Saturday, October 20, 2007

On The Topic of Homosexuality

Hackneyed in a lot of the comments re: homosexual marriage and matters of that ilk is the following:

"Homosexuals are born gay."

I hate to be the burster of bubbles, but research has suggested that Mendelian inheritance has not occurred in a family yet. Researchers who claim that you can be born gay also realize that environmental factors play a large role in determining homosexuality. Says researcher Dean Hamer of his findings: "We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors..." (Hamer and Copeland)

Take a look at this major "twins study". Conducted by J.M Bailey and Richard Pillard, the study found that among a group of twins, 52% were found to be homosexual. In order for the genetic argument to work, 100% must be homosexual.

Also, look at transgender people. They are claiming that they were born transgender! If that isn't crazy, I really don't know what is! Transgenders and a whole bunch of other crazies (read: mentally disturbed) are pushing for rights. Pretty soon, interspecies-erotica will be legalized!

Gays today are being looked at as victims. The gay agenda is making people like me out as bad guys. Using the media and guilt, gay rights activists are portraying anti-gay rights activists as homophobic (clear example) and verbally militant.

I am not going to act like I came up with the following by myself. This was just too great not to post.

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used
diagnostic reference book utilized by mental
health professionals in the United States.
It’s a manual by which all diagnostic codes are
derived for diagnosis and treatment – every single
physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the
United States refers to this book in order to
code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does
this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians
have been prevented from properly diagnosing
homosexuality as an aberrant behavior
and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment
for these individuals.
Prior to that time, homosexuality had been
treated as a mental disorder under section “302.
Sexual Deviations” in the DSM-II. Section 302
said, in part: “This category is for individuals
whose sexual interests are directed primarily
toward objects other than people of the opposite
sex, toward sexual acts … performed
under bizarre circumstances. … Even though
many find their practices distasteful, they remain
unable to substitute normal sexual behavior
for them.” Homosexuality was listed as
the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that
diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed,
physicians, including psychiatrists, have been
prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a
mental disorder for more than three decades.

*American Medical Association statistic, 2002.
* Source: traditionalvalues.org

77 comments:

  1. I can hear the stampede of angry people now, Glen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. its prateek


    GO GLEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    keep it up bro.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You fail to realize that "environmental factors" and "choice" would never be considered equal. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Environmental Factors ----> Behavior ----> Choice

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, no to that first off.


    Secondly, they did not choose their environmental factors.

    By the way, one day did you list the pros and cons and decide you wanted to be straight?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I actually don't care about this issue at all. I just thought I'd provide the opposite side of the argument for argument's sake, because I was very bored.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Transgenders and a whole bunch of other crazies (read: mentally disturbed) are pushing for rights. Pretty soon, interspecies-erotica will be legalized!"

    First of all Glen, how dare you refer to homosexuals as "crazies." That is so disrespectful towards the many homosexual people who you know or who may read this blog. Second, where do you get off comparing gay marriage to interspecies-erotica? GAY PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE TOO. Comparing them to animals just proves your ignorance.

    You have now crossed the line from speaking out against gay marriage to speaking out against homosexuality as a whole. This is no longer a political statement, but rather a discriminatory attack on homosexuals. That, my friend, makes you a bigot.

    Bigot (n.): One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First of all Glen, how dare you refer to homosexuals as "crazies."

    - I apologize for calling homosexuals "crazies" or "mentally disturbed". However, various studies have shown their behavior to be "mentally disturbed" and I have an inclination to equate that with being crazy.

    Second, where do you get off comparing gay marriage to interspecies-erotica?

    - I actually was speaking more of the transgender movement. If transgenderism becomes acceptable, so can animal-human sex and countless other sexual practices that we view as disgusting and immoral. Both courses of action are ones that individuals CHOOSE.

    "GAY PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE TOO"

    - I don't think you know what interspecies erotica actually means. It is sexual intercourse between a human and an animal. Not two animals as you seem to think. So I don't think I am comparing people to animals.

    "You have now crossed the line from speaking out against gay marriage to speaking out against homosexuality as a whole."

    - Some are unwilling to change and I respect their decision. What I really want, I guess, is to "keep it in their pants"

    "That, my friend, makes you a bigot."

    - Bigot is a strong word and I think you are well aware of that. You seem to be partial in your politics and closed minded, so we can both be bigots right? Intolerant to my ideas? Yes. Intolerant to your ideas? Yes. I guess everyone who isn't apathetic to politics is a bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ok, I really don't agree with you Glen. Normally, its all, gays are bad. Its more turning into the thing where gays are targeted, much like how blacks were targeted post civil war. Gays just want to be accepted, thats all. I don't think its any "mental state" that makes them wrong, its simply the fact that they have a different preference. Why bother trying to change them. It's like trying to make a straight person gay, its not going to work.

