Do Gays Not Exist in Bioware's Star Wars?

[Thanatos34]

No, this is the problem with America: thinking that everyone no matter what are not idiots. There are idiots on both sides. There are non-idiots on both sides. One side is wrong, which means it's only natural that you will find a greater proportion of that side are idiots.

As I said above, don't assume just because someone is calling you an idiot they call everyone on your side of the issue an idiot. Sure there are people who aren't sure about homosexuality who aren't idiots.

You are not one of them, so don't draw conclusions about how we treat them based on how we treat you.

Who's we? You and your mother?

Reported.

Considering what exactly you are quoting in that post, before I said that, it's kind of funny.

Let me just give you an idea of how completely wrong you are about me.

Long story short, my church was considering banning gays from taking membership pledges. I said that this would be unChristian, and hypocritical, to boot, since they have no problem with what they consider to be adulterers, (divorce then remarry), to be members. My dad, in front of pretty much the entire congregation, said that I was "No son of mine if you defend sinners who practice such an abomination."

I left to return to college immediately after the service, and we have had no contact since then.

I have four or five really close friends. Of these, two are gay. I'd say I spend more time with them than with the others. Neither of my two gay friends believe I am homophobic in any way. What fucking right do you have to toss your little label around, knowing absolutely nothing about me?

 

[Writero]

All right... third post,

Let me first begin by stating a fact; Homosexuality is natural. Just like Bi-sexual is, even heterosexual is natural. Before you go, "no way", consider this, in nature there are gay monkey's, gay cat's (I've got one), and more of them gay animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals (There are many many more facts but I'm to lazy to just type them more out)

Now, if you accept that fact, then it will become easier to understand this is really a discussion of nothing.

It is not the fact that the homosexuals, to wich I will refer in the future as just people, want more attention, it is more of the fact that the want to do normal thing like holding hands in the streets without people looking at them funny. However, the argument "Why be proud and go glittery all over the street" has in fact nothing to do with that. "I'm straight and you don't see me dressing all funny and drinking beer all over the place while hooting at the tits and ass?" argument doesn't hold ground because in fact.... you do... Nobody will say anything, because that's perceived normal boyish behaviour.

The same goes for the "Don't rub you're homosexuality in my face" argument.

*de-railing thread* I'm not sure whether homosexuality is natural, I haven't really read the research, but I'm sure it's debatable. You may find it in animals but it could be a psychological condition brought on from x such as animals who are are insecurely attached to there parents, we are designed to work by being securely attached (as you can see with graphs that measure social skills) but insecurely attached animals and people are found. So I'm not sure whether homosexuality is natural, but I don't know.....

P.S I am not homophobic I am just going to research the cause/s of homosexuality.

*putting thread back on the rails* In the light of research and theories you can say it is debatable, and it should be, but looking at recent studies of the human genome and the theory of the "gay-gene" there is a nagging possibility that in fact homosexuality is a part of nature. What I wanted to prove with this argument however, is the fact that the discussion whether or not gay's are there in the star wars universe is actually absurd. By acknowledging that homosexual people exist, is the same parallel that black people exist. So it would only be fitting that there will be gay wookies. (that for you, you furry lovers *shudders*).

 

[Writero]

Thanatos34
I think, from what I recall from going through this in Biology, (long story, we got entirely side-tracked that day), was that there were currently two prevailing theories:
1) Homosexuality resulted from an imbalance in a certain gene, either less than, or more than normal, that led to the person desiring members of the same sex, (not a disease, more like a mutation), and
2) Homosexuality is linked to a specific gene that "they" have activated and heterosexuals do not. This, of course, leads to the debate over whether or not it is a choice. Considering that some homosexuals have decided they are no longer homosexual, I would say it leans towards it being a choice. Besides the fact that genes do not 100% determine what we will do, they merely give us a predisposition for something.

I will respond to 2, number 1 is already talked about. I have this thing about gay people being straight. Now if I'm right you're assumption is based on the so called behaviour therapy list. Then I must disappoint you, have you considered the fact that these people could be bi-sexual? Have you also considered that most of them who are gay fail their treatment?

The therapy stems on the misguided assumption that being gay is a choice. This is however untrue. Put this argument in mind. There are people saying that sexuality is a blank sheet of paper, and that people choose later. If that is true, then that's true about the whole spectrum of kinks in the sexual tree of humanity. This also implies that you, although being of sexual mature age, can switch sides in a instant. Because you choose right? But why do you choose to lick youre eyeballs with you're preferred sex or sexes or trees? Why don't you try it out, make you're choice later. However, when you are feeling repulsed, ask yourself this question "why didn't I make that choice".

If you're theory is right then you could become, by using the right therapy, a furry lover!

*shudders once more*

 

[Bat Vader]

Why is this such a big deal? It is bioware's game and they have every right what content goes into or stays out of their game.

 

[Thanatos34]

Thanatos34
I think, from what I recall from going through this in Biology, (long story, we got entirely side-tracked that day), was that there were currently two prevailing theories:
1) Homosexuality resulted from an imbalance in a certain gene, either less than, or more than normal, that led to the person desiring members of the same sex, (not a disease, more like a mutation), and
2) Homosexuality is linked to a specific gene that "they" have activated and heterosexuals do not. This, of course, leads to the debate over whether or not it is a choice. Considering that some homosexuals have decided they are no longer homosexual, I would say it leans towards it being a choice. Besides the fact that genes do not 100% determine what we will do, they merely give us a predisposition for something.

I will respond to 2, number 1 is already talked about. I have this thing about gay people being straight. Now if I'm right you're assumption is based on the so called behaviour therapy list. Then I must disappoint you, have you considered the fact that these people could be bi-sexual? Have you also considered that most of them who are gay fail their treatment?

The therapy stems on the misguided assumption that being gay is a choice. This is however untrue. Put this argument in mind. There are people saying that sexuality is a blank sheet of paper, and that people choose later. If that is true, then that's true about the whole spectrum of kinks in the sexual tree of humanity. This also implies that you, although being of sexual mature age, can switch sides in a instant. Because you choose right? But why do you choose to lick youre eyeballs with you're preferred sex or sexes or trees? Why don't you try it out, make you're choice later. However, when you are feeling repulsed, ask yourself this question "why didn't I make that choice".

If you're theory is right then you could become, by using the right therapy, a furry lover!

*shudders once more*

The assumption, from what I understand, (and please understand I'm not an expert on this, it is merely from a small amount of research I've done because I was intrigued about the subject after it was brought up in Biology class), rests on mere facts. Now, they could be coincidences, true, but it is not from some behavorial therapy treatment, it is from a study that they have done that shows that the vast majority of homosexual people have a certain gene activated that heterosexuals do not. That's the theory, and whether the studies are valid, I am not sure, as I really don't know exactly what went into them.

I can see where you are coming from. I'm not entirely sure which theory I believe has the more weight. The reason I think that it's a choice is more because if it's not a choice, then there is no explanation for those people, and they do exist, that once were gay/lesbian/bi, and now are not. I don't really understand why the GLBT community is so against this theory, they seem to not want your sexuality to be a choice. I don't see a problem with that, in terms of how it would affect someone's rights. However, most GLBT people, at least their major news and blog sites, seem to get extremely offended if this theory is even mentioned as being legit.

 

[Lenoh]

(insert "your schwarz is as big as mine" Spaceballs joke here)

 

[Writero]

Thanatos34
I think, from what I recall from going through this in Biology, (long story, we got entirely side-tracked that day), was that there were currently two prevailing theories:
1) Homosexuality resulted from an imbalance in a certain gene, either less than, or more than normal, that led to the person desiring members of the same sex, (not a disease, more like a mutation), and
2) Homosexuality is linked to a specific gene that "they" have activated and heterosexuals do not. This, of course, leads to the debate over whether or not it is a choice. Considering that some homosexuals have decided they are no longer homosexual, I would say it leans towards it being a choice. Besides the fact that genes do not 100% determine what we will do, they merely give us a predisposition for something.

I will respond to 2, number 1 is already talked about. I have this thing about gay people being straight. Now if I'm right you're assumption is based on the so called behaviour therapy list. Then I must disappoint you, have you considered the fact that these people could be bi-sexual? Have you also considered that most of them who are gay fail their treatment?

The therapy stems on the misguided assumption that being gay is a choice. This is however untrue. Put this argument in mind. There are people saying that sexuality is a blank sheet of paper, and that people choose later. If that is true, then that's true about the whole spectrum of kinks in the sexual tree of humanity. This also implies that you, although being of sexual mature age, can switch sides in a instant. Because you choose right? But why do you choose to lick youre eyeballs with you're preferred sex or sexes or trees? Why don't you try it out, make you're choice later. However, when you are feeling repulsed, ask yourself this question "why didn't I make that choice".

If you're theory is right then you could become, by using the right therapy, a furry lover!

*shudders once more*

The assumption, from what I understand, (and please understand I'm not an expert on this, it is merely from a small amount of research I've done because I was intrigued about the subject after it was brought up in Biology class), rests on mere facts. Now, they could be coincidences, true, but it is not from some behavorial therapy treatment, it is from a study that they have done that shows that the vast majority of homosexual people have a certain gene activated that heterosexuals do not. That's the theory, and whether the studies are valid, I am not sure, as I really don't know exactly what went into them.

I can see where you are coming from. I'm not entirely sure which theory I believe has the more weight. The reason I think that it's a choice is more because if it's not a choice, then there is no explanation for those people, and they do exist, that once were gay/lesbian/bi, and now are not. I don't really understand why the GLBT community is so against this theory, they seem to not want your sexuality to be a choice. I don't see a problem with that, in terms of how it would affect someone's rights. However, most GLBT people, at least their major news and blog sites, seem to get extremely offended if this theory is even mentioned as being legit.

I can gather why the LGBT community is rather affronted by the theory that being gay is a choice. That would legitimatise a whole lot of measures against the LGBT community. For instance; If the choice theory is right than being gay is right back at being a mental illness. The argument most people tend to forget is that sexuality is also a part of you're identity. It defines you in a profound way. How you look at society and how you deal with things. Imagine someone coming up to you and said; "what you are that is wrong and will not be accepted, change or else". At the tender age of puberty this alone has the chance of destroying you. A fact rises up. By not being accepted in a group (Not even talking about sexuality here) drives the suicide numbers up.

I will go with you on how you act out you're sexuality is being a choice. Behavioural therapy focuses on the acting out part. For some it succeeds, for most however it does not.

If you want a confirmation on how the homosexuals were treated please refer to history. Especially when the Victorian age crept up.

 

[Thanatos34]

Thanatos34
I think, from what I recall from going through this in Biology, (long story, we got entirely side-tracked that day), was that there were currently two prevailing theories:
1) Homosexuality resulted from an imbalance in a certain gene, either less than, or more than normal, that led to the person desiring members of the same sex, (not a disease, more like a mutation), and
2) Homosexuality is linked to a specific gene that "they" have activated and heterosexuals do not. This, of course, leads to the debate over whether or not it is a choice. Considering that some homosexuals have decided they are no longer homosexual, I would say it leans towards it being a choice. Besides the fact that genes do not 100% determine what we will do, they merely give us a predisposition for something.

I will respond to 2, number 1 is already talked about. I have this thing about gay people being straight. Now if I'm right you're assumption is based on the so called behaviour therapy list. Then I must disappoint you, have you considered the fact that these people could be bi-sexual? Have you also considered that most of them who are gay fail their treatment?

The therapy stems on the misguided assumption that being gay is a choice. This is however untrue. Put this argument in mind. There are people saying that sexuality is a blank sheet of paper, and that people choose later. If that is true, then that's true about the whole spectrum of kinks in the sexual tree of humanity. This also implies that you, although being of sexual mature age, can switch sides in a instant. Because you choose right? But why do you choose to lick youre eyeballs with you're preferred sex or sexes or trees? Why don't you try it out, make you're choice later. However, when you are feeling repulsed, ask yourself this question "why didn't I make that choice".

If you're theory is right then you could become, by using the right therapy, a furry lover!

*shudders once more*

The assumption, from what I understand, (and please understand I'm not an expert on this, it is merely from a small amount of research I've done because I was intrigued about the subject after it was brought up in Biology class), rests on mere facts. Now, they could be coincidences, true, but it is not from some behavorial therapy treatment, it is from a study that they have done that shows that the vast majority of homosexual people have a certain gene activated that heterosexuals do not. That's the theory, and whether the studies are valid, I am not sure, as I really don't know exactly what went into them.

I can see where you are coming from. I'm not entirely sure which theory I believe has the more weight. The reason I think that it's a choice is more because if it's not a choice, then there is no explanation for those people, and they do exist, that once were gay/lesbian/bi, and now are not. I don't really understand why the GLBT community is so against this theory, they seem to not want your sexuality to be a choice. I don't see a problem with that, in terms of how it would affect someone's rights. However, most GLBT people, at least their major news and blog sites, seem to get extremely offended if this theory is even mentioned as being legit.

I can gather why the LGBT community is rather affronted by the theory that being gay is a choice. That would legitimatise a whole lot of measures against the LGBT community. For instance; If the choice theory is right than being gay is right back at being a mental illness. The argument most people tend to forget is that sexuality is also a part of you're identity. It defines you in a profound way. How you look at society and how you deal with things. Imagine someone coming up to you and said; "what you are that is wrong and will not be accepted, change or else". At the tender age of puberty this alone has the chance of destroying you. A fact rises up. By not being accepted in a group (Not even talking about sexuality here) drives the suicide numbers up.

I will go with you on how you act out you're sexuality is being a choice. Behavioural therapy focuses on the acting out part. For some it succeeds, for most however it does not.

If you want a confirmation on how the homosexuals were treated please refer to history. Especially when the Victorian age crept up.

Why would it make a mental illness? They choose to be gay because they want to be. I choose to be straight because I want to be. I choose to become, (or at least try to become, finals are killing me at the moment), a college-educated person rather than a worker out of high school. Why does a choice automatically make "gayness" a mental illness? That is a ludicrous argument, and one I would expect out of homophobes, not the GLBT community. It makes no sense coming from their side.

And again, if it isn't a choice, then how do you explain the people who were once GLB and now have returned to being straight? The majority of the GLBT community's response, and shame on them, is to say they never were GLB, or to claim they don't exist.

 

[Xelanath]

I can gather why the LGBT community is rather affronted by the theory that being gay is a choice. That would legitimatise a whole lot of measures against the LGBT community. For instance; If the choice theory is right than being gay is right back at being a mental illness. The argument most people tend to forget is that sexuality is also a part of you're identity. It defines you in a profound way. How you look at society and how you deal with things. Imagine someone coming up to you and said; "what you are that is wrong and will not be accepted, change or else". At the tender age of puberty this alone has the chance of destroying you. A fact rises up. By not being accepted in a group (Not even talking about sexuality here) drives the suicide numbers up.

I will go with you on how you act out you're sexuality is being a choice. Behavioural therapy focuses on the acting out part. For some it succeeds, for most however it does not.

If you want a confirmation on how the homosexuals were treated please refer to history. Especially when the Victorian age crept up.

Why would it make a mental illness? They choose to be gay because they want to be. I choose to be straight because I want to be. I choose to become, (or at least try to become, finals are killing me at the moment), a college-educated person rather than a worker out of high school. Why does a choice automatically make "gayness" a mental illness? That is a ludicrous argument, and one I would expect out of homophobes, not the GLBT community. It makes no sense coming from their side.

And again, if it isn't a choice, then how do you explain the people who were once GLB and now have returned to being straight? The majority of the GLBT community's response, and shame on them, is to say they never were GLB, or to claim they don't exist.

It would make it a mental illness because there are many people who still don't like it, and knowing that it's a choice would mean that they have much more licence to hate, and try to change, them. Anti-GLBT movements would gain so much pace, and the progress made in the last few decades would likely be erased. See Writero's point about treatment of homosexuals in history, some of it is ridiculous.
To provide an example:
Is disliking someone for being black not more wrong than disliking people who eat at KFC? The difference between something that is a choice and something that is inherent is HUGE.

 

[Writero]

I can gather why the LGBT community is rather affronted by the theory that being gay is a choice. That would legitimatise a whole lot of measures against the LGBT community. For instance; If the choice theory is right than being gay is right back at being a mental illness. The argument most people tend to forget is that sexuality is also a part of you're identity. It defines you in a profound way. How you look at society and how you deal with things. Imagine someone coming up to you and said; "what you are that is wrong and will not be accepted, change or else". At the tender age of puberty this alone has the chance of destroying you. A fact rises up. By not being accepted in a group (Not even talking about sexuality here) drives the suicide numbers up.

I will go with you on how you act out you're sexuality is being a choice. Behavioural therapy focuses on the acting out part. For some it succeeds, for most however it does not.

If you want a confirmation on how the homosexuals were treated please refer to history. Especially when the Victorian age crept up.

Why would it make a mental illness? They choose to be gay because they want to be. I choose to be straight because I want to be. I choose to become, (or at least try to become, finals are killing me at the moment), a college-educated person rather than a worker out of high school. Why does a choice automatically make "gayness" a mental illness? That is a ludicrous argument, and one I would expect out of homophobes, not the GLBT community. It makes no sense coming from their side.

And again, if it isn't a choice, then how do you explain the people who were once GLB and now have returned to being straight? The majority of the GLBT community's response, and shame on them, is to say they never were GLB, or to claim they don't exist.

It would make it a mental illness because there are many people who still don't like it, and knowing that it's a choice would mean that they have much more licence to hate, and try to change, them. Anti-GLBT movements would gain so much pace, and the progress made in the last few decades would likely be erased. See Writero's point about treatment of homosexuals in history, some of it is ridiculous.
To provide an example:
Is disliking someone for being black not more wrong than disliking people who eat at KFC? The difference between something that is a choice and something that is inherent is HUGE.

To support what Xelanath said, if you choose to be straight, than by definition you have tried the other side. What deterred you from pursuing that love interest, the lack of desire? When did you choose? It is mostly the false presumption that being straight is the default and everything else is a choice. Ever think of that one?

And another thing, if you are gay, and you live in a very very strict society concerning homosexuals (punishment and that kind of thing), would you choose to be gay?

If this is a choice then therapy would help. Alas the "conversion therapy" helped not that much. Not only that these methods are also highly controversial.
Let me show you some sucses rates;
Exodus International (1978): The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%
Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

And the list goes on and on and on, so the success rate you claim is not there. If you wonder that the later versions of those conversion therapy's had a better affect...
Nicolosi (2005): failure to convert any of his patients No go, sorry
Notable mention; These therapy's were delivered by highly religious groups.

This alone would explain why the GLBT community reacts in this way. The fact that the converted are mostly not there, or if the converted are there, the subjects stop all sexual activity, or are inherently bisexual (Which makes their conversion debatable).

The "mental illness" thing. Ah yes, why go with this ludicrous argument. This stems from the fact that at first this has been diagnosed by the good doctors way back as an illness. It was wrong and against nature, they claimed. The sad fact is that the majority of the good towns folk in combination with their religious background took this up as a sign to help these poor people. From that moment on, it became an illness. For some it became something to shoot at, to put them out of their misery.

Thanatos34 I gather that you are straight. It was never questioned before. That is the sentence you must focus on, never questioned. If I would declare that you have an illnes, you would strike me down.

 

[Thanatos34]

I can gather why the LGBT community is rather affronted by the theory that being gay is a choice. That would legitimatise a whole lot of measures against the LGBT community. For instance; If the choice theory is right than being gay is right back at being a mental illness. The argument most people tend to forget is that sexuality is also a part of you're identity. It defines you in a profound way. How you look at society and how you deal with things. Imagine someone coming up to you and said; "what you are that is wrong and will not be accepted, change or else". At the tender age of puberty this alone has the chance of destroying you. A fact rises up. By not being accepted in a group (Not even talking about sexuality here) drives the suicide numbers up.

I will go with you on how you act out you're sexuality is being a choice. Behavioural therapy focuses on the acting out part. For some it succeeds, for most however it does not.

If you want a confirmation on how the homosexuals were treated please refer to history. Especially when the Victorian age crept up.

Why would it make a mental illness? They choose to be gay because they want to be. I choose to be straight because I want to be. I choose to become, (or at least try to become, finals are killing me at the moment), a college-educated person rather than a worker out of high school. Why does a choice automatically make "gayness" a mental illness? That is a ludicrous argument, and one I would expect out of homophobes, not the GLBT community. It makes no sense coming from their side.

And again, if it isn't a choice, then how do you explain the people who were once GLB and now have returned to being straight? The majority of the GLBT community's response, and shame on them, is to say they never were GLB, or to claim they don't exist.

It would make it a mental illness because there are many people who still don't like it, and knowing that it's a choice would mean that they have much more licence to hate, and try to change, them. Anti-GLBT movements would gain so much pace, and the progress made in the last few decades would likely be erased. See Writero's point about treatment of homosexuals in history, some of it is ridiculous.
To provide an example:
Is disliking someone for being black not more wrong than disliking people who eat at KFC? The difference between something that is a choice and something that is inherent is HUGE.

To support what Xelanath said, if you choose to be straight, than by definition you have tried the other side. What deterred you from pursuing that love interest, the lack of desire? When did you choose? It is mostly the false presumption that being straight is the default and everything else is a choice. Ever think of that one?

And another thing, if you are gay, and you live in a very very strict society concerning homosexuals (punishment and that kind of thing), would you choose to be gay?

If this is a choice then therapy would help. Alas the "conversion therapy" helped not that much. Not only that these methods are also highly controversial.
Let me show you some sucses rates;
Exodus International (1978): The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%
Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

And the list goes on and on and on, so the success rate you claim is not there. If you wonder that the later versions of those conversion therapy's had a better affect...
Nicolosi (2005): failure to convert any of his patients No go, sorry
Notable mention; These therapy's were delivered by highly religious groups.

This alone would explain why the GLBT community reacts in this way. The fact that the converted are mostly not there, or if the converted are there, the subjects stop all sexual activity, or are inherently bisexual (Which makes their conversion debatable).

The "mental illness" thing. Ah yes, why go with this ludicrous argument. This stems from the fact that at first this has been diagnosed by the good doctors way back as an illness. It was wrong and against nature, they claimed. The sad fact is that the majority of the good towns folk in combination with their religious background took this up as a sign to help these poor people. From that moment on, it became an illness. For some it became something to shoot at, to put them out of their misery.

Thanatos34 I gather that you are straight. It was never questioned before. That is the sentence you must focus on, never questioned. If I would declare that you have an illnes, you would strike me down.

It has been questioned, Writero.

I do personally know someone who was gay, and then returned to being straight. The GLBT community can claim they don't exist all they want, it is simply not true.

For them to simply ignore a theory on the basis of what it might cause, instead of it's evidence, is not a good thing to do. If it does happen to be the true theory, then the backlash will be very strong when it does come out. What you are saying is we ignore this theory, even if it's the truth, because some bigot may take it to try to call homosexuality a mental illness. If it is a choice, it doesn't make a mental illness. I don't see what's so hard about this. Simply because I choose to do something doesn't make me mentally ill. Any retard who tries to use this argument to justify homophobic laws is mentally ill himself.

You do not ignore the truth, or dismiss a theory out-of-hand, because it conflicts with your pre-conceived views.

 

[Thanatos34]

I do personally know someone who was gay, and then returned to being straight.

Or you knew someone who was bisexual and exclusively dated men, and then decided to date exclusively among women.

That's not what he tells me. And I trust him. The GLBT community just pretends he doesn't exist.

 

[Thanatos34]

I do personally know someone who was gay, and then returned to being straight.

Or you knew someone who was bisexual and exclusively dated men, and then decided to date exclusively among women.

That's not what he tells me. And I trust him.

One, he could be lying to you. Unless you're like that Tim Roth guy from Lie To Me, the fact that you trust him does not mean he's telling you the truth.

Two, maybe he never considered he's bisexual in the first place.

So maybe the GLBT community isn't pretending anything, maybe it just isn't ready to trust the lie detecting skills of someone homophobic towards gay men (and who probably objectifies gay women) who claims he knows a guy who was gay once and now only goes for women.

CP, I am getting really ticked off with you calling me homophobic. Someone who is homophobic doesn't have two extremely close friends that are gay, nor do they get kicked out of their church for standing up for them, and for someone like you, who doesn't know me in the slightest to continue to insist on calling me homophobic, well, you are really starting to piss me off. If you want to debate, fine, but cease and desist from the ad hominem attacks, unless you have proof of your claims, in which case I shall endeavor to prove you wrong.

The GLBT community, at least the majority, is in the wrong in this case. It is not simply the one person who they claim is lying, it is every last homosexual that has ever returned to being straight. They are doing this to fulfill their own political agenda, and it's going to backfire on them. They assume that every last one of them is lying because it is what they want to believe, because they don't want someone to use the "it's just a choice argument" to justify homophobic behavior and laws. A noble end, but the end does not justify the means, not in this case.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that being GLB is a choice. Being transsexual certainly is, at least in most cases. If they continue to insist that it is not a choice, they alienate many of the people who are the most willing to fight for their rights, because they walked a mile in the other person's shoes.

 

[Thanatos34]

By all means, ignore my point to engage in yet another ad hominem attack. I specifically said that if you had proof, then I would answer it, yet you ignored this entirely to post exactly what I had just said.

In your example, you would have to know that John is a pathological liar. If he is not, then the lawyer is an idiot for bringing up a point which is not supported by evidence in the slightest, as is the current case.

Your logic is as follows:

I must be homophobic, because despite the fact that two of my best friends are gay, and thus if I were a homophobe, I wouldn't hang out with them, and despite the fact that you do not know me at all, and despite my repeated defenses of the GLBT community, I obviously must be a homophobe because I disagree with one aspect of their going about getting equal rights for everyone, and their ignoring of the evidence in a single scenario.

Also, I said I don't like gays that shove their homosexuality in my face, so obviously I must be a homophobe because I didn't specify, despite the fact that it was not part of the argument and despite the fact that I have never met one, that I also don't like straight people shoving their sexuality in my face.

Also, obviously I must objectify lesbian women because I don't mind a lesbian lead character in a video game, yet would not appreciate a gay lead in a video game, this of course cannot be the result of me simply liking women because I am straight, it must be because I objectify gay women.

/end sarcasm