US Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[1048576]

As usual, El Nino's right, Merkuri's wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality

 

[Dre89]

The reason why homosexuality is being re evaluated is because the rise of Social Contract and consequentialist thinking from the Enlightenment.

Nowadays, what is deemed morally permissable is whatever doesn't harm
others.

The ironic thing is that the person who started that was a fideist Protestant.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Why are you people skirting around the question? What is wrong with homosexuality?

 

[Grandeza]

I believe Dre is against homosexuality because he does not subscribe to the social contract. While most moral systems nowadays are based on what harms others, Dre's is not. If I recall he uses a moral system based on what is deemed as natural. I'm sure he can explain his own point of view better and I hope I didn't misrepresent his view.

*Not that I agree with this stuff.

 

[Merkuri]

Also, anti-homosexuality is always homophobic. Homophobic is a fear of the homosexual life style, and fear is often displayed by anger.

Wow, people really become ridiculous when they are defending something they are passionate about.

I don't mean to offend anyone but this is just a stupid statement. There is nothing that places homosexuality into a separate above all category. I could be disagreeing with homosexuality, bestiality, goth, even Christianity; disagreeing with a sub culture is not equivalent to being afraid or even hating them. To think otherwise is just stupid. You should be disappointed in yourself for writing that.

 

[Merkuri]

As usual, El Nino's right, Merkuri's wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality

Whoops. I so meant western Europe. Sorry.

Why don't you want your child to be exposed to it?

If it is a question of sexuality being too prevalent in media, then wouldn't you have an issue with both heterosexual and homosexual depictions in media? Why target homosexuality specifically?

It would be cool if you didn't answer my question with another question. I wouldn't homosexuality in the media because I don't want my child to be influenced by it, since I don't want him to be a homosexual because I would like to maximize my chances of having a biological heir. Don't be a smart *** and respond to me by saying homosexuality in the media is proven to influence homosexuality in children, that's besides the point. The point here being that my disagreement with homosexuality in this case comes from a logical basis and is not irrational or emotional.


Again I meant to say western and not eastern Europe. Have you ever been to England or France? It's common place to see guys rolling around in the park making out. By wildly accepted I mean wildly accepted relatively to the rest of the world, that much is a fact.

@104785: Don't use wikipedia as a source of anything, you and I can easily edit the information there to support our argument. And sorry for the double post.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

It would be cool if you didn't answer my question with another question. I wouldn't homosexuality in the mdedia because I don't want my child to be influenced by it, since I don't want him to be a homosexual because I would like to mazimize my chances of having a biological heir.

For the bold I will presume you mean Maximize.

Anyway for the underline I could see why you would wish a grandchild, but is that really your choice to make? Also why try to fight against the rights of a complete group of people just so you can have more of a chance to get a grandchild? Also IMO even if gays had full rights there will always be more strait people than gay, so the odds would be in your favor anyways.

 

[Merkuri]

For the bold I will presume you mean Maximize.

Anyway for the underline I could see why you would wish a grandchild, but is that really your choice to make? Also why try to fight against the rights of a complete group of people just so you can have more of a chance to get a grandchild? Also IMO even if gays had full rights there will always be more strait people than gay, so the odds would be in your favor anyways.

Lol I forgot to spell check.

At this point I'm not actually arguing for censorship of homosexuality in the media. Some people made the very absurd point that all anti-homosexual notions are irrational and I was simply demonstration how stupid their point was.

I don't actually have a child btw.

 

[Crimson King]

Nowadays, what is deemed morally permissable is whatever doesn't harm
others.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

@104785: Don't use wikipedia as a source of anything, you and I can easily edit the information there to support our argument. And sorry for the double post.

This is just incorrect. You cannot edit Wiki on major articles with whatever you want because they are reviewed constantly.

As for your reply: homophobia IS hating homosexuality with anger out of fear of what it will do. It's fine to disagree with something, but when you go a step further and publicly condemn it, that is set in to conversation the presumed halting of something, you are crossing a line from disagreement into something much more severe.

What you do with your kids, education-wise, is your prerogative, but the second you mention that homosexuals are worth less than they are (not saying you are, but it's a logical step if you are condemning what they are) then you are continuing and evil bigotry.

Take this article for example: http://www.thebody.com/content/art32247.html

Read what he has to say about homophobia and bigotry for a bit, and really take in what he's saying.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Wait a minute, so believing your child will turn gay from media/TV is rationality now?

 

[Pluvia]

I've never understood that argument. Kids can be turned gay by gay media, but not straight by straight media?

And wouldn't kids have to be exposed to this sort of stuff in early childhood, when any sort of sexual stuff in kids tv is non-exsistant (check out the Katy Perry Elmo thing for example).

 

[Livvers]

Wait a minute, so believing your child will turn gay from media/TV is rationality now?

Lol, thank you. That's what I was thinking. That would be an irrational fear, Merk, because seeing homosexual media does not turn one gay or make them more likely to be gay. It might be rational to the person who thinks that, but it's still, in fact, irrational because it's just wrong.

Also, I lived in France for a collective 3 or so months(collective because I took two trips there and stayed ranging from 1.5-2 months each time). Not once do I remember seeing gays kissing, let along rolling around in the grass making out. If it was commonplace, then it's something I would be sure to remember.

I also live in NYC, one of the most open and accepting cities when it comes to gays, and I maybe have seen gay people "making out" once or twice.

What was the point of that argument, anyways?

 

[Merkuri]

http://www.islamawareness.net/Homosexuality/bornorbred.pdf

This is cool. Apparently I was too quick to believe everyone in that homosexuality wasn't a choice, it was genetic and can't be changed.

 

[deepseadiva]

Lemme bust out my Youtube link again. I recommend this to everyone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY

I'd trust the dozen reputable organizations listed in that video over a report done by the CWA. "US coalition of conservative women which promotes Biblical values and family traditions."

You don't see a possible bias there?

It's not a choice and cannot be changed. It's origins may be muddled, but that itself is a fact.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Did you read that whole article Merkuri? While it claims that there is no "gay gene", there are environmental, psychological and societal issues at play. These aren't things an individual has control over.

"Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not affirmed in their masculinity by a caring father, might be at risk for homosexuality. It’s not because of a homosexual “gene,” but
because of an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can make some boys who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction into homosexuality. A similar pattern can be seen in girls who don’t fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are targeted by lesbians who play upon the girls’ emotional needs."

Seeing something on TV isn't going to brainwash you into a homo.

And besides, that article is pretty horribly biased.

"Americans for too long have been pummeled with the idea that people are “born gay.” The people who most need to hear the truth are those who mistakenly believe they have no chance themselves for change. It is both more compassionate and truthful to give them hope than to serve them up politically motivated, unproven creations like the “gay gene.”"

Robert Knight was director of Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women For America whose "mission statement" is:

* We believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God and the final authority on faith and practice.
* We believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death, rose bodily from the dead on the third day and ascended into Heaven from where He will come again to receive all believers unto Himself.
* We believe all men are fallen creations of Adam's race and in need of salvation by grace through personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
* We believe it is our duty to serve God to the best of our ability and to pray for a moral and spiritual revival that will return this nation to the traditional values upon which it was founded.

 

[El Nino]

I wouldn't homosexuality in the media because I don't want my child to be influenced by it, since I don't want him to be a homosexual because I would like to maximize my chances of having a biological heir. Don't be a smart *** and respond to me by saying homosexuality in the media is proven to influence homosexuality in children, that's besides the point. The point here being that my disagreement with homosexuality in this case comes from a logical basis and is not irrational or emotional.

The idea that children (or anybody) can be "influenced" by depictions of homosexual acts (especially acts that are not deeply sexual in nature) stems from fear. If this is your basis of assumption, it is an assumption based on fear. Rational thought relies on observable cause-and-effect relationships and evidence. If there is no evidence for an assumption, but you choose to maintain that assumption, you are not likely to be doing it with rational basis.

There is rational basis for not wanting your child to be a homosexual, but little rational basis for wanting the censorship of media or denying marriage rights to others for that end.

A better example of a rational basis for NOT wanting your child to be a homosexual might be that you worry that he or she won't have any children to take care of him/her in old age. Adoption is one solution to that concern.

Another concern might also be what I think you were trying to say about wanting the continuation of your genetic line (a desire that is, in a way, also irrational because you'll be long dead and won't be around to worry about it anyway), but regardless of the irrationality of the desire itself, it is still rational to NOT want your child to be a homosexual if we just assume that continuing your genetic line is a desirable goal.

Of course, nature's answer to that is simply to have another child, or to devote yourself to the raising of other children among your biological relatives. Your grandchild will only have 25% of your genes anyway, and your contribution is diluted further along the genetic line. However, you also share similar genes with your other relatives. Taking care of a niece or nephew or a cousin also helps preserve your genetic line.

Again I meant to say western and not eastern Europe. Have you ever been to England or France? It's common place to see guys rolling around in the park making out. By wildly accepted I mean wildly accepted relatively to the rest of the world, that much is a fact.

I see people making out in SF too, but this is in the state that voted against same-sex marriage. Appearances don't always tell you what lies underneath. I understand that the UK offers some type of spousal benefits, and in that regard it is more accepting than the US. I would be incredibly surprised if the LGBT community were accepted at an equal level to heterosexuals, though.

 

[1048576]

http://www.ralliance.org/SpitzerStudy.html

The sample he used was incredibly biased. More criticisms in the link.

This is like the third time you've either lied or been intentionally misleading. Try debating honestly. Finding truth is the goal, right?

 

[Merkuri]

I'll respond to everyone before I go to sleep tonight.

 

[Crimson King]

http://www.islamawareness.net/Homosexuality/bornorbred.pdf

This is cool. Apparently I was too quick to believe everyone in that homosexuality wasn't a choice, it was genetic and can't be changed.

In Islam, gays aren't tolerated at all. Also, Robert Knight hates gays.

Knight is an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage.[4]
In his arguments about homosexuality, Knight has occasionally used the studies of researcher Paul Cameron.[5] Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Knight was interviewed by anchor Bryant Gumbel on the CBS morning program The Early Show. Following the interview, Gumbel was heard muttering that Knight was "a ****ing idiot." ABC television cancelled a scheduled appearance of Knight's for Good Morning America a few days later.[6]

4 Knight, Robert H. (2003). "Talking Points on Marriage: Giving "gay" relationships marital status will destroy marriage". OrthodoxyToday.org. CWFA. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
5 Dreyfuss, Robert (1999-03-18). "The Holy War On Gays". Rolling Stone. PFLAG Detroit. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
6 Graham, Tim (2000-06-30). "Did Gumbel Call Guest a 'F---ing Idiot'?". Reality Check. Media Research Center. Retrieved 2008-06-19.

 

[Pluvia]

El Nino, the UK has Civil Partnerships for gay couples, exactly the same as marraige apart from name, and gay couples are allowed to raise kids.

Unlike the US, religion doesn't get taken nearly as seriously here. Anti-homosexuality is frowned upon by all 3 of the main political partys and the media.

 

[Crimson King]

I'd argue it wasn't good enough. It's similar to the "Separate but Equal."

 

[El Nino]

@Pluvia: Thanks for the clarification. Is it true that homos roll around in the grass and make out in public over there? Or is Merki just pulling my chain?

 

[Merkuri]

I fail to see how this is a bad thing.



This is just incorrect. You cannot edit Wiki on major articles with whatever you want because they are reviewed constantly.

As for your reply: homophobia IS hating homosexuality with anger out of fear of what it will do. It's fine to disagree with something, but when you go a step further and publicly condemn it, that is set in to conversation the presumed halting of something, you are crossing a line from disagreement into something much more severe.

What you do with your kids, education-wise, is your prerogative, but the second you mention that homosexuals are worth less than they are (not saying you are, but it's a logical step if you are condemning what they are) then you are continuing and evil bigotry.

Take this article for example: http://www.thebody.com/content/art32247.html

Read what he has to say about homophobia and bigotry for a bit, and really take in what he's saying.

Anyone opposed to homosexuality ever notice that when you argue with people for homosexuality, they keep trying to change the argument and the focus of the debate?

Dude I just demonstrated a notion in which an anti-homosexuality view was emotional or out of anger and instead stems from logical reasoning. Instead of talking about all this, you should just admit that your former point that all forms of homosexuality being irrational and out of fear was a very dump point.

The idea that children (or anybody) can be "influenced" by depictions of homosexual acts (especially acts that are not deeply sexual in nature) stems from fear. If this is your basis of assumption, it is an assumption based on fear. Rational thought relies on observable cause-and-effect relationships and evidence. If there is no evidence for an assumption, but you choose to maintain that assumption, you are not likely to be doing it with rational basis.

There is rational basis for not wanting your child to be a homosexual, but little rational basis for wanting the censorship of media or denying marriage rights to others for that end.

A better example of a rational basis for NOT wanting your child to be a homosexual might be that you worry that he or she won't have any children to take care of him/her in old age. Adoption is one solution to that concern.

Another concern might also be what I think you were trying to say about wanting the continuation of your genetic line (a desire that is, in a way, also irrational because you'll be long dead and won't be around to worry about it anyway), but regardless of the irrationality of the desire itself, it is still rational to NOT want your child to be a homosexual if we just assume that continuing your genetic line is a desirable goal.

Of course, nature's answer to that is simply to have another child, or to devote yourself to the raising of other children among your biological relatives. Your grandchild will only have 25% of your genes anyway, and your contribution is diluted further along the genetic line. However, you also share similar genes with your other relatives. Taking care of a niece or nephew or a cousin also helps preserve your genetic line.



I see people making out in SF too, but this is in the state that voted against same-sex marriage. Appearances don't always tell you what lies underneath. I understand that the UK offers some type of spousal benefits, and in that regard it is more accepting than the US. I would be incredibly surprised if the LGBT community were accepted at an equal level to heterosexuals, though.

Your analysis is completely wrong. Have you ever heard of argumentum ad ignorantium, it's an illogical fallacy that you made. The lack of evidence of something doesn't proof that the opposite is true.

I couldn't bother to find a reputable source, but there are millions of research on how media influence children and how sex influences children http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm, it would be dumb to think that homosexuality wouldn't influence children either.

The bottom-line is that that gays on tv may or may not have some impact on my child becoming homosexual. But I am simply not willing to take that risk. Therefore I think homosexuality should be censored in the media, or hell just in my household. There is nothing irrational about me not wanting homosexual content to be readily available in my house. It's the equivalent of me not wanting pedophilia or satanism to be censured in the media or just my household.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Originally posted by Merkuri
I doubt gay people enlist in the army for to get other guys (I could be wrong on that though) but while they're there I'm sure they'll try and get some action, and that's a damn shame for the rest of our straight troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

You clam to be running with a logical argument so I went back to the beginning of your argument. Your logic is invalid, because it is a fallacy. You also seem to have a problem with Wikipedia, which is understandable, but the link I posted simply defines a term, I am sure more on the subject of this fallacy with some google-ing of your own.

Edit: To summarize what I just said...

 

[Luigitoilet]

The bottom-line is that that gays on tv may or may not have some impact on my child becoming homosexual. But I am simply not willing to take that risk. Therefore I think homosexuality should be censored in the media, or hell just in my household. There is nothing irrational about me not wanting homosexual content to be readily available in my house. It's the equivalent of me not wanting pedophilia or satanism to be censured in the media or just my household.

Elaborate on the connections homosexuality shares with pedophilia and satanism.

 

[1048576]

Again, hitting on someone is still not allowed. Gay people were in the military 10 years ago, and they couldn't hit on people. DADT's repeal does not affect any of this.

 

[Pluvia]

I'm on my phone and I can't seem to multi-quote. Anyway I'll improvise:

@CK There's a little movement that agree with you, but everyone, including them, knows that it's marraige too. The reason why there hasn't been a big call for it to be called marraige is because people don't really care atm, we all have other problems to worry about. I am 100% certain that if there was a big enough call for it to have its name changed then the government would put it through. Its just that its not that big a deal so nobody cares right now.

@El Nino You barely see anyone, straight or gay, making out in public. You might have to ask someone from London or somewhere like that but I'm guessing their answer will be more or less the same. Seeing any couple displaying public affection like making out is rare. And then look at the % of gay people to straight and imagine how rare that'd be.

So basically he's pulling your leg.

Elaborate on the connections homosexuality shares with pedophilia and satanism.

There's no point LT. You'll say facts like "two consenting adults" etc but he'll ignore all of it and use some sort of "sexual deviantcy" argument if I remember correctly. Silly things like facts, logic and all the ways they're nothing alike wont matter.

 

[Dre89]

CK of course you wouldn't see a problem with Social Contract theory, because you live in the 21st century, where it has become normalised, it's natural you're going to assume in that when you've been brought up in an environment where it is the favoured school of thought.

It's no different to how two hundred years ago, white people didn't see anything wrong with slavery. It's possible that in 300 years, people will look back on these times and be disgusted that we spend money on unnecessary things when we could donate it to charity instead, seeing as society is becoming gradually more consequentialist.

Also, yes homosexuality is not a conscious choice, sexuality is influenced by psychological factors, but that has no significance in the
debate.

 

[Crimson King]

CK of course you wouldn't see a problem with Social Contract theory, because you live in the 21st century, where it has become normalised, it's natural you're going to assume in that when you've been brought up in an environment where it is the favoured school of thought.

It's no different to how two hundred years ago, white people didn't see anything wrong with slavery. It's possible that in 300 years, people will look back on these times and be disgusted that we spend money on unnecessary things when we could donate it to charity instead, seeing as society is becoming gradually more consequentialist.

Also, yes homosexuality is not a conscious choice, sexuality is influenced by psychological factors, but that has no significance in the
debate.

Right, you live in the 21st Century too, friendo. Times changes, thoughts change, mentalities change. If you can't adapt to how society works then, you are just doomed to stay in the past and be miserable because there is no going back ever.

 

[Merkuri]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

You clam to be running with a logical argument so I went back to the beginning of your argument. Your logic is invalid, because it is a fallacy. You also seem to have a problem with Wikipedia, which is understandable, but the link I posted simply defines a term, I am sure more on the subject of this fallacy with some google-ing of your own.

Edit: To summarize what I just said...

You're wrong actually I'm not appealing to probability, I'm not saying that my child will be influenced by gays in the media I'm saying that he may be influenced by gays in the media. It's the equivalent to me not wanting my 15 year old sister to walk in New York City at night because I'm afraid she'll be sexually assaulted. Somethings simply aren't worth the risk. The illogical fallacy you just committed by the way is called Ignoratio elenchi (missing the point)

Elaborate on the connections homosexuality shares with pedophilia and satanism.

They don't necessarily share any similarities which is my point, they don't need to. They are simply lifestyles which may be impressionable on children and therefore I could argue that they should be censured in the media, school grounds, my household, etc.

@Crimson King: Will you admit the stupidity in the point you made before or are you just going to sidestep my post?

 

[Luigitoilet]

This thread is a total disaster.

 

[deepseadiva]

What. This thread is great.

I'm not saying that my child will be influenced by gays in the media I'm saying that he may be influenced by gays in the media.

lol

I think there's a typo somewhere in that.

It's the equivalent to me not wanting my 15 year old sister to walk in New York City at night because I'm afraid she'll be sexually assaulted. Somethings simply aren't worth the risk.

More akin to not wanting your sister to walk in the Bronx because you're afraid she'll turn black.

Which admittingly, is a very understandable fear.

IThey don't necessarily share any similarities which is my point, they don't need to. They are simply lifestyles which may be impressionable on children and therefore I could argue that they should be censured in the media, school grounds, my household, etc.

...I've still yet to see what is explicitly wrong with homosexuality.

I'm convinced it's as morally and physically harmful as a preference to seafood. Or to make the analogy a little more accurate, chewing gum.

 

[Merkuri]

lol

I think there's a typo somewhere in that.

There is no typo there. I assumed people were capable of seeing the difference without me using bold and italics but I guess not....I'm not saying that my child will be influenced by gays in the media I'm saying that he may be influenced by gays in the media.

What. This thread is great.More akin to not wanting your sister to walk in the Bronx because you're afraid she'll turn black.

Which admittingly, is a very understandable fear.

You're incapable of reading someone's argument objectively. The degree of probability is irrelevant here, the possibility here is all that matters. Dude in the future when you're arguing about gays you should try not to take things so personally.

 

[Luigitoilet]

So now the threat of turning gay is equivalent to the threat of being sexually assaulted? And you're criticizing other people for not being objective?

 

[Pluvia]

Everything is getting convulted. Merks logic seems to be that homosexuality in the media at an incredibly young might turn you gay.

This ignores the lack of any sort of even mildly sexual content in toddlers media though. If I'm reading correctly, his argument is that if toddlers were to be exposed to something gay on tv, there is an incredibly small chance that they'll turn gay. Assuming that they're somehow deify this logic by being unaffected by all the straight media.

Correct me if I missed something or interpretted something incorrectly but as you can tell this isn't a rational argument.

 

[Dre89]

Right, you live in the 21st Century too, friendo. Times changes, thoughts change, mentalities change. If you can't adapt to how society works then, you are just doomed to stay in the past and be miserable because there is no going back ever.

My beliefs aren't all linked with a specific school of thought though. Also, your statement assumes moral relativism, also a modern assumption, most likely a result the rise of legal positivism.

 

[El Nino]

The lack of evidence of something doesn't proof that the opposite is true.

Acting on an assumption that lacks proof is not rational behavior, that is my point. In science, technically nothing is impossible. Everything is possible. However, not everything is probable. If we simply acted based on possibility, we would be all over the place. There's no proof that playing Pokemon won't turn you gay either. In a universe of infinite possibility, yes, it is entirely possible that Pikachu turns people gay. However, due to lack of sufficient evidence, I'd say that it is highly improbable.

I couldn't bother to find a reputable source, but there are millions of research on how media influence children and how sex influences children http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm, it would be dumb to think that homosexuality wouldn't influence children either.

Is there any reason why you seem unconcerned about heterosexuality in media? Or are you concerned about that as well?

Therefore I think homosexuality should be censored in the media, or hell just in my household. There is nothing irrational about me not wanting homosexual content to be readily available in my house. It's the equivalent of me not wanting pedophilia or satanism to be censured in the media or just my household.

You have control over what you can show your kids in your household. However, you have less control over other people's lives. If someone wants to watch a show with LGBT themes, they can have that show. And the media can present it and broadcast it over the airwaves. You can just turn it off.

Maybe I don't want my kids to associate with white people. I am racist. But I can't censor white people from U.S. media. That would be impossible. So I just turn off the TV and raise my kids in a cage in the basement, which is the safest place for 'em, really.

This thread is a total disaster.

Let's make it epic, then.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

You're wrong actually I'm not appealing to probability, I'm not saying that my child will be influenced by gays in the media I'm saying that he may be influenced by gays in the media. It's the equivalent to me not wanting my 15 year old sister to walk in New York City at night because I'm afraid she'll be sexually assaulted. Somethings simply aren't worth the risk. The illogical fallacy you just committed by the way is called Ignoratio elenchi (missing the point)

The quote I posted was your early point about...

I doubt gay people enlist in the army for to get other guys(I could be wrong on that though) but while they're there I'm sure they'll try and get some action, and that's a damn shame for the rest of our straight troops.

I think you are getting the argument you are having with other people confused with the argument I am trying to have with you, calming that the other people where saying that you are homophobic (they where, I know) and missing the point of your "logical" argument so I went back to your first post that made any type of argument that one could respond to...
Now, if I was off topic then tell me, what is your point?

They don't necessarily share any similarities which is my point, they don't need to. They are simply lifestyles which may be impressionable on children and therefore I could argue that they should be censured in the media, school grounds, my household, etc.

Even if it can be impressionable on children why is it a bad thing? Would they, I do not know, maybe grow up with the notion that gay people exist, and that there is nothing wrong with it? [SARCASM] Oh, no! How horrible! [/SARCASM]

 

[Crimson King]

@Crimson King: Will you admit the stupidity in the point you made before or are you just going to sidestep my post?

For a change, actually prove how I am wrong rather than just brown shirt someone until they give up in frustration.

 

[Shadic]

How is this debate back to discussing whether or not "gays in the media the media" and other crap can "turn you gay?" Besides the singular godawful source that Merkuri brought up, there's been no other "evidence" for that point. As well as a heaping amount of evidence against it.