    All in all, I think you're kinda scarring the blog, I mean, I read this blog regularly, and your targets on gays, even though they are your views, should not be so prominent throughout the blog. If people want to hear your ideas, they can join your republican group.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Glen, I assure you that I know what interspecies-erotica means. The word interspecies was somewhat of a giveaway. Appearantly you didn't understand my statement. By you saying that transgenerism could lead to interspecies-erotica, you are equating someone having sex with a transgender to someone having sex with an animal. That's unacceptable.

    Never, ever call me a bigot. I have told you multiple times that I more than accept your right to your opinion against gay marriage. However, I have a serious problem with the comments you make that hurt other people. That is what I am fighting against.

    However, if you personally view a bigot as someone who speaks out against your bias shit, then I am happy to recieve such a compliment from you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok, Glen, here we go again.

    1) How do you define "mentally disturbed?" By mentally disturbed, do you mean that they are not like the majority of people? Maybe the "normal" people are the ones who are "mentally disturbed."

    2) On the issue of homosexuality as a whole, the only things that you seem to say are that a) homosexuals cannot parent a child as well as heterosexuals, and b) all homosexuals do is have gay sex all over the place. That is completely, COMPLETELY untrue. You seem to think that they need to "keep it in their pants." That is the worst, most horrible stereotype of all. Gay people are not sex slaves for other gay people.

    3)Gay people think, act, feel, and live the same way as heterosexuals. And did we not learn in biology in our freshman year about the system of genetics? How A, T, C, and G lined up to form different chromasomal pairs to form different physical AND mental traits? Homosexuality is not a choice.

    4) Ali's definition of "bigot" describes you and only you. People commenting on this blog are not taking information from a "holy book" that not everyone believes in, somehow converting it into fact, and then attempting to use it against us that commenters are not "holy" and say that the commenters have no moral values. Who are you to judge who has moral values and who doesn't? AND who are you to tell us what exactly "moral values" are? Moral values are different to everyone, Glen, and believe it or not, homosexuals have moral values.

    5) I showed this blog to a conservative, Republican, Catholic homosexual last night. He thinks that what you are posing as fact is completely ridiculous and unfounded. He believes in God, the Holy Bible, everything holy. And yet, he is a homosexual who belongs to, worships in, and WORKS FOR a Catholic church. NOW tell me that God hates and condemns all homosexuals.

    6) Back to bigotry. Pro-gay people are not "intolerant of your beliefs." You may have your opinion and you may do with it what you like. However, I do not think you are making a smart decision in preaching to this choir. Maybe you should go join and Anti-Gay group. We aren't the ones trying to convert people to your perturbed way of thinking.

    7) When you say that homosexuality is a choice, I do not think that you can possibly decide and justify that unless you are a homosexual. Sexual preferences are defined the person in question and that person alone. I do not understand where you think you can tell a homosexual that they chose to be that way, when they tell you another thing. That's like telling someone who is colorblind that they can see colors. No one else can tell unless that are looking through that person's eyes.


    Glen, maybe you should look behind the eyes of a gay person.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and one more thing. How can you say that homosexuals are the "victims?"

    "Gays today are being looked at as victims."

    That is so wrong that my stomach just turned. Gay people celebrate who they are for what they are. There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to be the victim of. You cannot be a victim of something that has no positive or negative assigned to it. You are going to comeback with "There are plenty negatives to being homosexual. One is that you cannot reproduce." To hell with reproducing! Maybe homosexuals can take care of the thousands of children orphaned by heterosexual teenagers who are unfit to parent.

    Glen, you are preaching to the wrong choir, and you are digging yourself into a deeper and depper whole. Soon you'll hit China, where gay people are persecuted and discriminated. Maybe you'll like it better there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the way Glen, those first two anonymous posts arguing with you were me testing you.

    Again, I was very bored.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, and Alli, I think when he indirectly called gays "crazies" he was referring to the medical study he used as a source stating homosexuality was a mental disorder. I don't think I trust the source's validity, but whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I understand what he was referring to, but that does not make the term "crazies" any less derogatory.

    Also, Glen, if you ARE trying to make the argument that homosexuality is a mental disorder (which I fully disagree with) then you are really taking away from your own argument that it is a choice. I don't know many people who consciously choose to have a mental disorder. And on that same note, are you now trying to say that all people with mental disorders are "evil" or any less created by God? If so, you're even more twisted than i thought.

    ReplyDelete
  16. i have been involved with a transgendered person. would you consider that bestiality?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Glen, you are really doing God a disservice by all of these posts. Proving that your religion is hypocritical makes you look even less credible when you cite the Bible as your source. "Love thy neighbor as thyself," right? I can see no love for someone who is homosexual in your mind, or in the words of the Bible.
    -------------------------

    "Researchers who claim that you can be born gay also realize that environmental factors play a large role in determining homosexuality. Says researcher Dean Hamer of his findings: "We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors..." (Hamer and Copeland)"

    Of course environment appears to have a lot to do with being gay! If a gay kid grows up in a household with extremely religious parents who are vehemently against homosexuality, will he ever come out? Probably not, at least to his family. Any study citing a percent of the population as gay has to be way off. Maybe 5% of the population is confirmed as gay. But who can know for sure if another 5% of the population is gay but hasn't come out yet? The only choice with being gay is choosing when (or if, even) to tell others that that is who you are. Environment has to do with pretty much every belief someone has. If you hadn't been born into the family that you are in now, you might not even have these views. Thankfully, I was born into a family that isn't very religious, and is extremely tolerant of any type of person.
    ----------------------

    "Take a look at this major "twins study". Conducted by J.M Bailey and Richard Pillard, the study found that among a group of twins, 52% were found to be homosexual. In order for the genetic argument to work, 100% must be homosexual."

    You are talking extremely basic genetics. Extremely basic. Mendelian inheritance genetics is based on only one gene with only two to four alleles. Like an on-off switch. So if it's not A, it's B. That's not how most genetic traits work. Sure, some of them work that way, but you can't apply that to homosexuality. Homosexuality, like many other complex traits, is most likely a polygenic trait. Meaning, it is based on more than one gene "working" together to make one trait appear. The study that you cited may be flawed, anyway. Unless it used only identical twins, which you don't say if it did, the results don't mean much. Fraternal twins do not have the same DNA. They start as two separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperms, and develop into two separate zygotes, which then form two separate fetuses, making two separate human beings. In other words, they are about as similar genetically as two siblings who aren't twins. Even if the study did use all identical twins (which you should have stated), maybe one isn't as comfortable with their sexuality and is in denial. It happens a lot in a society like this where gays are often targeted and discriminated against.
    --------------------

    I think Ali pretty much covered the "calling homosexuals 'crazies'" thing. And the transgender vs. interspecies argument.
    --------------------

    "Using the media and guilt, gay rights activists are portraying anti-gay rights activists as homophobic (clear example) and verbally militant."

    Because that is exactly what you are.
    "ho·mo·pho·bi·a –noun
    unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality."

    Maybe you're not exactly afraid of homosexuals, but you've got the "antipathy" part covered. Thus, homophobic.
    ----------------------

    I took a brief look at the site that supplied that nice study about the DSM. Again, it is unsurprisingly a Republican Christian faith-based site. And look! The same argument appears word for word on jesus-is-savior.com! (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
    Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/
    homosexuality_and_psychiatry.htm)
    Funny! So again, it really doesn't help your argument. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder; it cannot be "cured" or "treated." Disorders like depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc. are due to chemical imbalances in the brain, and can be treated to improve the quality of life for the patient with medicine or therapy. Homosexuality cannot.
    ---------------------

    I asked it before, and I'll ask it again because you didn't answer: Everyone is made by God, yes? God makes no mistakes? Then why would God make gays? Or if God were so against gays, why would he give people free will to choose to be gay (if being gay is a choice)? I'm sure God can do whatever he wants, so if he didn't want gays to be around (because that's what he told the prophets to write in the Bible), he wouldn't have made it an option in the first place. And if homosexuality is such a terrible evil, why is it found in almost every animal species on the planet, naturally? Think about it, Glen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can't we all just get along?


    Glen's just feeding off the negative attention. If you guys just stop commenting, he'll get bored and stop writing stuff for you to comment on and get back to adding relatively useful stuff to the site.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The following quote is from a KKK website; http://racialkiller.tripod.com/id17.html

    "Unless we separate ourselves from this moral dilemma, there is little doubt that same-sex marriages will be legal in only a few years.

    When that happens, it will be come the law, and a new door will open that will flood homosexuals into every corner of America.

    And those churches that could not find the moral courage to stand against integration -will also lack the moral courage to stand against homosexuals who beat at their door for acceptance and promotion."


    Does this sound like anyone we know?

    ReplyDelete
  20. .... So my proposal is out the window then?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes. When you see injustice to another human, you should try to fix that injustice. Glen is being unjust to all homosexuals, and it should not be tolerated. Sitting back and letting him say what he wants without challenging it does nothing to help. Seeing an injustice and not trying to fix it makes you seem apathetic. Truth is, most of us can get along fine. The problem is whether or not Glen can get along with someone who is not exactly like him i.e. someone who is homosexual, transgender, bisexual, or whatever it may be.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I mean, I read this blog regularly, and your targets on gays, even though they are your views, should not be so prominent throughout the blog. If people want to hear your ideas, they can join your republican group.

    One post turned into controversy and I am just addressing the comments.

    "By you saying that transgenerism could lead to interspecies-erotica, you are equating someone having sex with a transgender to someone having sex with an animal. That's unacceptable."

    I don't believe I said that it could lead to interspecies-erotica. I was referring to the movement and their goals.

    "However, if you personally view a bigot as someone who speaks out against your bias shit, then I am happy to receive such a compliment from you."

    I don't personally view a bigot as such. I am using bigot as it is used in the definition you provided.

    1. Pat, mentally disturbed means mentally ill. The World Health Organization in 1992 defined homosexuality as a mental illness.

    2. I know there are a good amount of homosexuals who don't participate in gay sex. By saying "keeping it in their pants", I am alluding to just homosexual behavior in general, not sex at all.

    3. Of course, they do all the same things as heterosexuals. Well documented studies seem to show that it is a choice, Pat.

    4.People aren't supposed to have different moral values. Gangs think that killing and overuse of drugs is acceptable.

    5. God doesn't hate homosexuals. In fact, I hate the group "God Hates Fags". God condemns homosexual actions along with a string of other behaviors.

    6. Anti-Gays, I guess, aren't intolerant to your views either.

    7. Read about ex-gays. Also, what about ex-straights?

    8. By calling out people who don't agree with gay marriage, you are basically saying that gays are victim of our "hate".

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kerri, what I mean to say is that he is doing this to get a rise out of people. It's stupid and offensive, but that's the Internet for you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Everyone is made by God, yes. God does not love homosexuals any less than he does heterosexuals. He doesn't have power over what homosexuals do. He set the law and they disobeyed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. People aren't supposed to have different moral values? Says who?!

    "Everyone is made by God"

    ...under the beliefs of the Christian religion. Do you believe that the world was made in sevend days, Glen?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, I do Pat. Now a day might be 1 billion years.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, the world being made in seven days is originally a pagan belief, not a christian belief. what else could the bible have said that could not apply now?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Technically Pat, anti-homosexuality is not originally expressed in the Bible, if I have my source right. It was added in the King James "translation" (King James' translators added several anti-gay passages, among several other things,for him). Again, I learned about this a while ago, so I don't know the exact source.

    If I could come up with the source, I'd show it and the whole "gays being against God" argument would kind of just drop.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Then again, maybe I made that up.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm still inclined to believe that you made that up, Matt.

    The Douay-Rheims Bible was actually made before the KJV and I am pretty, pretty sure it contains passages condemning homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wycliffe New Testament - Corinthians 6:9-10

    "Whether ye witen not, that wickid men schulen not welde the kyngdom of God? Nyle ye erre; nethir letchours, nether men that seruen mawmetis, nether auouteris, nether letchouris ayen kynde, nether thei that doon letcheri with men, nether theues, nether auerouse men, nethir `ful of drunkenesse, nether curseris, nether rauenours, schulen welde the kyngdom of God."

    And in more readable English:

    "Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men, neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God."

    The Wycliffe New Testament was translated before the King James version. Looks like you made something up, anon.

    ReplyDelete
  32. First of all, Glen, if you don't take the Bible literally for the "7 day creation theory", why do you take it literally for condemning homosexuals?
    And, this website, the American Psychological Association, also, the largest association of psychologist worldwide, answers all the questions you have about if homosexuality is a mental disorder or if it can be changed. Also, this video provides more information on the topic. (link)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sorry, the video link isn't working. Here it is again. (link)

    ReplyDelete
  34. There is an ongoing debate going on between the APA and NARTH. I tend to side with NARTH.

    ReplyDelete
  35. JK Rowling just revealed Dumbledore is in fact a homosexual. And who doesn't love Dumbledore?

    ReplyDelete
  36. hey man how can you honestly think that christianity is the only true religion when there have been thousands and thousands of other religions over the course of humanity. we've only got 100,000 days to live, why waste your time conforming to hypocritical rules and imposing those beliefs on others in offensive ways? just live your life and be content with everything you have and let the "crazies" live theres, no need to try to prove that their lifestyle is morally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hahahahahahaha. Spoiler alert, Dumbledore and Harry go for a midnight walk on the beach on page 637.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pecos Bill, I like helping people out.

    Christianity is the only true religion! God said so.

    I wish it was that easy. Just let everything be. If we let murderers live there lives the way they want, the homicide rate would sky rocket and there would be no police to stop them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I didn't want to, but I had to delete the last two comments. I am not going to tolerate any more legitimate personal attacks from anybody. It is just hurtful and offensive. I've been nice with some of the previous ones, but no not anymore. If you want post shit, it will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Pecos Bill, I like helping people out."

    Glen, please explain who, exactly, you are helping out. We have already established that gay marriage does not directly affect anyone in a negative way. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for years, and everything is absolutely fine. Of course some people are going to have an issue with it, but that's true of many laws. If you're against gay marriage, then just don't have one.

    I will remind you again that it does not make sense to relate gay marriage to murder. The next time a gay marriage causes a loss of life, be sure to let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Everything isn't fine, though, Ali. That's why there is opposition.

    Also, gay marriage is causing the loss of life albeit indirectly. Not procreating in marriage is closing the gap (killing) of having children.

    It isn't easy being a gay marriage opponent or a conservative in Massachusetts. I guess that is something I have learned the hard way.

    As Mitt Romney said "Being a conservative in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention"

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Also, gay marriage is causing the loss of life albeit indirectly. Not procreating in marriage is closing the gap (killing) of having children."

    Ahaha! I knew you were going to say that! I knew it!! If only I'd put money down, I'd be rich!

    Seriously, though, if it weren't for homosexuals, I think the world would be in much worse shape. We already have an overpopulation problem as it is, but imagine if all gays, lets say 10% of the population as the estimate is, had a child. Say half of that is women, so 5% of the population, and that 90% of them are able to have children: 4.5% of the population. If each of them had one child, that would be 315,000,000 more people in the world. That's more than the population of the US. We already can't feed and take care of the 7,000,000,000 people we have now on the earth.

    It is often argued that homosexuality has no "evolutionary value," but from what I can tell, it might be a natural population stopper. I don't care if they're supposed to have kids to "spread God's message;" if there are millions or billions more people in the world, we will all be suffering overcrowding, starvation, disease, etc. Personally, I wish more of the population would just stop having kids, and adopt if they want them. It makes me sick to see families like the Duggars who have 15 kids and still want more. Adopted kids can still spread God's message if you teach them to, so stop using child-making as your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I believe in gay marriage and you believe in Christianity and so when i make a comment against Christianity, you delete it. I haven't seen you delete any of your comments against gay marriage deleted. Real mature

    ReplyDelete
  46. "I am not going to tolerate any more legitimate personal attacks from anybody. It is just hurtful and offensive."

    Do I even need to point out the blatant hyprocrisy here? Glen, I think you're sheltered and ignorant, not some conservative rebel. How is it totally ok for you to put down the lifestyle of millions of gays around the world, calling them crazy, and clearly using hurtful and offensive language, yet you can't handle someone standing up to you on some stupid blog that no one reads? That's ridiculous man, it really is. I wonder if you've ever had a conversation with someone gay, and asked them why they are the way they are. But I suppose christianity is absolute after all and faith-based pseudo genetics websites can tell you the 100% truth anyways right?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "1. Pat, mentally disturbed means mentally ill. The World Health Organization in 1992 defined homosexuality as a mental illness. "

    Too bad that was 1992

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Also, gay marriage is causing the loss of life albeit indirectly. Not procreating in marriage is closing the gap (killing) of having children."

    alright Glen I am not going to go into the intricacies of the impossibility of killing someone who was never alive. Also, in order to make your argument that homosexuals are harming society by not procreating, you would also have to make birth control, vasectomies, and hysterectomies illegal. You cannot legally force people to procreate.

    Appearantly you are also ignorant to the fact that it is possible for gay couples to have biological children, albeit in a different way. Artificial semination is quite common in lesbian couples (and heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive).

    As I think Mike brought up before, I will concede that we need more children in the world once there are no more kids in orphanages.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Straight, but everyone is equalMonday, October 22, 2007 at 5:08:00 PM EDT

    You deleted my comment.
    Because I used the 'F' word.
    Or was it because what I said got to you?
    Trying to avoid the truth?
    You know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I apologize. I made a mistake. I am a retard.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ali, I think he'd also make rape legal, because women sometimes procreate out of that!
    And, Glen, I sure hope you're not using "retard" in a derogatory manner...

    ReplyDelete
  52. "I apologize. I made a mistake. I am a retard."

    I hope you know that you just opened a whole other can of worms.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Here goes the fight of the wrong use of retard... way to go glen, you may continue you dig your grave

    ReplyDelete
  54. Glen your ignorance and stupidity baffles me, it really does. Please never insult the mentally challenged community by using the word "retard" in a derogatory way you asshole. Also, everyone look at my comment on his Animal Collective review.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Glen you seem to really be against homosexuality because its against your religion. Because God doesn't want you to be gay. I'm religious too but not to an extent where i will point out all of the people who are against some rules of God. Thats why there was a thing called "Seperation of chruch and state" Really Glen, grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Give Animal Collective a try. Experimental music might be your thing and you don't even know about it!"

    Glen,
    "Give Homosexuality a try. Alternative life choices might be your thing, and you don't even know about it!"

    ...oh wait, you would never do that. Intolerance and ignorance is just so much easier. Practice what you preach.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Homosexuals are born gay."
    I hate to be the burster of bubbles, but research has suggested that Mendelian inheritance has not occurred in a family yet.

    "God exists"
    I hate to be the burster of bubbles but basically the entirety of modern science suggests that Christianity is just a a bunch of fairy tales that help people live their life. It's not fact, it never will be. It's about as real as the Harry Potter books. If you believe in it, then thats absolutely fine; don't impose your morals and beliefs on others. You aren't helping anyone out, you're just being an asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  58. also if you delete any of my comments, I'll just repost them. Haha hooray for the double edged sword that is freedom of speech!

    ReplyDelete
  59. We can definitely feed and take care of the 6,626,317,854 people we have on the Earth.
    The only problem is getting people, who have self-interest, to care about others. It can
    be done.

    If you have enough of an income to support 15 kids, go for it. Adopted kids sure can preach God's message. But hey, I think you forgot what God's message is. And that, of course, is to procreate.

    ---

    Your comment, anonymous, was an attack on me.

    --

    First off, Tim, I would like to first off mention that you pieced together some great interviews with DFA and Animal Collective. If you want to put aside politics, I would be interested in talking music with you.

    I would argue your "no one reads this blog". Apparently people do and that is why they are posting. How did they get here in the first place?

    I don't really care to ask a homosexual why he is gay. Everyone will have different explanations and it will be out-right confusing.

    --

    Jeff, 1992 was only 15 years ago. Not very long ago. If you think about the Gay Marriae movement really picked up steam in the mid 1900s, don't you think by 1992 they'd change the "homsexuality as a mental illness"?

    --

    Ali, birth control, vasectomies, and hysterectomies are immoral. They should be illegal.

    Artificial insemination? Last time I checked sex is natural. "Doing it" otherways is just plain immoral.
    --

    Not trying to avoid the truth, but rather trying to eliminate vicious attacks. If you want to tell me how much I suck, at least do it via other means (instant message, e-mail, or the one that takes the most guts and the revealing of self: in person).

    --

    Hey, self...er..Identity thief! The only real Glen Maganzini is the one that is hyperlinked in blue. So whoever got uncreative and decided to put my name in the "other" category just shut the hell up. Thanks.

    --

    As for political correctness, that is a whole another subject that I have an interest in posting about.

    --

    ReplyDelete
  60. Woah! Go, Tim Cushing!


    "We can definitely feed and take care of the 6,626,317,854 people we have on the Earth."
    Wrong. That's why so many people in South-east Asia, Africa, South America, India, China, even in America don't have enough to eat every day, and are sick with preventable diseases? Because we can "definitely feed and take care of them"? There are simply too many people in the world, and it is a problem.

    "If you have enough of an income to support 15 kids, go for it. Adopted kids sure can preach God's message. But hey, I think you forgot what God's message is. And that, of course, is to procreate."
    Again, wrong. Why not take the money you have to support so many kids and adopt kids who are presently living in disgusting conditions? Or even donate to causes helping to eradicate hunger in the world? Instead of producing another greedy mouth to feed, why not help to feed hundreds who are alive and starving right now?

    God's message sounds like a load of bollocks to me, anyway. The message is to procreate, and the only way to spread the message of procreation is to procreate? Why isn't the ultimate message something positive, like "help others?" It sounds rather self-serving. God wants all humans to know about him and to keep talking about him, and that's the ultimate goal? Hmmmm...

    "Jeff, 1992 was only 15 years ago. Not very long ago. If you think about the Gay Marriae movement really picked up steam in the mid 1900s, don't you think by 1992 they'd change the "homsexuality as a mental illness"?"
    Some people (you are a case in point) are resistant to change. Simple as that. It doesn't mean the change is bad, it just means that people are comfortable in their old ways, and get upset when something new and different comes along.


    Really, Glen, if you're allowed to post bigoted comments about your views on homosexuality, how can you justify yourself in deleting someone else's comments? I don't care if you post whatever you want, as long as you let me, and anyone else who is going to challenge you, post whatever they want.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Kerri I couldn't agree with you more. I'm glad there are intelligent people out there like you to help me refute this bullshit. Look at the comment I left on his latest "guess that song post".

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Artificial insemination? Last time I checked sex is natural. "Doing it" otherways is just plain immoral."

    Glen, last time I checked Christ was born through artificial insemination? or did Mary and Joseph actually just get a room at the Motel 6 in Bethlehem and do it until Moses tapped on the wall and told them to go to bed? Are you saying that because Christ was not born through natural sex, Christianity is in and of itself, immoral? Hmmm?

    ReplyDelete
  63. The feeding of the people in the countries that you listed is merely a political problem.

    "Jenkins and his colleagues conducted a groundbreaking study of hunger in 53 developing nations with populations of more than 1 million that identified the role that internal war and violence, political repression, high levels of arms trade and population pressures play in locking great masses of people into poverty. - thenation.com"

    The spiritless, self interested American is not helping.

    If parents teach their children selfless values, I don't see why parents can't have all the children, take in some adopted children, and feed the hungry?

    I never said the procreation was the "message" in the context you are using it in. You claim that I said procreation was the "ultimate message" but this can't be anywhere near true. "Help others" was Jesus' most importance message.

    The problem is, um, you can't really change what is in the "books'. That is kind of like rewriting history. I understand that new developements come along, but I mean come on! Not too long ago, a little while after our birth, gay marriage was characterized as mental illness. Just because a group comes along and says "Oh, no, that isn't right!" doesn't mean you have to rewrite history.

    The comments that were posted weren't of any substance except for hate. His or her comment was baseless and as I said was just an attack on me. In other words, the line was crossed.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Alright glen, ill be honest it was me whose comment you deleted, in which i wasn't targeting you at all. I was just trying to tell you that just because god said that his religion is the one, doesnt mean it is the one religion. Sure you make take offense to it but i take offense to this whole article you wrote.

    and yes 15 years ago was a long time for homosexuality. 15 years ago a person couldn't come out with out being ousted. Unlike now where it is a more welcome thing than back then.

    And Tim is right, nobody reads this, the only reason that you have 61 comments on here is because you're the talk of the school, not in a good way either. From this one blog, you've got a good percentage of kids who now totally hate you for putting this up.

    And Glen seriously stop pressing your views upon others. You do have a right to freedom of speech, but you dont have a right to tell others what to believe in. While i'm at it, i really didnt think, and do think you have the right to question my episcopalian believes, so i dont like the pope, really who does now a days? Even if it was in 8th grade... still not right

    Thats all im going to say, take care

    ReplyDelete
  65. "The problem is, um, you can't really change what is in the "books'. That is kind of like rewriting history. I understand that new developements come along, but I mean come on! Not too long ago, a little while after our birth, gay marriage was characterized as mental illness. Just because a group comes along and says "Oh, no, that isn't right!" doesn't mean you have to rewrite history."

    I'm not saying we should change history; that's ridiculous. History happened, and it's over. History books are written, and they stay written, but new ones are written afterward with changes. What I'm saying is, they don't need to take all of the old DSM books out of circulation. They just need to put a new version out that doesn't address homosexuality as a mental illness. Just a little while before Lincoln's presidency, slavery was "right." A group came along and decided that it was wrong, and laws were changed to accommodate and try to make ex-slaves and other citizens equal. We now see (or at least most of us) that it is a moral wrong. Many of us now see, too, that homosexuality is not actually a mental disorder, but a genetic fact. Again, a homosexual can't "turn off" their homosexuality in the same way that you can't turn off your heterosexuality.

    The real problem, like I said, is that too many people are resistant to change. Books are changed all the time to accommodate new developments. If they weren't, we'd still be reading in Latin or Ye Olde English. Or we'd be learning that Native Americans are evil, bloodthirsty savages. Things change, books can change.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I wouldn't say that I am the talk of the school. I have walked the hallways and haven't really heard my name come up.

    I'm not telling others what to believe, Jeff. I am merely sharing my point of view and what I think of the whole issue.

    Speaking of the 8th grade situation: I was just trying to understand why you don't "believe" in the Pope. Not really call you out for not "believing" in him.

    Kerri, I don't know if you realize it, but straight people are able to freely "turn off" their straightness and "turn on" a level of homosexuality. I am sure there are plenty of people out there because of a certain event or something like that change their sexuality. For instance, a man becomes no longer interested in woman...just men.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Kerri, I don't know if you realize it, but straight people are able to freely "turn off" their straightness and "turn on" a level of homosexuality. I am sure there are plenty of people out there because of a certain event or something like that change their sexuality. For instance, a man becomes no longer interested in woman...just men."

    ...Um, what?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Glen, while I respect your devotion to your religious views, I must tell you that I don't give a fuck what God has to say. I don't believe in him/her.

    This issue has nothing to do with religion. It's a question of legality. I said this in a previous comment, but you refused to reply so I will bring it up again. By saying that homosexuals should be subjected to following a different set of laws than the rest of us, (a set which prevents them from marrying) you are implying that they are different from us. This whole "seperate but equal" idea doesn't fly here in America because, guess what, it's inherently unequal!! were you sleeping in history, or did you just chose to ignore the whole civil rights section?

    ReplyDelete
  69. You know full-well what I mean, Glen. You keep insisting that gays are actually straight people who have just "changed their minds." It's not like one event just happens and makes people decide to become attracted the same gender. No one can choose that. That's just not how it happens. Or if sexuality does have a "switch," why don't you turn yours the other way and see what it's like to be gay for a few hours? How ridiculous a request is that? It's absurd, and so is your assertion that gays can choose to be gay.

    I was talking to someone about this today, and they brought up a good point. Why would someone ever choose to be gay in a society like today's? With people like you out in the world, discriminating and oppressing gays, who would willingly choose that? I know I wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  70. When you really think about it, shouldn't marriage be defined, when it is not viewed as a relgious ceremony (I don't think many gays expect to get Christian weddings), by the original intentions of..well...marriage? I mean,the only reason it could be considered an issue is if marriage (as defined and carried out by the state) was originally intended for procreation and only procreation. It seems like maybe some 200 years ago that was basically the case, but it's a new issue at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "In other words, the line was crossed."

    sorry asshole but the line was crossed when YOU wrote that shit and offended alot of people. I'm not going to impose my views on others in this forum anymore, but I'm not going to sit around and let ignorant people offend friends and family I have who are gay.

    ReplyDelete
  72. exactly. if marriage was meant only for procreation, then infertile women and sterile men would not be allowed to marry. This brings me to another point. Why would God create men and women who are incapable of procreating if that was so important to him?

    Please please please Glen, stop using procreation as a reason against gay marriage. We've gone over this enough times.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I was fully aware of the Civil Rights section in history. Don't get me wrong....we were discussing African-American rights, correct? The separate but equal argument is extremely flawed. How can you compare the two movements?

    Black slaves were denied rights because of the behavior of the states. Gays use their sexual status as a means to earn rights.

    Also, since when do gays have the right to break the law? Look at Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy was outlawed by the Supreme Court. And we are talking about religion, here! What happened to religious freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Black slaves were denied rights because of the behavior of the states. Gays use their sexual status as a means to earn rights."

    People shouldn't have to earn rights! They're born with them! Did you earn your rights by being straight?

    ReplyDelete
  75. [Gaby]

    I'm hesitant to even write anything on here because I like to avoid these confrontations. This is just a response to a small part of the issue that Kerri brought up.

    I would like to make clear that I don't really want to take part in this whole online debate going on. I just want to say this one thing because I'll probably forget to bring it up in person to Kerri.

    I just wanted to address the whole religious question, since a lot of people ask the same thing. As someone who is (for lack of a better word) "religious", I feel like it's okay to try to answer a question that's asked. I'm not going to talk about the issue as a whole because it gets pretty hostile.

    So. Kerri posted, "I asked it before, and I'll ask it again because you didn't answer: Everyone is made by God, yes? God makes no mistakes? Then why would God make gays? Or if God were so against gays, why would he give people free will to choose to be gay (if being gay is a choice)? I'm sure God can do whatever he wants, so if he didn't want gays to be around (because that's what he told the prophets to write in the Bible), he wouldn't have made it an option in the first place."

    By the way, Kerri, I'm not pointing you out in a bad way. I hope this doesn't come across as being angry or anything like that. I don't think anybody talked about this yet.

    In the Bible, God did create a perfect world. But we've all heard the story of Adam and how he was convinced to try the apple and all that. Originally, God created people to have "fellowship" with him. But after the whole episode in the garden, people knew the difference between good and evil. The whole reason evil existed was because of Satan rebelling against God. God wanted people to be able to choose to be with him, otherwise he would have made robotic-type things without feeling. So even if God doesn't approve of certain lifesytles or decisions, he gave people that free will to make their own choices. In everyting, not just this issue.

    I realize this all sounds very preachy since I talked about the Bible a lot, but there's really no way to get around it.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.

3/11 Update - No Moderation

*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.