Lesbian girl (19) offered plea deal to avoid jail for sex with classmate (14)

[Deberg_1990]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2394516/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Lesbian-high-school-student-urged-plea-deal-19th-birthday-sex-charges.html




A high school cheerleader arrested on felony sexual assault charges for her relationship with a 14-year-old female classmate has been offered a plea deal on her 19th birthday.
Kaitlyn Hunt is being urged to accept the new deal which would keep her out of jail and prevent her from being registered as a sex offender - if she pleads no contest to two misdemeanor battery counts and one felony count for interference of child custody.
Her case attracted a glut of publicity after her parents did multiple interviews, claiming that their daughter was only charged because she is gay. As of May, 300,000 people have signed an online petition to have the charges against the teenager dropped.
Hunt, from Florida, is facing felony charges of lewd and lascivious activity. If she goes to trial, she faces 15 years in prison if convicted.

As of Wednesday, Hunt had not make it known if she would accept the deal.
Under a previous plea deal in May, Kaitlyn would have been forced to register as a sex offender as well as remain on house arrest for two years.
The latest plea deal was offered by the Florida state attorney's office in July, reported CNN, because it balances the needs of Hunt, the unidentified teenage girl and their parents.


Under the deal, Hunt would be placed on probation for three years and have a curfew of 11pm for the first year.
She must also agree never to contact the 14-year-old girl again. Her criminal record would later be expunged or sealed.


Hunt's parents say that the younger girl's parents demanded that Kaitlyn be arrested because they can't come to terms with the fact that their teenage daughter had a relationship with another girl.

Worldwide support: Thousands of people have protested against the prosecution of Hunt
Hunt's family claim that the relationship between the two girls was consensual. However under Florida law, a person under the age of 16 is not considered to be able to legally consent to sex.
The victims' parents say that they are only protecting their daughter and it has nothing to do with her being gay.

The Hunt family have tried to turn the case into a civil rights issue - claiming Kaitlyn was only charged because she is a lesbian.
More than 160,000 people have signed a Change.org petition asking Assistant State Attorney Brian Workman to drop the charges. More than 44,000 people have taken up the cause on Facebook.

Kaitlyn has said the legal battle has been emotionally draining.
She was expelled from Sebastian River High School near central Florida's Atlantic coast.
'Every day's different. Some days I'm my happy self. Some days I'm overwhelmed, some days I'm scared,' she said.

Gay rights advocates say older high schoolers dating their younger counterparts is an innocuous, everyday occurrence that is not prosecuted – regardless of sexual orientation – and not a crime on par with predatory sex offenses.


Hunt played on the basketball team with her younger girlfriend and shared the same circle of friends, said Hunt's mother, Kelley Hunt Smith previously said.
The two had a consenting relationship that began soon after Kaitlyn Hunt turned 18, and Mrs Hunt Smith said she assumed the younger girl's parents knew that.

But Hunt was kicked off the basketball team near the end of last year after the coach learned of the relationship because players were not allowed to date each other, her parents said.
Then, in February, prosecutors filed charges against her. The day before she was arrested, police and the younger girl's parents secretly recorded a phone conversation in which the two girls discussed kissing in the school bathroom, said Hunt's father, Steve Hunt.

[Rain Man]

They let her off easy because she's a girl, and a pretty hot lesbian one at that.

Can you imagine them making this kind of deal for a guy? No way.

[ChiefGator]

I'm glad they included this picture in the story. It really helped explain the whole situation in much more concrete terms:

<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4F7506000005DC-122_634x286.jpg" width="634" height="286" alt="Relationship: The 18-year-old cheerleader faced sex charges for having a lesbian affair with a 14-year-old girl whose identity has been protected" class="blkBorder" />

[Fish]

What happens when the younger one gets of age and wants back on the Kaitlyn train? Surely they couldn't legally keep them apart?

[CrazyPhuD]

I'm glad they included this picture in the story. It really helped explain the whole situation in much more concrete terms:

<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4F7506000005DC-122_634x286.jpg" width="634" height="286" alt="Relationship: The 18-year-old cheerleader faced sex charges for having a lesbian affair with a 14-year-old girl whose identity has been protected" class="blkBorder" />

:shrug: I'd hit it.

[Deberg_1990]

Can you imagine them making this kind of deal for a guy? No way.

Exactly what I was thinking. What if it was a straight 19 year old guy with a 14 year old girl? He would fry.

[jd1020]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4FD45D000005DC-432_306x423.jpg

Would you?

[CrazyPhuD]

What happens when the younger one gets of age and wants back on the Kaitlyn train? Surely they couldn't legally keep them apart?

Won't happen, her parents have pulled up all the carpet and installed hardwood flooring so there's nothing left for her to munch on.

[CrazyPhuD]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4FD45D000005DC-432_306x423.jpg

Would you?

:shake: I liked her better when she was pixelated.

[BigMeatballDave]

Bullshit

[BigMeatballDave]

:shake: I liked her better when she was pixelated.

:spock:

[jd1020]

:shake: I liked her better when she was pixelated.

That's the 19 year old. The pixelated girl is the 14 year old.

[Chief_For_Life58]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4FD45D000005DC-432_306x423.jpg

Would you?

would
http://www.obergfamily.org/images/Getgolen6.jpg

[CrazyPhuD]

That's the 19 year old. The pixelated girl is the 14 year old.

:harumph: Damn it there goes that joke.

[SPchief]

That's one hot piece of dyke

[CrazyPhuD]

would
http://www.obergfamily.org/images/Getgolen6.jpg

:hmmm: is your plow really that rusty????:eek:

[Chief_For_Life58]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4FD45D000005DC-432_306x423.jpg

Would you?

would
http://restaurantnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Smashburger-Introduces-New-Restaurant-Design.jpg

[CrazyPhuD]

That's one hot piece of dyke

There's a joke here but I can't quite put my finger in it.

[Ace Gunner]

not surprised no mention of clark.

[Setsuna]

In Florida you have to be 16 to consent to someone up to 21 years old I think. By law she committed statutory rape if they had sex. Just be because you're homosexual doesn't mean you can't break the law. But you can't tell these idiots that or they'll yell discrimination. Queers.

[DJ's left nut]

Wait...what?

As though 18 yr old boys don't get prosecuted for sleeping w/ 14 yr old girls when the 14 yr old's parents find out?

Fuck Kate's parents and every idiot that signed that petition. If she were a dude nailing a 14 yr old, nobody would care at all about her. This has nothing to do with her being a lesbian and everything to do with her taking advantage of a friggen middle schooler.

I hope she declines the plea deal and spends some time in jail.

[Nickel D]

In her profile photo, is that an ol' sick-nasty herpes wart above her lip and below one of them overly-humongous puppy-dog eyes?

[J Diddy]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4FD45D000005DC-432_306x423.jpg

Would you?

I'd have to tuck away my frank and beans so she'd let me but yeah.

[Setsuna]

Wait...what?

As though 18 yr old boys don't get prosecuted for sleeping w/ 14 yr old girls when the 14 yr old's parents find out?

**** Kate's parents and every idiot that signed that petition. If she were a dude nailing a 14 yr old, nobody would care at all about her. This has nothing to do with her being a lesbian and everything to do with her taking advantage of a friggen middle schooler.

I hope she declines the plea deal and spends some time in jail.

You're absolutely right but when I was 14 I was a Freshman in HS. Doesn't mean she isn't a minor because she is but just saying.

[DJ's left nut]

You're absolutely right but when I was 14 I was a Freshman in HS. Doesn't mean she isn't a minor because she is but just saying.

Yeah, that's right - 14/15 as a Frosh.

In either event, that shit still doesn't fly. A guy would most certainly not get away with it, so why should this girl just because she's a lesbian?

[DenverChief]

IIRC they were both in HS at the time 14-18 (freshman and senior) One of those still in HS kids that happens to be 18 before graduating. Also If IIRC they were dating when the elder was 17 it just happened to spill over into when she was 18

[kysirsoze]

IIRC they were both in HS at the time 14-18 (freshman and senior) One of those still in HS kids that happens to be 18 before graduating. Also If IIRC they were dating when the elder was 17 it just happened to spill over into when she was 18

The point still stands that we wouldn't have heard about this if it was a straight couple. There certainly wouldn't be a petition making it's rounds on the internet.

[patteeu]

I agree with the people pointing out that attitudes would be different if this were a guy and I know I'd be pissed if an 18 year old had sex with my 14 year old daughter, but as long as they were both in high school and as long as it was consensual (even if it wasn't legally consensual), I'd be against harsh legal penalties like jail time or sex offender status.

[patteeu]

The point still stands that we wouldn't have heard about this if it was a straight couple. There certainly wouldn't be a petition making it's rounds on the internet.

You're probably right about that. I wonder how often this kind of relationship (whether gay or straight) comes to the attention of prosecutors in Florida and I wonder how often it's prosecuted.

[Rain Man]

IIRC they were both in HS at the time 14-18 (freshman and senior) One of those still in HS kids that happens to be 18 before graduating. Also If IIRC they were dating when the elder was 17 it just happened to spill over into when she was 18


That's an interesting point. I know this has been discussed before, but I don't remember. Setting the gender stuff aside, if the older one was 17 is it okay? And then is it not okay when she turns 18? Or is it not okay even if she's 17?

[kysirsoze]

I agree with the people pointing out that attitudes would be different if this were a guy and I know I'd be pissed if an 18 year old had sex with my 14 year old daughter, but as long as they were both in high school and as long as it was consensual (even if it wasn't legally consensual), I'd be against harsh legal penalties like jail time or sex offender status.

I totally agree that harsh penalties for this kind of thing are ridiculous. It really comes down to whether the younger kid's parents approve or not. I knew of plenty of senior-freshmen relationships when I was in high school. Any one of the seniors involved could have basically had their life derailed by an angry parent. It's selective enforcement and it takes what should be a law to protect young people and makes it a weapon against them.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be something in place, but like you said, jail time or sex offender status is just too far.

[RaiderH8r]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4FD45D000005DC-432_306x423.jpg

Would you?

I could probably work up the gumption to draw on the divine power of my Moses Rod, part her pink sea, and bang the gay away.

Fer Jesus of course.

Also...
.
.
.
.
.
.
PIIHB.

[Setsuna]

:facepalm:s all around. I JUST SAID 16 is age of consent. I guess me being a Math Major I have to explain this. 14 IS NOT 16. SHE BROKE THE LAW. STFU bleeding hearts.

[Halfcan]

Exactly what I was thinking. What if it was a straight 19 year old guy with a 14 year old girl? He would fry.

Or a 19 year old DUDE with a little 14 year old boy? :shake: How many would sign the Stop the Hate petition then? Zero most likely. I have a 13 year old Son and lets just say- we wouldn't need the courts or a petition. :shake:

[JoeyChuckles]

The "girl" in the thread title is a bit redundant.

[kysirsoze]

:facepalm:s all around. I JUST SAID 16 is age of consent. I guess me being a Math Major I have to explain this. 14 IS NOT 16. SHE BROKE THE LAW. STFU bleeding hearts.

Who are you talking to? I don't think anyone is saying she didn't break the law.

[Kaepernick]

14 will get you 20. Unless you are dyke. Then you get out of jail free.

[Setsuna]

Who are you talking to? I don't think anyone is saying she didn't break the law.

People saying the punishment is too severe. Like they can't process the act of breaking the law.

[Kaepernick]

I rue the brainwashing that goes on in modern schools that makes a pretty young lady into a dyke. Any time prior to 1990, and this pretty young lady has her hands so full with boys, being a dyke would be the furthest thing from her mind.

Now, queerism is so "in" and the drumbeat for "acceptance" and trying homosexuality is so constant, pretty young ladies are turned into dykes by the constant brainwashing. Homosexuality, vegetarianism, evironmental whackos. Just brainwashing.

[ClevelandBronco]

I'd be happy to sign a petition in support of her having to register as a sex offender.

[Setsuna]

I rue the brainwashing that goes on in modern schools that makes a pretty young lady into a dyke. Any time prior to 1990, and this pretty young lady has her hands so full with boys, being a dyke would be the furthest thing from her mind.

Now, queerism is so "in" and the drumbeat for "acceptance" and trying homosexuality is so constant, pretty young ladies are turned into dykes by the constant brainwashing. Homosexuality, vegetarianism, evironmental whackos. Just brainwashing.

Nah all they need is me for a night and they'll abandon all lezzie tendencies by sunrise. Obviously they're all 18+

[hometeam]

I swear this is Q

[TLO]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/15/article-2394516-1B4FD45D000005DC-432_306x423.jpg

Would you?

This is the 19 year old right? She's my age so absolutely positively yes.

[patteeu]

People saying the punishment is too severe. Like they can't process the act of breaking the law.

Someone's having trouble processing something. It appears to be related to the study of math.

[Setsuna]

Someone's having trouble processing something. It appears to be related to the study of math.

Nah I know more than you easy.

[Tombstone RJ]

Wait...what?

As though 18 yr old boys don't get prosecuted for sleeping w/ 14 yr old girls when the 14 yr old's parents find out?

**** Kate's parents and every idiot that signed that petition. If she were a dude nailing a 14 yr old, nobody would care at all about her. This has nothing to do with her being a lesbian and everything to do with her taking advantage of a friggen middle schooler.

I hope she declines the plea deal and spends some time in jail.

if an 18 year old guy sleeps with a 14 year old the same charges would happen. This lesbo and her dumbass parents are morons.

[Tombstone RJ]

The point still stands that we wouldn't have heard about this if it was a straight couple. There certainly wouldn't be a petition making it's rounds on the internet.

BS, the ONLY reason this is making headlines is because it's a lesbo and her dumbass parents are crying foul. Guys get charged all the time with statutory rape when they sleep with an under age girl. It's just the media doesn't make a big stink about it.

[Tombstone RJ]

I rue the brainwashing that goes on in modern schools that makes a pretty young lady into a dyke. Any time prior to 1990, and this pretty young lady has her hands so full with boys, being a dyke would be the furthest thing from her mind.

Now, queerism is so "in" and the drumbeat for "acceptance" and trying homosexuality is so constant, pretty young ladies are turned into dykes by the constant brainwashing. Homosexuality, vegetarianism, evironmental whackos. Just brainwashing.

pretty much. the homosexual community is hell bent on indoctrinating kids into the homosexual lifestyle. The liberal/progressive agenda in the schools is only too happy to oblige. The only bad people are people who don't agree with this agenda and are calling a spade a spade. This 19 year old took advantage of a younger girl who is not at the age of consent.

[kysirsoze]

BS, the ONLY reason this is making headlines is because it's a lesbo and her dumbass parents are crying foul. Guys get charged all the time with statutory rape when they sleep with an under age girl. It's just the media doesn't make a big stink about it.

Yeah... the media doesn't make a big stink about it. So we don't hear about it. What part of my post were you not getting?

[kysirsoze]

I rue the brainwashing that goes on in modern schools that makes a pretty young lady into a dyke. Any time prior to 1990, and this pretty young lady has her hands so full with boys, being a dyke would be the furthest thing from her mind.

Now, queerism is so "in" and the drumbeat for "acceptance" and trying homosexuality is so constant, pretty young ladies are turned into dykes by the constant brainwashing. Homosexuality, vegetarianism, evironmental whackos. Just brainwashing.

:facepalm:

[kysirsoze]

People saying the punishment is too severe. Like they can't process the act of breaking the law.

I feel silly spelling this out for you, but people saying it is too severe disagree with the law as it is. They think the punishment is too severe in general for this offense. Did you take any classes but math?

[big nasty kcnut]

Too fat/omaha

[DenverChief]

The point still stands that we wouldn't have heard about this if it was a straight couple. There certainly wouldn't be a petition making it's rounds on the internet.


I remember this

In 2003, Georgia prosecuted Marcus Dixon, 18, for having sex with a 16-year-old white teenager who attended high school with him. Dixon, a black male, was a model student with a 3.96 GPA and a scholarship to Vanderbilt University. The state charged Dixon with numerous crimes, including forcible rape, statutory rape, aggravated child molestation, assault, and false imprisonment. Dixon was convicted of aggravated child molestation and statutory rape. He received a mandatory 10-year-sentence for aggravated child molestation.

Under Georgia law, statutory rape charge is a misdemeanor when the participants are close in age. But the prosecutor added on the aggravated child molestation charge, which carried a much harsher mandatory sentence. Critics argued that the prosecutor and the victim's parents were motivated by race. Ultimately, the state supreme court dismissed the aggravated child molestation charge as inappropriately filed; today, Dixon is a professional football player.

[patteeu]

I remember this

Wow, we've got a celebrity on the team.

[Fish]

pretty much. the homosexual community is hell bent on indoctrinating kids into the homosexual lifestyle. The liberal/progressive agenda in the schools is only too happy to oblige. The only bad people are people who don't agree with this agenda and are calling a spade a spade. This 19 year old took advantage of a younger girl who is not at the age of consent.

The "Homosexual community"... they don't give a shit about indoctrinating anybody. They simply want acceptance.

The only agenda in schools is that of the people that run the schools. Which is for the most part elected by the community, which everyone has equal voice in choosing and approving.

People can agree or disagree, but neither view makes them bad.

The last sentence is completely accurate. And it's the only thing that matters here.

[J Diddy]

I rue the brainwashing that goes on in modern schools that makes a pretty young lady into a dyke. Any time prior to 1990, and this pretty young lady has her hands so full with boys, being a dyke would be the furthest thing from her mind.

Now, queerism is so "in" and the drumbeat for "acceptance" and trying homosexuality is so constant, pretty young ladies are turned into dykes by the constant brainwashing. Homosexuality, vegetarianism, evironmental whackos. Just brainwashing.

I would have to say I disagree with your opinion. It's a fad that people are gay, huh? What about the people who waited until they got older to engage in that lifestyle? What about those that keep it hidden? Fucking kids shooting themselves, hanging themselves or drugging themselves because they're being bullied. Is that too a fad or brainwashing?

[COchief]

:shake: I liked her better when she was pixelated.

Yeah, uh-huh buddy. Please post a pic of your pig-wife or your bear boyfriend?

Full of shit or gay are the only options for you.

[Brando]

Nah all they need is me for a night and they'll abandon all lezzie tendencies by sunrise. Obviously they're all 18+

Says the 25 year old virgin. That's rich. Maybe chef can help you find the clittorus.

[COchief]

pretty much. the homosexual community is hell bent on indoctrinating kids into the homosexual lifestyle. The liberal/progressive agenda in the schools is only too happy to oblige. The only bad people are people who don't agree with this agenda and are calling a spade a spade. This 19 year old took advantage of a younger girl who is not at the age of consent.

Either you want to lick a dick or a vagina, they're pretty different, no amount of liberal agenda is going to sway that bottom line buddy.

[J Diddy]

pretty much. the homosexual community is hell bent on indoctrinating kids into the homosexual lifestyle. The liberal/progressive agenda in the schools is only too happy to oblige. The only bad people are people who don't agree with this agenda and are calling a spade a spade. This 19 year old took advantage of a younger girl who is not at the age of consent.

I'm curious as to what evidence you have supporting your indoctrination and willingness of the liberal/progressive agenda in the schools.

What the 19 year old did was wrong and she is being punished for it.

[patteeu]

The "Homosexual community"... they don't give a shit about indoctrinating anybody. They simply want acceptance.

The only agenda in schools is that of the people that run the schools. Which is for the most part elected by the community, which everyone has equal voice in choosing and approving.

People can agree or disagree, but neither view makes them bad.

The last sentence is completely accurate. And it's the only thing that matters here.

That's a form of indoctrination. We indoctrinate our children with our moral values and one faction in our society wants acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle to be one of those values. Meanwhile, another faction wants to indoctrinate our children with the idea that homosexuality is wrong.

Edit: After reading the post you were responding to, I agree that they're not trying to indoctrinate our kids into a homosexual lifestyle. I won't say "no one" because there are probably some outliers who are trying to "convert" kids just as there are outliers in the straight community trying to fix homosexuals, but it's insignificant.

[hometeam]

Either you want to lick a dick or a vagina, they're pretty different, no amount of liberal agenda is going to sway that bottom line buddy.

Pretty much this, if you don't believe this you are in denial. Its built into our (and other animals) genes. Always has been, always will be.

[cosmo20002]

That's a form of indoctrination. We indoctrinate our children with our moral values and one faction in our society wants acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle to be one of those values. Meanwhile, another faction wants to indoctrinate our children with the idea that homosexuality is wrong.

Ah, I think I see what you did there...

[J Diddy]

That's a form of indoctrination. We indoctrinate our children with our moral values and one faction in our society wants acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle to be one of those values. Meanwhile, another faction wants to indoctrinate our children with the idea that homosexuality is wrong.

So basically one group wants to be accepted and the other wants them banished because they believe they are wrong. Yep, that's the American dream right there. Be free (as long as a bunch of hypocrites who have a litany of sins themselves condone)

[patteeu]

Ah, I think I see what you did there...

I read his post without paying attention to the context of the post to which he was replying. I've edited mine.

[Fish]

That's a form of indoctrination. We indoctrinate our children with our moral values and one faction in our society wants acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle to be one of those values. Meanwhile, another faction wants to indoctrinate our children with the idea that homosexuality is wrong.

"Wrong" by religious standards, and "Wrong" by legal standards are separate things.

[patteeu]

So basically one group wants to be accepted and the other wants them banished because they believe they are wrong. Yep, that's the American dream right there. Be free (as long as a bunch of hypocrites who have a litany of sins themselves condone)

The same is true of NAMBLA as I'm sure you know. One group wants man boy love accepted and the other wants them banished because they believe they are wrong. Sometimes simplistic analyses aren't very useful.

[J Diddy]

That's a form of indoctrination. We indoctrinate our children with our moral values and one faction in our society wants acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle to be one of those values. Meanwhile, another faction wants to indoctrinate our children with the idea that homosexuality is wrong.

Edit: After reading the post you were responding to, I agree that they're not trying to indoctrinate our kids into a homosexual lifestyle. I won't say "no one" because there are probably some outliers who are trying to "convert" kids just as there are outliers in the straight community trying to fix homosexuals, but it's insignificant.

I can pretty much guarantee there's a significantly larger faction trying to convert homosexual to heterosexual than the other way around.

[patteeu]

"Wrong" by religious standards, and "Wrong" by legal standards are separate things.

Yes, of course they are, although I have no idea why you think that was worth saying. I was talking about wrong by moral standards, btw (as opposed to religious or legal).

[patteeu]

I can pretty much guarantee there's a significantly larger faction trying to convert homosexual to heterosexual than the other way around.

I don't care and I don't think it matters.

[J Diddy]

The same is true of NAMBLA as I'm sure you know. One group wants man boy love accepted and the other wants them banished because they believe they are wrong. Sometimes simplistic analyses aren't very useful.

I don't know what NAMBLA is, nor do I care.

Do you believe homosexuality is wrong?

[patteeu]

I don't know what NAMBLA is, nor do I care.

Sure you don't.

Do you believe homosexuality is wrong?

Nope. Do you?

[J Diddy]

I don't care and I don't think it matters.

Virtually every person with a bible says homosexuality is wrong. Do they say these things because they just want to be mean or is it to repent?


Seriously, do you even believe the shit you lay out.

[GloryDayz]

Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning.... Wow... Stunning....

[J Diddy]

Sure you don't.



Nope. Do you?

I just looked it up. Any act with a minor is wrong, regardless of orientation. That's not a matter of sexuality, it's a matter of not being capable of these decisions.

[patteeu]

Virtually every person with a bible says homosexuality is wrong. Do they say these things because they just want to be mean or is it to repent?

Your premise is wrong. Beyond that, I don't have any idea how this is relevant to anything I've said.

Seriously, do you even believe the shit you lay out.

Yes. Do you understand it?

[patteeu]

I just looked it up. Any act with a minor is wrong, regardless of orientation. That's not a matter of sexuality, it's a matter of not being capable of these decisions.

Don't be so defensive.

[J Diddy]

Your premise is wrong. Beyond that, I don't have any idea how this is relevant to anything I've said.



Yes. Do you understand it?
Some "outliers" on both sides that wish to convert others? What is an outlier there chief? It is an aberration or a deviation from the norm. The entire religious right must be an outlier then. That's one big old anomaly.

That is what I'm referring to, although, admittedly I misread your original quote about it not mattering, which I also disagree with.

[Fish]

Yes, of course they are, although I have no idea why you think that was worth saying. I was talking about wrong by moral standards, btw (as opposed to religious or legal).

It’s not the government’s responsibility to legislate morality.

[J Diddy]

Don't be so defensive.

This is something I am very passionate about. I think it is wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

[Tombstone RJ]

I'm curious as to what evidence you have supporting your indoctrination and willingness of the liberal/progressive agenda in the schools.

What the 19 year old did was wrong and she is being punished for it.

In California the public schools now have to teach gay history. This is nothing more than indoctrination. Why should someone's sexual preference matter? When I was in school, we learned all about history and yes, if a person happened to be homosexual, that was brought up. But we didn't focus on it. For example, Alexander the Great did a lot of things, and we learned about Alexander the Great, and oh yah, merely as a side note, some believed he was gay. OK, fine.

Point being, someone's sexuality should not be a prerequisite to discuss them in history. You don't learn about Henry Ford or Thomas Edison because they were straight. You don't learn about George Washington because "he like the whoman!" You learn about these people because they made a difference in history, not because they were womanizers or were straight.

It's nothing more than changing the way we learn history to invoke an agenda. That agenda is that gay people are like everyone else. Guess what, gay people are not like everyone else. They are different and that doesn't mean they are special. It just means they choose to practice their sexuality in a way that 97% of society doesn't agree with or fiends offensive.

[ClevelandBronco]

Virtually every person with a bible says homosexuality is wrong.

No, actually many of us are just fine with it or don't much care one way or the other.

[ClevelandBronco]

It’s not the government’s responsibility to legislate morality.

I've noticed that a large fraction of the people who say this actually mean, "It's not the government's responsibility to legislate your morality. It gets in the way of them legislating mine."

[TLO]

Off to DC in 3....2...1....

[J Diddy]

In California the public schools now have to teach gay history. This is nothing more than indoctrination. Why should someone's sexual preference matter? When I was in school, we learned all about history and yes, if a person happened to be homosexual, that was brought up. But we didn't focus on it. For example, Alexander the Great did a lot of things, and we learned about Alexander the Great, and oh yah, merely as a side note, some believed he was gay. OK, fine.

Point being, someone's sexuality should not be a prerequisite to discuss them in history. You don't learn about Henry Ford or Thomas Edison because they were straight. You don't learn about George Washington because "he like the whoman!" You learn about these people because they made a difference in history, not because they were womanizers or were straight.

It's nothing more than changing the way we learn history to invoke an agenda. That agenda is that gay people are like everyone else. Guess what, gay people are not like everyone else. They are different and that doesn't mean they are special. It just means they choose to practice their sexuality in a way that 97% of society doesn't agree with or fiends offensive.

The way I understand the law to read is that it forces them to include the contributions of gay people in history. I've seen nowhere that it forces to throw some gay people in there that aren't worthy of being included solely because they're gay.

Furthermore, we both know the 97 percent number to be complete and utter bullshit.

[Setsuna]

Says the 25 year old virgin. That's rich. Maybe chef can help you find the clittorus.

ROFL I heard if you adjust the stick every once in a while, you'll be able to know when someone is joking around.

[Fish]

I've noticed that a large fraction of the people who say this actually mean, "It's not the government's responsibility to legislate your morality. It gets in the way of them legislating mine."

No, that would be a bad idea. At least in my case. I would enact a pretty ruthless totalitarian system that would exterminate at least 40% of the population. For starters.

[J Diddy]

No, actually many of us are just fine with it or don't much care one way or the other.

hmmm

Tombstone just said 97 percent of society finds it wrong or offensive. Your opinion on that statistic?

[kysirsoze]

It just means they choose to practice their sexuality in a way that 97% of society doesn't agree with or fiends offensive.

Haha. Jesus Christ. Just... LMAO

[Setsuna]

I believe it's wrong.

[Tombstone RJ]

I can pretty much guarantee there's a significantly larger faction trying to convert homosexual to heterosexual than the other way around.

I disagree. If the homosexual movement wasn't so militant then people like me wouldn't be calling them out on their agenda. But don't kid yourself, they definitely have an agenda and that agenda is to make homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled as a bigot. The homosexual/progressive agenda knows that name calling works and if you don't prescribe to their agenda, you too will be labelled as a bigot or as "uneducated and ignorant". This is the same formula that has been used throughout history to get people to capitulate--belittle them and force them to agree. People can't choose their ethnicity, but they can choose their lifestyle.

[kysirsoze]

I believe it's wrong.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-PkpdpY3QhtM/UY-vMbapQeI/AAAAAAAAKSI/zYmb0Yodsiw/w497-h373/wonka.jpg

[Tombstone RJ]

1. The way I understand the law to read is that it forces them to include the contributions of gay people in history. I've seen nowhere that it forces to throw some gay people in there that aren't worthy of being included solely because they're gay.

2. Furthermore, we both know the 97 percent number to be complete and utter bullshit.

1. This already happens. No one denies a person in history is gay. So what the hell is the point of this new "gay education?"

2. You've been indoctrinated. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuals make up more than 3% of any population.

[J Diddy]

I disagree. If the homosexual movement wasn't so militant then people like me wouldn't be calling them out on their agenda. But don't kid yourself, they definitely have an agenda and that agenda is to make homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled as a bigot. The homosexual/progressive agenda knows that name calling works and if you don't prescribe to their agenda, you too will be labelled as a bigot or as "uneducated and ignorant". This is the same formula that has been used throughout history to get people to capitulate--belittle them and force them to agree. People can't choose their ethnicity, but they can choose their lifestyle.

There's a whole lot there that we won't agree on, ever. In particular it being a lifestyle choice.

I don't know what you mean by militant but I've yet to meet a single militant homosexual nor have I heard of militancy.

The problem I see is that they want to be treated fair and you don't think that they should. That, my friend, is oppression.

[Setsuna]

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-PkpdpY3QhtM/UY-vMbapQeI/AAAAAAAAKSI/zYmb0Yodsiw/w497-h373/wonka.jpg

No. That's it. If you can't tolerate my belief and opinion then that makes you a bigot. No skin off my back.

[Tombstone RJ]

Haha. Jesus Christ. Just... LMAO

hey look, someone for LA laughing at me because I disagree with the homosexual agenda!

Congrats, you've been indoctrinated. Next you will be calling me ignorant and uneducated and... wait for it... a bigot! :clap:

[kysirsoze]

I disagree. If the homosexual movement wasn't so militant then people like me wouldn't be calling them out on their agenda. But don't kid yourself, they definitely have an agenda and that agenda is to make homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled as a bigot. The homosexual/progressive agenda knows that name calling works and if you don't prescribe to their agenda, you too will be labelled as a bigot or as "uneducated and ignorant". This is the same formula that has been used throughout history to get people to capitulate--belittle them and force them to agree. People can't choose their ethnicity, but they can choose their lifestyle.

Why would you want to choose it for them is the question.

[ClevelandBronco]

hmmm

Tombstone just said 97 percent of society finds it wrong or offensive. Your opinion on that statistic?

I think that according to the Williams Institute, which was founded to study and promote LGBT issues, approximately 3.8% of the U.S. population identifies themselves as being something other than heterosexual. That would tell me that 96.2% of the U.S. population finds it wrong for themselves, and that some probably even find it offensive.

My opinion is that the percentage who are LGBT won't change much (that is, it will remain at close to 4%), but that acceptance is (and should be) increasing.

[kysirsoze]

hey look, someone for LA laughing at me because I disagree with the homosexual agenda!

Congrats, you've been indoctrinated. Next you will be calling me ignorant and uneducated and... wait for it... a bigot! :clap:

No, I'm laughing at you for claiming 97% of society thinks homosexuality is wrong or "fiends" it offensive. You're laughably inaccurate. Also, I find the term "homosexual agenda" pretty funny. Feel free to keep playing the victim, though. Have fun on the wrong side of history.

[ClevelandBronco]

I don't know what you mean by militant but I've yet to meet a single militant homosexual nor have I heard of militancy.

Someone mentioned Alexander the Great earlier. He was pretty militant.

[Tombstone RJ]

There's a whole lot there that we won't agree on, ever. In particular it being a lifestyle choice.

I don't know what you mean by militant but I've yet to meet a single militant homosexual nor have I heard of militancy.

The problem I see is that they want to be treated fair and you don't think that they should. That, my friend, is oppression.

I guess we will just disagree. I don't think homosexuals are oppressed at all, in fact, I think they wield more political power and persuasion than any other "minority" in the world, especially considering they are a small minority who chooses their lifestyle. Yes, it's a choice. Explain bisexuality if it's not a choice.

Let me help you--you can't explain bisexuality. Neither can the homosexual community.

[kysirsoze]

I think that according to the Williams Institute, which was founded to study and promote LGBT issues, approximately 3.8% of the U.S. population identifies themselves as being something other than heterosexual. That would tell me that 96.2% of the U.S. population finds it wrong for themselves, and that some probably even find it offensive.

My opinion is that the percentage who are LGBT won't change much (that is, it will remain at close to 4%), but that acceptance is (and should be) increasing.

Clearly not what he meant.

[kysirsoze]

Someone mentioned Alexander the Great earlier. He was pretty militant.

LMAO

[J Diddy]

1. This already happens. No one denies a person in history is gay. So what the hell is the point of this new "gay education?"

2. You've been indoctrinated. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuals make up more than 3% of any population.

I can honestly say that until college it wasn't something that was discussed. However, it is a civil rights battle and isn't included in any text books. I can see the justification of it, but as to being for or opposed, I can't seem to find any info on what exactly is taught in those classrooms for me to form and objective opinion on it. All I find was articles about it going into effect and a bunch of Christian advocates saying it is wrong and what it is going to do. The law has been in effect for a while now, why isn't there any current data on what's being done.

I'm not gay and I sure don't think it's offensive or wrong for someone to do with as they choose. I must be an outlier huh?

[Setsuna]

I think that according to the Williams Institute, which was founded to study and promote LGBT issues, approximately 3.8% of the U.S. population identifies themselves as being something other than heterosexual. That would tell me that 96.2% of the U.S. population finds it wrong for themselves, and that some probably even find it offensive.

My opinion is that the percentage who are LGBT won't change much (that is, it will remain at close to 4%), but that acceptance is (and should be) increasing.

What do you mean by acceptance?

[kysirsoze]

I guess we will just disagree. I don't think homosexuals are oppressed at all, in fact, I think they wield more political power and persuasion than any other "minority" in the world, especially considering they are a small minority who chooses their lifestyle. Yes, it's a choice. Explain bisexuality if it's not a choice.

Let me help you--you can't explain bisexuality. Neither can the homosexual community.

It's been explained many times. Sexuality is a sliding scale and not everyone fits in with the black and white idea about it many people have long held. It's not that difficult of a concept and I think you could easily understand it if you weren't trying so hard to stick to your narrow views.

[J Diddy]

Someone mentioned Alexander the Great earlier. He was pretty militant.

I've never met Alexander the Great, nor until now, have heard that he was homosexual.

I was going for pertaining to US.

[J Diddy]

What do you mean by acceptance?

I know you've been dying to chime in, so let's hear it.

[ClevelandBronco]

What do you mean by acceptance?

Praying with them instead of for them.

[CrazyPhuD]

Someone mentioned Alexander the Great earlier. He was pretty militant.

Supposedly the Sacred Band of Thebes was some bad ass shit kickers....they just liked to PIIHB.

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

[Tombstone RJ]

No, I'm laughing at you for claiming 97% of society thinks homosexuality is wrong or "fiends" it offensive. You're laughably inaccurate. Also, I find the term "homosexual agenda" pretty funny. Feel free to keep playing the victim, though. Have fun on the wrong side of history.

I said 97% doesn't agree with it or finds it offensive. So what I'm saying is the 97% aren't homosexual and don't practice homosexuality. If you disagree with something, you generally don't do it.

As for accepting the homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals can do whatever they want behind closed doors, between consenting adults. What I disagree with is people like you who say I'm wrong for calling them out on their agenda.

[J Diddy]

Praying with them instead of for them.

That is probably the clearest definition of religious acceptance I've ever heard.

[Tombstone RJ]

It's been explained many times. Sexuality is a sliding scale and not everyone fits in with the black and white idea about it many people have long held. 1. It's not that difficult of a concept and I think you could easily understand it if you weren't trying so hard to stick to your narrow views.

This is a slippery slope and utter BS argument. Bisexuality irritates the progressives because they know that homosexuality is a choice and that bisexuality is the elephant in the room.

1. My "narrow views" sounds an awful lot like "uneducated" or "ignorant" lol. Congrats, you are fully indoctrinated.

[Setsuna]

I know you've been dying to chime in, so let's hear it.
LMAO you caught that? Well my point is that this is a free country is it not? If you are a citizen then you have all the rights accorded to all citizens. Outside of marriage I don't see the need or reason for an outcry for acceptance. As far as I can tell it seems the "movement" is to get every single person to like the lifestyle. Nothing a homosexual does and can do is against the law except marriage. To make it seem like there's more to it is unjustifiable.

Praying with them instead of for them.
If they choose to do so sure. Sin is sin. No one us worse than the other. And we have all sinned.

[kysirsoze]

I said 97% doesn't agree with it or finds it offensive. So what I'm saying is the 97% aren't homosexual and don't practice homosexuality. If you disagree with something, you generally don't do it.

As for accepting the homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals can do whatever they want behind closed doors, between consenting adults. What I disagree with is people like you who say I'm wrong for calling them out on their agenda.

If I choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate, it doesn't mean I think chocolate is wrong, so that was a pretty poor word choice.

Regardless, the point isn't how many people are actually homosexual, but how many people support the rights of all regardless of their sexual orientation. Why do you care if homosexuality is normalized? How does this threaten you? If it's a choice, which I don't believe it is, then don't choose it.

I would be willing to bet you just think it's gross or religiously offensive (probably both). Either way your argument has no value in relationship to the law. Calling out some shadowy group of gays forcing their "agenda" of understanding and equal rights doesn't make you some kind of martyr. Sorry.

[Tombstone RJ]

Why would you want to choose it for them is the question.

I don't. Why do you care about promoting the homosexual lifestyle so much?:rolleyes:

[CrazyPhuD]

If they choose to do so sure. Sin is sin. No one us worse than the other. And we have all sinned.

Hey if you like BJs you support sodomy!!!:toast:

[kysirsoze]

LMAO you caught that? Well my point is that this is a free country is it not? If you are a citizen then you have all the rights accorded to all citizens. Outside of marriage I don't see the need or reason for an outcry for acceptance. As far as I can tell it seems the "movement" is to get every single person to like the lifestyle. Nothing a homosexual does and can do is against the law except marriage. To make it seem like there's more to it is unjustifiable.

There are always going to be some people more outspoken than others, but most gay people I know or have even heard from on this issue could really care less what you think of them or their lifestyle. Also, if you think the only discrimination against gay people in this country is withholding marriage, then you have your head in the sand.

[kysirsoze]

I don't. Why do you care about promoting the homosexual lifestyle so much?:rolleyes:

I don't. I care about promoting their rights. The rights I enjoy as a heterosexual. I just don't get why some people are so afraid of the supposed "gay agenda". If gay people just got the rights they should have, they'd be off the news pretty quick.

[Tombstone RJ]

If I choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate, it doesn't mean I think chocolate is wrong, so that was a pretty poor word choice.

Regardless, the point isn't how many people are actually homosexual, but how many people support the rights of all regardless of their sexual orientation. Why do you care if homosexuality is normalized? How does this threaten you? If it's a choice, which I don't believe it is, then don't choose it.

I would be willing to bet you just think it's gross or religiously offensive (probably both). Either way your argument has no value in relationship to the law. Calling out some shadowy group of gays forcing their "agenda" of understanding and equal rights doesn't make you some kind of martyr. Sorry.

lol, so you are saying choosing who and how to have sex is like choosing an ice cream flavor? Again, BS. This is a horrible analogy, weak, to say the least. Tell me, if someone put a raw and living octopus in your face and pointed a gun to your head and said "EAT IT" and you said "no" that is a much better analogy for the homosexual agenda.

Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality, period. That, at the very least is proven by the vast numbers. Just because I don't think it's "normal" does not mean I'm telling you or anyone who you should sleep with. What I'm saying is that it's not the same as heterosexuality and I recognize it as much. I'm calling a spade a spade.

Who said I'm a martyr? I'm calling out the agenda for what it is. INDOCTRINATION OF THE MASSES.

Sorry you don't agree but you've proven to be "narrow minded."

[Setsuna]

There are always going to be some people more outspoken than others, but most gay people I know or have even heard from on this issue could really care less what you think of them or their lifestyle. Also, if you think the only discrimination against gay people in this country is withholding marriage, then you have your head in the sand.

Discrimination does not equal acceptance. I bet you'd discriminate against a registered sex offender but that doesn't mean they deserve acceptance. And honestly discrimination happens all the time and there's already rules in place to deal with it. Starting a protest about every single time it happens won't make it happen less or make it go away.

[Setsuna]

I don't. I care about promoting their rights. The rights I enjoy as a heterosexual. I just don't get why some people are so afraid of the supposed "gay agenda". If gay people just got the rights they should have, they'd be off the news pretty quick.

That's.....just not true.

[kysirsoze]

lol, so you are saying choosing who and how to have sex is like choosing an ice cream flavor? Again, BS. This is a horrible analogy, weak, to say the least. Tell me, if someone put a raw and living octopus in your face and pointed a gun to your head and said "EAT IT" and you said "no" that is a much better analogy for the homosexual agenda.


Nice. Much better analogy. Still wouldn't call eating a live octopus wrong. Also, unless some gay dudes with guns have forced you to fuck a guy, you probably should revise this analogy, too.

[kysirsoze]

Discrimination does not equal acceptance. I bet you'd discriminate against a registered sex offender but that doesn't mean they deserve acceptance. And honestly discrimination happens all the time and there's already rules in place to deal with it. Starting a protest about every single time it happens won't make it happen less or make it go away.

That doesn't happen and history shows that public protest is a great way for a minority to ensure more fair treatment. So...

[Tombstone RJ]

I don't. I care about promoting their rights. The rights I enjoy as a heterosexual. I just don't get why some people are so afraid of the supposed "gay agenda". If gay people just got the rights they should have, they'd be off the news pretty quick.

What rights are you talking about? Again, BS. If you are talking about marriage, it should be a state issue and nothing more. Just like marijuana. The states should vote on it.

The thing is, the gay agenda is so strong that even when a state like CA votes against gay marriage, it still passes. This is because the homosexual agenda moves everything to the courts so that judges decide, not the people.

Congrats, you've been indoctrinated.

[Tombstone RJ]

Nice. Much better analogy. Still wouldn't call eating a live octopus wrong. Also, unless some gay dudes with guns have forced you to **** a guy, you probably should revise this analogy, too.

fine, let's revise the analogy. Point being, it's not like choosing what you eat.

[Setsuna]

That doesn't happen and history shows that public protest is a great way for a minority to ensure more fair treatment. So...

I fail to believe that this discrimination is as widespread as people make it out to be. Not even near Civil Rights levels. But you'd never know because of how out of hand it's gotten.

[ClevelandBronco]

I fail to believe that this discrimination is as widespread as people make it out to be. Not even near Civil Rights levels. But you'd never know because of how out of hand it's gotten.

Bayard Rustin disagreed with you. He organized the 1963 March on Washington. He was black and he was gay long before either one of those things was cool.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-21/lifestyle/35271492_1_bayard-rustin-civil-rights-organizer

[Setsuna]

Bayard Rustin disagreed with you. He organized the 1963 March on Washington. He was black and he was gay long before either one of those things was cool.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-21/lifestyle/35271492_1_bayard-rustin-civil-rights-organizer

What was he marching for exactly?

[patteeu]

It’s not the government’s responsibility to legislate morality.

Don't be naive. The people legislate morality by way of government all of the time. The right does it. The left does it. Even the libertarians do it. Everyone does it. And it's appropriate to do it. We just don't always agree on what constitutes right and wrong or to what extent we should make wrong illegal.

[patteeu]

Some "outliers" on both sides that wish to convert others? What is an outlier there chief? It is an aberration or a deviation from the norm. The entire religious right must be an outlier then. That's one big old anomaly.

That is what I'm referring to, although, admittedly I misread your original quote about it not mattering, which I also disagree with.

You've got a distorted view of religious people.

[Tombstone RJ]

1. I can honestly say that until college it wasn't something that was discussed. However, it is a civil rights battle and isn't included in any text books. I can see the justification of it, but as to being for or opposed, I can't seem to find any info on what exactly is taught in those classrooms for me to form and objective opinion on it. All I find was articles about it going into effect and a bunch of Christian advocates saying it is wrong and what it is going to do. The law has been in effect for a while now, why isn't there any current data on what's being done.

I'm not gay and I sure don't think it's offensive or wrong for someone to do with as they choose. I must be an outlier huh?

1. It was definitely discussed in the schools I grew up going to. When we studied Shakespeare's Hamlet, one of the questions was "Is Hamlet a homosexual?" I guess it depends on where you go to school.

Point being, homosexuality is not ignored, nor is it vilified. It is being talked about, it is being accepted. Are their "bullies" in school who will pick on a kid for being a perceived gay, yep. Is this any different than a bully picking on a kid for being weaker than the bully or an easy target, nope. This does not mean that we have to teach gay history because of some kids being assholes. Assholes are assholes and this won't change anything.

I'm calling out the gay agenda for what it is--indoctrination. I'm calling a spade a spade. This isn't "evolution" it's a revolution and if you refuse to goose step to their beating drums you too will be called out.

Never, in the history of society, has so few held so much power over so many people. This is the homosexual agenda. 3% of the population telling the other 97% what to think and how to think.

Listen, I'm not saying homosexuals should be persecuted, vilified or belittled, I'm just saying that they are forcing an agenda on me and everyone else who is not a homosexual. I don't think this is right, nor is it fair.

[ClevelandBronco]

What was he marching for exactly?

"Exactly" might be a loaded word. I think that approximately 99 out of every 99 people there were marching to call attention to the predicament of African Americans in the U.S. in 1963. Individually he might have been marching for more than that. By the 1970s he was looking for more, that much we know.

[el borracho]

Tombstone, you are wrong on at least one point. People can make behavioral choices but people cannot choose their sexual orientation. If you think you can choose who you are attracted to, please try the following experiment: Just for a few hours, and without acting on it, choose to be gay. Just go ahead and decide that you really, really love men. You don't have to actually act on it, but decide that women are repulsive to you and you would far prefer to run your fingers through a man's hair, and caress some man ass, and run your tongue down a man's thighs. Go ahead and decide that you would like to penetrate a man, or maybe even let him penetrate you.

If you are being honest, you will have to admit that you cannot truly make yourself feel this way. You cannot make this decision. You are wired how you are wired. You can choose how to act, but you cannot choose your sexual orientation.

[|Zach|]

I said 97% doesn't agree with it or finds it offensive. So what I'm saying is the 97% aren't homosexual and don't practice homosexuality. If you disagree with something, you generally don't do it.

As for accepting the homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals can do whatever they want behind closed doors, between consenting adults. What I disagree with is people like you who say I'm wrong for calling them out on their agenda.

ROFLROFL

[listopencil]

Yes, it's a choice. Explain bisexuality if it's not a choice.

Let me help you--you can't explain bisexuality. Neither can the homosexual community.

OK. Some women not only like the penis, but they find other women to be sexually attractive. Those women are awesome and I love them. As a side note, I've heard that some guys will sleep with both women and other men. I don't care about them and I don't want to think about it. But, back to the hotness, bisexual women are great. They are aroused both by guys (like me) and sexy women (the ones I like). They (and by "they" I mean the bisexual women I have known, which is quite a few) didn't choose to be this way. They have always been attracted to both genders and in many cases "played doctor" with both genders as kids. Several of them have had relationships with people of both genders as teens and adults. It's not like they just decide that their bodies (or their minds) are going to react this way. It just happens for them and they roll with it rather than trying to deny who they are. I assume that the bisexual guys (that I'd rather not think about) go through the same thing. Feel better now?

[BlackHelicopters]

In for T&A

[GloryDayz]

This is a slippery slope and utter BS argument. Bisexuality irritates the progressives because they know that homosexuality is a choice and that bisexuality is the elephant in the room.

1. My "narrow views" sounds an awful lot like "uneducated" or "ignorant" lol. Congrats, you are fully indoctrinated.

So far you sound like the most "indoctrinated" poster on this thread. Perhaps your "indoctrination" is more along the lines of the Phelps family though. ROFL

The bottom line is we get it, you don't like or understand homosexuality. And, if that's not enough, the concept of bisexuality is right up there with quantum physics for you. But I'm sure you'll indicate that you're a NASA scientist focusing on physics and you are a special assistant to the Pope for all matters of science! Try living and let live! It's easy, you just do it. It's like taking a shit, it's not hard to understand you just do it! I'd have said sex but that seems to throw you for a loop, so I stuck with shitting! You do shit, right? Maybe not, you sound like you're a bit backed-up!

Look friend, I don't know how old you are but I'm gray. I grew up in a time where homosexuals were 100% suppressed (unless it was two girls on video doing the deed, then it was all good!) and it was wrong. So as a group (homosexuals) they are doing the one thing they can do to make things right - taking it to court. JFC, all they want is health insurance - but they get fought at every turn! That's laughable! And in the court setting, amongst other things, you have to be very confident that you're right because you have to sell the larger package to a fucking judge. Sorry if your confusing their confidence as being militant!

Next, perhaps you never served, but let me tell you this, when people get militant, other people get hurt. So far there's been little of that. And, I'll opine that if somebody has been getting hurt, it's some gay kid getting his ass kicked by some wannabe tough guys.

I'll also say that I have lesbian neighbors and they are awesome. A beautiful daughter who's as perfect as any other kid, and an awesome son (perhaps the smartest in the GD neighborhood) who I have the pleasure of "indoctrinating" into the Boy Scouts of America. Yeah, and I've enjoyed being THAT guy who made sure he didn't miss out on THAT experience because of his parents lifestyle. LOL, between the BSA and the church that sponsors the troop, the only thing they forgot was the kid, his needs, and what their charter says... Assholes! I guess that makes me militant in your eyes. Well, so be it! I'm as straight as the next straight person, but I'll be dammed if I'm going to let a kid miss out on being a scout!

And don't think the most militant group out there aren't those of you shooting bible passages (directly or indirectly) at the other side. To that group of fellow Christians I say fuck off, and I hope you go to hell! Yeah, in my opinion THEY are the vocal minority, they DON'T speak for the majority of their fellow Christians, and they are grabastic pieces of turtle shit! For purporting to represent a religion based on love, they have more hate in their hearts than blood. They are fuckers, through and through...

So anyway, have a fine day and don't worry, I doubt any gay man or woman will kick your ass at the bus stop!

[ChiTown]

Seriously, why the fuck is this news? HS kids like to fool around and kiss and fondle each other. Straight, Gay or Otherwise. So what?

[Skyy God]

What rights are you talking about? Again, BS. If you are talking about marriage, it should be a state issue and nothing more. Just like marijuana. The states should vote on it.

The thing is, the gay agenda is so strong that even when a state like CA votes against gay marriage, it still passes. This is because the homosexual agenda moves everything to the courts so that judges decide, not the people.

Congrats, you've been indoctrinated.

Polling on gay marriage has shifted substantially since 2008 (when Prop 8 was passed).

[GloryDayz]

Seriously, why the fuck is this news? HS kids like to fool around and kiss and fondle each other. Straight, Gay or Otherwise. So what?

The one being 19 perhaps.. Other than that matter of "law" (and if it'll be applied as blindly as if this were a 19-year-old male having sex with a 14-year-old girl), I agree, this means nothing beyond that one issue. Let's hope the focus stays on age and the girl-on-girl thing isn't considered.

[Mojo Jojo]

The one being 19 perhaps.. Other than that matter of "law" (and if it'll be applied as blindly as if this were a 19-year-old male having sex with a 14-year-old girl), I agree, this means nothing beyond that one issue. Let's hope the focus stays on age and the girl-on-girl thing isn't considered.

I agree with you 100% Problem is it seems the DA is cutting a deal based on the girl/girl thing. I could be wrong, but I doubt you would see a male get the same deal.

[buddha]

That's hawt...

[Iowanian]

Equal treatment is equal treatment.

If, under the same circumstances an older boy would end up on the offender list, well....welcome to equality Miss yeswouldsmash.

[Radar Chief]

Seriously, why the **** is this news? HS kids like to fool around and kiss and fondle each other. Straight, Gay or Otherwise. So what?

It’s not news, it’s statutory rape and a guy would be in prison over it without a single media tear.

[Ebolapox]

So far you sound like the most "indoctrinated" poster on this thread. Perhaps your "indoctrination" is more along the lines of the Phelps family though. ROFL

The bottom line is we get it, you don't like or understand homosexuality. And, if that's not enough, the concept of bisexuality is right up there with quantum physics for you. But I'm sure you'll indicate that you're a NASA scientist focusing on physics and you are a special assistant to the Pope for all matters of science! Try living and let live! It's easy, you just do it. It's like taking a shit, it's not hard to understand you just do it! I'd have said sex but that seems to throw you for a loop, so I stuck with shitting! You do shit, right? Maybe not, you sound like you're a bit backed-up!

Look friend, I don't know how old you are but I'm gray. I grew up in a time where homosexuals were 100% suppressed (unless it was two girls on video doing the deed, then it was all good!) and it was wrong. So as a group (homosexuals) they are doing the one thing they can do to make things right - taking it to court. JFC, all they want is health insurance - but they get fought at every turn! That's laughable! And in the court setting, amongst other things, you have to be very confident that you're right because you have to sell the larger package to a ****ing judge. Sorry if your confusing their confidence as being militant!

Next, perhaps you never served, but let me tell you this, when people get militant, other people get hurt. So far there's been little of that. And, I'll opine that if somebody has been getting hurt, it's some gay kid getting his ass kicked by some wannabe tough guys.

I'll also say that I have lesbian neighbors and they are awesome. A beautiful daughter who's as perfect as any other kid, and an awesome son (perhaps the smartest in the GD neighborhood) who I have the pleasure of "indoctrinating" into the Boy Scouts of America. Yeah, and I've enjoyed being THAT guy who made sure he didn't miss out on THAT experience because of his parents lifestyle. LOL, between the BSA and the church that sponsors the troop, the only thing they forgot was the kid, his needs, and what their charter says... Assholes! I guess that makes me militant in your eyes. Well, so be it! I'm as straight as the next straight person, but I'll be dammed if I'm going to let a kid miss out on being a scout!

And don't think the most militant group out there aren't those of you shooting bible passages (directly or indirectly) at the other side. To that group of fellow Christians I say **** off, and I hope you go to hell! Yeah, in my opinion THEY are the vocal minority, they DON'T speak for the majority of their fellow Christians, and they are grabastic pieces of turtle shit! For purporting to represent a religion based on love, they have more hate in their hearts than blood. They are ****ers, through and through...

So anyway, have a fine day and don't worry, I doubt any gay man or woman will kick your ass at the bus stop!

rep. correct on all counts.

[Ebolapox]

Equal treatment is equal treatment.

If, under the same circumstances an older boy would end up on the offender list, well....welcome to equality Miss yeswouldsmash.

agree with this too. what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Tombstone RJ]

Tombstone, you are wrong on at least one point. People can make behavioral choices but people cannot choose their sexual orientation. If you think you can choose who you are attracted to, please try the following experiment: Just for a few hours, and without acting on it, choose to be gay. Just go ahead and decide that you really, really love men. You don't have to actually act on it, but decide that women are repulsive to you and you would far prefer to run your fingers through a man's hair, and caress some man ass, and run your tongue down a man's thighs. Go ahead and decide that you would like to penetrate a man, or maybe even let him penetrate you.

If you are being honest, you will have to admit that you cannot truly make yourself feel this way. You cannot make this decision. You are wired how you are wired. You can choose how to act, but you cannot choose your sexual orientation.

OK, I did your experiment and I loved men. I didn't go out and have sex with them because I chose not to. Now I'm back to loving women. See how that works?

Bisexuality is the elephant in the closet.

[Tombstone RJ]

OK. Some women not only like the penis, but they find other women to be sexually attractive. Those women are awesome and I love them. As a side note, I've heard that some guys will sleep with both women and other men. I don't care about them and I don't want to think about it. But, back to the hotness, bisexual women are great. They are aroused both by guys (like me) and sexy women (the ones I like). They (and by "they" I mean the bisexual women I have known, which is quite a few) didn't choose to be this way. They have always been attracted to both genders and in many cases "played doctor" with both genders as kids. Several of them have had relationships with people of both genders as teens and adults. It's not like they just decide that their bodies (or their minds) are going to react this way. It just happens for them and they roll with it rather than trying to deny who they are. I assume that the bisexual guys (that I'd rather not think about) go through the same thing. Feel better now?

Right, it's a choice. Thanks for proving my point.

[Tombstone RJ]

So far you sound like the most "indoctrinated" poster on this thread. Perhaps your "indoctrination" is more along the lines of the Phelps family though. ROFL

The bottom line is we get it, you don't like or understand homosexuality. And, if that's not enough, the concept of bisexuality is right up there with quantum physics for you. But I'm sure you'll indicate that you're a NASA scientist focusing on physics and you are a special assistant to the Pope for all matters of science! Try living and let live! It's easy, you just do it. It's like taking a shit, it's not hard to understand you just do it! I'd have said sex but that seems to throw you for a loop, so I stuck with shitting! You do shit, right? Maybe not, you sound like you're a bit backed-up!

Look friend, I don't know how old you are but I'm gray. I grew up in a time where homosexuals were 100% suppressed (unless it was two girls on video doing the deed, then it was all good!) and it was wrong. So as a group (homosexuals) they are doing the one thing they can do to make things right - taking it to court. JFC, all they want is health insurance - but they get fought at every turn! That's laughable! And in the court setting, amongst other things, you have to be very confident that you're right because you have to sell the larger package to a ****ing judge. Sorry if your confusing their confidence as being militant!

Next, perhaps you never served, but let me tell you this, when people get militant, other people get hurt. So far there's been little of that. And, I'll opine that if somebody has been getting hurt, it's some gay kid getting his ass kicked by some wannabe tough guys.

I'll also say that I have lesbian neighbors and they are awesome. A beautiful daughter who's as perfect as any other kid, and an awesome son (perhaps the smartest in the GD neighborhood) who I have the pleasure of "indoctrinating" into the Boy Scouts of America. Yeah, and I've enjoyed being THAT guy who made sure he didn't miss out on THAT experience because of his parents lifestyle. LOL, between the BSA and the church that sponsors the troop, the only thing they forgot was the kid, his needs, and what their charter says... Assholes! I guess that makes me militant in your eyes. Well, so be it! I'm as straight as the next straight person, but I'll be dammed if I'm going to let a kid miss out on being a scout!

And don't think the most militant group out there aren't those of you shooting bible passages (directly or indirectly) at the other side. To that group of fellow Christians I say **** off, and I hope you go to hell! Yeah, in my opinion THEY are the vocal minority, they DON'T speak for the majority of their fellow Christians, and they are grabastic pieces of turtle shit! For purporting to represent a religion based on love, they have more hate in their hearts than blood. They are ****ers, through and through...

So anyway, have a fine day and don't worry, I doubt any gay man or woman will kick your ass at the bus stop!

blah, blah, blah. I stopped reading after the first few sentences because you obviously have NOT read all my posts.

Until you read everything I've said (which you haven't) I'm not going to waste my time with your long drawn out post.

[el borracho]

OK, I did your experiment and I loved men. I didn't go out and have sex with them because I chose not to. Now I'm back to loving women. See how that works?

Bisexuality is the elephant in the closet.
You were able to turn yourself into a homosexual? No, I don't see how that works. Actually, I think you are lying.

[BlackHelicopters]

Young love

[Tombstone RJ]

You were able to turn yourself into a homosexual? No, I don't see how that works. Actually, I think you are lying.

:rolleyes:

[Tombstone RJ]

Polling on gay marriage has shifted substantially since 2008 (when Prop 8 was passed).

BS, put it to the vote then.

[Deberg_1990]

So does anyone actually think the 19 y/o raped the 14 y/o? It's interesting because if it was boy/girl or boy /boy we would all instantly think rape.

But yes, the law is the law....equality should mean equal punishment as well.

[listopencil]

Right, it's a choice. Thanks for proving my point.

A choice between what and what?

[Tombstone RJ]

A choice between what and what?

you just went to great lengths to explain how some women choose to sleep with other women (based on looks) and also sleep with men. That is a choice my friend.

[Rausch]

Until you read everything I've said (which you haven't) I'm not going to waste my time with your long drawn out post.

I haven't read everything Thomas Jefferson wrote and he's deserving of my time...

[J Diddy]

you just went to great lengths to explain how some women choose to sleep with other women (based on looks) and also sleep with men. That is a choice my friend.

However, the underlying attraction is not. Absolutely, everyone has a choice (unless they're being raped) on whether or not to give in to their primal sexual urges.

[J Diddy]

I haven't read everything Thomas Jefferson wrote and he's deserving of my time...

I talked to him yesterday. He told me he wasn't.

[jd1020]

So does anyone actually think the 19 y/o raped the 14 y/o? It's interesting because if it was boy/girl or boy /boy we would all instantly think rape.

But yes, the law is the law....equality should mean equal punishment as well.

We should all know by now that there is nothing equal about the law.

[kysirsoze]

How the hell is this not in DC yet?

[J Diddy]

How the hell is this not in DC yet?

It's definitely because it's about lesbians. Lesbians don't belong in DC: They belong at my house. (of age ones of course)

[Rain Man]

you just went to great lengths to explain how some women choose to sleep with other women (based on looks) and also sleep with men. That is a choice my friend.

So would you choose to have sex with someone of whichever gender you're not attracted to? And if not, why not?

[Iowanian]

The good news is, she'll already be prepared for the prison secks.

[el borracho]

:rolleyes:
On second thought, I may have dismissed you too quickly. Please, tell us about your life as a homosexual. Were you more attracted to pretty boys like Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonny Depp, or were you more attracted to more macho men like the cop from the Village People? Was size important to you? Did you dream of big cocks? Did you enjoy the idea of sucking dick or did you imagine going directly to anal? Were you a top or a bottom?

[Tombstone RJ]

However, the underlying attraction is not. Absolutely, everyone has a choice (unless they're being raped) on whether or not to give in to their primal sexual urges.

The "underlying attraction" for these women is based on one thing, looks. These prima donna lesbians only choose to sleep with other physically attractive women. So, they don't sleep with the fat fatties, only the hot hotties. If that's not a "choice" I don't know what is.

You can explain it away but the fact remains this is the quintessential choice. If these women didn't have a choice, they'd sleep with lunch lady and Sam the butcher. And, they'd love it. But they don't. The are particular about who they sleep with. They pick. They choose. They then act. Or, they don't.

Choices. :hmmm:

[Tombstone RJ]

On second thought, I may have dismissed you too quickly. Please, tell us about your life as a homosexual. Were you more attracted to pretty boys like Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonny Depp, or were you more attracted to more macho men like the cop from the Village People? Was size important to you? Did you dream of big cocks? Did you enjoy the idea of sucking dick or did you imagine going directly to anal? Were you a top or a bottom?

I dunno, you tell me. You seem pretty good with the homosexual stuff.

[Rausch]

I talked to him yesterday. He told me he wasn't.

Good.

I don't have that kind of time anyway...

[Tombstone RJ]

So would you choose to have sex with someone of whichever gender you're not attracted to? And if not, why not?

People have sex all the time with someone they aren't necessarily "attracted" to. It's called marriage. But they do it anyway either because they love their spouse or they acquiesce when they don't particularly feel the desire.

[threebag]

Please Legalize Prostitution Soon.

[el borracho]

I dunno, you tell me. You seem pretty good with the homosexual stuff.
No, I am the one who said that choice was not possible with sexual orientation and challenged you to choose to be gay. Not to act gay, but to be gay (attracted to men).

You are the one who claimed to have successfully made that choice. Just a few posts back you told me you decided to be gay and then subsequently decided to be heterosexual. You have had an experience that most of us will never have. Please, tell us about your life as a homosexual.

[Rain Man]

People have sex all the time with someone they aren't necessarily "attracted" to. It's called marriage. But they do it anyway either because they love their spouse or they acquiesce when they don't particularly feel the desire.

Huh?

Having sex with your spouse on Wednesday when you're not feeling amorous is a very different thing than we're talking about. Unless you married someone of a gender you're not attracted to, which seems like the worst night in Vegas ever.

[Rausch]

People have sex all the time with someone they aren't necessarily "attracted" to. It's called marriage.

LMAO

[Tombstone RJ]

No, I am the one who said that choice was not possible with sexual orientation and challenged you to choose to be gay. Not to act gay, but to be gay (attracted to men).

You are the one who claimed to have successfully made that choice. Just a few posts back you told me you decided to be gay and then subsequently decided to be heterosexual. You have had an experience that most of us will never have. Please, tell us about your life as a homosexual.

What is being gay if it's not acting out your homosexuality? My point was that people choose to act on who they sleep with, or don't sleep with. If a homosexual chooses to sleep with someone of the same gender, then that's a choice. They can be celibate too. Or, they can choose to be with someone of the opposite sex. An unmarried hetero man can choose celibacy. So does this make him gay, because he chooses not to sleep with women? Or is he asexual?

People want to make all of this complicated. They try to explain away homosexuality because most people simply don't understand it. I know there are those who sleep with whomever, whenever and I think that is a choice too.

[Tombstone RJ]

Huh?

Having sex with your spouse on Wednesday when you're not feeling amorous is a very different thing than we're talking about. Unless you married someone of a gender you're not attracted to, which seems like the worst night in Vegas ever.

Point being, it's a choice. I was trying to be funny about marriage but the fact is that sometimes, people who are married have intimacy even though one person may not be as aroused or excited about it as the other person. But, they work through it together because they are married.

[el borracho]

I've already stated that people can choose to act or not act. Choosing who you are attracted to, though, is not a choice. That is hard-wired in and has nothing to do with your actions.

Being celibate does not change a person's sexual orientation. They are still attracted to whoever they were hard-wired to like. People may act against their predispositions based on some circumstance (prison, for example) but that still wouldn't change who they are attracted to.

So you tell me... were you truly attracted to men? Were you able to make that choice?

[Rausch]

Being celibate does not change a person's sexual orientation. They are still attracted to whoever they were hard-wired to like. People may act against their predispositions based on some circumstance (prison, for example) but that still wouldn't change who they are attracted to.

Thus, Nuns n' Priests...

[Tombstone RJ]

I've already stated that people can choose to act or not act. Choosing who you are attracted to, though, is not a choice. That is hard-wired in and has nothing to do with your actions.

Being celibate does not change a person's sexual orientation. They are still attracted to whoever they were hard-wired to like. People may act against their predispositions based on some circumstance (prison, for example) but that still wouldn't change who they are attracted to.

So you tell me... were you truly attracted to men? Were you able to make that choice?

I guess we will just agree to disagree. No, I'm not attracted to men, but supposedly neither are men in prison who have sex with each other, yet they still act on their sexual impulses.

[DenverChief]

The "underlying attraction" for these women is based on one thing, looks. These prima donna lesbians only choose to sleep with other physically attractive women. So, they don't sleep with the fat fatties, only the hot hotties. If that's not a "choice" I don't know what is.

You can explain it away but the fact remains this is the quintessential choice. If these women didn't have a choice, they'd sleep with lunch lady and Sam the butcher. And, they'd love it. But they don't. The are particular about who they sleep with. They pick. They choose. They then act. Or, they don't.

Choices. :hmmm:

The same way you choose not to sleep with the lunch lady retard

http://wishfit.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/lunch-lady.jpg?w=440&h=500

[Tombstone RJ]

The same way you choose not to sleep with the lunch lady retard

http://wishfit.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/lunch-lady.jpg?w=440&h=500

ROFL

[Rausch]

I guess we will just agree to disagree. No, I'm not attracted to men, but supposedly neither are men in prison who have sex with each other, yet they still act on their sexual impulses.

I'm not an expert on psychology or human relations but "prison sex" and "choice" really shouldn't be used in the same argument.

Just saying...

[DenverChief]

Tombstone RJ must be a Kotter Mult

[Tombstone RJ]

I'm not an expert on psychology or human relations but "prison sex" and "choice" really shouldn't be used in the same argument.

Just saying...

perhaps, but it happens nontheless.

[DenverChief]

perhaps, but it happens nontheless.

as does homosexuality and heterosexuality in the wild - what exactly is your point?

[Rausch]

perhaps, but it happens nontheless.

So does athlete's foot...

[Tombstone RJ]

as does homosexuality and heterosexuality in the wild - what exactly is your point?

meh, go back and read my 29 other posts. I'm outta here...

[el borracho]

I guess we will just agree to disagree. No, I'm not attracted to men, but supposedly neither are men in prison who have sex with each other, yet they still act on their sexual impulses.

Ah, so finally you admit that you are not able to choose your sexual orientation (who you are attracted to). Don't feel badly- nobody else can make that choice, either.

Prison is a special circumstance, as I already stated. If a heterosexual man goes to prison, he may choose to have homosexual sex. This doesn't mean that he has suddenly become attracted to men, only that he has decided to have sex with men. What do you think happens when a heterosexual man gets out of prison? He goes back to his hard-wired predisposition and has sex exclusively with women.

[Rausch]

meh, go back and read my 29 other posts. I'm outta here...

...

http://kristinhoppe.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/well_bye.jpg

[Rausch]

If a heterosexual man goes to prison, he may choose to have homosexual sex.

Not so much.

Usually it happens to them.

[Tombstone RJ]

Ah, so finally you admit that you are not able to choose your sexual orientation (who you are attracted to). Don't feel badly- nobody else can make that choice, either.

Prison is a special circumstance, as I already stated. If a heterosexual man goes to prison, he may choose to have homosexual sex. This doesn't mean that he has suddenly become attracted to men, only that he has decided to have sex with men. What do you think happens when a heterosexual man gets out of prison? He goes back to his hard-wired predisposition and has sex exclusively with women.

All prison does is prove my point that it's a choice. I mean, if you can't admit this then we really have nothing left to discuss.

[DenverChief]

meh, go back and read my 29 other posts. I'm outta here...

No thanks - I'll pass on reading ignorance

[Tombstone RJ]

...

http://kristinhoppe.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/well_bye.jpg

lol, fair enough!

[jd1020]

All prison does is prove my point that it's a choice. I mean, if you can't admit this then we really have nothing left to discuss.

People choose to get raped?

[Rausch]

All prison does is prove my point that it's a choice.

Prison fucking blows up your point.

You have no clue what the fuck you're talking about...

[DenverChief]

Ah, so finally you admit that you are not able to choose your sexual orientation (who you are attracted to). Don't feel badly- nobody else can make that choice, either.

Prison is a special circumstance, as I already stated. If a heterosexual man goes to prison, he may choose to have homosexual sex. This doesn't mean that he has suddenly become attracted to men, only that he has decided to have sex with men. What do you think happens when a heterosexual man gets out of prison? He goes back to his hard-wired predisposition and has sex exclusively with women.

Or maybe there are more homosexuals in prison than heterosexuals.

Not every male inmate in a prison resorts to homosexual sex. Sexual orientation is not a is or is not question. It is a matter of shades. On one end it is exclusively heterosexual and the other end it is exclusively homosexual. In between are vast percentages of bisexuality.

[Rausch]

Or maybe there are more homosexuals in prison than heterosexuals.

Only when they come out...











See what I did there?...

[DenverChief]

Only when they come out...











See what I did there?...

ROFL

[Dave Lane]

They should totally drop the charges....

If there is video.

[patteeu]

I've already stated that people can choose to act or not act. Choosing who you are attracted to, though, is not a choice. That is hard-wired in and has nothing to do with your actions.

Being celibate does not change a person's sexual orientation. They are still attracted to whoever they were hard-wired to like. People may act against their predispositions based on some circumstance (prison, for example) but that still wouldn't change who they are attracted to.

So you tell me... were you truly attracted to men? Were you able to make that choice?

I'm not sure pedophiles have a choice about who they're attracted to, but we expect them to choose a behavior that doesn't reflect that attraction.

[listopencil]

you just went to great lengths to explain how some women choose to sleep with other women (based on looks) and also sleep with men. That is a choice my friend.

So you think a woman chooses for her nipples to get hard, her breathing to become rapid and shallow, her vagina to begin lubricating itself in anticipation, etc? Not to mention all the stuff that goes on inside her head?

[vailpass]

God bless hot bi chicks

[ChiTown]

It’s not news, it’s statutory rape and a guy would be in prison over it without a single media tear.

I get that. I think it sucks no matter the sexual orientation

[listopencil]

God bless hot bi chicks

Amen.

[patteeu]

Ah, so finally you admit that you are not able to choose your sexual orientation (who you are attracted to). Don't feel badly- nobody else can make that choice, either.

Prison is a special circumstance, as I already stated. If a heterosexual man goes to prison, he may choose to have homosexual sex. This doesn't mean that he has suddenly become attracted to men, only that he has decided to have sex with men. What do you think happens when a heterosexual man gets out of prison? He goes back to his hard-wired predisposition and has sex exclusively with women.

I don't agree with a lot of what Tombstone RJ has been saying, but I think too many defenders of homosexuality gloss over the fact that a choice is involved.

This strand of the thread started when JDiddy said:

There's a whole lot there that we won't agree on, ever. In particular it being a lifestyle choice.

JDiddy is wrong (Shocker, I know). It is a lifestyle choice. It's a choice that reflects an underlying orientation that usually isn't chosen (although sometimes, to be honest, it is), but it's a choice nonetheless. A married man who encounters a flirtatious, hot female stranger might face real temptation to cheat based on urges they can't avoid having, but they have a choice about whether or not to give in to those urges.

Tombstone goes too far if he argues that the underlying orientation is a choice, but I don't think that's what his original argument was and I think he's backed off of the underlying orientation argument now that he realizes that he's taken it too far.

[BlackHelicopters]

They should totally drop the charges....

If there is video.

Finally!

[BlackHelicopters]

God bless hot bi chicks

And video

[vailpass]

And video

Yes. And having them at my pool.

[DenverChief]

I don't agree with a lot of what Tombstone RJ has been saying, but I think too many defenders of homosexuality gloss over the fact that a choice is involved.

This strand of the thread started when JDiddy said:



JDiddy is wrong (Shocker, I know). It is a lifestyle choice. It's a choice that reflects an underlying orientation that usually isn't chosen (although sometimes, to be honest, it is), but it's a choice nonetheless. A married man who encounters a flirtatious, hot female stranger might face real temptation to cheat based on urges they can't avoid having, but they have a choice about whether or not to give in to those urges.

Tombstone goes too far if he argues that the underlying orientation is a choice, but I don't think that's what his original argument was and I think he's backed off of the underlying orientation argument now that he realizes that he's taken it too far.

It isn't a choice no matter what the uneducated masses say. The same way it wasn't a choice for you to be attracted to women.

[Setsuna]

They should totally drop the charges....

If there is video.

Child porn. They'd be visiting your house very soon.

[Rausch]

Yes. And having them at my pool.

There have been more leprechauns at the White House than hot lesbians at your pool...

[vailpass]

It isn't a choice no matter what the uneducated masses say. The same way it wasn't a choice for you to be attracted to women.

I can't see a man intentionally choosing the gay life.

[kysirsoze]

How the hell is this not in DC yet?

I've decided the answer to my question is the mods want to facilitate Tombstone publicly shaming himself because they hate Broncos fans. I mean what a train wreck, this guy.

[vailpass]

There have been more leprechauns at the White House than hot lesbians at your pool...

I'm newly divorced and on a bit of a roll.

[Rausch]

I can't see a man intentionally choosing the gay life.

I don't understand why people pay for Old Navy clothes.

But they do.

And for unknown reasons they're proud of it...

[listopencil]

...but they have a choice about whether or not to give in to those urges.


Everyone does. You can apply that to sex, food, money and many more issues I'm sure. I don't consider myself a defender of homosexuality by the way. I'm a defender of individualism, of personal rights trumping all else whenever possible.

[Rausch]

I'm newly divorced and on a bit of a roll.

Translated: single for the first time in years and willing to spit in anything...

[Rausch]

I'm a defender of individualism, of personal rights trumping all else whenever possible.

This...

[vailpass]

Translated: single for the first time in years and willing to spit in anything...

:D not just anything

[kysirsoze]

I don't agree with a lot of what Tombstone RJ has been saying, but I think too many defenders of homosexuality gloss over the fact that a choice is involved.

This strand of the thread started when JDiddy said:



JDiddy is wrong (Shocker, I know). It is a lifestyle choice. It's a choice that reflects an underlying orientation that usually isn't chosen (although sometimes, to be honest, it is), but it's a choice nonetheless. A married man who encounters a flirtatious, hot female stranger might face real temptation to cheat based on urges they can't avoid having, but they have a choice about whether or not to give in to those urges.

Tombstone goes too far if he argues that the underlying orientation is a choice, but I don't think that's what his original argument was and I think he's backed off of the underlying orientation argument now that he realizes that he's taken it too far.

Equating not fucking around on your wife with fighting your every sexual impulse for your entire life doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

It's already been stated that obviously, unless you are being raped, you choose your sexual encounters. Having gay sex is not being homosexual. It's just something a homosexual would likely do. There are plenty of gay men and women in straight marriages at this very moment. Doesn't make them less gay. Just (most likely) less happy.

[listopencil]

There have been more leprechauns at the White House than hot lesbians at your pool...

Lesbians are nice but the bi girls are better.

[vailpass]

Lesbians are nice but the bi girls are better.

Exactamundo.

[kysirsoze]

Lesbians are nice but the bi girls are better.

what about bi leprechauns? (typed with one hand.)

[listopencil]

what about bi leprechauns? (typed with one hand.)

Mmmm. Hot bi girl leprechauns. Those little green skirts.

[vailpass]

Mmmm. Hot bi girl leprechauns. Those little green skirts.

Most straight women have a natural desire to want to explore being with another woman.

[kysirsoze]

Most straight women have a natural desire to want to explore being with another woman.

#thingsIlearnedfromporn

[listopencil]

Most straight women have a natural desire to want to explore being with another woman.

I can't really argue with that based on personal experience.

[vailpass]

#thingsIlearnedfromporn

No. Nothing against it but I'm not a porn guy.

[vailpass]

I can't really argue with that based on personal experience.

It's absolute fact. Sometimes it takes a few drinks to unlock but it's there in most.

[listopencil]

No. Nothing against it but I'm not a porn guy.

It's nice to be able to efficiently find specific types of porn if you have a woman who enjoys it.

[vailpass]

It's nice to be able to efficiently find specific types of porn if you have a woman who enjoys it.

I don't doubt that at all.

[Setsuna]

It's nice to be able to efficiently find specific types of porn if you have a woman who enjoys it.
You seem like a Japanese train groping type of guy.

[vailpass]

You seem like a Japanese train groping type of guy.

I'm not even going to ask what the hell that is.

[patteeu]

It isn't a choice no matter what the uneducated masses say. The same way it wasn't a choice for you to be attracted to women.

Don't be ridiculous. Our orientation isn't a choice, but our actions and therefore our lifestyles are definitely choices.

[patteeu]

I can't see a man intentionally choosing the gay life.

It's rare, but it happens. It's not nearly as rare (for obvious reasons), for a gay person to choose a heterosexual life. Some might argue that the people who make these choices are really bisexual, and maybe they are, but I don't think that changes the fact that we see people who "experiment" with one lifestyle (sometimes to the point where they create a family) only to switch later in life to the other.

[patteeu]

Everyone does. You can apply that to sex, food, money and many more issues I'm sure.

Yes, of course.

[Setsuna]

Don't be ridiculous. Our orientation isn't a choice, but our actions and therefore our lifestyles are definitely choices.

This.

[vailpass]

It's rare, but it happens. It's not nearly as rare (for obvious reasons), for a gay person to choose a heterosexual life. Some might argue that the people who make these choices are really bisexual, and maybe they are, but I don't think that changes the fact that we see people who "experiment" with one lifestyle (sometimes to the point where they create a family) only to switch later in life to the other.

Agreed, though I find the concept of bi in men to be a lot harder to accept than in women.

[ModSocks]

Agreed, though I find the concept of bi in men to be a lot harder to accept than in women.

That's because men are ugly. No one wants to see two guys kissing. Women otoh, are beautiful creatures and most people, man and woman, can appreciate two hot chicks going at it.

[vailpass]

That's because men are ugly. No one wants to see two guys kissing. Women otoh, are beautiful creatures and most people, man and woman, can appreciate two hot chicks going at it.

That, and the nature of a woman is different.

[GloryDayz]

meh, go back and read my 29 other posts. I'm outta here...

Good, go hide in your closet you bible thumping fucking wannabe!

[patteeu]

Equating not fucking around on your wife with fighting your every sexual impulse for your entire life doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

It's already been stated that obviously, unless you are being raped, you choose your sexual encounters. Having gay sex is not being homosexual. It's just something a homosexual would likely do. There are plenty of gay men and women in straight marriages at this very moment. Doesn't make them less gay. Just (most likely) less happy.

I didn't equate anything. Also in the category of not equating something, pedophiles have to fight their orientation for their entire life if they don't want to end up in jail. These are examples that illustrate the difference between "want to" and "choose to". Gay men in straight marriages are another example.

No one, not even homosexuals, have a problem with denying people the freedom to act on their desires if they find those desires unacceptable. So the real discussion ought to be about whether or not it's acceptable, not whether or not people have a choice.

[GloryDayz]

People choose to get raped?

And sometimes the resulting pregnancy is the next "choice" - I've heard some dumbass say it's so! :D

But that prolly doesn't happen much in prison...

[Tombstone RJ]

Wow, hey look everyone, didn't I tell you the progressive agenda's tactics, please look at DenverChief's predictable post:

It isn't a choice no matter what the uneducated masses say. The same way it wasn't a choice for you to be attracted to women.

No, go all the way back to page 7 and post #91 and see what I told you:

I disagree. If the homosexual movement wasn't so militant then people like me wouldn't be calling them out on their agenda. But don't kid yourself, they definitely have an agenda and that agenda is to make homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled as a bigot. The homosexual/progressive agenda knows that name calling works and if you don't prescribe to their agenda, you too will be labelled as a bigot or as "uneducated and ignorant". This is the same formula that has been used throughout history to get people to capitulate--belittle them and force them to agree. People can't choose their ethnicity, but they can choose their lifestyle.

lol, so predictable. Now this "educated" poster will lecture me on how ignorant I am and anyone else who doesn't buy into their agenda. This is what is known as indoctrination. Simply because I disagree with posters like DenverChief, I'm labelled as ignorant or uneducated. Fact is, nothing I've said or pointed out has been refuted. Nada. It's all regurgitated from the homosexual and progressive leaders, nothing more, nothing less.

Just had to point this out.

[ModSocks]

It isn't a choice no matter what the uneducated masses say. The same way it wasn't a choice for you to be attracted to women.

I use to feel that way, now i believe it's circumstantial.

The more you learn about the brain, the more you realize how your pleasure/pain/reward system can be completely re-wired.

Like all things, i don't think it's as simple as "you're either born gay or you're not".

[Rain Man]

I think there are a few issues being clouded together.

Some folks are arguing that gay/lesbian activity is a choice, but they're citing examples of one-time encounters. Of course any one time encounter is a choice, but that's not the issue that most other folks are discussing.

The key issue is whether there's a natural preference. I would argue that most people have a natural preference for one gender or the other. For most people it's the opposite gender, but for some people it's the same gender, and neither scenario is a choice. It's hard-wired. It's possible that they could go against that natural preference in an unusual situation, which is a choice that they make, but that doesn't change their natural preference.

I would also argue that a large proportion of people also have a non-zero interest in both genders. I'll bet if you could get a true and honest accounting, probably 30 percent of the population are attracted to both genders, even if it's 99 percent one gender and 1 percent the other. Since women have more societal permission to express this interest, we see it more in women (rowr). And there is research that shows that it may be more common in women (rowr), but then of course that's to be expected since, well, women are hot.

[kysirsoze]

I didn't equate anything. Also in the category of not equating something, pedophiles have to fight their orientation for their entire life if they don't want to end up in jail. These are examples that illustrate the difference between "want to" and "choose to". Gay men in straight marriages are another example.

No one, not even homosexuals, have a problem with denying people the freedom to act on their desires if they find those desires unacceptable. So the real discussion ought to be about whether or not it's acceptable, not whether or not people have a choice.

A pedophile is expected to suppress their urges because of the harm it does their victims. Homosexuals are expected to suppress their urges because people think it's gross. The real discussion should be what possible, demonstrable harm does a homosexual having the same rights as anyone else pose to a society or it's citizens.

I have yet to see anything but, at best, selective reasoning and, at worst, flat out bigotry to support the idea that gay married couples pose a threat to anyone. The same goes for the perceived threat of "normalizing" homosexuality.

[Tombstone RJ]

I think there are a few issues being clouded together.

Some folks are arguing that gay/lesbian activity is a choice, but they're citing examples of one-time encounters. Of course any one time encounter is a choice, but that's not the issue that most other folks are discussing.

The key issue is whether there's a natural preference. I would argue that most people have a natural preference for one gender or the other. For most people it's the opposite gender, but for some people it's the same gender, and neither scenario is a choice. It's hard-wired. It's possible that they could go against that natural preference in an unusual situation, which is a choice that they make, but that doesn't change their natural preference.

I would also argue that a large proportion of people also have a non-zero interest in both genders. I'll bet if you could get a true and honest accounting, probably 30 percent of the population are attracted to both genders, even if it's 99 percent one gender and 1 percent the other. Since women have more societal permission to express this interest, we see it more in women (rowr). And there is research that shows that it may be more common in women (rowr), but then of course that's to be expected since, well, women are hot.

I think the prevalence of porn definitely has an effect on people's sexual behavior and since most heterosexual males, who find beautiful women sexually attractive, like to watch porn with woman on woman, I think this definitely rubs off on women in our general society. Fact is, more women are watching porn and they are seeing this stuff, hence, they think it's ok to do. But I seriously, seriously doubt that many of these prima donna lesbians would exist if it were not for the huge amount of porn on the interwebzz.

Again, my opinion. You are free to call me an idiot for pointing this out.

[kysirsoze]

Wow, hey look everyone, didn't I tell you the progressive agenda's tactics, please look at DenverChief's predictable post:



No, go all the way back to page 7 and post #91 and see what I told you:



lol, so predictable. Now this "educated" poster will lecture me on how ignorant I am and anyone else who doesn't buy into their agenda. This is what is known as indoctrination. Simply because I disagree with posters like DenverChief, I'm labelled as ignorant or uneducated. Fact is, nothing I've said or pointed out has been refuted. Nada. It's all regurgitated from the homosexual and progressive leaders, nothing more, nothing less.

Just had to point this out.

So, wait. You complain early on that people call you uneducated based on your opinions, you continue in the same thread to spew uneducated opinions, and then you call it a victory when someone points out how uneducated your opinions are?

Well done. :clap:

[ModSocks]

I think there are a few issues being clouded together.

Some folks are arguing that gay/lesbian activity is a choice, but they're citing examples of one-time encounters. Of course any one time encounter is a choice, but that's not the issue that most other folks are discussing.

The key issue is whether there's a natural preference. I would argue that most people have a natural preference for one gender or the other. For most people it's the opposite gender, but for some people it's the same gender, and neither scenario is a choice. It's hard-wired. It's possible that they could go against that natural preference in an unusual situation, which is a choice that they make, but that doesn't change their natural preference.

I would also argue that a large proportion of people also have a non-zero interest in both genders. I'll bet if you could get a true and honest accounting, probably 30 percent of the population are attracted to both genders, even if it's 99 percent one gender and 1 percent the other. Since women have more societal permission to express this interest, we see it more in women (rowr). And there is research that shows that it may be more common in women (rowr), but then of course that's to be expected since, well, women are hot.

This.

I also believe there are situations where a man can be attracted to sex with another man due to it's extreme Taboo nature (stress from the thought of the encounter can actually be misinterpreted as arousal) but yet not be physically attracted to men and still have a preference for women.

I call this the "Gochiefs" effect.