The least educated groups in America are Hispanics and African-Americans. Both vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers so the only thing stupid is your post.

Jeff, that is so incredibly ignorant. There are more uneducated and ignorant white folks than all of the Hispanics and African-Americans in this country combined, many times over, and I imagine they vote for both parties, and for different reasons. The point cgtrav was trying to make is that actively ignorant makes them easier to control. In other words, as people become more informed and more educated on issues instead of eating fast food news, they might stop voting republican.

What might be more enlightening than your incredibly flawed logic is the study that showed that people who are 'educated and informed' by Fox News actually end up being less so than those that don't. That seems a bit more relevant.

Jeffery,but they are STREET SMART, thats where you made your MISTAKE thinking they were STUPID.

Is there anything that you dont agree with? How about atheism, polygamy or mutual incest perhaps?

And what do ANY of those things have to do with homosexuality?! Your comment is even more ignorant than Santorum's speeches in the subject.

Yeah Robbie boy, I don't agree with ignorant idiots like you. Why don't you get the hell out of this country and live in a place where the Taliban rule? You'd feel more at home there.

Yes, and how do we know that Robbie boy doesn't have an unnatural fondness for farm animals? Or is an ardent necrophiliac? Or maybe he loves him some nine year old boys? The public wants to know!

Oh, gotta love the comments. See, polygamy and incest are against the law. Homosexuality has been proposed to be againt the law in the U.S., and has been against the law in many states in the past and IS against the law in many countries. So, if it seemed so odd that homosexuality was against the law, and is now considered normal...what would prevent plygamy or incest from attaining the same rights? Thats my point...once you open the gates...you can close them.

I used atheism because 99% of the people I talk to...gays included are either offended or in disbelief that Im atheist. Kinda hypocritical isnt it?

Furthermore, if gays draw a line in the sand on polygamy, disbelief in god, or incest...well that makes you a bigot too!! Because ALL of those issues are consensual. How do we know they arent born that way? Furthermore, how would you label them if they claimed to be born that way...defective, abnormal, sick, twisted? Or is your opinion of those matters legit because the status quo now says so?

Personally, I dont agree with polygamy, homosexuality, incest, bestiality or any of it. Why? Because it isnt NORMAL!! It's unnatural. Period. No questions asked.

Let me rephrase...once you open the gates you CANT close them. Everyone wants in and thats the problem.

Typical bigot logic. Just because you think that homosexuality is similar to polygamy and incest, doesn't mean the rest of us intelligent informed individuals do. We can let them have the same rights as heterosexuals without suddently deciding that polygamy and incest should be too. They are not the same.

Ironically, though, the bible doesn't seem to have much of an issue with polygamy or incest. Incest, you say, really? Really. Adam and Eve had kids. Their kids had kids. Who did their kids have kids with? Their kids.

Homosexuality has been proposed to be againt the law in the U.S., and has been against the law in many states in the past and IS against the law in many countries.

WRONG, Rob. No state has proposed to make homosexuality against the law; only gay marriage. Homosexuality has NEVER been illegal in this country -- the only thing you got correct is that it IS against the law in many other countries.

The fact that you cannot differentiate between homosexuality, which involves consenting adults, and incest, bestiality, and polygamy -- which involve victims and/or those who cannot consent -- tells us all we need to know about you.

Got news for all u people who think you are experts. Erin NJ, you are wrong, many states have or had "sodomy" laws on their books (maybe they dont say homosexuals, per se, but the inference is there). Again, the trend seems to be "if you don't believe the way I beleive, I think you are stupid". Now that is the sad thing about this whole discussion. Also to those who say that "gay organizations" do not have an agenda , tell me why the spend so much money to try and "out" the likes of Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Anderson of CNN and others????????

STILL WRONG, Geoff: while sodomy may have been illegal in many states, being homosexual never was. Like so many ignorant bigots, you confuse behavior with orientation.

I am not a bigot, u are as hateful as those haters u hate...oxy-"moron". My best friend for 45 years is gay, has always being gay has a "companion"(his words, not mine, for most of those 45 years. He is even godfather to one of my sons. The difference is he has never said " I can't be friends with you because you believe in the Bible" He believes, as I do, that his choices are not anyone's business as long as he keeps those choices to himself and his companion. You and your ilk want to force everyone to go against their belief in the Bible and in God and be "acceptors" or be "Savaged" by the Dan Savages of this world. I love my gay friend because got made him and as he says he will be judged one day and then and only then will he know what God thinks. I dont support hate but I also do not supponrt those who would make something that is considered abnormal normal.

