• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Among the demonstrably false bullshit you've posted this one really is the icing on the cake. One can only presume you are either willfully obtuse, terribly uneducated, or simply ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
It depends on the starting point. If the starting point is Methuselah lived to be 969, then our lifespans are woefully shorter. ;)

However, it still has not been a steady decline over the centuries, it was a sudden drop and then a slow incline, then a decline, then an incline again...if you average out the planet.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
It depends on the starting point. If the starting point is Methuselah lived to be 969, then our lifespans are woefully shorter. ;)

However, it still has not been a steady decline over the centuries, it was a sudden drop and then a slow incline, then a decline, then an incline again...if you average out the planet.
I was hesitant to bring that up, but that's my point.

No one ever got near that after Adam that I've read of.

Don't take the entire human history into account and people call you stupid.

:'(
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
Westboro is so bothered by homosexuality that they feel they have to protest soldiers' funerals. It guess that is also the right thing to do!
Yes, it is. They're crazy because they want an entire country to burn. Oh, and they're religious, which also means they're crazy. But it IS their right to do. It's a protected right. The day that we see Westboro being arrested for a peaceful protest is the day I worry about this nation.

On the flip side of this coin, I approve of the zombie people who blocked Westboro from getting near a funeral at McChord AFB. But Westboro is still allowed to protest.

I honestly don't know if its a choice or they are born gay. Honestly I don't give a flip either way. As long as their decision to be gay doesn't affect my life in any way then I really couldn't care less.
My feelings exactly.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Thats distorting the truth a bit I would say. While sexual orientation does exist as a spectrum, heterosexuality is still by far the most dominant sexuality.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that bisexuality and homosexuality aren't true sexualities, because our bodies are designed for sexual reproduction with the opposite sex, even if you're gay.. Also, even homosexual relationships are still subject to the male/female dynamic.

How many times have I seen gay couples in which one clearly possesses the dominant/masculine archetype while the other the submissive/feminine..
Oddly enough, the three M/M gay couples I've known ever so slightly, all three followed the fairly swishy/full-on flamboyant Orleans queen stereotypes. However, the four gay couples I've known reasonably well have been mannish woman/mannish woman, hot feminine (if endearingly tomboyish) woman/hot feminine (if endearingly tomboyish) woman, hot feminine woman/fairly hot reasonably feminine woman (although admittedly most of these two have faded from memory), and reasonably manly man/reasonably manly man, without any apparent clearly defined masculine/feminine roles. It's almost like they are real people . . .

Just to make it more strange, the mannish woman/mannish woman couple are both quite bisexual, both having spent time married and having several boyfriends before and after.

So that begs the question. What is the term for a straight man who has sex with other men?
Self-deceiving?

A man who has sex with other men is by definition not straight, although he is not necessarily gay either. I suspect that in a situation such as a long term prison, a lot of men who would describe themselves as straight can muster some same-sex attraction at least on a purely sexual level.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Self-deceiving?

A man who has sex with other men is by definition not straight, although he is not necessarily gay either. I suspect that in a situation such as a long term prison, a lot of men who would describe themselves as straight can muster some same-sex attraction at least on a purely sexual level.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Defined as attraction OR behavior in both links...

So, I think people, by definition, are homosexual/gay based on action as well and NOT just attraction. Being born that way isn't the only way to "be" gay.

I guess my old dead gay acquaintance was right, he became gay, and stopped. Stop doing the action, you are no longer gay.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
I'll agree to that if you agree that one who sex with the opposite sex is straight. Therefore someone who has sex with both the same sex and the opposite sex is both straight and homosexual.

This is why we have the word "bisexual", to denote those who are attracted to both sexes and/or have sex with both sexes. I'm aware of the old comedians' saw that there is no such thing as bisexual, he other sucks dick or he doesn't suck dick, but unless you see a homosexual act as defining (and damning) a person it's not an operable definition except for a quick laugh.

EDIT: I crossed your edit, but to quote Oilfieldtrash:
I honestly don't know if its a choice or they are born gay. Honestly I don't give a flip either way. As long as their decision to be gay doesn't affect my life in any way then I really couldn't care less.
Similarly, however your friend wished to term himself is fine by me. I get no green stamps from counting gays. If he wished to say he's no longer gay because he's no longer having sex with me, it does not affect me either way.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I'll agree to that if you agree that one who sex with the opposite sex is straight.
???

Of course, a straight person is just that.

By definition as well, actions denote it. A person can have NO attraction to the same sex, and have sex with them for pleasure and can still be homosexual/lesbian.

There is not necessarily a "gay gene" as I have heard. As far as we know, a homosexual could be one by choice, or not one... by choice.

I am more inclined to believe that the pursuit pleasure dominates what they term as "natural".
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
???

Of course, a straight person is just that.

By definition as well, actions denote it. A person can have NO attraction to the same sex, and have sex with them for pleasure and can still be homosexual/lesbian.

There is not necessarily a "gay gene" as I have heard. As far as we know, a homosexual could be one by choice, or not one... by choice.

I am more inclined to believe that the pursuit pleasure dominates what they term as "natural".
If that were true there'd be no homosexuals, just bisexuals who screwed anything that sits still long enough. For if someone is purely pursuing pleasure one wouldn't randomly eliminate half the population. Or at least one wouldn't randomly eliminate half the attractive people population.

Here's a question: Why do you care? I'm very doubting that anyone can truly just choose not to be gay (in orientation; one can certainly decide not to have sex with one's fellow genderites) but I'm absolutely positive one truly can just choose to not be bothered by the existence of homosexuals, whatever their motivation.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Here's a question: Why do you care? I'm very doubting that anyone can truly just choose not to be gay (in orientation; one can certainly decide not to have sex with one's fellow genderites) but I'm absolutely positive one truly can just choose to not be bothered by the existence of homosexuals, whatever their motivation.
C'mon. That's a clear cop-out question.. "why do you care?"

You can doubt all you want, but your precious science and Wikipedia has proven you wrong.

To answer, I just care about wanting to share information. I enjoy discussion about this and many subjects, to be real with you.. and defending my opinion.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
C'mon. That's a clear cop-out question.. "why do you care?"

You can doubt all you want, but your precious science and Wikipedia has proven you wrong.

To answer, I just care about wanting to share information. I enjoy discussion about this and many subjects, to be real with you.. and defending my opinion.
Simple. I care because I want a society in which government at every level treats ALL its citizens the same, maximizes individual liberty, and discriminates neither for nor against any citizen unless it can show and convince us of a compelling societal need that must be met and which can only practically be met with that curtailment of individual liberty. If I do not support others' rights, why would anyone support mine?

Although this is far afield from the purpose of the thread, which was to discuss asshattery which is almost certainly a fake anyway.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Sexual orientation is ultimately in the brain, not what bits you were born with.
This is true, but sexuality is different from sexual orientation in this context. All human beings are physically geared for sexual copulation with the opposite sex.

Whether they're attracted to the opposite sex on the other hand, is as you said, a function of the brain.

And ironically enough, studies have confirmed that gays have a brain symmetry that resembles the opposite sex, confirming my belief that homosexuality is a defect of some sort.

Gay relationships are in no way bound by the 'conventional' dominant/submissive archetype. In fact it is pretty rarely the case and making assumptions based on old stereotypes like that only exposes your own ignorance.
It's not written in stone, but it's a fact that sexual inversion is far more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. Thats where the stereotypes came from in the first place..

And the fact that you say it's "rarely" the case exposes your own ignorance..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Oddly enough, the three M/M gay couples I've known ever so slightly, all three followed the fairly swishy/full-on flamboyant Orleans queen stereotypes. However, the four gay couples I've known reasonably well have been mannish woman/mannish woman, hot feminine (if endearingly tomboyish) woman/hot feminine (if endearingly tomboyish) woman, hot feminine woman/fairly hot reasonably feminine woman (although admittedly most of these two have faded from memory), and reasonably manly man/reasonably manly man, without any apparent clearly defined masculine/feminine roles. It's almost like they are real people . . .
I've posted this link many times in an effort to dismiss the erroneous assumption that gays are "normal" just like everyone else.

It's a fact that sexual inversion (or gender role reversal) is much more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals, and even though it may not be apparent at all times, there is a biological basis for it.

Just to make it more strange, the mannish woman/mannish woman couple are both quite bisexual, both having spent time married and having several boyfriends before and after.
I don't really find that strange personally. Bisexuality is more common in women than in men (while homosexuality is more common in men), and "gay" women (or women that call themselves gay) are famous for sleeping with the enemy. I've been hit on by several lesbians myself..
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,335
11,803
136
This is true, but sexuality is different from sexual orientation in this context. All human beings are physically geared for sexual copulation with the opposite sex.

Whether they're attracted to the opposite sex on the other hand, is as you said, a function of the brain.

And ironically enough, studies have confirmed that gays have a brain symmetry that resembles the opposite sex, confirming my belief that homosexuality is a defect of some sort.



It's not written in stone, but it's a fact that sexual inversion is far more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. Thats where the stereotypes came from in the first place..

And the fact that you say it's "rarely" the case exposes your own ignorance..
Your belief that homosexuality is a defect it purely your own. Without a larger understanding of the role it plays in populations (or even the mechanisms behind it) and evolution you can draw no such conclusion, nor has anyone done so.

Sexual inversion might occur more frequently but the roles you describe are far to simplistic and smack of someone who has little to no experience with what gay relationships actually look like. For that matter I see a lot of straight relationships where the wife is most definitely wearing the pants (figuratively speaking), not exactly the male-dominant/female-submissive 1960s fantasy land that you think exists.
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,114
6
76
I don't really have an opinion on the letter. Irreligious parents disown their offspring as well for all kinds of reasons, including being homosexual, probably not with the same frequency, but it happens. I'm not going to jump on the hate bandwagon for the dad because if I had kids that lived a lifestyle that I found morally repugnant (say if they were contract killers or made a living off usury) I would disown them as well.

A tangent, but there's TONS of people who don't understand Christianity at a very basic level. Everybody is born a sinner and is doomed to hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior, excepting those who are truly ignorant of God's word. No amount of good works or living virtuously will save a person. Being homosexual is not a sin; acting on homosexual urges is (as are a ton of other things that get conveniently ignored by most modern Christians). Even murders/rapists/really bad person X have the ability to dwell with god (heaven) if they absolve themselves of their sin and accept said savior. Hell is not some place where god sends you; it's when you willfully divorce yourself from god (sin). Hell is the greatest torment because the greatest torment a soul can face is choosing to distance itself from it's creator. Heaven and hell aren't places, they're states of being, and the earth fell under Satan's domain after original sin (yes, this is why the world is full of sin and bad things happen to good people etc).

It should also be noted that there's more ways to propagate one's genes than a dead heat to crank out as many kids as possible. Homosexual individuals can improve the evolutionary fitness of a tribe/community and even pass on most of their genes in an indirect fashion through straight family members that share most of their genes. An individual spreading their genes matters much less to the perpetuation of the species when we're talking about social organisms.
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,114
6
76
For that matter I see a lot of straight relationships where the wife is most definitely wearing the pants (figuratively speaking), not exactly the male-dominant/female-submissive 1960s fantasy land that you think exists.
Haha yeah there are a lot of weak feminized heterosexual men running around these days; doesn't mean it's natural (or healthy, for the man OR woman in the relationship).
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
It depends on the starting point. If the starting point is Methuselah lived to be 969, then our lifespans are woefully shorter. ;)

However, it still has not been a steady decline over the centuries, it was a sudden drop and then a slow incline, then a decline, then an incline again...if you average out the planet.
Other than of course there is absolutely zero evidence any of the purported biblical longevity. If we are going that route, Heracles is over 2000.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
I was hesitant to bring that up, but that's my point.

No one ever got near that after Adam that I've read of.

Don't take the entire human history into account and people call you stupid.

:'(
Do you include the live span of elves and dwarves as well? If you are counting fiction go all out.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
The same one you did.

Disagree with someone, you're ignorant, eh. Its really not even about why, really... you just have to be in total disagreement with someone.

All I hear in people regurgitating the same scientific/biological guesses since before the modern era.

Really, who knows? No one. Who knows why people do half the crap they do? No one. Who really knows why homosexual traits even came into existence? Can any of you produce facts? Na ah... ya can't. Evolution? Even Darwin said he can't say factually that's what happened. That's another guess at best. Facts don't support that.

The Bible simply says we are born imperfect and in sin, then we breakdown from there. Human life expectancy has steadily declined over centuries, and so have our bodies, genetics and so on.

Homosexuality is really a human sickness. Not natural. Just like death (not natural), disease (not natural), birth defects, mental disease, and so on. NONE of these were/are natural to the human family but it's something we have to deal with. None of us WANT to deal with them, or LIKE to.

I'm defective.. one day I'm gonna die if not prematurely killed.

I am disagreeing with you. If that makes me ignorant, so be it.
Look up the phrase "scientific theory" on Wikipedia and comprehend it's meaning. It's not just a "guess".

Not everyone believes in the Bible, and very few take anything in it's pages as factual. Life expectancy declined? You might want to look that one up on Wikipedia as well. Oh and it's nice that you bought up Methusaleh's age as being 969. Prove it, without using the Bible or any other religious text. Someone living 969 years ought to written down someplace other than a religious text.

Actually what's really a human sickness is justifying treating people badly because of what it says in an edited text of questionable history. How do you know what's "natural" to the human family? Your Bible? Like I posted earlier: "Life and it's wonders are all around you, not in a book. And we don't really like like dealing with you and your ilk either; just another duty we have, like cleaning up dog shit.

Truest statement you have ever written.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Homosexuality is really a human sickness. Not natural. Just like death (not natural), disease (not natural), birth defects, mental disease, and so on. NONE of these were/are natural to the human family but it's something we have to deal with. None of us WANT to deal with them, or LIKE to.
Death is about as natural of a thing as there is. No known lifeform lives forever. Birth defects, mental illness, and homosexuality are present in numerous animal species. They are not exclusive to humans and, therefore, cannot be simply something we dreamed up or fabricated ourselves.

The fact that you appear to believe these things to be unnatural shows how incredibly wrong, misinformed, or purposefully ignorant you truly are.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
The fact that you appear to believe these things to be unnatural shows how incredibly wrong, misinformed, or purposefully ignorant you truly are.
You've ignored facts. Same sex is a choice, too, not just "attraction" as you've vehemently asserted. In fact, it's either or.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Not everyone believes in the Bible, and very few take anything in it's pages as factual.
Oh yeah, you're right about that. You have the right to choose what you will believe in...
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
You've ignored facts. Same sex is a choice, too, not just "attraction" as you've vehemently assert. In fact, it's either or.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
I haven't ignored anything. YOU, on the other hand, made ignorant assertions that certain things are, in your view, unnatural... when they clearly are very much natural and biologically omnipresent.

Having sex with someone, of either gender, is a choice. Being attracted to someone or some gender is not.

"Homosexuality" is the attraction. Homosexual activity is homosexual sex. The two are not automatically interchangeable, nor can assumptions be made about one necessitating the other. There are those who do have homosexual sex that do not possess homosexuality and there are those who possess homosexuality that do not have homosexual sex. If you deny that, then there is no end to your ignorance.

Your dictionary and Wikipedia links do nothing to disprove that or to demonstrate the validity of what you claim.

But, by all means, continue to talk about how death, mental illness, birth defects, and homosexuality are "unnatural". It makes you look more stupid than I or anyone else ever could.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
"Homosexuality" is the attraction. Homosexual activity is homosexual sex.
...so to be clear, are you saying that a person can have "homosexual sex" and not be a homosexual?

In other words, a man can have homosexual sex, and be.... straight? Even if he choose to not ever sleep with women? How is that?

Just trying to understand what you mean....


There are those who do have homosexual sex that do not possess homosexuality and there are those who possess homosexuality that do not have homosexual sex.
So.. in theory, one can participate in gay activity and not be gay, and one can not participate in gay activity (just be attracted to same sex persons), and still be gay?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Death is about as natural of a thing as there is. No known lifeform lives forever. Birth defects, mental illness, and homosexuality are present in numerous animal species. They are not exclusive to humans and, therefore, cannot be simply something we dreamed up or fabricated ourselves.

The fact that you appear to believe these things to be unnatural shows how incredibly wrong, misinformed, or purposefully ignorant you truly are.
A stepdad killing the children, a female cutting off the head of her spouse and eating his body, and cannibalism are all quite present in animals. Just saying it is not a very good reason to say something should be allowed, as the same logic is then able to be applied to these things which should not be allowed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY