Shop now Shop now</arg> Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now
Customer Discussions > mp3 discussion forum

When listening to Elton John songs please realize he was not born gay ---nobody is (mygenes.co.nz)--and identical twins only having one homosexual among them proves it.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 155 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 09:13:31 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Aug 2013 09:22:36 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
Now I'm credited with representing England!!
There are stupid, dumb people everywhere but not many come close to this lot of disillusioned, pig ignorant fools:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html

The actual website of an AMERICAN Baptist Church.
Nice.

(That kind of pathetic bigotry isn't much of a credit to your country. See how easy it is to turn that one around?)

Posted on 3 Aug 2013 12:58:15 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Aug 2013 13:01:43 BDT
wobberoo says:
Re Mr J.R.Stephens, have to agree with Brass on this. You have suffered appallingly simply for your sexual orientation. It is rather ridiculous to suggest that particular fields of employment would cease to function, though, if nobody was of a homosexual persuasion. Or it would open the way for me to a whole host of new employment opportunities. Always nursed the idea, that if it wasn't for 'them there gays', I could have filled the Royal Albert Hall. I've even written the opera just in case something like your notion happens.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 13:07:42 BDT
aye, mc, i once sat in stunned, shocked and very scared silence thru' a 90 min documentary focussed on that crew.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 21:26:25 BDT
Mrs T says:
Does it? Then nearly everyone born during WW2 should be gay, because most of the fathers were away on war work then!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 21:33:26 BDT
Mrs T says:
Oh well done, good comments. Nice to see someone is not getting neurotic about the subject!

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 15:19:22 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Aug 2013 15:37:57 BDT
twocups says:
The OP cites one scientist's "research" and expects us to accept it as the gospel truth (if you'll forgive the pun).

And yet even in the US, where so many on the religious right are pre-programmed for homophobia, the Attorney General there recently told the House of Representatives: "While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable." (A cursory Google would confirm this reality. Hell, the OP might even try talking to homosexuals directly and asking them!)

Can DG explain how his view - purloined as we know from just one scientist (in NZ) - should be taken any more seriously than the collective view of the entire planet's scientific community?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 15:37:27 BDT
DG says:
If you really think my views have been "purloined" from one scientist in NZ you clearly haven't been following along. It's a position held by more than one, as any cursory Google search will tell you. I suggest you do a little honest research, though I know it's sometimes difficult to admit or recognize you might have something to learn. And, "a growing scientific consensus" can very easily be wrong, and have been countless times over the years. Relying solely on science is relying on a very shaky foundation indeed.

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 15:38:38 BDT
twocups says:
Have you written to the US Attorney General to him he's wrong?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 15:40:11 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
Twocups, nobody here takes DG seriously, we all know where he's from and what he represents. Even if he tells you different.
The supposition in the OP was put forward by 'man of truth' who is a troll/infantile having a dig for trouble.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 15:42:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Aug 2013 15:43:57 BDT
DG says:
*ignores irrelevant, inaccurate ad hominem remark*

I don't think that's really necessary in this particular case, considering that he wasn't even stating any kind of proven fact, just a popular theory (which is fairly scientifically irresponsible, but what else is new when it comes to claims currently made regarding this issue?).

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 15:42:56 BDT
twocups says:
DG would do well to check the articles at the NZ site he's linked to. All of them written by his hero N E Whitehead. Why is he lying?

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 15:46:17 BDT
twocups says:
Ah, Utah.

Now I understand.

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 15:52:46 BDT
twocups says:
DG grandly states: "Relying solely on science is relying on a very shaky foundation indeed."

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 16:00:54 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
Especially if there is archaic mythological twaddle to fall back on.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 16:09:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Aug 2013 16:10:37 BDT
DG says:
The elitism and ignorance displayed here is truly astounding. Almost is makes me cast aspersions on an England I have come to know and love (almost... I generally don't let a handful of idiot representatives color my general opinion on something... or make snap judgments because of where someone happens to be from).

I would like to see any single one of you try to hold your shaky ground in a venue when YOU'RE the outnumbered one. You would crumble in a miserable heap in a matter of seconds.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 16:44:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Aug 2013 16:46:35 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
We may never know scientifically why an individual is homosexual or not, there may always be conjecture along the lines of nature versus nurture but many in the scientific world tend to view it as a gene 'issue'. Most people are happy to accept that because they accept homosexuals as equal, normal, healthy human beings. Those trying to push the nurture root are almost without fail also pushing an anti-gay agenda.
When it comes right down to it, lets not waste energy seeking an answer that really doesn't matter. 5-10 % of humanity have, it would seem, always been homosexual. What is paramount is that we give them equality in all aspects of life and marginalise unwarranted bigoted behaviour.
You're only outnumbered because you are pushing a view that seems to have an agenda attached to it. If that is not the case you need to declare your hand as pro-gay and why you think it matters how/why someone is gay. Otherwise, there is really no reason for you to continue as we are obviously not in the least bit interested in anti-gay rhetoric, disguised as scientific research or otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 16:48:37 BDT
Brass Neck says:
What about the poor bl00dy evacuees then; dad away fighting the war then sundered from mother and sent away to a rural lottery between proper care and outright abuse. Did they all turn gay?

Mind you all this emotional isolation from father guff is rather prevalent amongst the higher classes who send their offspring, particularly their sons and heirs, off to boarding school where some rum practices are well-documented to occur. Just ask the Cabinet.

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 16:56:16 BDT
DG says:
Make that 1-2% and that statistic might be a little closer to accurate (again, based entirely on self-identification and behavior, so even that can hardly be quantified), which many would consider an extreme minority. And pretty much everyone has an agenda, what matters is what each hopes to accomplish.

And, there is really no need for YOU to continue because WE are obviously not in the least bit interested in pro-gay rhetoric, disguised as scientific research or otherwise (seriously, it's just too easy to turn these things exactly around, people in your camp never quite seem to realize that). It doesn't really matter to me if you're not interested in my views, I wrote them because they are actually in agreement with the original post, which is a viewpoint which deserves addressing, especially if the other does, even if hypocritical bigots insist otherwise.

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 16:58:33 BDT
twocups says:
DG, you've just told us that "relying solely on science is relying on a very shaky foundation indeed" - and *we're* the ones being elitist and ignorant ...? Wow.

The majority of the scientists in your own country share the views we've expressed here - that's why your Attorney General said what he did. There's nothing uniquely English about our stance.

My final question (even though, of course, you've been unable to answer of my earlier questions) - do you trust science or don't you? On the one hand you say we should look further afield, but on the other you link in your original post - and indeed base your entire premise on - a website in NZ that purports to be scientific? Can you see how you're confused?

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 17:06:55 BDT
twocups says:
DG, you say your viewpoint is one that deserves addressing - in what way? I'm interested to know why you want to establish, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, a non-involuntary basis for homosexuality. What if that actually were true, what then? You want to "cure" gays, is that it? If so, let me save you some bother - Hitler already tried that, and it didn't work.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 17:15:49 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Aug 2013 17:21:59 BDT
DG says:
I trust science as far as anyone should. It's a very good system to learning and understanding a lot of things, but it's not infallible, especially as it's constantly changing (not to mention very often biased). Things that are far from proven or barely understood are often stated authoritatively as fact. ("The Attorney General said it?!? IT MUST BE TRUE.") It is complete foolishness to put your entire trust and knowledge in something that alters with the slightest change of theory. If you rely solely on something that's constantly changing, your foundation is very likely to be shaken regularly, and you'll just fall over. Can you see how you're confused?

