Genetics and the Homosexual Agenda (part 3)

[Deliciouschoc]

It's crazy to see people do the exact same thing you're doing using references from research and science to dimiss your research and references from science. We can use science to refute anything else but when it comes to homosexuality we ignore the information presented and just yell "Oh you're just showing hate, you're just showing hate". There shouldn't be any double standards or caping for one over the other. Homosexuals shouldn't be exempt.

[ThinkerResearcher]

the real question is : why the hell do people care about if gay people are to "blame" or to "pity" ? both sides of the debate are stupid ! Wether there is a gay gene or not, the truth is that gay people don't concern heterosexuals, and trying to make their life miserable based on a 6000 old book is plain bigotry. If it's a choice, good for them. If they're born like that, ditto. If you're not a closet gay person, having this debate is useless to you. Keep your "morals" out of other people's life

[Krazie316]

@ThinkerResearcher Uh...Where in this video was a 6,000 year old book cited? See you start all your posts with some attack against the bible weather or not it's even mentioned. This is a video to debunk the claims of those misguided by their biases.

Furthermore who is applying their morals to other people's lives?

[ThinkerResearcher]

@ThinkerResearcher Believe me, it's justified here. What i meant, is that the whole debate about homosexuality is, in fact, a religious debate. And this since the religion decreted it as non acceptable with the story of Sodom, My comment is : on one size, people want to prove that it's a choice, on the other, that's it's inherent. This all debate starts with the assumption that homosexuality is bad (because of religion) thus i cited the "6000 years old book". am i wrong in doing so ?

[pussiestroker]

Well done. I also find the deliberate dissemination of disinformation about the gay gene repugnant; yes, it is a primary item on their agenda to use whatever means they can to blur the lines and subvert our morals. I am glad you recognize this being their agenda. Such disinformation needs to be pulverized and vaporized.

I've read about the information you discussed prior to this video; I also want to add that Hamer *also conducted a similar study in 1995 and failed to reproduce the results.

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius ... show more of a psycho/social factor than a genetic one

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius No No buddy, I'm afraid you're the wrong one for this vide debunks the very claims you make mention of in this post. Scientists who are neither pro genetic or pro psycho social have debunked the INAH 3 claims made first by Simon LeVay. One saying he came up with the same sized INAH 3 in drug abusers as homosexuals. Furthbermore some of Levays homosexuals had bigger INAH 3 and some of his heterosexuals had smaller INAH 3.

Also the twin stdudy shown by Bailey and Pillard....

[FortisConscius]

@Krazie316 Scientists have not debunked the INAH 3 research conducted by Simon Le Vay, because this year he published a meta-study of over 600 studies indicating brain differences in gay men and some notable findings in gay women. Also his research is not limited to INAH 3. What about the scientist who altered mice genes to alter their gender identity? What about familial traits? Anatomical traits? Too many clues in biology, too many counters in psychology. It is most likely biological.

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius YES they have debunked the INAH3 study by LeVay this video gives the evidennce debunking his work. Now I know you haven't watched the video and are just spouting a one sided opinion.

[FortisConscius]

@Krazie316 I did watch your video, thank you, I happen to have read numerous studies too and didn't limit my search over the last few years to the arguments you reiterate - hence the reason I elabourate on what you seem to have missed out on.

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius I've done several research as well addressing the claims of those that try to claim genetic without proof, factual proof.

I haven't missed out on anything nothing you addressed is new to me. I was just at work and couldn't be very informative or lengthy

[FortisConscius]

"Environment...Environment...E­nvironment" That could well refer to the womb. I am disappointed - you promised me a rebuttal to the polygenetic arguement in Part 3. Here I am listening to more arguments about single genes. So disappointing. Scientists do not accept that sexuality might be environmental, they consider it as they must to ensure maximum objectivity and examine all the evidence without bias. If it's due to nurture, please explain the consistant failures of de/re-conditioning?

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius I NEVER made such a promise bringing a rebuttal to polygencs because there's FAR from sufficient data on polygenics OVERALL let alone on homosexuality.

Failures is de/reconditioning? You mean how several real x homosexuals ehist including Donnie McClurkin and several more that have died happy heterosexuals.

What about YoukedtoJesus a youtube woman former lesbian hapilly married to a man. The list goes on.

These are people that underwent a spiritual change not a program

[FortisConscius]

@Krazie316 There are examples, yes, but these are exceptions to the rule. The conditioning allows people to live a lie and act heterosexual but I would bet that if you subjected them to MRI tests with various porn they would respond to homosexual porn or any. They may well have been bisexual too, it is likely that this forgotten sexuality is more common that homosexuality and often incorrectly labelled in the false dichotomy as homosexual.

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius These are not exceptions to any rule, they are truely transformed individuals (and plenty of them) living normal healthy lives.

Please spare us the ridiculous claim they are bisexual, it's no good and regurgetated

[FortisConscius]

@Krazie316 Unless you scan their brain functions, we doing nothing more than speculating and it is very likely that peer pressure / conformity is at work in those examples, given that for decades heterosexuality has beeen exalted and homosexuality demonised (yet another argument against 'choice' or psychology). Also I did not claim they were bisexual, I merely stated a more objective viewpoint that they "may well have been bisexual..." L2Read.

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius There is no peer preasure, several of them are alive to testify, you're being heavily biased on that note.

The fact homosexuals have been demonized (or truthfully their lifestyle not them) is not an argument against choice. Furthermore choice never exited my mouth nor was ever entered in text.

I know how to read and in the other post you said it WAS bisexuality not a possibility when talking about the penguins. try again

[FortisConscius]

@Krazie316 About the pengiuns, yes, about the people you mentioned, no. Look again. 2 topics, 2 responses.

Peer pressure, perceived negative punishment, conditioning to the contrary and fear of isolation are all excellent factors that exist to argue againt choice. "choice never exited my mouth nor was ever entered in text" yes I know, but if it is not a priori natural determination, then the inference is choice. Please enlighten me; how else I should view your argument?

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius the penguind were not bisexual they were never having sex. We all know the male penguin waits for the mother to return and takes care of the egg/baby until then.

I know they were two different responses, same subject one you made a baseless unfounded assertion, the other you said something different you went the "maybe" route.

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius There was no peer preassure, and no my argument is not about choice it's about psycho social factors over a period of time. this does not infer choice all of a sudden

[Krazie316]

@FortisConscius You know there's more evidence for a psycho/social factor than a genetc one right? this isn't saying it is in fact just that, just that there's more evidence for it

[OhEmGeexItsMee]

Straight people are quite the same. You dont CHOOSE to be heterosexual. Its just.. kind of there? Its like its just a part of your personality. You cant help it. Youd never even think about 'going gay' because you cant.

Is there a gene that tells if youre heterosexual? I dont think so. So who cares if there's a 'gay gene'?

I do, however, respect that you choose to disagree with the homosexual 'lifestyle'.

Even though, its pretty much the same as a heterosexuals. We're not aliens man lol

[OhEmGeexItsMee]

Rant Alert.-

Just growing up i remember liking the same sex. I never thought of the opposite sex that much really. I saw the beauty in girls, not guys. And now, its the same. I am not attracted to guys. I didnt wake up one morning and say HEY. I THINK I WANT TO TURN GAY TODAY. I didnt even know what 'gay' was until i was about 8.

I just knew that I did not like the opposite sex.

Ive found that most peoples 'first kisses' were usually at a young age and usually with the same sex.

[dorianstark]

first we should look why you dislike homosexuals? or as u say-disagree with them.? i would like to know why u disagree with homosexuals? lt me know. ty but keep in mind, what u say says alot. i have heard several of your videos and have found alot of hidden agendas. well, not so hidden. an blind, deaf, idiot could see the hate.

[Krazie316]

@dorianstark There is no hate, cut the bull crap

[dorianstark]

@Krazie316 really? lets look at why you dislike them then? thats a question by the way.

[dorianstark]

@dorianstark oh, and no bull crap on my side. i dont believe in bullcrap

[Krazie316]

@dorianstark There's plenty of bull crap coming from your arguments

[989lmao]

i think its a bit more than 3 percent about 6 percent of boys at my school are gay and bi and i know quite a feq adult bisexuals also new statistics say 5-6 percent of men are gay or bi

[Peoppell]

I really liked listening to your talk, you seemed a little unsure of your material though – it seems that a discussion on this topic, whilst interesting, is somewhat fruitless – one could argue, perhaps, similar genetic arguments for psychotic serial killers. Not that I am equating being homosexual or otherwise with this unfortunate affliction. continued...

[myPOINTLESSvids]

Being a homo IS A CHOICE. Making ignorant comments about science is also a choice.

There is NO scientific proof of "gay" genes. LOL. SHOW ME THE STUDY.

[uItravioIet]

So when are YOU going to come out? Obviously, you're a closeted homosexual.

[ohm4]

Umm well I agree with you that the genetics literature is not in support of a direct genetic link to homosexuality... but why does the permissibility of homosexuality depend on genetics? If immutability is your issue, then genetics is only part of the story. Left-handedness isn't genetic either, but it's still almost as difficult to change, whatever its social/environmental cause. I don't see anything inherently wrong with being gay.

[Krazie316]

You bring up a very valid point, in fact you may just be the very first to bring that up.

