convienent for him to do so.

Mary  Posted: 18/08/2006 14:50

Anonymous, I believe you are neither to be pitied nor laughed at as it is influences and the perpetuation of highly dangerous myths and blatant lies in the face of scientific evidence which makes the kind of nonsense you spout highly damaging indeed. Again why do ou persist in spouting this rubbish when you are not prepared to answer questiosn whiuh have been repeatedly asked of you. Now why do you think homosexuality is depraved? There is nothing either disturbed or misguided about gay men or women. It is simply the way nature (or God) made them. Both are the result of disturbed, misguided sexual desires. Straight Men are designed to be with women, just as straight women are designed to be with men. Straight Men are not designed to be with men obviously but gay men are destined to be with other gay menjust as gay women are meant to be with other gay women It may be convienient for people like you to attempt to fool yourself into believing that otherwise. hy is that? Is there something you are not admitting - even to yourself?

Anonymous  Posted: 18/08/2006 12:44

Mary if you cannot see the difference, you are more to be pitied than laughed at! I admit there is a difference between homosexuality and beastiality, but only in the relative depth of the depravity they reach. Both are the result of disturbed, misguided sexual desires. Men are designed to be with women, just as women are designed to be with men. Men are not designed to be with men etc., to state the obvious! It may be convienient for some homosexuals to attempt to fool themselves into believing that homosexuality is natural for them.

Mary  Posted: 18/08/2006 10:46

Anon, before you go on to continue to insult people, I will ask again to explain why you think that homosexuality is any moe vile or distorted than heterosexuality. Why don't you answer the questions put to you? There really is no point in you continuing to spout the rubbish we have heard so far unless you attempt to engage in meaningful discussion. Sexuality be it heterosexuality or homosexuality - both are natural, loving and and nature given (or God given if you prefer). Could you also please explain what connection in this wide earthly world any same person could make between homosexulity and bestiality. There is absolutely no comaprison between the two in any normal persons mind. And in that alone, the only person distorting the truth is you. I

Anonymous  Posted: 18/08/2006 09:08

To attempt to make comparisons between the natural,loving, God given gift of sexuality between man and women and the vile distortion of homosexuality or any other l acts such as beastiality, is almost as great a distortion of truth as is the act itself. I bare no hatred towards homosexuals. Apathy maybe. Nor am I a bigot. Bias, yes! Bias toward decent human beings living in a decent society.

Mary  Posted: 18/08/2006 08:26

The sad thing is LouthChick, if Anon had a son or daughter who was they they would never tell him and so he would never fully get to know his own child. Now that's sad.

EuropeanGreen  Posted: 18/08/2006 00:19

Em, Anons: how dare you say it is a choice and a deliberate one at that. What an idiot this latest anon is. For anyone to think sexuality is a choice is seriously deluded. People do not control their lives. They may think they do but they are heavily acted out by their irrational selves and the strings that society has pulling them due to their upbringing. Yet sexuality is something we can't be influenced on or change. We live in an environment, we find ourselves attracted to one or more sexes and that's that. That there is such a huge gay population - born out by Kinsey's stats among other things - is a test of the non-autonomous nature of sexual attraction. So many gay men and women go towards what their bodies say is right for them despite the abuse from idiots and contemptible fools. And this happens even when those same idiots engender an internal homophobia in gay individuals. This can be almost impossible to get over so the fact that we do is a highly significant for the truth that sexuality is determined involuntarily. Do you idiots actually believe you could choose to be attracted by men/women if you're really attracted to women/men? What utter nonsense.

LouthChick  Posted: 17/08/2006 17:13

Anon I find your opinions truly shocking + from the 'dark ages'. If you had a son/daughter who told you they were gay, Would you disown them as you feel it is an 'unclean choice'!?!?! We as a society have moved on thank God. You however Anon will not.

Mary  Posted: 17/08/2006 16:47

Anonymous it is you who have a gross misunderstand of the facts and seek to perpetuate myths. there is strong scientific evidence which suggests that homosexuality, like heterosexuality is genetic. It is is your genes. It is the way you are made. Like being brownskinned or long-legged. Homosexuality is a result of a genetic characteristic. o-one chooses to be gay any moe than hey choose to be straight. Did you choose to be stright? I didn't - it was the way I was made. I am natually attracted to men. Gay women are naturally attracted to women. First you say sexuality is not genetic and then you say it is a bilogical norm? Which is it? You sound a little confused in our thinking to me? Good grief that is the most hiliarious suggestion yet. I know loads of straiht women and indeed men who have become disenchanted dishearted and downright browned-off with the opposite sex. That does not make them gay. An di know one or two gay men who have become disheartened with the same sex - that does not make them heterosexual. I know nothign on your viws of the God you belive in but both forms of sexuality are good and nature-given. Both gay and stright relationships can become twirsted and perverse I'm sure if they become abusive or unloving. Can you explain please and I must have askjed this about a dozen time but you refuse to answer - why you consider homosexuality to be "deviant ways". I have also asked ou why you think it is perverse. Before you decide to spout anyu more unproven bigoted nonsense could you please answer those questions? "Unclean", the only way I could consider sex to be unclan is if someone perhaps made love in the mud. That would make them very dirty indeed. Most unhygenic I would think. How on eart dos homosexuality or indeed heterosexuality 'defile' the hguman body. I think think of los of things which defile a person. Dangerous drugs, excess alcohol, unhealthy food, tobacco perhaps. I can think of a couple of things which defile the mind also - hatred, bigotry, close-mindedness, bias and discrimination to name but a few.

Anonymous  Posted: 17/08/2006 15:02

I believe homosexuality is not an innate characteristic. No one is born with it. When some social engineers say, "They can't help being that way," they have a gross misunderstanding of the situation. I believe it is a myth which cannot be supported by the facts. Homosexuality results from a choice or a series of choices. The biological norm is heterosexuality. If a person becomes disenchanted with the opposite sex and goes elsewhere for sexual activity, it is a deliberate and conscious choice. There are many ways to twist and pervert the good, God-given way of sexuality. In each case where one of those deviant ways is practiced, it is a conscious choice to do so. The choice to enter into perversion is an unclean choice. It defiles the human body. You have a responsibility before God to care for your body properly and to use your body properly. It is the house you live in, and you should not do that which mars it or harms it.

louthchick  Posted: 20/07/2006 17:54

Actually Anon my comment was to YOU 'due to your lack of knowledge and possibly compassion.' But your memory is selective. I do agree with one thing though anon, people with a different view, A nasty view.. people like yourself are ignorant, small minded and uneducated.. Uneducated being the biggest offender Anon.......... Maybe it's best keeping your opinions to yourself. I pity your kids or grankids due to YOUR lack of understanding and compassion..

Mary  Posted: 20/07/2006 17:10

Anonymous, why do you think it is indefensible? It is in fact your position which is indefensible. I do NOT know, inherently that their actions and behaviours are wrong. Quite the opposite in fact. I see nothing wrong in it at all, any more than I see anything wrong wiht heterosexual relationships. There are NO afflictions - except in your own mind. In fact, I think it is your attitude which is an affliction. It is your own attitude which is Sad. Truely very sad in this instance. No not everybody with a different view is uneducated, ignorant, small minded etc. But a view which is homophobic, sexist, racist or bigoted in any other way, is uneducated, ignorant, small minded. No, I do NOT know instinctively or otherwise that homosexual or indeed heterosexual actions are wrong. I am fooling nobody. Perhaps it is you who are fooling yourself Homosexuality is no more a burden than heterosexuality, beign tall, having freckles, being a man or being white.

SL  Posted: 20/07/2006 17:01

I don't recall louthchick saying homosexuals deserved compassion. Once again you are ignoring our questions. Why are you even bothering posting on this thread if you are not prepared to debate the topic? This is a discussion board, not a board for you to vent your hate filled crap on. Until you are prepared to actually debate the topic at hand you should probably refrain from posting here as you're just making a fool of yourself. No wonder you're anon!!!

Anonymous  Posted: 20/07/2006 15:32

Amazing how all pro-homosexual people scurry to try and defend the indefensible. They all inherently know their actions and behaviours are wrong but because they dont understand their afflictions they feel compelled to defend it by attempting to ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. Sad. Very sad. Everybody with a different view is uneducated, ignorant, small minded etc! Yet you all instinctivly know your homosexual actions are wrong! You cant fool yourselves! Louthchick you are right about one thing, homosexuals, perhaps do deserve our compassion. We should feel sorry for anyone who carries such a burden.

Mary  Posted: 20/07/2006 14:18

Heterosexual Men and women are designed, physicialy,(the physical and biological are the same thing surely?)and emotionaly to be with each other, yes. And gay men ae designed to be with other gay men, just as lesbian women are designed to be with other lesbain women. That is how they are made - that is how nature designed them. I asume that gay coupoles, both male and female relate to one another just as those in heterosexual couples do. If nature had not designed it that way - it would not be so. You say women are not designed to be with women on any level. Well I am a straight female and I am with women on the level of friendship, on the level of collagues and on the level of confidantes and so, I imagine is pratically every other women in the world.

louthchick  Posted: 20/07/2006 13:51

No one here is talking about God or Nature.. Forget about Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve!!! Who cares... Who cares about Design of our bodies Anon???? You mention 'Disfunction' Anon, To say that to any Human Being regardless of what or who they are is completly wrong + insulting. They are not hurting anyone. Your own mind has plenty of 'disfunctions'.... You are too 'old school'........

SL  Posted: 20/07/2006 13:47

Anon why won't you answer anyones questions? So far I've asked you something, Mary has asked you something and Stephen has asked you something. Why do you keep avoiding these questions and keep regurgitating the same speech about how it's not how God or nature intended or blah blah? Are you avoiding the questions because you simply don't know why you're so hate filled? Obviously another brainwashed member of that cult "The Catholic Church". What would you do if one of your children told you they were gay? I have the number of a very good psychotherapist if you want it.

louthchick  Posted: 20/07/2006 13:01

Hello all, Listen, The fact that Anon thinks that only 'Lust' comes into same sex reltionships shows just how little Anon really knows about them!!!! My own dad is 61 and accepts the changes around him, and sees no problem with Gay couples at all. Whats wrong with it Anon?? Not one thing, It is Anon that has the problems!!! I have an awful lot of Gay friends & the majority of them are in very long term relationships... They are used to hearing the 'uneducated comments' & 'snide remarks' & a lot more from people like Anon!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous  Posted: 20/07/2006 08:41

Men and women are designed, physicialy, biologicaly and emotionaly to be with eachother. That is how we are made and that is how God/Nature intended it. Deviation from this is a disfunction. Men are not designed to be with men, just as women designed to be with women on any level.

Billy (StephenLongmore)  Posted: 19/07/2006 17:02

"Misguided lust between same sex couples is not love nor does it serve any purpose other than perhaps some sort of perverted, distorted gratification, to its victim." Firstly anon, if you're not gay how do you know this? Are you some sort of psychic who is able to 'tune' into the thoughts and fellings of others? Or have YOU not experienced 'love' in a same sex relationship but only lust. Secondly how are 2 consenting adults 'victims'?

Mary  Posted: 19/07/2006 15:44

Oh Anon, I am not anyone's champion. I speak honestly and in as forthright a manner as I can. I was the under 12 sprinting champion in the primary school tho' - does that count?? Has it even crossed your mind that the rubbish you continue to spue dosen't warrant being dignified by a response? This is EXACTLY what most right-thinking non-homophobics would say to you but to me hatred against other human beings warrants a response in defence and cannot go uncommented. Your response makes it quite clear that you yourself cannot see what is "wrong" (in your own mind) with same sex relationships in order for you to explain your nonsensical theories to anyone. Clearly they are a product of eiher theocratic influence or your upbringing or schooling. This gives credence to the fact that the problems you see are not in fact mine at all but are a lot closer to you than you dare admit and indeed may be far deeper than they appear also. You have also not explained why you think that the love in a same sex relationship is lust. I ask again, do you have any evidence for this? Have you asked those in same sex relationships? It quite plainly serves many of the same purposes as love in opposite sex relationship and anonymous if you do not know what purpose love serves in your life I feel sorry for you. Genuinely I do as it would seem that your problems are a lot deeper than the hatred, fear and bigotry involved in homophobia. Paediophiles HURT children. No sane person would dispute that. So now you think that the way a person is made justifies killing them. Now truely that is evidence for who has a sick twisted distorted view of the world. Slave owners in the 1700 and 1800's thought the same about black people. Hitler thought that about many Polish people. Thankfully as a society the vast majority of us have grown up and moved on from that dark ages mentality "Even if they claim their sexuality is only a small part of them and there is much more to them as a person. Who cares!" Anonymous - They CARE, their families CARE, their friends care, I care and thousands of other decent human beings also CARE. I ask AGAIN (is there an echo in here?) why do you believe acts of love between two consenting adults are depraved?

Mary  Posted: 19/07/2006 15:14

I am not champion of anyone anon, I just speak openly and honestly. "Has it even crossed your mind that the rubbish you continue to spew doesn't warrant been dignified by a response?" That's exactly what I would say to you as would most right minded people exept I feel that hate-filled and vitriolic response must be commented upon in defence. Afterall if it is hatred of gays today, it may be women or men tomorrow and perhaps white or black people after that? Perhaps you also cannot see what is wrong with same sex relationships, and therefore are unable to explain becuase perhaps your prejudice comes not from true perception but from the bigotry of a theorcratic ideology, your upbringing or schooling Indeed the problems may be far deeper and an awful lot closer to you than you dare to dmit, even to ourself than they appear. I I ask again, why do you think it is lust between same sex couples rather than love - have you asked them? Why is it any of your business? If you feel that love dos not serve any purpose in your ,life then I feel sorry for you, I truely do. You are missing out of so much in life. I ask again (is there an echo in here) how is love between two consenting adults perverted? So now you believe that poeple should be killed because of the way they are made. Slave owners of the 1700 and 1800's thought that about black poeple too becuase it suited teir agenda and Hitler thought that about many Polish people but thankfull the vast majority odf society have moved on and grown up from that dark ages mentality. "if they claim their sexuality is only a small part of them and there is much more to them as a person. Who cares!" WAKE UP. They care, their familes care, theoir friends care, their collegues possibly care, I care and the vast majority of decent society cares.

fifi  Posted: 19/07/2006 10:12

To The big brave ANON poster..firstly you are a coward for staying anon.. easy write hate filled posts when no one knows who you are. Secondly.. Mary, unlike you is an intelligent and open minded lady. Her posts are welcomed looked up to & she is respected on this fantastic site. I wont even go into an argy bargy with you because frankly you arent worth it. The likes of you will never understand anything outside your narrow little world. I feel sorry for you, I really do. It must be horrible to live your life being nasty and bitter & ignorant.

louthchick  Posted: 18/07/2006 17:48

Yes SL, Possibly 'In the closet' as they say.. LOL.

Mary  Posted: 18/07/2006 17:10

Good point SL many homophobes are either insecure in their own sexuality of are closet homosexuals denying that aspect of temselvs. Have you considered counsellign Anon, if for no other reason but to deal with your anger and hostility. In terms of psychological health, that cannot be healthy.

louthchick  Posted: 18/07/2006 17:05

Anonymous Posted: 18/07/2006 15:00. Do you ever think outside your BOX???? Anonymous and it is best you just stay that way!! Ah The saying 'Ignorance is bliss' comes to mind and you are most definatly ignorant. I pray that if you have or already have children they are not Gay as you seem to despise Gay people, due to your lack of knowledge and possibly compassion. Being Gay makes no man a paedophile. you my friend are the one who come accross as 'pathetic' no one else here, but you being ignorant and so small minded will think otherwise.... It's best you stay in your own bubble....

SL  Posted: 18/07/2006 16:51

You know anon, most of the people I have met who come out with crap like that have actually turned out homosexual themselves. Are you denying yourself something?

Anonymous  Posted: 18/07/2006 15:00

So Mary, the champion of the homosexual. Has it even crossed your mind that the rubbish you continue to spue dosen't warrant been dignified by a response? If you cannot see what is wrong with same sex relationships, well my dear far be it from me to try and explain. Your problems may be far deeper than they appear. Liberalism can be a good thing to a point but you have to draw the line somewhere. Misguided lust between same sex couples is not love nor does it serve any purpose other than perhaps some sort of perverted, distorted gratification, to its victim. Paediophiles claim they love children but nobody buys that crap either. If ever their was justification for the death penalty, thats it! Even if they claim their sexuality is only a small part of them and there is much more to them as a person. Who cares! To attempt to give some sort of credibility to this or any other sexually depraved act is pathetic!

Mary  Posted: 18/07/2006 12:24

Gosh no, SL, it was an honest question. You see I've never understood homophobia. I have never understood what brings someone to hate or fear or make those kinds of comments about another himan bein based on whom they love or the way they are made. To me it makes as little sense as hating or fearing someone becuase they have freckles

SL  Posted: 18/07/2006 10:47

Hi Mary, I hope you don't think I was prying when asking about your sexuality. I just find it refreshing that a hetrosexual would make the effort to not only post on this thread but actually debate the topic with the homophobic posters. Hi fifi, no I won't leave this particular topic. The stress levels were very high last week and when I saw the bull that our anon friend had written the memories of my own struggle regarding acceptance of myself came to mind. I'm nice and calm today though.

fifi  Posted: 14/07/2006 13:22

SL.. hello... may I ask you not to give up visiting this site or indeed this thread. I enjoy your posts and find them intelligent open minded & frank regardless of topic. Do not allow the very few ignorant homophobic folk who give their spiel on this site to stop you from coming on here & doing what you do so well... most educated & fine people accept us. Pity the likes of Anon, and hope that maybe some day they find the strength needed to open their minds & hearts. These people are scared of ANYTHING different not just homosexuality.

Mary  Posted: 14/07/2006 12:48

No, SL, I'm not gay as it happens but for me, my sexuality is not important from the point of view of this discussion. As you mention, your being homosexual (or me being straight for that matter) is only a very small part of the person.

SL  Posted: 14/07/2006 11:40

Mary you are like a breath of fresh air on this discussion. I really love reading your posts. And if I remember correctly you aren't gay are you? To anon, for years I struggled to accept the fact I was gay mainly due to people like yourself and Razor. I grew up in a very rough area. I turned to drink and drugs to try to escape from how I was. I tried everything I could to convince myself I wasn't gay, that it was just a phase. The hardest thing I ever had to do was tell my parents. My parents are both very religious and I felt it would destroy them. While they took it hard at first, they came to realise that I am the same person I have always been, I was their son whom they loved dearly and still love. My homosexuality is a very small part of me. I work in a very good job, and am well educated. I still study. I am no different to anyone else with the exception that I like men. That does not make me sick or twisted or depraved like you say. I am now in a loving relationship with such a sweet man. I've never been happier with my life. I'll simply going to stop viewing this thread as I have worked hard through counselling to accept me for me and I refuse to let any of you homophobes to bring me down.

fifi  Posted: 14/07/2006 11:13

"the idea has made homosexuals daring and outspoken of their unnatural acts .They have come to regard their misdirected lust, (not love between two consenting adults as some distorted views would have people believe), as morally acceptable"........ Anon.. it is evident how narrow minded & ignorant you really are by your above quote. You must have been brought up like many others in a house instilled with fear by the catholic church. You have no idea how gay people feel or live their lives for that matter. How can you say they feel only lust? How would you know? You obviously do not mix with these people. You know nothing but ignorance and the fear it brings. I am a gay woman. I (like the majority of gay people) am well educated, kind, sensitive, engaging, witty, sympathetic, loving.. all of the above & so much more. Does it matter if the person I love happens to be of the same gender as myself? No it doesnt. For me, its natural. In fact, I could think of nothing more natural for me. My partner & I live our lives. we have loads of hetrosexual friends. I came out when I was 14 & those who didnt like it could lump it. They werent important to me anyway & were normally the kind of people I wouldnt associate with even if I was hetrosexual. We dont go around shouting from the rooftops. Yes, there are parades.. which personally I think are pointless.. but the gay people who march in them & blow their whistles are merely trying to tell the likes of you that yes we really do exist.. we are real.. we are human.. & we are not going to go away . so live with it!

Mary  Posted: 14/07/2006 09:29

Once again to correct anonymous who does not seem to be reading the posts - homosexuality is not an act - it is a state of being, like heterosexuality. Second there is no stigma or accountability attached homosexuality any more than there is to heterosexuality, except in your own mind. I ask you again and agian and again, but you cannot seem to give me any answer - what do you believe to be unnatural about two consenting adults partners, who love one another expressing their love for each other in physical way. To me that is no more daring and outspoken than heterosexuals. In fact, many gay men and women are less outspoken than heterosexuals. How do you know that what every gay couple feels is lust rather than love. Have you asked them all? Becuase if you haven't then there is no way you could possibly know. Also how do you know it's misdirected? Have you asked them that also? If so, while you're at it, why don't you ask every heterosexual couple whehter they are in lust or love and whether they feel it's misdirected or not? Interestingly tho' - why is it that you feel the worlds love life is your business?

Anonymous  Posted: 13/07/2006 12:32

Man's or woman's gratification of his sexual appetite with the same sex has a long history of its own. Recent studies and consequent theories regarding the depraved act of homosexuality lend to convey a blurred conception of the biological disturbances as well as some environmental factors are even tendered at times as mitigating circumstances to reducing the stigma and accountability attached homosexuality. However true this may be, the idea has made homosexuals daring and outspoken of their unnatural acts .They have come to regard their misdirected lust, (not love between two consenting adults as some distorted views would have people believe), as morally acceptable! What next!

Mary  Posted: 12/07/2006 12:46

Anonymous. I believe that bstiality is wrong becuase, frst of all it hurts animals and second of course, animals are not capable of giving consent. Just as paedophilia, for example hurts children, thoae already weaker and more vulnerable and children are also unable to give meaningful consent Can you explain why you think the only natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the only natural sex partner for a woman is a man? If you are a heterosexual man, then of course a women feels like a natural sex partner for you but if you were a homosexiual man, then it would not feel natural to you at all to have a women s a sexual partner but would feel perfctly natural to you to have a male in that role. I do not see homosexuality as unnatural any more than heterosexuality and therefore it cannot be either wrong or unethical. Certainly, murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse amonf other things are unaccceptable as they hurt other people but how does being gay or straight hurt other people? It does not. How does expressing your love in physical way for your consenting adult partner, hurt other people? It does not.

Anonymous  Posted: 12/07/2006 12:25

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

fifi  Posted: 03/07/2006 10:06

Mary once more you have shown yourself to be an educated, open minded & eloquent human being. Thank you.

Mary  Posted: 30/06/2006 15:56

Anon 11.51 have never heard such utter tosh in all my life. fornication (by which I assume, you refer to infidelity) harms other people - i.e. your partner. bestiality harms other creaturs also. paediophilia, quite obviously harms children. Similarly, rape harms rape victims. Domestic abuse harms abuse victims and political corruption harms the electorate. Certainly bestiality, paediophilia, rape, Domestic abuse, political corruption and other acts of gross immorality, such as hatred and biigotry cannot be condoned in a civilized society. I don't presume to judge infidelity tho' for me PERSONALLY it is wrong. Homesexuality is niether justifaiable nor unjustifiable any more than heterosexuality is either justifiable or unjustifiable - it simply exits - like being black-skinned, big-boned or large-nosed. Can you tell me precisely what you think is "unnatural" about two consenting adults expressing their love for each other. Factually speaking, homosexualITY is not aN act but a state of being - as distincT from "homosexual ACTS". The fact may have escaped ou but we, all of us, are made up of our biology and psychology from out genetic base, influenced by environmental factors. That is the essence of our existence. it is how we as human beings have evolved. Modern studies and theories regarding homosexuality are by no means definie but what they convey is far from blurred and no mention of "biological disturbances" has bene infered c=since circa 1950. There is NO the stigma and their is NO blame except in the eyes of those who imagine there is. Sitignbeside me is a colleague who is black-skinnd and on the other side is another collague who is femal. Should I "blame" them for being black or being female. Becuase remember, itn wasn't very long ago that being either was considered inferior to being white and being male and this as used as justification in many "echelons" of society for perpetrating the most awful human rights excuses. Thankfully as a society, we have (most of us) realised out mistakes, moved on and grown up. As I said before, factually there is no "act of homosexuality". There is homosexuality as a state of being like heterosexuality and no more "immoral" than heterosexuality and there are "homosexual acts"

Anonymous  Posted: 30/06/2006 11:51

Just as fornication, beastiality, paediophilia and other acts of grose immorality cannot be condoned for any reason in any civilized society, neither can there be any justification for the unnatural act of homosexuality, regardless of any biological, psychological or environmental factors which may influence a person. Modern studies and many consequent theories regarding homosexuality, convey a blurred conception of the biological disturbances as well as some environmental factors that are even tendered as mitigating circumstances to reduce the stigma and the blame for the immoral act of homosexuality.

Mary  Posted: 30/06/2006 10:48

Fifi, you may not realise it, but the homophobes who talk about anal sex being anythign from the preserve of gay men to it being evil / wrong etc etc, are probably the very last people who would be watching pornography of any kind, gay, straight or otherwise.

fifi  Posted: 30/06/2006 10:33

Razor.. Im hip hop over the moon that you wont be visiting this site again. Your homophobic rantings were beginning to bore us. To Anon.. anal sex is not limited to gay men.. eh..hello.. watch straight porn.. put a glass up against your neighbours walls.. straight people do it too. Also.. and your comment just shows your ignorance - Aids is more likely to be spread by straight people or bi-sexual people who do not practise safe sex. It is also rife in the drug community. In fact, like mary said, if anything.. gay men are more aware and more cautious and therefore more likely to avoid getting this disease. Im delighted to say the homophobes are outnumbered on this thread. Educate yourselves please. Ignorance is fear.

Mary  Posted: 30/06/2006 08:52

Anonymous 9.09, "Just because certain individuals experience sexual desires towards members of the same sex, because "something went wrong somewhere", does not at all mean that they should engage in homosexual behavior or that their behavior be accepted without question or search for a solution" Tell me, what is is that you believe "went wrong somewhere". How about if I said to you Just because you experience sexual desires towards members of the opposite sex, does not at all mean that they should engage in heterosexual behavior. - How would you feel about that. As for your statement "that their behavior be accepted without question or search for a solution". The "search for a solution" to something tha's not actually a problem has alreadt been tried all overcertain states in the U.S. in the 1950's and not onloy proved your theory to be deluded and unfounded, as it did not work but produced a lot of bitterly bitterly unhappy people. Tell me, could you, as a heterosexual, be "solved" in order to make you attracted to the same sex? Of course not, it's just not the way you're made. Why then do you expect that gay men or women can be "solved" in order to make them attracted to the opposite sex. Incidentally, may of the gay men I know and some gay women felt they were different to others (but could not put their finger on it at the time) at 5 and 6 years or age, long before the pre-pubescent period. I don't by the way, believe that the 'crushes' many girls (and perhaps boys) go thru on older members of the same sex, at puberty inneccessarily the same thing as, or always indicative of homosexuality. Penile-vaginal sex can also cause bleeding which can allow for easy transmission of HIV. Therefor,e it is imperative for anyone who is not in a secure meomogamous relationship, to practise safe sex. This may surprise you but heterosexuals also, quite safely, many of them, practice anal sex and there are many gay men who do not practise it at all prefering othr sexual practises. The greater the number of sexual partners for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, the greater the risk. To be gay or straight or bi- for that matter are not abberatiosn of the human conditon, but rather, part of it.

David  Posted: 30/06/2006 07:33

Come to think of it. If some people consider that apart from urinating, the only use the penis can have is to penetrate a vagina, for or not the purpose of reproduction...surely, then, fellatio could be considered 'unnatural'. After all, I would guess that there are no other creatures in the animal kingdom who perform should be evil, even. The bible has loads to say on it, I have no doubt...but I'm reading something more gripping at the moment.

David  Posted: 29/06/2006 18:09

So many 'anonymous' postings here. Who can define 'natural'? As one posting suggested, it is not necessarily 'natural' for humans to spend hours sitting down. It is not necessarily 'natural' for us to fly. Or to spend hours underwater. Or to leave the planet altogether. I suppose there are studies out there indicating that many other animals and species have homosexuality within their ranks. Male sea horses give birth to the sea horse babies. Is that 'natural' in human terms? A baby is born with Downs' Syndrome. Is that 'natural'? A baby is born with a penis but also a vagina. Is that 'natural'? It doesn't matter, really, does it. Because they are humans. Reducing the issue to the mere word 'natural' is rather silly, surely. Our bodies function as the result of chemical and biological reactions. How those reactions work in each individual is, surely, 'natural'. Humans have, perhaps, the most complex brains of all creatures on the planet. And our brains, it would seem, keep on evolving into better and more productive(debatable, perhaps) organs. I wasn't really sure what I was until I was 26. Perhaps it was also a question of not wanting to be sure. I am 32 now and very happily out. It is totally 'natural' for me to find a 'chemical' attraction exclusively to other men. Anal sex. Well, almost every single straight porn film involves anal sex between the man and the woman. In almost every scene too. Does that not, perhaps, indicate that anal sex is an underlying (or at least very popular) male sexual fantasy/desire? And, as has been mentioned already, there are very many gay sexual encounters and relationships which do not involve anal sex. Somewhat fortunately for the male of the species, we can get off rather easily in a variety of other ways! I live in Belgium, where gay people can marry. And where - as far as I can see - most of the people are totally relaxed about that. It is just a little depressing to see the tirades, rants and inaccurate philosophising here. It is also somewhat curious that straight men would spend time on the Internet posting such stuff. I suppose it is only their prayers that keep them sane.

Anonymous  Posted: 29/06/2006 09:09

Homosexuality is proven to be a learned behavior according to experiments with clinical cases of intersexuality. At puberty, the individuals in question were "generally attracted to the sex opposite to their sex of rearing. This suggests that sexual orientation is primarily established in post natal experiences (Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 27, 247) Just because certain individuals experience sexual desires towards members of the same sex, because something went wrong somewhere, does not at all mean that they should engage in homosexual behavior or that their behavior be accepted without question or search for a solution. "There are specific behaviors that place people at a high risk for Aids. The first is anal sex which can cause rectal bleeding and thereby allow easy transmission of HIV. This practice is therefore extremely dangerous and, of course, the greater the number of sexual partners, the greater the risk. Anal sex is commonly practiced by Gay males in some cases with many sexual partners. For this reason about two thirds of persons with Aids are homosexual or bi-sexual males (Macionis 545)." The above statistic of two thirds shows the trend in the spread of Aids a few years after it was recognized as a threat (1987). Now the pattern may have changed due to the initial wide scale spread of Aids which the above statistic suggests was directly or indirectly the result of homosexual behavior among men.

Mary  Posted: 27/06/2006 18:06

Adam and Steve? Are they a gay couple you know? The spread of aids is far far higher among heteosexulas with multiple partners who do not use safe sex precutions. Condoms, fidelity and education halt the spread of AIDS, not homophobia. Incidentally, epidemologicall,y lesbians are tHe least likely to transmit HIV, does that mean hey are less "pathetic" than heterosexual women, gay men or heterosexual men? The diference with dementia sufferers is hat it is medically defined. Tell me, have you yet found a scientific definition of "sin". Of course not - it is entirely subjective. Incidentally a bigot does not believe they are bigotted either. They just think every one else is deluding themselves! You always know when a person feels they are losing in any discussion. Either by their menthod of retreat or their method of insult.

Razor  Posted: 27/06/2006 11:59

No Mary, I don’t think so? People with Down syndrome are human beings not some sort of hybrid, nor are they part of any evolutionary process. In sexually reproductive animals, chromosomes are matched in pairs. Humans have 23 pairs, apes 24 pairs, goats 60 pairs etc. Half from the male and half from the female. No Adam and Steve bullshit here! If genetic mutilations occur the effect is generally fatal. In the case of Down syndrome, chromosome 21 has an extra critical portion. This is a mutilation of half of one pair of chromosomes. There is still the same number of pairs i.e. 23, its just one of the pairs an extra xx or xy portion! However this is just one of many barriers to the evolving of a new species! I outlined why I think homosexuality is pathetic, and I didn’t even mention the spread of killer diseases like AIDS! If you think masculinity is pathetic I suggest you do likewise! La la, of course you don’t believe in sin or evil! Dementia sufferers don’t believe they are demented either! However dont bother to reply to this posting, if it even gets posted, as I won’t be visiting this site again.

Mary  Posted: 26/06/2006 10:06

Razor, So, far as I am aware, people with Down's syndrome have an exra chromosome, do they not? And yet they do "mate" as you like to term it. Yes, still laughing. Razor, if I said "I think masculinity is pathetic" (again, I am assuming you're a man). How would you feel?

EuropeanGreen  Posted: 25/06/2006 17:48

Before I became happy with being gay, I was not so different from the homophobes on this board. I thought it was something illegitimate and it was an internalised homophobia given to me by society. Thankfully I got out of that at age 22, three years ago, and now that I am in the position of knowing that my sexuality is determined for me, not something I can change, and from the vantage point of someone who is gay. I find that I accept it completely and without reservation. There's full legitimacy to it. But why can't homophobes step into our shoes and see that being gay is a great thing, just as being straight is too. The important thing is that you can only see the light if you take your blinkers off and imagine what you would have to decide if you were gay/straight. I don't think Razor et al are being in any way truthful or realistic when they spout on about being homosexual is a waste of a life, and that it is "pathetic". What would they do if they were gay? They would grapple with it just as any other gay person would, and sooner or later they would move on and live their lives as a gay person, without hangups about being gay. Can you two honestly say this is not how you would react? To say that gays should not have sex because "it's the act not the person that is a 'sin'" is a joke. Couples the world over, gay and straight, have sex as a pleasurable experience. Procreation, yeah right. I don't believe in "sins" or evil but I do believe that there are actions which are irrational, injurious and repulsive to all of humanity when they are committed. Spouting on in a homophobic manner is one of them. La la.

fifi  Posted: 23/06/2006 13:18

Ok to the two homophobes amongst us Id like to say back off now. Mary.. you were more than welcome to use me as an example & Im delighted you consider me in that light. Thank you. To Razor and the newest narrow minded person to come on board this thread - Chris.. Yes there is evil in the world. Nope know he doesnt have a tail or a fork & long pointed beard with hoofs a galloping. I will tell you what evil looks like... it comes in the shape of hatred against our fellow human beings born from conditioning. It comes in the shape of murderers, rapists, & child molesters. It rears its ugly head day in day out all around us. It has the capacity to live within us. To taint the views, opinions & values we place on people. My open minded and brilliant mother has a great saying. People are just people. Live a good life, its the best religion of them all. The only true path to follow. You both have my sympathy. Clearly you were both raised in environments where hatred against anything outside the conforms of our society was spat upon. Your rearing was obviously done under the ambigious eye of the catholic church. Now you see your church crumbling from disgusting relevations. Where do you turn now? Keep hating? Fear comes from ignorance chris & razor. Open your minds & your hearts. Embrace the diversities of this world. Not all of them. Not the malicious ones but the good ones. It will broaden your views, enrich your lives & open your eyes. Hating others will eat you up inside. By the way.. you both have at least one family member that you love very much who is gay or lesbian. Remember that please then think about your rantings.

Razor  Posted: 23/06/2006 10:12

Mary, The theory of evoultion states that infinite changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains that they don't. Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse not better with the discovery of more fossils. The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution also claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell. There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man or women or even you could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Still laughing Mary?

Mary  Posted: 22/06/2006 16:21

Chris, you think the evil in world is caused by the Devil? There is none so blind as those who refuse to take off their blinkers. I see it all very clearly, thank you. Oh yes, Paedophilia, necrocphilia, bestiality are all very wrong, very bad things and indeed very sad also. Other things that are wrong in the world are prejudice and hatred. But how you could think that two consenting adults, who love one another could be evil really baffles me. As for putting homosexuality (or indeed heterosexuality for that matter) in the same bracket as paedophilia, not only does such a sentiment disgust me but it says far far more about the person who is saying it than the people it is said about. But tell me, where did you hear about this Devil fellow? Scientific papers, the news, medical journal, a doctoral thesis? I'd love to know. Also, he's not goign to turn up on the M50 in the morning - is he?

Mary  Posted: 22/06/2006 12:46

The theory of evolution is not unsubstantiated - hasn't been since Darwins time and to claim it is, is nothing short of laughable. Razor, if I said "I think masculinity is pathetic" (again, am assuming you're a man). How would ou feel? Eiher annoyed by it or ou'd feel that I was an 'eejit' to say something like that. - And you'd be right. human beings are designed for male and females to be together - sure. But some human beings are designed to be with their own sex. That is how nature made them also. I see a lot of things as an affliction but homosexuality is simply the way a person is made. It is no more an aflfiction that having blond hair, big feet or freckles. Nor do I see gay men or women as victims of their exuality any more than stright me and women are. It's a bit like saying I'm a victim of being white or my colleague is a victim of being black. I can think of three gay men and one women, just of the top of my head and I could not describe them as having anything other than a fulfilled, meaningful and worthwhile life. It's nothign to do with them being gay or straight. It's to do with lots of their qualities as people. "I dont care what you, or any other homosexuals think" - First of all you are making assumptions about my sexuality. And in your case assumptions have led to presumptions and prejudice. Second, if you don't care - why post? Nothing distorted or twisted about my views - they're as clear as day but we are all, including you, products of our environemnt and upbringing but thankfully many of have escaped the stranglehold of this and have educated and informed ourselves to form our own views and opinions. I am indeed missing out in life. I'd love to have the money to travel more and I always promised myself that I'd learn to scuba dive before I was 30 and I haven't but again this has nothing to do with whether I'm gay or straight. I appreciate the apology but really there's no need for you to stop posting. I'm really not that senstive .

Chris  Posted: 22/06/2006 12:44

Yes Mary I do believe the Devil exists! Although I'm not too sure about the horns and fork tail. As with many phenomena in this world like electricty/magnetism we only know of its existance through its effects! It not tangable. So it is with the Devil. Its existance is very evident through the evil in the world. Paedophilia, homosexuality, necrocphilia, beastiality are all evidence of his existance. There are none so blind as those who wont see!

Razor  Posted: 22/06/2006 09:27

Mary, you believe in unsubstantiated theories if you like, but dont try and pawn this nonsence off as fact! I think homosexuality is pathetic Mary because human beings are designed for male and females to be together. That is they way God and/or Nature intended! Simple as that! I see homosexuality as an affliction, depriving its victims of a fulfilled, meaningful and worthwhile life! I dont care what you, or any other homosexual think Mary, nor you I for that matter, because I believe your views are distorted and twisted in order to suit your own ends. As far as I'm concerned your missing out in life but you'll never see this or understand it. This aspect I find sad and pathetic! I'm sorry if you regard my posting as insulting or degrading, that was never my intention, but thats the way I think and I make no apologies for that. Woulden't do for us all to be the same now would it? However, in light of the fact that you appear to have taken offence I will cease posting on this site! No hard feelings!

GAYMAN  Posted: 21/06/2006 17:12

'You dont believe the devil exists Mary! You could be in for a nice surprise! Its reported he revels in homosexuality!' GREAT!!!!! Guess I'll enjoy the afterlife so!

Mary  Posted: 21/06/2006 16:47

Razor, I ahve news for you. All of humanity has a common ancestor with the ape. That common ancestor is indeed extinct but it still connects us - you an me to their descendant. Why on earth would I or you or anyone for that matter believe that an act of love between two consenting human beings should be treated with contempt of any kind. There are certain things I do have contempt for, cruelty, taunts, derision, hypocrisy. But love (along with kindness and beauty among other things) I respect. Why do you think it's pathetic - becuase it doesn't confirm to the norms which you hold in your tunnel vision view of life? As for a waste of life? To me, just for example and I only know her from her postings, FiFi's life sounds very full indeed - (if I may use you as an example FiFi), doesn't seem to me like she wastes any of it. Actually, it seems she a lot busier than many of us. In fact now I come to think of the gay men (and a few women) I know, their lives aren't wasted either. If I told you that becuase you were a man (I am assuming you are just for the sake of this thread) I therfore thought you were pathetic and a waste of life, this would be sexist (as well as a pretty ignorant thing to say), therefore what makes you believe that the same comment when applied to gay men and women isn't disriminatory in exactly the same way - as well as being an attempt at derogatory and insulting. Chris, do you believe that the devil exists?? Really and truely> And it's a man? And does he have a forked tail and horns like the pictures you'd see as a child. Its reported he revels in homosexuality?? Really, and where did you read this report? Was it in yesterdays paper, or in a scientific journal? Or an anthropological doctoral thesis? Do tell us. Oh yes, paedophiles and rapists are the start of what I regard as evil, along with murderers, those who commit assualt, mutilate children, deny medical treatment to others, feed armns trading in the third wolrd, drug pushers and embezzle money intended for charity. That pretty much finishes my list. Not to keen on those who cheat, lie, discriminate against others, harass, insult, steal and commit hypocrisy but I wouldn't go quite so far as to call them evil.

Chris  Posted: 21/06/2006 14:42

You dont believe the devil exists Mary! You could be in for a nice surprise! Its reported he revels in homosexuality! Glad to see you regard sexual perverts, such as paedophiles and rapists as evil. Its a start I suppose!

Razor  Posted: 21/06/2006 14:21

Mary, perhaps you are related to bonobo apes or pigmy chimps, may be all homosexuals are, but I'm afraid I'm not! Nor is it an aspiration of mine to be like one! I gather this an your shallow attempt to somehow try to connect homosexuality with nature? An almost extinct ape in the Congo? Sad, although may be there are similarities. A 98.4% genitic match dosent mean much when you consider all humans worldwide, Black, White, Asian etc have a 99.9% exact genitic match! And we couldent be more different, (and I dont just mean the red hair!) Perhaps it suits you to believe that because I believe the act of homosexuality (which is not confined to homosexuals)should be treated with the contempt it deserves, that I am homophobic. On the contrary, I dont fear homosexuality, I just think its pathetic and a waste of life!

fifi  Posted: 21/06/2006 12:16

Jack.. life isnt black & white. Humans are not black & white either. I hate boxes myself but I can also see how other people like & even need them. Boxes tell others who & what we are & people always feel safer knowing "whats what". I know many many people who fall in love with the person rather than their gender. Love is all good no matter what shape or form it comes in. There is so much sadness & grief in the world that love should be sought wherever, joy should be given whenever & to hell with the begrudgers! Mary once again.. level headed, open minded & excellent posts from you. You are a breath of fresh air.

Mary  Posted: 21/06/2006 10:29

"Sure how could anyone fear a person who just wants to bring confort and joy to those around them" - You tell me Razor, you were the one who used the words "should be treated with the contempt it deserves." Razor, my "primary function" is not to reproduce, - even if your is. The pimary funciton of those who are infertile, for whatever reason, those who are child-free by choice and those who are celebate, By Choice, is also, not to reproduce. There is more that one way to become a mother or father and as Fifi pointed out - the world is already saturated with people. Tho' as I said before, Lesbians can and do become mothers. I watch wildlife programs on a regular basis. Sometime, maybe you should watch one about the bonobos - humankind's closest great ape relatives. It may surprise you. I know what the concept of Devils advocae means but the concept of a devil / satan?? As I said, a theocratic invention. I also, know that the term "bogey man" is supposed to mean, just as I know it is also an invention - of unkind or thoughless older relatives to upset little toddlers. Just because you understand the meaning of something does not mean you believe it exists. No reason why your postings should be given credence but there is alo no reason why homophobic rants can go unchallenged.

Razor  Posted: 21/06/2006 09:46

I must say I'm shocked at the way some people take postings to heart! Why should what I, or any other person writes, be given any credence? Why should what someone, whom you dont even know, says matter? Get a life people and keep your personal stuff personal!

Razor  Posted: 21/06/2006 09:38

Mary, narrow mindedness is an inclination to critisize where as broad mindedness is an inclination to overlook. Both are inclinations. Nothing to do with ability to accept or reject anything. We all accept or regect things based on our own standards. Homophobic? Sure how could anyone fear a person who just wants to bring confort and joy to those around them? What part of "the primary function of every animal on this planet is to reproduce" do you not understand? In nature life and limb are risked to achieve this goal. Watch some nature programs! Granted as human beings we have the power of reason, which differentiates us and allows us to make choices outside the boundries of nature, but this dosent change the basic fact! I never intended or expected any of my postings to be taken personaly, and if any offence was taken by anybody, I apologise. j Just palying Devils (look it up in the dictonary) advocate here!

Jack (UOZ48364)  Posted: 21/06/2006 01:55

im a 19yr old male and i have been sexually attracted to both sexes all my life, i guess that would pick me up and drop me into the box with bisexual written on it. i dont want to be called bisexual because then people say "oh hes really gay and just wont admitt it" most people think that i am in some sort of transition, but it is the person that i am first and foremost attracted to. i dont say well ill choose a guy over a girl, just bcuz of the fact he's a guy. I hate labels and this is one of the reasons why i wud never identify myself as being bi. Does anyone else feel the same as me and think that just becuz u hav sex with a memb of the same sex once, you are now automagically gay/bi or bi becoming gay?

Mary  Posted: 20/06/2006 11:19

Razor - 19/06/2006 08:37. I read your posting again and could not see one single "statemnt of fact". Could you point them out to me please. Only frogs and toads have spawn and while I don't know whom you think Satan is (other than a theocratic invention), I agree that rapists, murderers and paedophiles are of course evil. Can you explain exactly whom you think "you lot" are? Is it posters to this discussion, or the world population in general. or do think perhaps we all voire Fianna Fail? Or are you referring to us red-heads again!

Mary  Posted: 20/06/2006 11:13

Razor, 12.32. Narrow-mindedness is the inability to accept other human being for whom they are, be they Irish, Chinese, white, black, short, gay, straight, good footballers or great comedians. Homophobia has sweet fizz all to do with "moral standards". Razor, is your primary function re-production? What a very narrow vision of life you have. Mine is to bring comfort and joy to those around me. Help those who need it and enrich the lives of my family and friends. Have you thought tho how very derogatory and insulting your coment may be to those who are infertile, those who are celebate and those who are Child-free by choice. Just to point out to you tho' - lesbians do become mothers and there is more than one way to become a parent. My kind Razor? My "kind"?? Would that be red-haired people. Granted, it is a recessive gene. Or tall people? Or Irish people? Or Do you mean blue eyed people? Or perhaps open-minded, educated, intelligent people??

fifi  Posted: 19/06/2006 12:22

I wish there were no child molesters or rapists or murderer's in the world Razor, but fact is there are. Seperate issue to being gay. By the way, while it isnt normally the route that gay people go.. there is still nothing to stop a gay man fathering a child or a gay woman to give birth to a child, like I said though, there are enough of people in the world already.

Razor  Posted: 19/06/2006 08:37

Cleo, if having a different view to you makes me a bigot, so be it! My "outpourings" are based on statement of fact no emotional piffle. "I knew somebody once and he way gay but he was a lovely person "! I was talking in general terms in case you didn't notice! Yes there is good + bad in everybody to state the obvious! Fifi, I take your point, but I dont believe God made people homosexual or that he made them paedophiles or rapists for that matter either! The latter two being are the spawn of Satan or evil or whatever you want to call it. Hard to see them having any purpose whatsoever! I'm not blind Fifi, I'm just hopping the ball! Can't have you lot losing the run of yourselves now can we? I wanted to see what the reaction to some of the points. Mostly predictible, but some were interesting!

alan (grehound)  Posted: 16/06/2006 22:19

Looking at the post above there is lots of different opinions in a some times very bad world killings wars we have Bush to think about and what is going to happen next in the world of violence we should let people that are gay alone I would not be overjoyed by the prospect of my kids being gay but in saying that I would be be very supportive and understanding, It must be very hard for a son or daughter to tell their Mum and Dad that they are gay As for the church they should get their house in order before they start preaching to us about what what the church will or will not accept about gay people.

Cleo  Posted: 16/06/2006 16:27

God, nature or whatever created man and women to procreate. Without this partnership none of us would even exsist! That's a fairly sizeable chip on your shoulder razor! How about not hiding behind the church on this issue, and deciding for yourself how you feel? Of course, then you'd have to take responsibility for your irrational outpourings. My brother is gay, and i was really shocked when he told me. I figured it was just a 'phase'. But after 5 years, he's still the same great guy that he always was; he's also gay! And as a woman who is childfree by choice, i can tell you that i was not put on this earth just to bear children. My husband is very glad about this, and is reaping the considerable benefits. Don't hide behind the church razor; admit that you're just a bigot pure and simple. And well done to fifi and SL for not letting your vitriol go unchecked!

fifi  Posted: 16/06/2006 14:10

Razor the world is already saturated with people. There is no fear of the human race dying out any time soon. Do you really think thats the only reason we are here - to keep procreating? People are put on this earth for a myriad of reasons. To contribute, to love, to help, to educate, to encourage, to explore, to care for, to push, to test the world & its people. There is a place for everyone in society not just hetrosexuals. In that case, one might ask why murderers, rapist, paeodphiles, criminals exist. Why are some children born handicapped. Why are there good and bad people in the world & not just good? The reason is that we all interact with each other. We all learn from each other. At some point in our lives we will all have touched someone somewhere with an act of kindness that will stay with them forever. Those who have been victims of crimes will be made stronger, maybe learn more about themselves. Everything happens for a reason razor. If God did not want gay people to exist he wouldnt have put them on this earth. I like to think I touch someone around me every day by the things I do and say. The charity work I carry out, the helping hand I offer elderly neighbours to run errands for them. The compliment I pay to a work collegue or someone on the street. Maybe its time you opened your mind Razor because you are truly blinded.

Razor  Posted: 16/06/2006 12:32

Fifi save your pity for your friends, its wasted on me! Dont confuse moral standards with narrow mindedness, there is a slight difference! Thanks but I dont need any advice from experiences from you or your kind!Mary, the primary function of any animal on this earth is reproduction. Thats how species survive. Your kind dont contribute to the first law of Nature! SL, God, nature or whatever created man and women to procreate. Without this partnership none of us would even exsist!

fifi  Posted: 16/06/2006 10:35

Razor, you are truly vicious & I feel sorry for your narrow- mindedness, I really do. You say its the act that violates nature. you tend to forget we are our actions. The act of making love to our partners is who we are. They go hand in hand. So by slating our "acts" you are, in turn, slating us. In my experience it has been people who are insecure with their own sexuality that have been the loudest shouters of homophobic abuse. People who are happy in their own skin live and let live & are well rounded people. Maybe you should go and talk to someone about your feelings. the catholic church has you brainwashed. I pity you.

SL  Posted: 14/06/2006 11:32

That's your own warped view Razor and I'm thankful that people like you are diminishing. As fifi has already said, you are supporting an organisation which has basically destroyed the lives of many many children through physical, emotional and sexual abuse. I'm thankful that the catholic church no longer has a 'hold' over this country. And then you have the cheek to come on here saying that I should be treated with contempt for being a gay man. Cop on to yourself. We now live in the 21st century, why don't you join the rest of us?

Mary  Posted: 14/06/2006 10:52

As I said before the "laws" which the catholic organisation have made up over the years do not interest me any more that fairy tales which are made up for the children in the primary school but could you tell us Razor, how exactly you make out that a loving act between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home could be against the laws of nature?? I am going to presume that you are in a relationship. Should we be treating you with contempt because of the loving acts in which you, as an adult engage with your partner, with her consent, in the privacy of your own home?

Razor  Posted: 14/06/2006 10:28

Homosexuality, the act not the person, is against the laws of God and Nature and should be treated with the contempt it deserves!

fifi  Posted: 13/06/2006 16:33

Thank you SL, you are always positive & open minded & well informed!

SL  Posted: 13/06/2006 14:12

Well said fifi. Couldn't have put it better myself.

fifi  Posted: 13/06/2006 10:46

Razor what are you spouting on about? Let me tell you something. Dont talk to me about the Catholic church. That institution has done nothing but oppress people down through time. The vatican states that homosexuality is a violation of nature..hah.. I'll tell you what is a violation of nature.. abusing little boys & girls for years and years. Gay adults have consensual relationships with each other. They love each other. This is the catholic church that only as far back as my grans time (shes 73 this week) women were not allowed to receive holy communion for a certain time period after they had given birth as they were seen as unclean. The rich & poor people were segregated in the pews. The church ruled school life & home life with an iron fist even though they didnt know the first thing about family matters. Im a lesbian and proud of it. Im well educated, kind, do lots of charity work, have a good job, good friends, Im well rounded as are many other gay people like me. My "gayness" is only a tiny little part of the whole me. I just happen to prefer relationships with women rather than men. You say you cant help being born one way but you can help the way you live??? Rubbish.. people will live the lives they feel they should. Why live a lie?.. to please people like you?... to quote from shakespere.. "To thine ownself be true"....

SL  Posted: 12/06/2006 16:06

What on earth are you trying to say Razor?

Mary  Posted: 12/06/2006 14:55

So Razor, you think the people who are gay - are "lame or rubbish". his says so much more about your level of maturity than it says about people who are gay. Nature's way of "culling the heard"? Is this ditinct from culling those who are not heard? According to the pope homosexuality is and eclips of God and a degradation of humanity. The laws of Islam and Judism are not too supportive of homosexuality either? According to the Pope and the Catholic church over the years, those in relationship before marriage or following divorce, women, divorced, people, users of contraception, women with crisi pregnancies, jews, buddhists, protestants were also somehow oiut of favour. Would you like to band all those together as well and call them names too? This may surprise you but the vast majority of peopel out there, gay or straight are not remotley interested in what the catholic pope says or does not say and ona personla level I am not in the slightest but interested in the current opinion what the so-call "laws" of Islam or judism either. No one is referring to the way gay or straight people live. Somebody is urinating down your back and telling you it is raining?? How very unhygenic but I don't know what you think that has to do with this debate.

Razor  Posted: 12/06/2006 09:10

Gay is now the new word for lame or rubbish according to the BBC! How apt. Perhaps gay people are part of natures way of culling the heard. According to the pope homosexuality is and eclips of God and a degradation of humanity. The laws of Islam and Judism are not too supportive of homosexuality either. People can help they way their born but they can help the way they live. Live and let live, true, but dont piss down my back and tell me its raining!

vics  Posted: 11/06/2006 20:53

mary of course they know what it is. they are terrified of the reaction of the public not of the act itself, what they fail to realise is that the public are looseing faith, but its sad they still flock in masses to church and then condem people in the community for being homosexual. i think i started a whole new debate here!!

Mary  Posted: 09/06/2006 10:51

Fifi, the pope is a celibae male leading an organisation of (supposedly) celebate males. They are TERRIFIED of sexuality - of any sort. Fear of what they do not know.

fifi  Posted: 08/06/2006 17:22

Well spoken vics. Ireland needs a wake up call. The catholic makes me sick. The pope is still preaching from his high horse that homosexuality is a violation of nature yet he & his predessors knew very well that child abuse was going on in the quiet. Double standards. People need to see gays and lesbians as people first. Their sexuality is only a little bit of who they are as people.

vics  Posted: 07/06/2006 22:42

it makes me mad to hear people blasting on about being homosexual. its fear of a cosmopolitan comunity that scares people,they dont like it on their doorstep. its about time ireland woke up and realised we are living in the 21st century. homosexuality did not just appear it has been around for centuries, after all wasn't it the irish catholic chruch who made homosexuality known in this country. parents who cant cope with having a son/daughter who is homosexual should wake up, after all alot of them are prob huge elton john fans. its human nature, we create homosexuals so we must live with them.

con  Posted: 07/06/2006 17:37

hi all..31 years of age..have had a good few female lovers but now wondering whether i am gay or not due to having some gay feelings down through the years..any help ??

Mary  Posted: 15/05/2006 15:01

You know, I remember hearing a story that when Queen Victoria was asked to sign into a being a law banning consenting "homosexual acts" it was only signed in as referring to acts between adult males. When he was questioned as to why it did not include females, she was said to have declared that "such a thing could not possibly be".

fifi  Posted: 15/05/2006 12:57

You would be spot on there Mary. Ignorance is fear. Its funny and ironic now but I remember when I was 13 being absolutely disgusted by the notion of lesbians or gays. I thought they were filthy people who bore dieases. Thankfully, I remember my parents correcting me & proper order too! They told me that everyone is equal to look at the person on the whole - not just a part of who they are. Little did I know back then that I would become one of these "filthy" people. You know what? I wouldnt have it any other way. Its who I am and Im proud to be me.

Mary  Posted: 15/05/2006 12:32

A interesting comment I thought - a friend said to me yesterday that 80% of fear (which I think is a huge contributer to homophobia - I may be wrong), is ignorance. People fear what they believe they do not understand.

fifi  Posted: 15/05/2006 09:57

Ail & Mary being a lesbian myself I have had to put up with so much rubbish down through the years. I came out at 17. I was, up until very recently, the "only gay in the village". A male who is 40 came out 2 months ago and thanked me for being his inspiration to come out and be himself. The way I see it, those who turned their backs on me simply because of my sexuality arent worth bothering about anyway. those who stood by me are the only people that count. My mother always said, as long as you live a good life, trying to help others when you can, and doing few negatives as possible, thats all that matters. Im still the same person inside that I was the day before I came out. Its ignorance and insecurity that make others jeer and snide at homosexuality. You will find that those who stand by you are very secure with their own sexualities. Dont worry your heads about them. You only have one life. Go out there and live it. It will pass all too soon.

Mary  Posted: 12/05/2006 15:31

Ail, I don't blame you getting upset. My sexuality is niether here nor there, but I too find myself getting so ANGRY when I hear / see homophobes spouting cr*p. You're right - they are up their own you-know-what's.

ail  Posted: 12/05/2006 14:52

just a brief messge. i am a student currently sitting her final year exams and doing an essay on provions and policies within gay and lesbian studies. i my self am an out and proud lesbian. while researching this topic i found it very hard to keep myself from throwing my computer out the window albeit from reading messages posted by homophobic people, research studies done and catholicgroups organising as they said themselves a "good thrashing" of gay people. i actually found my self getting very upset and being comforted by of all people my parents. who i might ad are well into their 60's and a very proud of me for involving them in my life as a lesbian. can someone please tell me why people get so hung up on homosexual activity but yet dont really seem to get too involved when a 15 year old gets beaten up simply because he has a cool new mobile phone,or people are constantly driving home so drunk that they can barely stand. some peoples priorities are so up their own ...

Mary  Posted: 04/04/2006 15:46

I think a lot has to do with upbringing too and some of that can stem from attitudes within certain organised religions

fifi  Posted: 04/04/2006 12:36

I knew a couple of "gay bashers" years ago who used to go around with knuckles dragging along the ground slating homosexuals & lesbians. Funny as hell then to meet a few of them years later in the gays pubs I frequent. Anyone who is comfortable with their own sexuality will not be homophobic.

Mary  Posted: 03/04/2006 09:58

It's insecurity in my opinion.

NewPuritan  Posted: 02/04/2006 19:51

What is it that makes "hard" straight boys pick on those that are gay? Just what is their problem?

Chunk  Posted: 30/03/2006 01:09

I despair at a world full of morons.Homosexuality is well documented among Bonobo monkeys and other primates.

fifi  Posted: 11/01/2006 12:55

XY looks like your mum in law just came out of her cave. She was obviously brought up with a warped view on homosexuality. To compare homosexuality to abusing children & having sexual encounters with animals is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Oh God the ignornance of it all! I feel sorry for her, I really do.

Chris  Posted: 10/01/2006 22:00

Hi XY, Its widley covered in wildlife and science programs, particularly in the last few years. Sorry but i cant seem to insert web links here, but if you do a web search on the topic, or check out the likes of National Geographic or other science sites you will come across many studies on this subject - your mom in law cant argue against science. The only thing thats perverse is a warped perversion over universal thinking, but your mom-in-law comes from another generation. You will find 'scientists' and fundamentalists of patriarchal religions (which are based on fear, guilt, shame)interpeting the facts as something else. Selective thinking. You might want to check out the Kinsey Institute site. Alfred Kinsey's studies were discredited afte his death, not surprising back then, and easy to discredit the man when not around to defend his work. However, his studies on human sexuality have been analysed and validated. Many theories for human sexual diversity, nature v nurture etc. But maybe its partly remnants from former lives (if you believe in reinacrnation). Wouldnt it be naive to believe every soul (which is genderless, only the physical is gender based)would live again and again aqs one gender? How would you learn from not living through different exepriences? Maybe your mom-in-laws mind will be opened next time 'round! Good luck with the searches.

fifi  Posted: 05/01/2006 13:03

Jeff, dont you dare let that bigot or any other bigot crush your spirit. You are with your partner 17 years! Thats longer than most "normal?" "straight" relationships last. Be proud of your committment to each other & the love, trust & bond between you. To give up your life due to these ignoramuse's would be a sin. Hold your head high. God created you to be you. An anon posting I read was also so correct in saying that most people who are anti gay are often battling gay tendencies within themselves. I know several "gay bashers" who turned out after some time to be feather boa wearing gay men. To thine ownself be true!

fifi  Posted: 05/01/2006 12:55

If our sexual organs were designed merely for reproduction women for starters would not have a clitoris or a G-spot for pleasure. My mother & father, both open minded people always claimed that it should not matter what a persons religion, creed, sexual orientation or colour is as long as they live a good life & do good onto others. This, I believe is the best religion of all. Ireland has come a long way in accepting gay people but it still has some way to go sadly. Gay people work, pay tax, buy houses, go to church, sing, dance, get drunk, do charity work. some are good, some are bad. In other words they are the same as hetrosexuals. Ireland needs to open their eyes and see the bigger picture. With so many murders, rapes, robberies going on in our world, why do we still get so het up by the fact that people are gay? Wake up Ireland.

Xy  Posted: 03/01/2006 11:17

Chris, can ypou provide us with some evidence as to where homosexuality is documented in over 400 other species? I ask this becuause my mother-in-law is toitally homophobic (we argue about it) and claims that it doesn't exist in the natural world and only humans are "perverse" (I apologise, it is her word not mine) enough to be gay. She also bands homosexuality alongside things like paediphilia and bestiality, which I belive fuether highlights hewr ignorance. But that's an argument with her for another day.

Chris (DGO37715)  Posted: 25/12/2005 17:27

Nature is so diverse in its creation, and there are many creatures that change gender, male creatures that carry the off-+spring, and even homosexuality documented in over 400 other species. The God/Goddess created nature and we are part of that, and made of the same essence. Why does a penis fit so easily in the anus? Why is a man's erogenous zone his prostate gland? Why is he aroused when this is stimulated? Biology proves homosexuality is natural and around since the dawn of man and before the invention of religion (which is man made, and seperate than faith). If biology doesnt fit in with your religious teachings you may want to address your faith and its direction. Sex is for pleasure for adults, regardless of the gender of the couple, and reproduction merely a functional value. I wish the uptight ones would removed there blinkers and rid themselves of remnants of Victorian Christian social conditioning. Get a life, and just mind your own.

Anonymous  Posted: 17/10/2005 17:09

People are so obsessed with the plumbing! There's more to being gay than the sex, the first thing you feel is attraction - what's unnatural about that? Forget the religion mumbo jumbo, this was around long before JC. The guidelines from Vatican on gay men in the clergy to prevent paedophile scandals is typical of the ignorance which fuels prejudice in society. Try applying those guidelines to the ones who abused girls and not just boys! My same sex relationship has been very good for 16 years - two longer than my parents marriage lasted. I know some relationships that lasted much longer - my relationship (sex included) will not be spoiled by small-mindedness but I have nothing against straight people generally...really. My sisters are straight and are as much a part of my family as my partner. They have kids and they tell me there was pain in childbearing but I'm not stupid enough to see that as unnatural (first postings).

Anonymous  Posted: 05/10/2005 10:20

No, Bruno, I didn't see that. There are already, tho, laws against discrimination. I think tho' that so much of it comes from religious indocrination / brain-washing. I know several people who regard themselves as religious/devout who are very homophobic and regard gay men and woman as 'unnatural' and 'wrong' - tho of course they can never quite explain why. And I was taliking to a work colleague recently who could not believe that an estimated 5% to 10% of the Irish population were gay. He insisted he didn't know any (we have three in our department) and made it clear from his comment that he regarded them (homo's was the word he used) as on a par with those who abuse children. His attitude disgusted me but people like him are not unique.

Bruno (UCN22526)  Posted: 05/10/2005 10:03

Anyone see the protest on the news earlier this week in response to recent Homophobic attacks? It's about time this country implemented some sort of awareness campaign.

Anonymous  Posted: 30/09/2005 09:53

Jeff, I am really sorry to hear about what happened you. None of us has the right to judge another. Jesus created us all and loves each one of us. I don't believe he judges us based on who we love in this world. Many marriages don't last as long as your relationship nowadays and I hope you continue to be happy with your partner.

Anonymous  Posted: 30/09/2005 09:34

Jeff, Goid made ou the man that you are - God you made you male. God made you tall or short God made you dark or fair and yes, God also made you gay therefore why would s/he not love what s/he had created.

Jeff (FFM35307)  Posted: 29/09/2005 18:38

I am 42 male and i am a homosexual in the Michigan in the United States. I was on my job last night and after the sale, the customer asked me if i was a homosexual. I said yes and she started preaching on how i should repent for my sins. She also said that god didn't mean Adam and steve ,but Adam and Eve. I got really upset of what she was saying. I have been out of the closet for 21 years half of my life and i guess it hit me how people can judge me and say i am going to hell in matter of speaking for being gay. I have been with the same guy for 17 years next week. I thought of suicide and how many people get fed up with how society views them as perverts and how they give up. I just want to know from anyone you can write me back and tell me if god loves me or not for being gay. I don't go to church , but i do beleive in Jesus and i have always thought he loved me for me.

Anonymous  Posted: 21/09/2005 17:12

People in todays society have serious attitude problems. Especially Irish people as we are so ignorant, not only towards other people, but to ourselves. Two of my friends are gay, and I must say that I feel more comfortable around these friends than my other friends.

Anonymous  Posted: 12/09/2005 11:52

People get sooo hung up about what is natural or unnatural. Can you not just accept people and let it GO. If it's not harming anyone and people love and care for one another then what's the problem. Some peoples obsession with others sexuality is, I think, far more unnatural than what consenting adults do in private.

Anonymous  Posted: 11/09/2005 22:23

Would those heterosexual fascists who think what I get up to is unnatural ever get enlightened and stop annoying us please? I am happy to be a natural homosexual. Anything that two people of the same sex do is natural. But then it doesn't matter if it is or not. What matters is that sex is about pleasure. For straight and gay people. And I am deeply offended that you guys would obsess about anal sex between men. I am still a virgin and will never probably engage in it as much as straight men engage in vaginal sex with condoms or the pill, preferring to kiss and engage in non-anal lovemaking. Which is more or less natural?

Anonymous  Posted: 26/08/2005 18:25

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals. The biggest problem that homosexuals are surrounded with is, an ignorant society. I think that this is very sad. I would have no problem if my friend or a family member told me they were a homosexual, they would have all my support and would be deeply hurt if someone was to insult them.

Anonymous  Posted: 25/04/2004 22:33

Why is it that so many "straight" people are unable to discuss homosexuality without referring to anal sex ? Anal sex is not practiced by all gay men nor is it an activity confined to gays.Many straight couples also engage in anal sex .However, as in the film American Beauty, "straight" people who are obsessed with it and go on and on about how disgusting it is etc. are reacting to homosexual feelings/desires within themselves.Anyone secure with their own sexuality does not get preoccuppied about the sexual activities of others.

Anonymous  Posted: 08/04/2004 14:22

Of course it is essential. It is essential for those involved, in orer for them to express love thru physical union, just as straight people do. After all straight sex between infertile couples or couples past the menopause is not 'essential'. Would you have everyone incabable of breeding children, live lives devoid of affection andd physical love?? What a sad world we would live in if this were so.

Anonymous  Posted: 08/04/2004 12:58

Wearing clothes is not natural but essential in colder climates. Sitting at a desk is not natural but necessary for office workers. IN fact, work is not really natural but it is essential for survival in this day and age. Gay sex is not natural and is not essential, for anything.

Anonymous  Posted: 08/04/2004 09:34

How very true - wearing clothes is not natural, much of mobern medical treatment is not natural for example but I don't hear anyone advocating that we all go around naked (and extremely cold as a result might I add) and die from preventable illness

Anonymous  Posted: 07/04/2004 17:57

True, our bodies aren't designed for gay sex, but I don't really think that's very relevant. So much of what we do isn't natural. It's not natural for us to sit at a desk all day but that's what a lot of us too. I don't think it's helpful or useful to anyone to point out that gay sex is unnatural. I'm sure it feels natural to gay people. As a straight woman, I can tell you that the first time I had sex it sure as hell didn't feel 'natural' in fact it was bloody painful.

Anonymous  Posted: 17/03/2004 18:55

Why is it people have a problem with gay men? and don't mind lesbianism?

Anonymous  Posted: 15/03/2004 09:57

If sex between people of the same sex is not natural, how come nature creates so many peolle who are born gay

Anonymous  Posted: 12/03/2004 16:57

Ho hum, the irefutable bottom line is that sex between, for reproduction or not, is not a natural act if it occurs between members of the opposit sex. Our sexual organs were design for union between a man and a woman. ANYTHING else just is not natural, possible, but not natural. That's all I am saying.

Anonymous  Posted: 12/03/2004 16:01

It's typical of the backward atitude of this country to associate sex with reproduction. That sex should automatically facilitate reproduction. What of people who are infertile , ould your sense of 'naturalness ban them thme from the love and joy of deep physical union with a commited partner of the opposite sex just becuase it couldn't facilitate the reproductive cycle? Would you discrminate against a man with a low sperm count in this way too?

Anonymous  Posted: 12/03/2004 13:11

Anonymous Posted: 11/03/2004 13:40 Mother nature did not design the human body to facilitate a sexual relationship between members of the same sex. Our sexual reproductive system is designed for members of the opposite sex to have sex. Anything else is not natural, nature did not desig our bodies for any other type of union. Therefore, a homosexual (physical) relationship is not natural.

Anonymous  Posted: 11/03/2004 13:40

What is it that makes all you people think it's 'not natural'?

Anonymous  Posted: 10/03/2004 14:08

Yes, a sexual relationship between members of the same sex is not a natural relationship. It just is not. The fairness of that is quite another story.

Anonymous  Posted: 09/03/2004 13:47

But you are assuming that stright relationships are 'natural' simply becuase they are straight, wheras a lot of other factors come into play, just as they do in gay relationships, which have nothing to do with biology. Not emotive, just an honest statement. (Carla)

Anonymous  Posted: 09/03/2004 13:45

So you believe that love for someone else at its greatest level of commitment, is somehow unnatural if it involves someone of the same sex. Do you think it would be natural if 10% of the population (correct my statistics, if you wish) were deprived of the love and joy of a commited relationship based on what their (hetero) parents - who've already have known a loving relationship, thought of as appropriate

Anonymous  Posted: 09/03/2004 11:43

Perhaps Carla, that's just the way it is. Human nature is human nature and it is natural for a parent to have certain aspirations, wishes and hopes for their children. I'm not advocating trying to shove your views down your childrens throats. Homosexuality is not a natural sexual act. I believe that a mans anus was never intended to accept another mans penis. That is why I say that it is unatural. Prove otherwise. As for abusing a straight or otherwise partner, I never mentioned anything of the sort. Please park your emotive comments somewhere else.

Anonymous  Posted: 08/03/2004 14:41

That is just typical of the very hypocrisy they have highlighted. It's fine if your friends or 'other people' are gay, but not if it's your own children. Who are you to presume as to what an "natural" or "unnatural" relationship is. On what basis do you make your assumptions. I would think that a hetero relationship where one partner is being being abused for example, is far from natural. Also, what makes you think that one of your adult children in a loving commited gay relationship would be any less fulfilled than a straight person in a straight relationship. Why make the mistake of assumeng that your aspirations for your children will match their own. (Carla)

Anonymous  Posted: 05/03/2004 16:11

Cutting thorugh all the PC rubbish that will be spewed on this forum, I am one of those people who does not have a problem with friends who are gay, that is their own life and none of my business. However, if someone in my familly, more so one of my sons (I have no daughters but I dont think I would feel any different) told me he was gay, it is not something that would make me proud. The reason, perhaps, is that when your children are born and through their lives, it is natural to want certain things for your children. You develop an image/aspiration of how their lives will pan out. Being gay is the last thing that you imagine for your children perhaps because sexual intercourse, by nature, is designed to be between a man and a woman, not between the same sex. I'm not going into the morals because I do not see it as a moral issue. Homosexuality I feel is unatural, and I'd imagine down right painfull for men but please, lets leave the PC garbage out of this discussion.

Anonymous  Posted: 25/02/2004 13:53

It judt shows that we haven't matured much as a nation


How to use this feature

Back to the list of discussions

Back to Homepage

Back to top of page

Back to Homepage