My best friend for 45 years is gay, has always being gay has a "companion"(his words, not mine, for most of those 45 years.

Some "friend" you are -- you would have the law treat your so-called "best friend" and his companion as second-class citizens, simply because of their sexual orientation.

I am not advocating forcing anyone to go against his/her beliefs; I am saying that the bible has no influence on our laws, as provided in the Constitution. We are a secular nation, not a theocracy, and the bible does not make the law here.

Furthermore, being left-handed, or having red hair, or having green or blue eyes are all considered abnormal -- so what's your point? No one is saying that homosexuality must be considered "normal," but homosexuals, who are taxpaying citizens, should not be treated as second-class because of that.

you know what there should be no law treating him as a second class citizen but at the same time there should be no law treating them as first-class either. I just talked with him btw and he agrees that life styles should not be taught in school. and YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF PEOPLE DO BELIEVE THAT HOMESEXUALITY IS NOT NORMAL THEY ARE WRONG. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DOES NOT GET THE POINT. DO NOT FORCE YOU VIEWS ON ME AND I WILOL NOT FORCE THEM ON YOU BUT I WILL NOT BE TOLD HOW TO THINK BY GODLESS ATHEISTS.

And we will not be told how to think by brainless, blind, hatefilled theists like yourself.

"Natural" = objective, appearing in nature

"Normal" = a subjective commonality

Try taking a breather and realizing that nobody here believes your rant, nor cares. In the end, your kind will kill themselves through blind monotheistic suffocation, and reason will reign again.

Hate much lately?! So, if anyone disagrees with you and YOUR ilk, then thay are "brainless, blind hatefilled(should be hyphenated: "hate-filled" (brainless!) theists like yourself (how do you elitists "know" so much about a person?) And yes, I'm pretty sure your bowel excrement DOES stink!

Oooo, I'm so burned.

Bet you didn't even read the rant above.

Why do I have to be tolerant of homosexuality? Why are you not tolerant of my opinion that it is abnormal and deviant? If we are to be tolerant then it has to go both ways.

That is a quandary for us liberal-minded folk. How do you find a way to tolerate the intolerant? Hmmm. I suppose you have a right to be intolerant of homosexuals...until you try to make laws that infringe upon their rights. You have the right to be believe they are abnormal and they have the right to be gay as long as you don't infringe on each others' rights. You can get married and they can get married. Everyone has equal rights! Hey! I actually solved it. Golf clap for me.

Disgusted, look at this as a marketing campaign (which is truly is)- does marketing homophobia, xenophobia and distrust work for anybody? The odd thing is that thinking folks I know who are conservative Republicans don't hate, they don't discriminate, they are good people, but the rhetoric has been captured by this cabal of fear based haters. looking longingly at 1955 and wanting to go back there. We need a better Republican party, that's my point, so the campaign could be about ideas and solutions, not birth certificates and dog incidents!

Disgusted, tolerating your opinion is not the same as agreeing with it. We do tolerate your opinion. We allow you to have it because it is a freedom given by this country.

Ok, now that we have agreed to tolerate your opinion, will you now tolerate homosexuality by allowing people who are so oriented to have the same rights and freedoms as you do?

Disgusted, you have to tolerate homosexuality, just as homosexuals (and the rest of us) have to tolerate your bigotry. You do not have to accept homosexuality, or like homosexuals, just as they (and the rest of us) do not have to accept or like you.

LOL that is great.

So Ray, which group at the bottom of your post are you a member of? Klan? Hysterical backwoods preachers? Menacing punks? All of the above? A new one?

Ray's first mistake is in assuming that the bible isn't a work of fiction cobbled together over thousands of years by uneducated old men who wanted to maintain their status of dominant bigots. Why is it that all the stories in the bible are about men and their egos? There is no proof whatsoever that the bible is nothing more than the fairytale ravings of men who were afraid to die without some god like person to lead them out of death so they could fornicate with perpetual virgins throughout eternity.

Merry Prankster, I actually agree with your stance on religion, the bible and God. I still dont believe in homosexuality. It's abnormal, unnatural and serves no purpose in the progress of society (procreation, survival and human existence). Just hope we never have an apocalytpic event or HAVE to regress as a society. This world will become a primitive civilization overnight. That in itself will show that homosexuality is a short lived (sign of the times) tolerated lifestyle. It will never be permanent.