I think you're in agreement with this video more than you think.

My point for this video is that there hasn't been found to be a genetic cause however there is evidence, well more evidence for it being socially learned.

Now being socially learned means over a period of time through the actions you take and choices you make.

I'm definitely not saying people chose their sexuality on the drop of a dime

[Krazie316]

In conclusion, I don't dislike or hate homosexuals I simply disagree with the lifestyle.

However I'm not one who will try to stop them from doing what they want in the privacy of their homes or stop them from being with each other.

I do however stand against them teaching children in school that it's ok to explore the lifestyle especially when they're other people's children some of which have Christian parents.

and I stand against same sex marriage, but they have contracts custom to them

[Krazie316]

If we keep the bible out of school it is only fair to also keep other religions or lifestyles out as well and leave that up to the parents to teach.

Schools should teach children respect for all including homosexuals, blacks, females, etc a general respect for each other, and stick to reading writing and math (well you have science as well and electives).

Leave the rest for the clubs such as the GLBT club and Christian Club and whatever else

[hchavens]

Why do you care? Why don't you just let people live their own lives the way that makes them happy? No one is trying to turn you gay or take away your rights. There is as much a homosexual agenda as there is a heterosexual agenda. None.

[Samc023]

Not sure how you can sit up and deny the fact that

there is in fact a homosexual agenda. Its something that

has been obvious decades ago, yet many gay advocates

still deny it to this very day. And eventually free speech

regarding that lifestyle will be stifled.

[hchavens]

What exactly is the "homosexual agenda" then? Cause from where I am standing wanting civil liberties is not an agenda, but a right.

Not that I expect you to answer my question when you so blatantly ignored my previous ones. So I'll ask again.

[hchavens]

Why do you care? I am not trying to stop you from being happy or stifle your opinion. I simply want to have the same liberties as a straight person and not be judged for what makes me happy.

What if I went around saying why being black is morally wrong and that you should not be allowed to marry a white person? You would have the "same" rights as anyone to get married, just not to the person society deemed unacceptable.

[Samc023]

You can say that being black is morally wrong, but that wouldn't make it true, you can also commit and marry that person so to speak, but don't expect society to recognize it and validate it as true marriage. A governmental endorsement shouldn't stifle your happiness, because if it does, it just shows how hollow it really is. You want it because it would normalize and legitimize what society

deem as unacceptable.

[hchavens]

"You can say that being black is morally wrong, but that wouldn't make it true" <-and this is precisely my point.

I don't want society to cater to me, I want it to accept me. But whether or not it does that has no weight on my happiness.

Society should not deem any kind of love unacceptable, and I just find it sad that it has. Why does marriage have to be something in particular? Because it always has? Lots of things always were until we the people changed them for the better.

[Samc023]

Why does marriage have to be something in particular?

Because thats what it is, your particular expression of

love doesn't have to be embraced or celebrated, we don't

embrace incest or polygamy no matter how those practicing

define it. Sure they MAY be love in those unions, but

why should society endorse it? because you WANT them

to? Precisely my point, you want society to cater to you

thats exactly what it boils down to.

[hchavens]

Being in a gay relationship will not produce off spring with birth defects. If both parties are truly in love, of legal age, and do not want children, I don't see what is so wrong about it. Whats wrong with polygamy?

I don't want anyone to endorse it, just to ACCEPT it, because it is not going to change. I don't want my child getting beat up for having two moms and then not being able to see them in the hospital because I'm not biologically related and not accepted as their mother by society.

[Samc023]

Being in a gay relationship doesn't produce offspring, period therefore why should it be recognized and validated as equal to a heterosexual marriage? And yes, you do

want an endorsement, ergo your fight to obtain marital

rights, you want full acceptance and full endorsement.

Gays have a large degree of acceptance, allowing civil

unions is accepting what you do.

[Samc023]

Lots of things always were until we the people changed them for the better.

Like? and please don't say interracial as it was never a

new concept in mankind's history. It was practiced long

before slavery, longer before America. Also not all forms

of love are acceptable and not all should be endorsed,

if that is what you personally choose, then so be it, but

don't expect or guilt trip society into giving you a big

pat on the back.

[hchavens]

Actually being gay is as old as mankind. It was endorsed by greek and roman society, just to name two examples.

As for things that were changed for the better... How 'bout women's suffrage, freedom of religion, needing a search warrant, or appearing before a court of your peers?

[Samc023]

(Actually being gay is as old as mankind.)

And when did I ever say otherwise? Not like it

matters because incest and polygamy is just as

old as mankind too, so what's your point? And

yes it was endorsed by the Greeks and Roman's

again, what's your point? , many cultures practice

polygamy and incest that doesn't mean we ought to. There are things that should be changed and have been changed, but the definition of marriage should not be

one of them.

