Gays turn on there own sanctuary

I had the realization of how gays were able to survive and enjoy their lifestyle in the harsh middle ages through to the modern day! What place lets men live with other men in isolation and secrecy away from the normal demands of the day and expectations to have a family... maybe Jesus was bisexual after all. It explains why so many little boys got abused, now I'm not saying being gay makes someone a pedophile but if you turned on by other guys meat n potato's then it would have been the place to be whether they were a pedo or not.

I think this is a valid realisation and could have existed as a dont ask dont tell type of deal, especially in the past which is whence I am referring too when populations were lower and authority layed within the church itself. Now of course society has matured, the letter of the doctrine has flushed the secret homosexual refugee concept from existence and the gay community has decided to turn against what probably was once their savior. Lucky freedom of religious association means they no longer need them for any reason hey.

Amazing brilliant idea yes? Given every tom dick and harry was being executed for being seen as living outside of the church's doctrine, I can see no better place for homosexuals to have hidden in those dark times.

 

Are you talking about some "lifestyle"?

Can you describe that 'lifestyle' in detail?

 

Priesthood might have been a good choice for anyone living outside the church's norm, whether they were gay men attracted to other men or pedophiles attracted to young boys.

That said, the Church also did a lot to shelter similar behavior, worse even among heterosexuals. It was standard practice to exchange girls as young as 12 for property, have sex with them, and beat them into submission in the Middle Ages and beyond. It was called marriage, sanctioned and reinforced by the Church. Woman didn't like it? Burn 'em at the stake. Whatever brilliant idea the gays had, heterosexual men and pedophiles did it much better.

 

eeerrr yea, having a same sex partner. Its the opposite of hiding it.

 

Sorry, that's no "lifestyle".

 

Yea it is, its a style of living, hence lifestyle. If it brings up negative connotations to you then that's your problem not mine. Lets not go changing the meaning of words because it makes some people feel uncomfortable for no good reason. Homosexuals have already nicked the word gay and also the rainbow flag - clearly showing a lack of originality. So can we just leave it at those few things and not try and make everyone else bend over backwards just for the sensitivities of the queer community. Or is queer an insult now as well!!!! Its hard to keep up with it so sometimes it makes me wonder if a victim mentality might not be part of the... lifestyle. I hope not, as I'm not anti-gay, and carrying a victim mentality is no good for anyone.

 

Rather ironic. The most effective way to get rid of homosexuality would be to discourage them from having children, and so passing on their genes. But the church has done just the complete opposite.

 

Of course, genetics isn't always that simple. We're often taught that genetics are singular units of inherited traits that will be bread out if they represent a disadvantage, or maintained if they represent an advantage.

But consider other possibilities... that a single genetic trait presents and advantage to one group of people, depending on other genetic traits that they have, and a disadvantage to others who don't have those other genetic traits. For example, imagine that there's a certain gene that impacts the shape of the male and female hips, where in men it increases their potential running speed but in women it mis-shapens them, making them slower. If the increased running speed in men is a greater advantage than having slower women, then the trait will be passed on.

In short, an XY chromosome pair coupled with with this gene that influences hip formation is an advantage while the same gene coupled with XX is a disadvantage.

And that's just a rather simple and hypothetical example of complex relationships that can take place between multiple genes, where certain combinations of them may represent an advantage that compensate for disadvantages that some of those genes also present. There is often a give-and-take relationship involved in genetics, were we can't just expect any given characteristic to be bread out if it's linked in another way to another trait that represents an advantage.


With that basic scenario down, imagine this scenario:

Suppose it is found that the cause of homosexuality is linked to the production of specific hormones by the Mother, rather than any specific genetics of the fetus itself. The mother releases small amounts of these hormones all the time in normal quantities, but when the mother is stressed, she releases larger amounts of them. Because the baby and mother share their blood stream, these hormones reach the baby during the time of brain development, potentially causing homosexuality.

How might this be "bread out"? The mother can't stop producing it, because small quantities are necessary for regulation of body mechanics and large quantities are a normal part of the body's coping mechanism for stress. You also can't turn off the baby's hormone receptors because the baby also needs to receive them in certain quantities as well, and those receptors are linked to the reception of OTHER hormones that the baby also needs to receive. A change in the genes responsible for the production of the hormone, or in the creation of hormone receptors would be a severe disadvantage, probably fatal.

But perhaps the body of the women or fetus could develop a mechanism that prevents the excess of hormones from reaching the baby's receptors? Well, ya, possible, but the development of NEW defense mechanisms that don't negatively impact the baby or mother in other ways (or at least less so than the advantaged gained by preventing homosexuality) would take hundreds of thousands of years, if it would happen at all. And more likely, it wouldn't happen at all as homosexuality among men isn't necessarily a disadvantage at all. You don't need one male for every female to produce offspring, and the genetic material of a homosexual will be passed on by his brothers and sisters. The cause of his homosexuality may be linked to other advantages that the family shares, even though his homosexuality itself may serve no advantage at all.


Anyway, this is all just speculation, but I'm throwing it out there just to say it's not as simple as "stop them from breeding, then more of them won't be produced".

 

Your theory has more holes in it then swiss cheese. I would attempt to address all your fallacies however I'm sure this was merely a flame bait attempt. I can't imagine any one really being serious about any of this.

 

Leave cheesy holes out of this, your reply is no reply at all... except for some statement about your own ego = worthless and OT.

 

Well, it is certain that there is no single "lifestyle" which one can describe as being homosexual. Really, that term doesn't fit very well, for describing people's sexuality.

What is a homosexual "lifestyle"? (Really.)

 

It's nothing of the sort. What a ridiculous notion. Gay people have the save diversity of lifestyles as straight people. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality constitute a lifestyle by themselves.

Nobody owns words, so the idea that they can be "nicked" is absurd. The application of the word 'gay' to persons of same-sex orientation is very much the product of the ongoing evolution of language. Moreover, a minority population can't possibly "steal" a word without the cooperation of a significant portion of those in the majority - heterosexuals.

As for the rainbow flag, the use of the rainbow as a symbol likewise doesn't belong to any one group. There have been many variations used by many groups. The original 'gay' rainbow flag had 8 colors; turquoise and hot pink were soon dropped because they made the cost of reproducing the original flag prohibitive. Whether or not it was an 'original' idea is unimportant. The point is, it wasn't "nicked" or "stolen".

Clearly you're intent here is to portray gay people as thieves in order to denigrate them and stir up hate & resentment toward them.

Seems pretty clear that you are, your words to the contrary notwithstanding. Hint: Only anti-gay people feel the need to go around saying they're not anti-gay. Saying it doesn't expunge your offensive and obviously anti-gay statements.

 

If one but opens their heart and mind... it can be readily seen that all some are trying to do is vilify homosexuality and dehumanize homosexual people.

 

For most it seems to be so much more than a sexuality.



But thats the shiny and spakling image for the public.

 

How would you know it is "most"? (I doubt that.)

Got proof?

 

It's a diverse group of people, but yes, that is the sparkling image of the stereotypical homosexual that people often mistake for representing the majority of homosexuals. Do you suppose Johnny or I look, dress or act anything like that image represents? I can't speak for Johnny, but you would nt be able to pick me out of a line-up I you tried. Most gay people I know are not flamboyant. I can't speak beyond the anecdotes I can provide except to say that this "lifestyle" you are putting forward is not representative of the diversity found among gay people, and is only the subset you're more likely to see on tv.

 

Exactly.

 

I wouldnt deny that you and Johnny have no style.

 

Please try and act mature when you're talking to adults.

 

Exactly. The life of the average gay person is probably no more interesting than the average heterosexual. In other words, not particularly sensational, entertaining, or making for 'good' TV. The people one sees portrayed on TV and in movies - whether gay or straight or anyone else are exceptional - as in they're the exception, not the rule.

Sames goes for what passes as news reporting these days: the media focus on what will grab people's attention, which tends to be the more flamboyant, outrageous, unusual, etc.

 

That's the truth.

 

Yes, but as far as you live in isolation and secrecy somewhere and not making others to hear your screaming and complaining about "gay rights".
I don't have a problem about what 2 consenting adult males are doing in a bedroom, like pumping each other in the ass, but I do have a problem when I am forced by law to coexist with you!

 

You really do have a great deal to overcome.

 

What crap is this again? Your approval? Your denial?

You really do some kind of personal issue with following people on the forum who disagree with you. Sound like I am talking with a posting robot and not real person.

 

What are you going on about here? Are gay people really causing you some kind of problem? What is it?!

If we disagree, that is fine. But no, I"m not following YOU... I'm following the threads I subscribe to.

I read your posts, and it isn't difficult to realize that I disagree with what you are expressing overall.

You are either misunderstanding or imagining things.