Heterosexuality will stand the test of time for ALL human existence. Those are facts.

Well said Rob-1647498

It's abnormal, unnatural and serves no purpose in the progress of society (procreation, survival and human existence).

Homosexuality has been observed in many species in nature and hasd evolutionary benefits for a society.

This world will become a primitive civilization overnight.

Considering some peoples attitudes towards homosexuality, I'd say they're already of a primitive mindest.

That in itself will show that homosexuality is a short lived (sign of the times) tolerated lifestyle. It will never be permanent.

Homosexuality has been around since mankind has. Seems pretty permanent to me.

I agree Rob-1647498, Phase of evolution.

Gordy,

Homosexuality IS oberved in many species throughout the world. But, within those species, everyone of them ALSO engaged in heterosexual sex and procreated. Remember the "gay penguins" who deserted one another when they were introduced to the opposite sex? Many homosexual acts in the animal kingdom are mere acts of dominance!! Do some research.

This world is the furthest thing from primitive. We dont even have to fight to survive anymore. It's handed to us by machines, technology and convenience. If we actually had to work at it...trust me, homosexuality would have NO place in our society. It would be adverse to our longevity and existence.

Homosexual acts HAVE been around since mankind...no doubt. But, look at how civilizations treated you before politically correct laws were in place? Gays ONLY benefit from the technological place we are in society right now. Nothing more. We are so efficient that we have the ability to even worry about homosexuality. If we were relying on natural instincts and survival to stay alive...you would be history. Since the dawn of human existence...I think it was pretty well laid out, by nature, by physical appearance, by design...that MAN and WOMAN were meant for each other. NO OTHER COMBINATION!!

Rob-1647498

Homosexuality the side effect:

The side effect model of the evolution of homosexuality proposes that homosexuality is a result of the intense drive to have sex. The workings of this model have much to do with the principles of heterosexuality. In mammals, females must carry their young through pregnancy, thus limiting their potential number of offspring. Males need only contribute sperm, however, and may have no additional cost or time investment in their offspring. Males can produce sperm effectively endlessly and father many offspring. A male mammal's reproductive success is enhanced as it inseminates more females, thus ensuring a larger number of offspring. A female can't produce a higher number of offspring through increased copulation so it is of no benefit for a female to increase her number of sexual partners. A female increases her fitness through selecting the best possible father for her offspring, thus increasing the fitness and chance for survival in her young. Much of the difference between male and female sexual behavior in mammals can be explained simply by the fact that females are taken out of the gene-mixing loop while pregnant.

Through evolution males have acquired behavior compelling them to compete with other males for wider, more frequent copulation and thus greater reproductive success. The side effect model of homosexuality proposes that "hypersexuality" has consequently evolved in males which causes them to strive for a maximum number of copulations with a wide range of partners and that their imperfect sex recognition when in such a state of heat leads them to mount males as well as females.

Perhaps because of its history of being socially objectionable in human culture, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is poorly recognized and understood relative to its actual frequency. Relatively recent is the scientific understanding that homosexuality is (a) present -- even widespread -- in the animal kingdom, (b) it has biological causes, and (c) it can be accounted for by evolutionary theory.

Animal studies can do a great do much to illuminate the human condition and vice versa,but sweeping parallels cannot be drawn between man and animals. Our unique social complexitites create such an ocean of differences that direct comparisons and conclusions about human behavior are impossible. Whatever we learn about animal behavior or biological causes of human behavior, our possession of consciousness gives us a certain indemnity from behaving for purely biological reasons. The studies and conclusions discussed in this paper indicate nothing about the appropriateness of any behavior in humans.

Exactly how widespread homosexuality is in the animal kingdom is still unknown. Researchers have usually not looked for it or they have dismissed it as an aberration when they encountered it. The relatively shallow pool of knowledge pertaining to animal homosexuality makes it difficult to arrive at solid conclusions about how it evolved and exactly what adaptive functions it plays in animal populations and reproductive success. As complex an issue as all sexuality is, however, the factors causing and governing homosexuality are doubtlessly complex and many.

Homosexuality can serve nature by being a deterrent to procreation, which can be a good thing when overpopulation is an issue, something that the Catholic Church still can't fathom with their inane stance on birth control. (Disclaimer: I am a former Catholic, former because of their stances like birth control). I sometimes wonder if there isn't some cosmic force that is making homosexuality more common in humans as we get closer and closer to populating too much of the earth. Far-fetched, I know, but an interesting what if to ponder. I kind of hope that thought keeps at least one bigot who reads this post up at night.