[Samc023]

You want society to recognize and cater to your personal

desires, but thats not how things works. Marriage is not

whatever anyone wants to make it or define it, marriage

is something in particular. Therefore if you want the same

liberties then comply in accordance to the law, but don't

expect all people to cater to everyone's personal desires

[hchavens]

Marriage is not whatever YOU want to define it as either.

I don't expect anyone to cater to me, I've tried to make that clear. But you obviously don't want to hear what I have to say. So, I will simply say thank you for the stimulating conversation, and judge me all you want. Just remember, I am the one who is not going to let society dictate who I can and cannot love, and be happier for it. I need no box, I hope one day you don't need one either.

[Samc023]

Marriage is not whatever YOU want to define it as either.

But I'm not even defining it MY way, I'm not defining it any other way besides what its been for the past 6,000 years.

And i've been listening to your side of the issue, but if a

piece of paper or government backing is the be all end

all to happiness, If you're judging your overall happiness

and ability to love by mere benefits then it just shows

how shallow your argument on the subject is, thus you

are the one confined to a box.

[hchavens]

*sigh* you have not been listening at all, and thus have dragged be back in with your ignorance. I don't even think I will ever be married even if it is legalized, it just not who I am. So my happiness is in no way affected.(as I have already said) But just because I am not personally affected does not mean I can't be personally offended. And I am not the only one. And again, things change because people realize what is wrong and fix it. If not for that we would still be in dark dark ages.

[Samc023]

I have been listening, its not my fault you can't articulate

some sort of argument. One minute you're applying this

situation to yourself exclusively, the next minute you're

removing yourself from the equation, make up your mind!

As far as ignorance is concerned, you have that cornered

as accepting SSM would mean you would be catered to.

We have kept traditional marriage all these years and

not deviated towards the dark ages, allowing a free for

all definitely wouldn't do that either.

[hchavens]

Once again you miss my point entirely. I was simply responding to what you have said, thus acknowledging that we are having a discussion and not preaching to one another but you keep bringing us back to the same points and ignoring my comments. I was just letting you know that it has no bearing on my happiness since you keep bringing the argument back to my wanting the world to "cater" to me.

[Samc023]

Okay, fine, the issue doesn't affect you happiness either

way, point taken. Now how does that negate from what

I've been saying overall?

[hchavens]

I've said my piece, whether or not you hear it is up to you

[Samc023]

I know you've said your piece, which I don't agree with

and which I gave a detailed explanation. Its not that

you weren't heard.

[hchavens]

Yes, its clear you don't agree. Any if you think you paid any attention to what I said, you need to seriously reevaluate. Or take a debate class. Good day.

[Samc023]

Its not my fault you shriek back in cowardice. Here I

am stepping back to allow you to finish your position

and all you can seem to do is continue to accuse one of

not hearing or seeing the side of your position. I need

no reevaluation, and neither a debate class especially

since you've seem to have done a wonderful job obscuring

the points with your constant rhetoric about how no one

is listening, so you hastily bow out because you have

nothing left to bring to the table. Good day.

[hchavens]

LOL

[mistersMsMonica]

Translation: I have nothing further to add to the discussion.

[hchavens]

You caught me, I don't want to add more to a conversation where everything I say is thrown out the window, and somehow it is my fault for wanting an adult conversation. I guess I expected too much of the internet. I was genuinely curious, now my questions are answered (sort of) and I can start trolling again.

[Samc023]

You were engaged in an adult discussion, I even attempted

to meet you half way so you can further elaborate on your argument , you never did, instead you would rather continue complaining about how no one is listening to you.

Atleast one honest admission came out of this, the fact

that you're a troll and that is what you will commence to

doing just that, that alone ruins your credibility of

allegedly "wanting" an adult conversation.

[hchavens]

I got my answers and my rise. Thanks!

[Samc023]

Anytime!

[Samc023]

You also said you wanted acceptance, yet you still can't

realize that many deem homosexual conduct as morally

wrong, so only respectful tolerance is warranted. If one

doesn't believe in homosexuality then how would you

expect them to approve of SSM, furthermore how do you

even expect them to view it as a civil rights issue since

homosexuality isn't an immutable characteristic unlike

skin color? If they were to reform civil unions where they

had rights similar to marriage, would that suffice?

[MengoMango]

Why would it matter what you call marriage? If gays could have all the same rights as straights in marriage, then the state is going to call it a marriage while everyone against it can call it whatever they want.

Clearly issues such as whom a child belongs to or social security issues after a spouse dies should be addressed the same as in a straight marriage.  It isn't a matter that should be voted on since it's a civil rights matter.

[Samc023]

Errr..... what? Is this to ME or Krazie?

[MengoMango]

It doesn't matter, this is to the world. But mostly you.

[Samc023]

Well in that case, assuming I can even remember what

I brought up. Gays evidently want to be included in

the institute of marriage, its not as if they want civil

unions that entail the same rights. They want MARRIAGE

because it validates their relationships in general and

how is it a civil rights matter? what gives you the

impression its about "love" and "rights" when its

to promote the socialization and stability of children.

[MengoMango]

Socialization and stability of children? What are you talking about?

Of course it's a civil rights matter. They don't have the freedom to get married even though "All men were created equal" and the only thing separating straight from gay couples is gender.

What purpose does the state calling a gay marriage a "civil union" and a straight marriage a "marriage" serve if the rights are identical? The only reason would be to pander to religion which it can't.

[Samc023]

They do have the freedom to marry, the OPPOSITE sex,

as do everyone else. You want an historically defined

institution to be altered simply to cater to a very small

group. Don't even play the religious card because not

everything is pandered to religion and even if it was, how

is that a bad thing? This has nothing to do with civil

rights even though that is what the gay movement is

promoting it as, its about embracement and respect.

[MengoMango]

What logical reason is there to prevent them from marrying the OPPOSITE sex besides religion? Marriage is constantly being manipulated with new laws for divorce, social security, child care, marital responsibilities, etc. So don't act like marriage is some "Ancient sacred institution that has always worked therefore needs no change".

Ever hear of separation of church and state? Not everyone has Christians beliefs so not everyone should have to abide by their rules.

[Samc023]

Wait a sec, so because people abuse and misuse

marriage we ought just allow whatever? So I

suppose that we can also allow triad marriages or

incestuous marriages then correct? would those

be okay too? would you support those, just curious.

[MengoMango]

Yes I would support those too. What is the logical purpose for preventing them from marrying? I don't agree with those relationships, but I can think of no logical reason within the power of the state for preventing them.

[Samc023]

Of course you would have to support them, and you're

the only person I've seen to even honestly answer this

question, whereas everyone else sets a double standard.

Unfortunately society made a judgment call to establish

boundaries for society and allowing those unions are

deemed by many to be harmful, allowing a free for all

will not improve marriage one iota. Not to mention

people aren't going to go against their ethics and

principles.

[MengoMango]

And is that right? What is preventing them from state officiated marriage going to do? You and I both make the assumption that those kinds of relationships would be harmful. But it is wrong for us to judge them based on our preconceived notions of what a proper relationship should consist of.

[MengoMango]

Yes, I am subject to societal taboos as well as the next guy, but I also understand that forcing our beliefs on someone who doesn't share them isn't going to do anything. If anything it will cause further fortification of their beliefs and needless pain and conflict.

[Samc023]

Who is forcing their beliefs? how does my belief affect

you? People are going to be divided on many issues

thats never going to change. Society and the government

can't cater to everyone and neither should they be forced

to. The gay community would have fared better if they

tried to reform civil unions to mirror marriage.

[MengoMango]

You are forcing your beliefs that gays should not be able to marry.

"Society and the government can't cater to everyone and neither should they be forced to."

Why? Then what is the point of the government if not to serve the people? You could use that same argument for just about anything, for slavery, against social security, against public schools, against police agencies, etc.

[Samc023]

But how is allowing gay marriage serving the overall

populace? Gays make up, what? 3% of the population

at best. Like I said, how can you even compare slavery

to gays not being allowed to be married? How? that is

an affront to black americans. People aren't forcing their

beliefs, they're preserving a societal institution, you can't

cater to what everyone wants, sure some people may want

polygamy, incest marriages etc but how is it beneficial

for society in general other than appeasing some.

[MengoMango]

What??? You're saying the government's only function is to help the majority of the population while ignoring the minority? I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand just how ridiculous that argument is.

And again, STATE MARRIAGE IS NOT A SACRED INSTITUTION. I've already pointed it numerous times with multiple examples. It's a tool of the state and has been manipulated throughout American history and even today.

[Samc023]

When did I ever claim that was the governments function?

I never even remotely stated that. And marriage has

always been seen as between those of the opposite sex

in every culture throughout history, manipulation is

irrelevant. You're to worried about the tiny technicalities

while I'm focused on the MAIN point, which is, its always

been something for those of the opposite sex, changing

it to cater to a few million people is ridiculous especially

if its not innate.

[MengoMango]

Okay, marriage has not been always with the opposite sex, the romans, the chinese, the native americans, etc. all had same sex marriages. And that is not even a logical argument against gay marriage in the first place.

So are straights unable to get married if gays are? What exactly is the logical negative of gay marriage? Please if anything else just explain that to me.

[Samc023]

No, the Romans, Chinese and native Americans etc

never had same sex marriages, and you know it! while

they all have indulged and had same sex relationships

SSM was not an done within their societies.

[MengoMango]

They definitely had same sex marriages, just look it up. What do you mean "you know it"? If you don't know it how are you so sure I am wrong? Look it up. Japan, Rome, China, Native Americans, etc.

And marriage is different in every culture so you can't argue that anyways.

[Samc023]

"Socialization and stability of children? What are you talking about?"

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you think

the government regulates marital arrangements because

of love or is it to promote family interest particularly in

kids who are future citizens of the government.

[MengoMango]

No, I've never even heard of that before.

Marriage is there because there has to be an institution that regulates the dealings of two married couples. For instance, if there was no marriage, how would the state regulate how to divide property after a divorce, who the children belong to after a spouses death, how to tax households within bureaucratic guidelines, what even registers as a household, etc.

It's a tool of the state that deals with matters of two ppl with shared assets.

[Samc023]

You didn't answer my other questions. Now if you're

for incestuous and polygamy unions then you would

logically be for gay marriages too, just don't expect

those that hold marriage as sacred to agree. If you have

issue take it up with the government who doesn't

separate church and state.

[MengoMango]

You know as well as I do that our country cannot and should not hold one religion as its mold for law. Otherwise, we would be freedomless and the equivalent of the Arab countries where they are forcibly unable to reject Muslim practices even if they have Christian or any other beliefs.

[Samc023]

Some ethics and morals aren't always rooted in

religion, and again that isn't the point. Absolute

freedom isn't always good for the infrastructure

of our society. The liberal approach to family in

allowing people to simply shack up didn't help

either. Keep in mind that I agree that church and

government should not be intertwined, but it is,

but surely you don't expect people to vote against

those beliefs, it is their right, just like it is your

right to believe what you believe.

[MengoMango]

I don't understand what you are saying in that first part.

But for the last part, in voting, you are allowing the majority rule. And if the case is a case of a clear majority against the minority, it is not something that logically can be put up for a vote. That's why we didn't vote to end slavery, women's rights, and all other civil rights issues.

[Samc023]

Unfortunately your comparison hold no weight as gender

and race are all immutable characteristics, this is something homosexuality can't hold claim to, therefore why can't it be put to a vote? Just like when people compare same sex marriage to interracial marriage, the two are intrinsically different, its like comparing apples and

oranges, not to mention one didn't alter marriage as an

institution.

[MengoMango]

I've already told you why "altering marriage as an institution" isn't an argument so I don't understand why you are even bringing that up.

You believe homosexuality is chosen somehow? Did you ever decide to be straight? Did you ever have the opportunity to choose to be gay? Most anti-gay advocates even understand that being gay is not a choice anymore so unless you really want to get into that, I'm not going to dwell on this subject.

[Samc023]

You do realize that there are many factors which plays a role in ones sexuality right?!  The "did you choose to be straight"

retort can be easily refuted and you can't so me any

proof that proves homosexuality to be purely 100% innate.

The biology myth is something peddled by pro-gay

advocates because they know its the only way they

can achieve civil rights status. Me having a preference

and attraction for women stems from many things, but mostly my rooted spiritual principles.

[MengoMango]

O_O Oh wow, you really want to debate this...

Do you know what animals are? Do you see what they are attracted to? Are they attracted to the opposite sex because of their "rooted spiritual principles"? It's biological, it's instinct.

But every so often there is also the animal that is attracted to the same sex. They didn't one day decide to be gay. They don't have the mental capacity to do that. They perform by instinct and that's what it is.

[Samc023]

Are you really going to throw the "animal" rhetoric

in this, I mean seriously, instinct? we are a tad bit

more advanced in our thinking than animals.

Unless you can tell me what any of this has to do with

the government allowing gay marriage I will take this

as a futile effort to obscure the underlining issue,

basically a smokescreen.

[MengoMango]

Okay I don't know where my post went but:

You were the one who used "Homosexuality is a choice" as an argument and then I even asked "Do you really want to get into this?" so don't act like I was the one who brought this up as "basically a smokescreen".

Honestly, saying that I am for whatever reason trying to "obscure the underlining issue" and making smokescreens makes you seem like you are grasping at straws now. And it's a bit insulting at that.

[Samc023]

"You were the one who used "Homosexuality is a choice" as an argument "

What on earth are you even talking about? you can't even find certified proof that homosexuality is innate. Instead you brought up animals, as if it proves your argument, it DOESN'T. If you don't want to be honest in this debate

then don't bring it up. Animals have NOTHING to do

with anything so stop trying to compare animal instinct

with human relationship and sexuality, period!

