# Rashad Evans: I support gay marriage and gay rights



## mo25 (Feb 7, 2011)

> “I've never been a homophobe, never understood what that is all about. I knew some people who were gay and never cared about their sexuality. But at the same time, I didn't fully understand the issues around gay people until my friend BA started telling me about his full public support for gay marriage. We talked about the issue and I decided its not enough to not be against a minority, if you want things to go better for them you have to speak up with them.
> 
> “I'm a UFC fighter, a macho-type sport. I am a heterosexual guy in a tough macho sport, which is exactly the reason I feel a duty to say I support gay marriage and gay rights.
> 
> ...


sauce


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Just when I started badmouthing the guy, he gets quoted as saying something totally on the nose and completely awesome 

Well Said Rashad!


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

Only an ignorant fool wouldn't. Racism and homophobia are the truest forms of ignorance. That said, I do think marriage is a heavily out dated tradition and I probably won't ever get married in my life. I just don't see how this special ceremony and a ring which likely causes more stress and worry through the preparation is a way to prove you love some one. I have nothing against people that want to get married, I just get a tad bit annoyed when people frown at me for saying I don't ever want to get married.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

I still think Rashad's a moron but he's right in this one instance. Statistically speaking he'd have to be right once. It's like having 2 full moons in a month or a Blackzilian winning.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

Who cares? I have no idea why MMA sites are posting this and acting like it's interesting.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

AlphaDawg said:


> Who cares? I have no idea why MMA sites are posting this and acting like it's interesting.


This like I said mma news has become like TMZ a bunch of non stories with nothing to do with mma.


----------



## music5x5 (Jun 9, 2010)

UFC_OWNS said:


> This like I said mma news has become like TMZ a bunch of non stories with nothing to do with mma.


Bro, this is BIG news. This means Rashad is coming out the closet. There were always the signs:


Being a strong wrestler (wrestling is kinda gay). LOL.
Nipple tweaks before each fight.
Almost kissing Ramapage on TUF.
Getting divorced to enjoy the single life in S. Florida.
Constantly touching Lil Nog's hands during their fight.
Allowing Chael Sonnen to lick his shoe.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

music5x5 said:


> Bro, this is BIG news. This means Rashad is coming out the closet. There were always the signs:
> 
> 
> Being a strong wrestler (wrestling is kinda gay). LOL.
> ...


woah mannnnnnnnnnnn


----------



## pipe (Jun 15, 2008)

music5x5 said:


> Bro, this is BIG news. This means Rashad is coming out the closet. There were always the signs:
> 
> 
> Being a strong wrestler (wrestling is kinda gay). LOL.
> ...














Well that's hard evidence right there.

Is he now divorced? his wife was so annoying sitting cage side screeching through his fights. A bit like Woodley's momma on the Strikeforce cards.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Got to admit, I thought this was gonna be a thread about him coming out? :thumb03:


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

I've never understood homophobic people. Something they judge so vehemently that literally has zero impact on their lives. 

Nice for Rashad to speak out as I'm sure there are a few homophobic MMA fighters.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Good to know he actually has his head screwed on the right way. May be I can overlook some of the other stuff he says now.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

And in other news today, Rashad admits he prefers chunky peanut butter to smooth.

:bored04:


EDIT

Now if you want an interesting thread, somebody needs to ask Ben Henderson what he thinks about gay marriage.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

lol we already the covered the tmz/mma crossover sooj but nice to have you on board soldier


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

AlphaDawg said:


> Who cares? I have no idea why MMA sites are posting this and acting like it's interesting.


I agree, I dont care if he blows goats for fun, why does this need to be reported on everywhere? unless its just a publicity stunt. Changes nothing with me, I suppose it will give some people material to bash him or support him but really why is this big news??


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

...but lets be honest. If Rashad had come out and said "I disagree with gay marriage. I think gay should be illegal" I'm guessing not many of us would have replied with "meh". The thread would have exploded.


But this? Saying the politically correct thing? Total boredom.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> ...but lets be honest. If Rashad had come out and said "I disagree with gay marriage. I think gay should be illegal" I'm guessing not many of us would have replied with "meh". The thread would have exploded.
> 
> 
> But this? Saying the politically correct thing? Total boredom.


He should have said man I can't stand dem deek suckers imma gonna go burn there houses down on christmas, theres your ppv buys and buzz


----------



## hixxy (Sep 7, 2007)

I read this on mmaweekly and the headline was 'Rashad comes out'.. I thought at first he had announced he was gay..


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> Now if you want an interesting thread, somebody needs to ask Ben Henderson what he thinks about gay marriage.


 Hahahaha... Indeed.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

Doesn't anyone who isn't a homophobe support gay rights/marriage and the like? Blah, not really news.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Tyson Fury said:


> Doesn't anyone who isn't a homophobe support gay rights/marriage and the like? Blah, not really news.


Well, personally I don't support marriage at all. Or rights. :thumb03:


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

UFC_OWNS said:


> This like I said mma news has become like TMZ a bunch of non stories with nothing to do with mma.



LOL please, like there isn't enough room for news not related to fights? I have a hard enough time finding activity as it is, you want to limit the content here? You don't have to read every thread.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I live in North Carolina where we just last year passed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. :shame02:

It's important for anyone with a platform to speak out. 

I support Rashad Evans.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

I live in North Carolina as well and the amount of people who were against gay marriage is pretty freighting. Marry who you want, love knows no boundaries.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

oldfan said:


> I live in North Carolina where we just last year passed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. :shame02:


Cool. All I knew about your place is lovely photos of little children playing by a lakeside. All this time ive been bitterly jealous of your apparent utopia. Makes me feel better knowing the place is full of assholes.:thumbsup:


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

OU said:


> LOL please, like there isn't enough room for news not related to fights? I have a hard enough time finding activity as it is, you want to limit the content here? You don't have to read every thread.


It's ok if you disagree with me sooj and alpha dawg and a few others, you like meaningless tmz type stories that''s your business


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

This is a clever move by Rashad. Marketing himself to a new fanbase. I cant think of anyone else ever sayin anything like that so he will be the mma hero to the gay community now


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Cool. All I knew about your place is lovely photos of little children playing by a lakeside. All this time ive been bitterly jealous of your apparent utopia. Makes me feel better knowing the place is full of assholes.:thumbsup:


hahahaha it's still God's country, but it's best to pray that he protects you from his followers.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

UFC_OWNS said:


> It's ok if you disagree with me sooj and alpha dawg and a few others, you like meaningless tmz type stories that''s your business


I think it's silly to limit topic to fight related only. Especially since you don't have to click on every topic. Plenty of topics here I have no interest in, I just don't click on them, simple as that. I think it's funny to go into a topic you don't care for and bitch about it when you could just not click on it. Seems more like a you problem then a forum problem.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

OU said:


> I think it's silly to limit topic to fight related only. Especially since you don't have to click on every topic. Plenty of topics here I have no interest in, I just don't click on them, simple as that. I think it's funny to go into a topic you don't care for and bitch about it when you could just not click on it. Seems more like a you problem then a forum problem.


ok...


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> This is a clever move by Rashad. Marketing himself to a new fanbase. I cant think of anyone else ever sayin anything like that so he will be the mma hero to the gay community now


I think this is probably it, there could possibly be a huge fan base of gay fans who might now pay to see rashad fight since he has gone on record as supporting them, If Rashad headlines a fight in the near future this might boost PPV sales a little and increase his cut of PPV Money, or maybe he was just feeling like supporting just because,,who the f*ck knows?


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

UFC_OWNS said:


> ok...


I no like this thread why you make? I must type in it because I no like! Yeah...makes sense. But whatever floats your boat.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

This thread has potential for pure gold.

as for brilliant speculation of his real agenda .....maybe someone he gives a damn about has been treated like shit?

I know sounds crazy....more likely he's just trying to tap into Phil Baroni's huge fan base.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

I'd like to make a BIG announcement people. I support the rights of old people. They shouldn't be able to drive, or eat Ice-cream in public. But other than that they cool.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

OU said:


> I no like this thread why you make? I must type in it because I no like! Yeah...makes sense. But whatever floats your boat.


oh my god shut up jeez you hang onto your own agenda like a jehovahs witness trying to tell someone about the good news


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

.......'cause you know Rashad could rock the daisy dukes better than Phil ever did.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

UFC_OWNS said:


> oh my god shut up jeez you hang onto your own agenda like a jehovahs witness trying to tell someone about the good news


Says the guy that continues to post in a thread he said shouldn't exist...checkmate.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


> .......'cause you know Rashad could rock the daisy dukes better than Phil ever did.


yeah but he's no roy nelson in daisy dukes


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

how many ausie posts does it take to say a thread aint worth posting in :confused02:


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

OU said:


> Says the guy that continues to post in a thread he said shouldn't exist...checkmate.


oh I said it shouldn't exist I dare you to quote me where I said that go ahead, oh right you can't can you because it didn't happen. I'm posting in this thread because I happen to enjoy the comments of other members and I like to contribute to their conversations


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


> how many ausie posts does it take to say a thread aint worth posting in :confused02:


ya'll keep your manners in order ya hear:wink01:


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

UFC_OWNS said:


> I'm posting in this thread because I happen to enjoy the comments of other members and I like to contribute to their conversations


you don't know how much I missed you boy.:hug:


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


> you don't know how much I missed you boy.:hug:


don't get soft on me now oldie (no pun intended heh):sarcastic12::sarcastic12::sarcastic12::sarcastic12::sarcastic12::sarcastic12:


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I would have thought that you would be the "voice" on this forum for people who were born different.






....like you


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


> I would have thought that you would be the "voice" on this forum for people who were born different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If by different you mean then excellent in all areas except growing hillbilly arm and chest hair then si your right. I am the voice of nick diaz's and chael sonnens of the world, a pleasure you will never understand young man


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

UFC_OWNS said:


> oh I said it shouldn't exist I dare you to quote me where I said that go ahead, oh right you can't can you because it didn't happen. I'm posting in this thread because I happen to enjoy the comments of other members and I like to contribute to their conversations


LOL seems like you are splitting hairs.


AlphaDawg said:


> Who cares? I have no idea why MMA sites are posting this and acting like it's interesting.





UFC_OWNS said:


> This like I said mma news has become like TMZ a bunch of non stories with nothing to do with mma.


That's the exact context. You said you have no interest in this thread of this kind of news, yet you have multiple post in this thread. You agreed that this kind of thread shouldn't be posted, there is the quote right there. Again, I'm right and you are wrong. You are posting in a thread you don't think should be on a MMA forum, well I'm pretty sure a place called "MMA Forum" qualifies as an MMA forum.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

OU said:


> LOL seems like you are splitting hairs.
> 
> 
> That's the exact context. You said you have no interest in this thread of this kind of news, yet you have multiple post in this thread. You agreed that this kind of thread shouldn't be posted, there is the quote right there. Again, I'm right and you are wrong. You are posting in a thread you don't think should be on a MMA forum, well I'm pretty sure a place called "MMA Forum" qualifies as an MMA forum.


don't you get it i'm talking to oldfan and other members and your lack of reading comprehension means little to me now shoosh im trying to talk to my 70 year old forum citizen


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

UFC_OWNS said:


> don't you get it i'm talking to oldfan and other members and your lack of reading comprehension means little to me now shoosh im trying to talk to my 70 year old forum citizen


LOL OK man. You don't understand your own words...got it.


----------



## H33LHooK (Jul 13, 2011)

UFC_OWNS said:


> yeah but he's no roy nelson in daisy dukes


*urp* *cough* Just threw up a little in my mouth.

And made some wood in my happy place.

I'm confused...

.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

H33LHooK said:


> *urp* *cough* Just threw up a little in my mouth.
> 
> And made some wood in my happy place.
> 
> ...


throwing up on your penis is an experience I have yet to have but maybe one day if cyborg manages to turn me on in a drunken haze......


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

UFC_OWNS said:


> If by different you mean then excellent in all areas except growing hillbilly arm and chest hair then si your right. I am the voice of nick diaz's and chael sonnens of the world, a pleasure you will never understand young man





UFC_OWNS said:


> don't you get it i'm talking to oldfan and other members and your lack of reading comprehension means little to me now shoosh im trying to talk to my 70 year old forum citizen


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


>


Look oldie if you some money I didn't know you were resorted to that standard of living :hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug:


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Only an ignorant fool wouldn't. Racism and homophobia are the truest forms of ignorance. That said, I do think marriage is a heavily out dated tradition and I probably won't ever get married in my life. I just don't see how this special ceremony and a ring which likely causes more stress and worry through the preparation is a way to prove you love some one. I have nothing against people that want to get married, I just get a tad bit annoyed when people frown at me for saying I don't ever want to get married.


Well the problems specific to gay marriage not being legal are about the contract part not the ceremony for the most part. Even if it was legalized I doubt most religions would hold ceremonies for it. There are a lot of rights and services attached to marriage in the USA. From the government standpoint there really is no justification for not having homosexual civil unions be legal it is just a contract between two adults.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

This reminds me of the Jones is having a baby thread.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Oh it hasn't gotten that bad yet.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

I find it hard to believe our country is falling for this phony issue. Gays are completely free to marry right now. They can go into any church and hold hands and exchange vows, and live together til death and no one will give a rip. They can also create financial contracts and civil union contracts. 

This has nothing to do with gay rights. Gays in america are the best treated in the world, and we should be proud of that. 

What gays want is to force people to recognize their unions, and they also want equal status with married opposite sex couples in adoptions. That is just insane. 

Even the ancient Greeks who absolutely celebrated homosexuality were not stupid enough to destroy the family unit. 

It's ironic that Evans, being a black man, and seeing what the absence of fathers has done to his community is now taking a stand that fathers don't matter, and two lesbian women can easily show a boy how to become a man. 

But people just seem hungry these days to boast about their moral righteousness and standing up for gay marriage, when in essence they are attacking the already weak and damaged family unit. 

For good reason we regulated the mormons in their polygamous practices, and it's ironic that most gay right activists are against polygamy. They actually have no problem precluding the types of unions they don't like. It's just hypocritical. 

But, that's the course we on. What can you do?


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

Calminian said:


> I find it hard to believe our country is falling for this phony issue. Gays are completely free to marry right now. They can go into any church and hold hands and exchange vows, and live together til death and no one will give a rip. They can also created financial contracts and civil union contracts.
> 
> This has nothing to do with gay rights. Gays in american are the best treated in the world, and we should be proud of that.
> 
> ...


So much offensive content, and incorrect knowledge... I have no response, props to Evans for supporting this very important and relevant topic though  

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Cowgirl said:


> So much offensive content, and incorrect knowledge... I have no response, props to Evans for supporting this very important and relevant topic though
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com App


You just made my point. It's a pure emotional issue. You have not way to refute what I just wrote, because you know it's true. Any gay person can get married right now, and live with their mate for the rest of their days. It's not about that. Never was. 

You think you're somehow making it possible for people to be with who they want. That is just a joke. There are no restricted relationships, and frankly I hope it stays that way. I have no desire to regulate people's bedrooms. 

But this lie that somehow people are being prevented from engaging into marriages, is just stupid. I'm just amazed people believe it.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Don't know if it's just good PR, if he's trying to rebuild his image or whatever, if people/Rashad fans reading this believe what he is saying and have respect for all homosexuals, then that is an awesome thing.

Really sucks in the UK, we gays only get "Civil Ceremonies", where legally the other spouse is just referred to as our "Partner".

Churches really need to get with the times here in the UK.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

Calminian said:


> You just made my point. It's a pure emotional issue. You have not way to refute what I just wrote, because you know it's true. Any gay person can get married right now, and live with their mate for the rest of their days. It's not about that. Never was.
> 
> You think you're somehow making it possible for people to be with who they want. That is just a joke. There are no restricted relationships, and frankly I hope it stays that way. I have no desire to regulate people's bedrooms.
> 
> But this lie that somehow people are being prevented from engaging into marriages, is just stupid. It's nothing but a lie.


Do you really believe what you are saying? I can refute your incorrect statements, I was just gauging whether you were trolling or not. Churches that will perform gay marriages are scarce. From a legal standpoint, homosexuals can not get married in quite a few states and in quite a few other nations across the world. The fact that someone can sit in an office somewhere and tell me that I can't marry my girlfriend is quite offensive. In regards to your other claim about two women not being able to raise a son, there have been studies which prove that kids raised by same sex couples have fair less issues the majority of the time.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Cowgirl said:


> Do you really believe what you are saying? I can refute your incorrect statements, I was just gauging whether you were trolling or not. Churches that will perform gay marriages are scarce. From a legal standpoint, homosexuals can not get married in quite a few states and in quite a few other nations across the world. The fact that someone can sit in an office somewhere and tell me that I can't marry my girlfriend is quite offensive. In regards to your other claim about two women not being able to raise a son, there have been studies which prove that kids raised by same sex couples have fair less issues the majority of the time.


Okay, where did you hear this? There are tons of liberal churches who will marry you, and besides, why would you want to force a minister that doesn't believe in gay marriage to perform the ceremony? That just boggles my mind. Why do you even need a church?

Have you ever heard of a gay couple taking vows in a church or in a park or on a beach and then taken to jail or charged with anything? Have you ever heard of a gay couple living together that the government forced to split up? Come on help me out here. 

Yes, you can get married today, and no one will care. You are completely free to love anyone. You can call that person your wife or husband and the government won't blink. And yes, I support this current right too. Don't I get some props? What is this great thing you think you think you're doing by forcing gay marriage on the nation?


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

Calminian said:


> Okay, where did you hear this? There are tons of liberal churches who will marry you, and besides, why would you want to force a minister that doesn't believe in gay marriage to perform the ceremony? That just boggles my mind.
> 
> Have you ever heard of a gay couple taking vows in a church and taken to jail? Have you ever heard of a gay couple living together that the government forced to split up? Come on help me out here.
> 
> Yes, you can get married today, and no one will care. You can call them person your wife and husband and the government won't blink. What is this great thing you think you think you're doing by forcing gay marriage on the nation?


You need to stop referring to this issue as if we are only talking about the United States of America, it's a global issue, and it is very real. The unions are a joke in the eyes of the law of most states, your nation as a whole, and world wide, which is the issue here. As a prominent member of the alphabet soup community, I can tell you that there aren't nearly as many churches as you seem to think that will marry a homosexual couple. Certainly far from "tons." 

But again, this is about Evans and his awesome stance, I'll reiterate that I think it's great for prominent people to take such socially progressive stances on these hot button issues. Let us not derail this thread any further Cal, if you would like to talk, I have an inbox for this exact reason  

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Cowgirl said:


> You need to stop referring to this issue as if we are only talking about the United States of America, it's a global issue, and it is very real. The unions are a joke in the eyes of the law of most states, your nation as a whole, and world wide, which is the issue here. As a prominent member of the alphabet soup community, I can tell you that there aren't nearly as many churches as you seem to think that will marry a homosexual couple. Certainly far from "tons."
> 
> But again, this is about Evans and his awesome stance, I'll reiterate that I think it's great for prominent people to take such socially progressive stances on these hot button issues. Let us not derail this thread any further Cal, if you would like to talk, I have an inbox for this exact reason
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com App


Well we're going to disagree. I think gay marriage is a bad thing, and not a noble thing to take up. 