Many homosexual acts in the animal kingdom are mere acts of dominance!! Do some research.

Practice what you preach: do some research of your own. While some homosexual acts in the animal kingdom (besides humans) can be attributed to dominance, the majority of animals who engage in homosexual behavior mate for life with their homosexual partners. In fact, although some of them may occasional mate with a member of the opposite sex for procreational purposes, they return to their same-sex partners for their emotional and sexual bonds.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Homosexual acts HAVE been around since mankind...no doubt. But, look at how civilizations treated you before politically correct laws were in place?

Actually, homosexuality -- not just "homosexual acts" -- has existed since humankind has existed, in approximately the same percentage of the population. And homosexuals were apparently treated with quite a bit more respect than today, since same-sex marriage was legal for thousands of years in some ancient civilizations, until organized religion was discovered.

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality.

Raymond, what your book of fairy tales has to say regarding homosexuality is irrelevant, to say the least, since the bible does not make the laws in this country -- we are a secular nation. The rest of your rant is just more examples of your homophobic gibberish that you like to spew, with nothing credible to substantiate any of it.

Rob, that might be the most inane thing you've posted that I've read so far, which is no small accomplishment. The fact we are no longer in 'survival of the fittest mode' has no bearing on how we treat those who might not survive genetically otherwise. You could replace 'homosexual' with any of the following and still be accurate, but irrelevant: mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, elderly, sick. We treat all those groups with care despite the fact they wouldn't survive in your prehistoric world.

In short, SO WHAT?!?

Raymond: A most intelligent report of the agenda of the Lbgt and other so their ilk. Unfortunately, you will now be subject to vile hate rants from our "why must we hate" liberals.

Raymond, in the future, feel free to just post links to conservapedia rather than to copy and paste them wholesale so that we can ignore them for the drivel they are instead of accidentally thinking you might have had a cogent (albeit misguided) thought.

But are-you-serious, if it weren't for sites like Conservapedia, Raymond and Geoff (and others of their ilk) would have NOTHING to say...

And if it were not for MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and all the other Socliast leaning media and those PA's that state "there is no room for hate" unless you hate Republicans, Christians, and people with morals", ErinNJ and others of her(or his) ilk would likewise have nothing to say.

I love how you think Fox News is the only "fair and balanced" news group, when they're so obviously pandering to the far right conservatives. At least CNN posts things on both sides.

people with morals

Obviously not your kind, Geoff.

MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and all the other Socliast leaning media

Yes, all but Fox News are socialist leaning. Only in your mind by general relative position to Fox which is your baseline. Unlike you and your ilk, we come up with our own thoughts, rather than spew the latest Fox or party standards, like, um, everything but Fox news is socialist leaning.

You argued against others having an original thought by using an unoriginal thought. Bravo.

Geoff: I just cannot for the life of me see where you're coming from. All the media outlets you list are corporate owned and none of them EVER covers any news or offers any opinion that would cause embarrassment or inconvenience or expense to their corporate masters. Over the decades I've watched news coverage on all those outlets and never even ONCE have I heard a socialist approach to the problems and challenges facing our nation offered for consideration.

Well, then u tell me why they will report the shooting in Florida trying to potray it is racist because they say Zimmerman is white(not mentioning until much later that he is half Hispanic and they contunue for days on end, Not to mention the remarks by their shows like the View, ad nasuseum...but to this date have yet to report the "white" kid in KC who had gasoline poured on him by a bunch of "black students who then prceded to set him on fire. And why have they never reported the full turth on their appointed "saviour" Obama. I am sick and tired of "whites" and "christians" being portrayed as racists and bigots when it is the far left that has the hatred for anything Christian or anyone who wants to preserve morals. And one more thing I would like just once for someone to stop saying that the Constitution calls for separation of church and state. The Constition does not require separation . What it simply states is that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. And you liberals think us conservatives are the ignorant ones.

And oh btw, I do not watch Fox News, I watch ABC News 90% of the time, even tho they cause me to have super high blood pressure. My Granny told me some 65 years ago keep ur friends close and ur enemies closer and to me there is no greater enemy of the American people than the biased news based organizations of which MSNBC is the worse.

Geoff: I recall being told that Zimmerman was part hispanic on the very first story in which I heard his name (probably on CNN, but I'm not sure). Not sure what "full truth" about the president you speak of (and how did you learn it if not through the media--did you go somewhere and do original research/reporting yourself?), no one to the best of my knowledge has appointed him savior (and, unlike you, I know how to spell it).

You and I agree the news organizations are biased. They are clearly biased toward the interests of the rich, powerful multinational corporations who own them.

And one more thing I would like just once for someone to stop saying that the Constitution calls for separation of church and state. The Constition does not require separation

Yes, it does -- and the Supreme Court has used those words, from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, in numerous rulings. The Constitution absolutely requires separation of church and state.

You still win the ignorant award -- and you need to go to history and civics classes.

Libera; always consider anyone who disagree with them as ignorant . So thank you for ur unbiased opinion. I will file that under Marx and Kant for reference in the future to remind myself that people like u do not want a reasonable discourse. You are like all liberals I have met claiming to care for other but in truth caring only for yourself and your belief's all others be damned. The constitution states only that Congress shall make no laws establishing a reliegion. Liberals have interpreted this to mean that there is to be a separation. I happen to agree in separation of church and state i just get tired of you liberals misquoting the Constittion. Have a nice day, keep believing you are right despite what an ignorant person with a 4.0 average has to say.

Liberals are not the only ones who have interpreted the Constitution that way; the Supreme Court also has stated the same thing. BTW, we are not "quoting" the Constitution when we talk about the separation of church and state; we are simply interpreting the First Amendment the way Thomas Jefferson expressed it, which led to the Supreme Court expressing it the same way.

keep believing you are right despite what an ignorant person with a 4.0 average has to say.

I have two master's and two bachelor's degrees; what's your point?

The Constition does not require separation . What it simply states is that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. And you liberals think us conservatives are the ignorant ones.

That statement of yours proves your ignorance! The SCOTUS interpreted the 1st Amendment to include a separataion of church and state in their landmark case: Reynolds v. US (1878), thereby establishing legal precedent which stands today and has never been seriously challenged, but rather only upholded and reinforced. From the SCOTUS decision in Reynolds:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

Then there's James Madison,

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Note that Mr. Madison declares the separation is IN the U.S. Constitution.

So Geff, who's the ignorant one now?

Basic human anatomy and physiology dictates that homosexual intercourse is abnormal.

Wow, you must have a really boring sex life.....

Why do we even give them a voice?

Says the closet neo-Nazi. Hey, I don't really want to hear your voice, but it's your right as an American citizen to express your opinion, just as it is theirs.

Should not sexuality be a personal matter that is kept at home and out of public view?

Yes, and if some people would stop harassing and discriminating against others on the basis of sexual orientation (or any other orientation), it could be.

Should not sexuality be a personal matter that is kept at home and out of public view?

Perhaps in your puritanical, sex-is-bad, world. Fact is, it isn't, not by a long shot, and it's more heterosexuality that isn't kept at home and 'out of public view' than homosexuality.

discussion outside of this realm would work to serve only one purpose.... indoctrination.

Really? How so?

The majority of americans still adhere to the fact that homosexuality is an expression of abnormality.

So are being left-handed, or having red hair, or green or blue eyes -- what's your point? The majority of Americans also currently support full equality for gays. However, civil rights cannot be put to a vote, as the tyranny of the majority would deny rights to the minority -- which is why we are not a country of majority rule.

I also am puzzled by how many homosexuals have drawn the conclusion that they are genetically predisposed to me homosexual. All of the studies that have been done, searching for the cause of homosexuality, have been ambiguous and inconclusive.

WRONG. Look at these:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107170741.htm

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html

http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/06/30/genetics-and-environment-shape-sexual-orientation/2522.html

These studies have also shown to have very low reliability. For those of you with little research experience, reliability of a studies is whether or not the results of the study can be reproduced by a different researcher using the same methods as the previous researcher. Low reliability in a study indicates a high level of researcher bias.

I do research for a living, Disgusted, and did not find that those studies have "very low reliability". If they have been "shown" to be so, provide citations to the studies that refuted them -- if you can. The problem is, no such unbiased, credible studies exist that refute them.

Mostly, I am disturbed by how our society has bowed politically to such a microminority. Homosexuals make up less than 1% of the United States population, but we give them so much attention. Why should we be passing laws that only concern 1% of americans?

Because we are not a country of majority rule, which you would know if you had ever attended a civics class, or studies US history. A minority of ONE is entitled to all of the same rights as everyone else, and since gays (who comprise about 5-10% of the population, actually -- yet another of your inaccuracies) are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country, they do not deserve to be treated as second-class citizens.

That you cannot differentiate between homosexuality -- which is legal and involves consenting adults -- and incest and polygamy -- which are illegal and involves victims and/or those who cannot legally consent -- speaks volumes about you, and your lack of education.

Just look at ur research....everyone of them are atheistic, socialistic institutions . And that speaks volumes about you and your lackings.

So, Geoff, because they are "atheistic" and "socialistic" to you, that makes them that much more credible. You see, that means that they have no religious, anti-gay agenda to support or promote.

Even with my "lackings," Geoff, I am still light-years ahead of you as far as education and intellect.

Isn't science by its very nature secular?

Oh, right, forgot. Secular = atheist in the small minds of so many theists.

no Secular does not + atheist, just wordly but when some gay activist stands in front of an audience and calls the Bible Bull-sh*t then i am pretty sure they are atheists beuase those who believe in God (and not with a little G) would not utter such statements.

Those who are prone to brag about their education and itellect have less than the presume they have. ErinNJ.

to quote Pope: "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You are certainly proof of that.

And those who like to point out that others are "lacking" are usually projecting their own shortcomings. YOU are living proof of that.

to quote Pope: "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You are certainly proof of that.

Of course the Pope would say that. Anybody learning will quickly come to the realization that religion is a worthless attempt at controlling the population through fear of the unknown, and that there are many other beliefs that are far more valid than Christianity, with richer history and less hate.

stands in front of an audience and calls the Bible Bull-sh*t then i am pretty sure they are atheists beuase those who believe in God (and not with a little G) would not utter such statements.

Oh, almost forgot. As an agnostic who believes there are deities that exist, I still think the Bible is complete and utter worthless bull@!$%#.

I must take this time to apologize to all those whose posts I answered in anger today. I usually do not allow the blantant hatred of those with Christian viewpoints by the liberals of the world bother me to the point that their hatred causes me to lash back in like manner. That is a sin to me my saving grace is that if i realized I have sinned then i can pray for forgiveness and receive it. Not forgiveness from man for man himself is a sinner but from the Son of God. By his grace i will not respond to hatemongers in like manner. I will instead quote from a song I learned as a child "If I have wounded any soul today, If I have caused one foot to go astray. If I have walked in my own willful way, dear Lord, forgive" God bless all of you Conservative and Liberal alike.

Not at all, homosexuals make the arguement that they are genetically prediposed to be homosexual. i find no proof of this assumption. A Freudian slip would indicate that my mind was stating some truth that I knew subconciously even though it contridicted my concious statement. This was no Freudian silp, I was simply stating the arguement that is often pursued by homosexuals as to why they are gay.

I think mymom was referring to your typo of "me" vs "be".

i find no proof of this assumption

Luckily for the world, you are not the arbiter of what is true, factual, or supported by science. Or hopefully anything of importance.

that is a good question. I think I started liking girls when I was ten years old or so. Until that point I simply view females as playmates. I think my expression was often that girls had cooties. Before that point I really had no real sexual identification. When I was 4, 6, 8 years old I did not think about any attractions to either sex. So if I as a heterosexual male did not start feeling attraction to females until around age ten, then does that mean I was born attracted to females or did through my life experiences I developed attraction to females? Does anyone remember having an attraction to the opposite sex at an age younger than ten? If so, how is that normal?

The timing of when sexual orientation finally presents itself is a poor argument as to whether or not the predisposition was there or not. We know of all sorts of things that are genetic that might might not present themselves for years, much later than 10, like psychological disorders or special learning abilities (positive or negative). Try again.

I think I started liking girls when I was ten years old or so.

So you started to enter puberty at around 10 years old -- that's normal. That doesn't mean that you "became" heterosexual when you were 10; it just means that your hormones started to "kick in" around that time. If you were homosexual, you would have started responding differently to boys instead of girls.

So if I as a heterosexual male did not start feeling attraction to females until around age ten, then does that mean I was born attracted to females or did through my life experiences I developed attraction to females?

So because YOU can't remember having any sexual feelings before the age of 10, no one else has, either? WOW -- your level of "research" is...underwhelming.

Excellent gaydar mutatedspecies. I missed it completely.

We need to talk about these issues in order to be truly informed

I think this is the key. Education and knowledge are always good. I understand different people will put facts in a different moral context depending on their religion,upbringing, etc. ... but let's not deny access to knowledge. More knowledge is always a good thing.