[MengoMango]

So we are not animals, you think our sexual desires are all by choice? So every time you have a sexual desire it is of your choosing and the object of your sexual desire is also of your choosing huh?

And why would anyone in their right mind want to be gay? Many of my gay friends HATE being gay would have gladly taken the opportunity to be straight.

What exactly was i dishonest about? Stop spouting inane accusations against me and stick to the facts please.

[Samc023]

I have stuck to fact, you're the one erroneously claiming

certain civilization had same sex marriages in their cultures, a claim that you completely fabricated. Also unlike animals humans know how to use reasoning, so you comparing us to the animal kingdom is your first error.

Your friends hate being gay? so I take it that they are living

celibate lives then correct?

[MengoMango]

LOOK IT UP, wow, this is how you debate? Assume your opponent is lying without even looking it up yourself? Did I ever accuse you of lying or of trying to change the subject?

Pick apart my argument if I'm lying with facts of your own then instead of just attacking me. If you CLAIM that I'm lying, THEN LOOK IT UP instead of uselessly just saying that I'm lying.

Whatever, if you are just going to attack, do it in a pm instead of the comments so I'm not stuck with this character count.

[Samc023]

"wow, this is how you debate"

I did look it up and you have absolutely credence

to say that Same sex marriages was the norm amongst

these groups outside of pederasty which was very common

in Rome. Also, why must I pm you? I mean you're the

one that responded to me, on public format, if you think

I'm unfairly labeling you or attacking you then why on

earth would you want to continue the discussion via

pm?

[MengoMango]

Because like i said, the character count limit is very irritating and you are just attacking me instead of trying to disprove my "lies".

[MengoMango]

Not only that, but it's a nuisance trying to find your posts through this horrible mess of a youtube comment tree.

[johnthethinker]

MengoMango, the fact is they don't choose consciously to be gay!!! What if they become gay when they are too young to remember?

[MengoMango]

PM me instead of being rude on here baselessly claiming that I'm putting up "smoke screens" and lying. Attacking me instead of my argument is meaningless to the argument and is just disrespectful.

[Samc023]

Well let me see..........

I state that homosexuality isn't purely biological, you insist

that it is, despite not having proof and despite there even

being proof, then you go into the animal kingdom as if

its relevant to HUMANS.

Then I tell you that marriage has always been "typically"

between members of the opposite sex, you go on some

tangent about how marriage has changed, again irrelevant.

since it still is between man and woman despite alteration

of certain requirements.

[MengoMango]

Look, i've already replied to you in a PM so just press "reply" if you want to write to me. If you can't even respect me enough to do that, then I'm not going bother trying to post here anymore.

So congratulations, you win the "last word on the youtube comment page" contest you seem so desperate for.

Otherwise, we communicate through PM's.

[Samc023]

" you win the "last word on the youtube comment page" contest you seem so desperate for."

Is that what you THINK I care about? getting the final

word? If you want to come here with that petty mentality

then you might as well never even responded to my responses that are months old. Odd how you keep

talking about respect when you're ridiculously patronizing

and condescending. I'm far from desperate and I

defiantly don't need my ego stroked on youtube of

all places.

[TheGameJedi]

Homosexuality being purely biological is irrelevant.

Humans are animals.

Typical behavior is also irrelevant.

If two men (or women) want to be together, that is their prerogative and their *right*.

Religious dogma has no place in politics, and people should certainly not be discriminated against based on such things... I mean, why not base our judgements on other works of fiction, like Lord Of The Rings?

[Samc023]

"If two men (or women) want to be together, that is their prerogative and their *right*"

Of course, and who's stopping them? No one is. And

if biology was truly irrelevant as you claim then

then pro-gay advocates wouldn't be trying to place

homosexuality and race on equal footing.

[TheGameJedi]

Homosexuals are unable to engage in civil *marriage* in 45 states, being denied this basic right available to *most* people ostensibly because of "tradition" but in reality due to lobbying from Christian zealots attempting to force their beliefs onto others, and the civil union is *not* the same as a civil marriage in regards rights and benefits.

I am saying that biology is irrelevant in regards to whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to engage in a civil marriage, and I stand by that.

[Samc023]

You originally stated that it was homosexuals prerogative

to be together, and to that I agree. In that regard no one

is stopping them, it is not against the law for homosexuals

to be together or have a relationship, but when you expect

others in general and the government in particular to

endorse it, that is another matter. You've just said that

christian zealots are attempting to force their beliefs on

others, so expecting others to recognize their

relationships is pretty much the same thing

[johnthethinker]

TheGameJedi, you say that if two men want to be together, that should be their right. Why should we stop 3 women and 1 man from being together if that's what they want?

[TheGameJedi]

@johnthethinker Why, indeed?

[MengoMango]

Anyways, it's Majority>Minority on a minority rights issue, it doesn't even matter if being gay is a choice or not.

[Samc023]

"I've already told you why "altering marriage as an institution" isn't an argument "

Oh, I forgot, because everyone else doesn't treat it

sacred (shrugs) and because of the divorce rates,

well unfortunately your position isn't an argument

either, since the failure of an institution doesn't mean

we go changing it, it means we improve it and allowing

a free for all doesn't make it any better.

[MengoMango]

No, that wasn't my argument at all... are you even reading what I'm writing?

[MengoMango]

Marriage is constantly being manipulated with new laws for divorce, social security, child care, marital responsibilities, etc. So don't act like marriage is some "Ancient sacred institution that has always worked therefore needs no change".

[Samc023]

Manipulation is IRRELEVANT, this has nothing

to do with what I was saying, and whether or

not marriage is ancient and sacred is subjective,

again, that is also irrelevant.

[MengoMango]

You don't even make sense anymore, that was YOUR point, what do you mean irrelevant? You said:

"I'm focused on the MAIN point...changing

it to cater to a few million people is ridiculous"

So I countered with why it's already changing and will continue to change even when you make the point of:

"since the failure of an institution doesn't mean

we go changing it"

[Samc023]

You don't even make sense anymore,

You're the one not making sense. The only thing you

brought up was the fact that certain criteria, requirements

etc changed WITHIN the marital union, but the actual

marriage still remains the same. MAN and WOMAN,

that is what I've been arguing, I haven't a clue why you

think anything else is relevant. Cease with all of your

weak smokescreens, all of your arguments either has

no relevancy or are simply made up with no proof

whatsoever.

[MengoMango]

No, it's changed in many forms. Interracial marriages used to be illegal. Getting married under 18 used to be legal. Those are not WITHIN the marital union. And you haven't answered me about the devastating affects of allowing SSM.

And stop blaming me for the arguments YOU bring up and then call smokescreen when you can't support them anymore. Either stick to your views or don't mention them anymore. Don't blame them on me. I thought we could have a civil argument without this rudeness.

[Samc023]

"Interracial marriages used to be illegal."

Further proof that debating with you is utterly pointless.

I already addressed this, and there you go bringing it

back up again. Marriage was always an institute

consisting with the opposite sex, interracial NEVER

changed that structure which is why it should have

been changed. Underage and race doesn't alter the

fact that marriage has always entailed the opposite

sex, but you aren't comprehending that.

[Sepia1789]

I enjoyed all three videos Krazie316. They made a lot of sense and you were very consistent when it came to your argument.

[Krazie316]

thank you much, sorry soo late so much going on here throughout my videos, too many need to remove some but I'm a pack rat and hate getting rid of stuff

[kormyniska]

I could be almost sure, that all the "ex-homosexuals" who "turned straight" are christians or belong to another religion...

[Krazie316]

you're making assertions that hold no water, try again

[kormyniska]

Can you give me some names that are indeed not in the christian, jew or islam faith?

I'm not really interested about if we can find the genetic marker that "makes" you homosexual.

I'm only interested in why you make videos about gays.

[Theamericanmaverickx]

I read studies where familes have 5 or more children who where raise in abusive house hold and only one will be come anti social or maybe even a serial killer. I have to belive that mabey that's how they dill with the trama that may also be true with gays.

[Krazie316]

You're very right, even as the studies I've listed show environment is definitely a factor

[GodGunsGutsGlory]

That was awesome brother!

Of course your "fans" (Sarcasm) will undoubtedly chop your video up and use utter nonsense to twist what you said. In the end they will still fail.

As you have said, every "research" done and funded by the gay agenda has failed. It is also funny how each "assumption" they make about male homos always FAILS when crossed over to explain female homos. :-]

It was, is, and always will be caused by surroundings, influence and/or trauma! Why don't they just admit it?

[kormyniska]

How do you explain indentical twins, both raised in the same surroundings... and only one of them is a homosexual?

And can you tell me, what do you have against homosexuals? And why...

[GodGunsGutsGlory]

Contrary to belief, twins do not hang out or even have all the same friends (therefore different influences). My daughter hangs out with a twin girl (identical) and one of them is the main friend, the other hangs out too sometimes but not always much the same as if the sisters were NOT twins.

These twins have been in the background of one or two of my videos.

They are most annoying, actually.

[JeffTheDude777]

"Come chill with me and tell me what you see. You'll never find no other like my kind."

Great video.

[Krazie316]

lol you knew it was Flesh.

thanks

[Vebrotube]

Keep preaching the truth, brother.

[Krazie316]

You know I will

[tripit88]

Take up the fight for your kids.