UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I can't believe I'm going there, but what about the people who are born with a "natural" tendency to get sexually aroused by children? It's all in the brain. Now, these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are an how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

Please, don't interpret this as me saying homosexuals are pedophiles. I'm just saying that *if* you make that argument, prepare for it to be used to defend other lifestyles. In other words, pick a different argument to make your point.

And as for biologists saying that homosexuality is natural, bollocks. Natural disasters are natural, as well. Contracting skin cancer from exposure to the sun is natural, too. So what? Plus we're getting away from the point I made originally -- that homosexuality is not one of the tools in nature's tool-belt used for promoting the species, natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution, intelligent design or whatever you want to call it. Unless you want to make a claim that homosexual tendencies are somehow linked to a gene that nature wants to eliminate. You don't want to make thar argument, do you?

TheAvatar wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:I certainly hope a few of their clients drop them. Cash speaks volume. I hope they fall on their Donkey.

If I was a professional athlete (somewhere other than in my own head) and they were my agents, I would probably fire them on the spot. Not for their view and whether or not they think that happy marriages are right or wrong but for the gross lack of common sense they showed by tweeting their opinion on a topic like this. It's totally inappropriate and unnecessary. On the other hand, as somebody on this forum suggested, if my agent had a personnal account and tweeted this from his account, I might be more lenient.

By the way, I would feel the same way if they tweeted their opinion (as the company) on other "inappropriate" topics (e.g.: religion, politics, etc)

"They"? I thought it was a single tweeter?

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I can't believe I'm going there, but what about the people who are born with a "natural" tendency to get sexually aroused by children? It's all in the brain. Now, these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are an how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

Please, don't interpret this as me saying homosexuals are pedophiles. I'm just saying that *if* you make that argument, prepare for it to be used to defend other lifestyles. In other words, pick a different argument to make your point.

And as for biologists saying that homosexuality is natural, bollocks. Natural disasters are natural, as well. Contracting skin cancer from exposure to the sun is natural, too. So what? Plus we're getting away from the point I made originally -- that homosexuality is not one of the tools in nature's tool-belt used for promoting the species, natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution, intelligent design or whatever you want to call it. Unless you want to make a claim that homosexual tendencies are somehow linked to a gene that nature wants to eliminate. You don't want to make thar argument, do you?

But now why does that make it wrong? When did love and marriage become only about continuing the species? We have enough people as is.

And the big difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is that no one is inherently harmed by homosexuality. It's natural, and doesn't harm anyone.

I think there are other, better suited websites to discuss this. Why not focus on the tweet; maybe its impact on the Hockey world or athletic agent organizations; other than that, maybe the people who are really passionate about the legitimacy of happy marriage or of homosexuality for that matter should find one of those "more appropriate" forums to discuss it

Back to the jihadist forums...

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

Well said. I didn't get into this as this topic had not yet gone the nature vs. nurture argument yet, but as I learned in psychology, it IS a biological factor. It all has to do with prenatal development, and hormones. I will also mention that when Dr.'s autopsied the brains of several homosexual men they noticed a slightly larger hypothalamus in some cases. As well you can look to twin studies that show a significant prevalence of identical twins sharing the same homosexual orientation. That also includes twins reared apart.

Alfred Kinsey proposed that homosexuality is a continuum with homo and hetero on either end, with bi in them idle, and shades of grey in between. That explains why some people are very homophobic, while there are very flamboyant homosexuals, then you get the people that like both sexes equally, or some a little more, and everything in between.

People that have had homosexual experiences are not necessarily homosexual entirely or exclusively. And vice-versa.

As far as fearing the human race would cease to exist (which is a gross exaggeration) is wrong because humans will procreate regardless of sexual orientation if it means survival.

Mental illnesses are a biological disorder and affect many people, the person can hardly be held responsible for that. People who lack moral reasoning in things such as knowing that sexual relations with children is wrong, killing is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. are all likely dealing with mental illnesses. If not treated, they can be dangerous.

Just to comment on the older men marrying younger women, wasn't that a very common practice 100s of years ago? After-all, we have a disposition to be attracted as men to youthfulness as it is a sign of fertility and re-productiveness. It is sexual fitness. Just like women look for a mate that is a provider.

Not touching this with a 10 foot pole. I didn't think we'd get into a debate of any kind on happy marriages or happy people in general.

Moderators out IMO, good luck to everyone who wants to discuss this issue in detail.

My stance stays the same: UptownHockey should keep their opinions to themselves in this day and age.

I enjoy Hitchen's quip on happy marriage that twists the debate: "This is an argument about the socialisation of homosexuality, not the homosexualisation of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays."

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I have never been against the legal union of homosexuals, and that couple receiving all the rights granted a married couple. My only issue is the insistance of marriage as opposed to a legal or civil union. This isn't an argument against Rights, it is an argument against the need of our population to feel that protection of a certain way of life is wrong and the societal guilt we are made to feel. If you want to discuss Rights then let's stop bickering about "marriage" and start taking about women's rights, rights to religious freedoms, a woman's right to choose, visible minority rights. I equate the fight to have same-sex marriage to the fight of women to be allowed to join male only clubs. It's simply trying to prove a point, that doesn't need to be proven.

For the record I believe that homesexuality is "natural" in that for a great deal of homosexuals their instints lean towards that orientation. I also believe that our societal acceptance of homosexuals, while a good thing, has created an enviornment where there are a great number of "by choice" homosexuals. All the power to them, just leave marriage alone.

Pretty much what I said a few posts earlier -- it isn't about rights.

Up - town Spoooorts
Dee dee dee da da da da
Doo doo doo
Da da da da da da da
Back-street guy
Doo doo mamma dee dee told her whyyy...

Oglethorpe wrote:

Dash wrote:Because it is a stupid thing to say. It is also something that should not be in question.

To be frank, people who oppose same sex marriage are our generations equivalent to those who forbid interracial relations.
There are so many parallels that can be drawn between the those two.

He also said it representing a company. Huge mistake.

To be frank, you are ignorant. Comparing racism to traditional definition of marriage is to deflect from the argument.

To be discriminated against based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation, or any reason is illegal and goes against all I believe in.

I am against same-sex marriage. I fully support the extension of all rights and benefits to same-sex couples, in a committed relationship, and who have entered into a legal or civil union. To change the definition of marriage does nothing to enhance the rights of those couples, it is simply another attack against traditional values and beliefs. Marriage is one man and one woman, not two men or two women or 1 man and multiple women, or 1 woman and multiple men.

As defined by whom? Oh yeah, that's right, religion. That's the genesis of this "belief" on what a marriage should be. For the record I stand with Dash. Denying rights to homosexuals, such as marriage, is in fact discrimination and is akin to racism.

Bottom line, people should be able to marry whomever they like. Everyone should have the right to marriage, and the unhappiness it brings. In the end, a marriage is only between the two people who have entered into the bond of marriage. Why should anyone else have a say?

Oglethorpe wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I have never been against the legal union of homosexuals, and that couple receiving all the rights granted a married couple. My only issue is the insistance of marriage as opposed to a legal or civil union. This isn't an argument against Rights, it is an argument against the need of our population to feel that protection of a certain way of life is wrong and the societal guilt we are made to feel. If you want to discuss Rights then let's stop bickering about "marriage" and start taking about women's rights, rights to religious freedoms, a woman's right to choose, visible minority rights. I equate the fight to have same-sex marriage to the fight of women to be allowed to join male only clubs. It's simply trying to prove a point, that doesn't need to be proven.

For the record I believe that homesexuality is "natural" in that for a great deal of homosexuals their instints lean towards that orientation. I also believe that our societal acceptance of homosexuals, while a good thing, has created an enviornment where there are a great number of "by choice" homosexuals. All the power to them, just leave marriage alone.

By choice homosexuals? LOL! I believe the term you are looking for is bisexual. Being a true homosexual (as in not bi) is not a choice. Sure they are people who engage with both sexes, and that is a choice, but that has to do with gratification and not a biological sexual orientation. This is supported by decades of research and frankly, is beyond argument.

Also, calling it a civil union and denying the right to have it called a marriage is still discrimination in my opinion. There is a clear distinction there.

Just say what you want to say: My archaic beliefs don't allow me to have an open mind.

strachattack wrote:I enjoy Hitchen's quip on happy marriage that twists the debate: "This is an argument about the socialisation of homosexuality, not the homosexualisation of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays."

Hitchens :KKK:

hemlock wrote:

strachattack wrote:I enjoy Hitchen's quip on happy marriage that twists the debate: "This is an argument about the socialisation of homosexuality, not the homosexualisation of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays."

Hitchens :KKK:

Hitch should stick to hockey and looking after his weight instead of talking about happy marriage.

SpezDispenser wrote:Not touching this with a 10 foot pole. I didn't think we'd get into a debate of any kind on happy marriages or happy people in general.

Moderators out IMO, good luck to everyone who wants to discuss this issue in detail.

My stance stays the same: UptownHockey should keep their opinions to themselves in this day and age.

Yeah, it's a no win situation for them to be commenting. Just a stupid move.

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I have never been against the legal union of homosexuals, and that couple receiving all the rights granted a married couple. My only issue is the insistance of marriage as opposed to a legal or civil union. This isn't an argument against Rights, it is an argument against the need of our population to feel that protection of a certain way of life is wrong and the societal guilt we are made to feel. If you want to discuss Rights then let's stop bickering about "marriage" and start taking about women's rights, rights to religious freedoms, a woman's right to choose, visible minority rights. I equate the fight to have same-sex marriage to the fight of women to be allowed to join male only clubs. It's simply trying to prove a point, that doesn't need to be proven.

For the record I believe that homesexuality is "natural" in that for a great deal of homosexuals their instints lean towards that orientation. I also believe that our societal acceptance of homosexuals, while a good thing, has created an enviornment where there are a great number of "by choice" homosexuals. All the power to them, just leave marriage alone.

By choice homosexuals? LOL! I believe the term you are looking for is bisexual. Being a true homosexual (as in not bi) is not a choice. Sure they are people who engage with both sexes, and that is a choice, but that has to do with gratification and not a biological sexual orientation. This is supported by decades of research and frankly, is beyond argument.

Also, calling it a civil union and denying the right to have it called a marriage is still discrimination in my opinion. There is a clear distinction there.

Just say what you want to say: My archaic beliefs don't allow me to have an open mind.

Comments like this are why it is impossible to have a debate with some people. The liberal minds of today talk about debate and openmindedness, yet when an opposing viewpoint is expressed they make comments like this.