And in what way? It's simple: if homosexuality is proven or even accepted not to be genetic, there are major social ramifications. Why would we change our government, social structure, marriage laws, education requirements, religious rights, etc. etc. for something that's NOT inborn, and therefore simply a matter of behavior? Why should we turn our government upside down, and why should people get special treatment just because they choose to act in a different way? That's exactly why the gay agenda is pushing so hard to "prove" they're born that way. It's a very slippery slope. Demands for legal protection for incest, pedophilia and bestiality, in the logic of naturally following equal "rights" for gays, has already begun. And I'm not interested in "curing" people who don't wish to leave that lifestyle, people are certainly allowed to engage in whatever repulsive private behavior they like, but I AM interested in people being allowed to leave if it they wish (a thing which happens all the time, though the pro-gay camp definitely want to shut those people up too). The Hitler card... Nice move, but very tired.

We'll see if that's really your "final question" though... I've heard such promises before. (Oh wait... you already broke it... True to form.)

P.S. I didn't link to anything... I'm not the OP, by the way. Now I *definitely* see how YOU'RE confused.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2013 17:24:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Aug 2013 17:33:02 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
DG said..... "And, there is really no need for YOU to continue because WE are obviously not in the least bit interested in pro-gay rhetoric, disguised as scientific research or otherwise (seriously, it's just too easy to turn these things exactly around, people in your camp never quite seem to realize that)"

There you go people, as suspected but fresh from the horses mouth. The only anti-gay person posting here. Man of truth has made silly allegations, probably for his own amusement but as has been pointed out, nothing really significant or objectionable.
DG however, is in that camp and as such has lost any credence with me and probably 100% of everyone here. Practicing Christians are a complete minority here, we are a secular country, with very strict anti-hate laws covering racism and homophobia. An average of 4 people per week are arrested for making such comments on Social Network Sites so tread carefully DG, there is no First Amendment to protect you here and we are in general, as a nation, very anti minority abuse and bullying. Pastors, Priests, Mullahs, Imams or Vicars are not free to preach anti-homosexual rhetoric in any way shape or form. We proudly promote tolerance and equality not perverse hatred.

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 17:34:56 BDT
twocups says:
DG, indeed you are not the OP. I stand corrected. My apologies.

I guess that answers my question to you about your trust in science, but I'm actually more disturbed now than I ever was. You appear to not care one way or another for the science to back up your wishful thinking.

Incidentally, your Attorney General was only paraphrasing the current view of the US scientific community. In a sense, it wasn't his opinion at all; he was acting as their proxy. I would argue that the opinion of the US scientific community actually carries a lot of weight. Pity that you should have such little respect for them and the work that they do.

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 17:39:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Aug 2013 17:42:22 BDT
DG says:
I give respect where respect is due, and proportionally, no need for pity. I don't discount science completely, I just don't rely on it completely either (as no one should). I'm glad I could answer your question for you and clear up your misunderstanding. But it's not wishful thinking if it's supported.

And MC: Ooh, very classy threat! I dare you to call someone expressing an alternate viewpoint a hate crime. (Though it is so typical of the victim mentality so prevalent in this camp.) By the way, how about anti-hate laws protecting religiophobia? I mean, since you have laws protecting others who are in the "complete minority" and all. Yes, you may claim to proudly promote tolerance and disallow hatred, but you do so only in one direction. If you protect against abuse toward one minority, shouldn't you protect them all? Or are you just out of luck if you get bullied or beaten or because you're in the square minority that happens to believe in Jesus?

Woe is me, I have lost any credence with MC Zaptone. By all means, send MI6 my way. This has become kind of amusing. :)

Posted on 5 Aug 2013 17:44:24 BDT
twocups says:
DG, thank you for your honest statement of your motivations. It would seem you're going to need scientists' help anyway if you're ever going to convince others that homosexuality is *not* inate (just saying it isn't so doesn't really cut it in the 21st century).

And yet, as can be easily verified, the majority of scientists do regard homosexuality as inate, in your own country and outside.

Perhaps your time would be better spent lobbying them directly rather than posting on Amazon forums? Good luck with that.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the mp3 discussion forum (448 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  mp3 discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  155
Initial post:  6 Jul 2013
Latest post:  18 Jan 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers