Jauronimo

I think what we're proposing here, is that we re-draw the lines governing restrooms and locker rooms based not on gender, but on sexual attraction. We have the "Attracted to Men" locker room which is for women, gay men and the occasional bi-curious male, and we have the "Attracted to Women" locker room which includes men and lesbians. Since theres no quick way to determine who is out of place, we use honor system which has never failed us. Bisexuals are a wild card I suppose. Problem solved.

Is a straight man a woman?

http://deadspin.com/richie-incognito-is-unburdening-himself-on-twitter-1521596407

I never said you did. I said you discussed the idea, which is true. You engaged a man who proposed the spontaneous generation of AIDS through anal sex. Even asked for scientific proof. I laughed my head off reading the absurd post that prompted the above response, and you took him seriously. So clearly you're in no position to judge how I waste my time. You can imply that I'm gay as much as you'd like.

What browser do you use? You're an IT professional and yet you can't quote, view images or use any of the handy proof reading tools available to us simple "homophiles". You were actually the sensible one in the conversation, to use the term loosely. But you still engaged these nutjobs and entertained the idea that they could support their lunacy with science. You are in no position to judge the ways in which I waste my time. PS - The image was a fabulous pic of Freddy Mercury sticking his tongue out at you.

You've been consistently goaded and baited. You dropped the whole charade about objectivity and going wherever the science leads and admitted you began with end in mind and backsolved to rationalize your worldview. Your agenda is exposed (well, partially. You're still trying to save some face). Every time I engage you, you respond with another lengthy and disjointed look into your worldview. I start the music, you dance. Yet you always conclude with a remark about how can't be goaded. Cute.

I've never rejected that its perfectly natural to have an aversion to what is different or new. Basic animal survival instincts. Its natural and easy to fear or dislike those different from you, just not logical a lot of the time. I don't speak for homosexual activists. I don't know any and I am not an activist of any sort. My only agenda in this discussion is my own amusement. I'm sure the rest of the board will be happy to hear about how tolerant I am. Institutional homosexuality. You heard it here first. Out of curiosity, how are you reconciling an uninterested creator with a creator who is angered by the homosexuals he created?

Which is why I don't engage you on any but the most superficial of levels. You started with the belief that homosexuality was wrong, not natural, a choice as you phrased it last time, and then turned to science to support your beliefs. That is not science. That is an agenda. An agenda which is perfectly clear given your word choice and phrasing. While you may feel up to the task of teaching genetics 101, I already took that class and a few others on the topic. Your self taught brand of science where you dismiss anything inconvenient as inconclusive while simultaneously embracing a position which is absolutely fringe and, coincidentally, exactly what you hoped to prove all along, is just a bit questionable. You should stick to philosophy and theology. They suit you better. Why would I be proud of my tolerance for general human beings? Is tolerance for 10% of the population an accomplishment? I'm actually decidedly intolerant, by the way. Many people here can attest. Unlike you and your FreeRepub friends, my tolerance is on a case by case basis.

Which is dead last on the list of reasons why I have sex.

I find it funny that while discussing just how accepting of homosexuality we should be he also has declared that nothing is taboo anymore. There are no lines.

You don't have to put on the leather and fetish gear and lead the parade to support equality.

What is their cause again?

The one which demarcates unconditional parental love.

Go ahead. Explain your motivation for the post about how "ole Sam", an openly gay college athlete, isn't so courageous after all and the "cynic" (not to be confused with the now reformed homophobe in you) is skeptical that ole Sam would have come out after the draft. Where were you going with that one? I'm sure that post emanated from a place of love seeing as you've changed your ways. Your complete 180 on the issue in only 2 short years is nothing short of remarkable.

Still that yellow bellied 'mo was up to no good and Tim called it. Bet ole Sam woulda lived his whole life in the closet (aside from his whole college team who knew) and wouldn't have taken none of the abuse for his lifestyle he so rightly deserves. But them NFL fellas were too smart and figured him out and he had to fess up. Now ole Sam acts like he was being courageous, but you know he was just gonna try and live his life like a normal person and not tell no one he was gay or nothing and thats not right.

If I understand you correctly, you immediately contradicted yourself. Despite your outrage, you still agree with me. After a half dozen sentence fragments and non-sequiturs you need me to define bi-sexuality, and finally you think our cultural mores have changed for the worse but don't care to explain how? What the hell are you talking about?

So by that logic, you're not actually straight?

Can you PM me and bandit the Cliff's Notes?

Wow. What did I miss? Looks like a the server crashed halfway down page 16.

On the last bolded point we can agree. The first bolded statement would be easier to believe if I hadn't stumbled across your work on another website and wasn't staring at page upon page of evidence to the contrary. But I won't introduce any of that without your blessing.

I'm not referring to psychological studies and I'm not sure whats going on with your fixation on the poster Benjamin. The last time you attempted to set the record and world straight, I addressed each your arguments pertaining to genetics, evolution and twin studies in detail. Many others did as well. It was a futile exercise. After learning more about your worldview and politics, I get the impression that the only science you're interested in is that which supports your rather unflattering opinion of homosexuals, to put it gently.

Tim has been very clear on his position that homosexuality is a choice. He was more measured in his delivery this time around, but the message was there down to the same examples pulled from Tim's peculiar brand of science. I've already been through this process with Tim and he isn't interested in a discussion. In a darker corner of the internet, you might find a website where Tim drops the pretense about having an honest and open discussion and lets his real feelings regarding homosexuality be known. I was clear on genetics before. Why don't you post your diatribe again since I can't reference the original?

Clearly its a lifestyle choice. Didn't you read Tim's treatise on homosexuality? Were homosexuality a function of genetics it would have been phased out of the genome because any trait that is deleterious to the fitness of an individual is eventually phased out of the genome. Like albinism, dwarfism, sickle cell and everything else on this quick list of genetic disorders which also don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

Dude, it was Bally's. You're seriously in denial.

I liked your freshman bio take on homosexuality as choice a lot better the last time you trotted it out. This attempt was just flaccid.