I do believe people should be free in their relationships and free to love who they want. But getting government to see the gay unions as marriages opens up a can of worms that hurts our nation or any nation for that matter. 

The ideal situation for a child is mom and a dad. Children, particularly boys in homes without fathers suffer deeply. You want take up a good cause, then promote fathers to actually raise their children and stay in their homes. But you can't do that if you think a lesbian woman is just as good. 

You know it's a bit ironic, but those in favor of gay marriage and particularly gay couples adopting children, actually don't believe either gender has any particular unique intrinsic value. There is really no value of a man being in a home to teach young boys how to become men. And conversely there's no unique value possessed by women. A gay man can easily replace her. 

That to me is a tragic stance to take. It completely destroys the beautiful, valuable and complementary differences males and females have.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

Calminian said:


> Well we're going to disagree. I think gay marriage is a bad thing, and not a noble thing to take up.
> 
> I do believe people should be free in their relationships and free to love who they want. But getting government to see the gay unions as marriages opens up a can of worms that hurts our nation or any nation for that matter.
> 
> ...


Quite possibly the most retarded thing ever posted on these forums.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

I really hope that Rashad coming out with this stance will help other people with a prominent media presence to support this as well. Again, good on Evans.

Edit: I'd rep you dead, but I gotta spread first.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Cowgirl said:


> I really hope that Rashad coming out with this stance will help other people with a prominent media presence to support this as well. Again, good on Evans...


LOL. Yeah, the media just hates gay marriage. Sure hope Evans can sway them. :confused02:


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

Calminian said:


> LOL. Yeah, the media just hates gay marriage. Sure hope Evans can sway them. :confused02:


Please point me to where I said that the media hates gay marriage? 

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Cowgirl said:


> I really hope that Rashad coming out with this stance will help other people with a prominent media presence to support this as well. Again, good on Evans.
> 
> Edit: I'd rep you dead, *but I gotta spread first*.
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com App












But yeah, in the macho world of MMA and it's sometimes overly-macho fans alike, this stance Rashad is showing needs to be shared by other fighters.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Cowgirl said:


> Please point me to where I said that the media hates gay marriage?
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com App


Just a bit of sarcasm, undetected. 

But which of those media personalities do you think it not quite stepping up enough?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Gay people should have the same right to get into a marriage, fight and argue, create and awful home that messes up a child's life, then get into a bitter divorce hurting the child more, ruining their finances, and generally causing issues with everybody for years to come - just as any man and woman can.

I find the act of marriage to be ridiculous in nature, but if you are gay you should be able to fully partake in the ridiculousness.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

Calminian said:


> Well we're going to disagree. I think gay marriage is a bad thing, and not a noble thing to take up.
> 
> I do believe people should be free in their relationships and free to love who they want. But getting government to see the gay unions as marriages opens up a can of worms that hurts our nation or any nation for that matter.
> 
> ...


retarded thing one:

If something is not ideal it is worthless and we shouldn't do it. There's proof that having 2 parents is healthy for the child more than 1 and more than living in an orphanage.

You want to prohibit gay parents from adopting children from horrible situations because it doesnt model the 'ideal' family.

retarded thing two:

Having non-traditional relationships recognized by the government somehow weakens traditional relationships and gender roles.

Recognizing gay marriages isn't going to undermine gender differences. By your own logic it CAN'T because lesbians are so traumatic for a child and inherently bad child rearers.

Somehow Ned and Gary getting married in Oregon is going to start neutering men and sterilizing women across the world.

Sigh


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

M.C said:


> Gay people should have the same right to get into a marriage, fight and argue, create and awful home that messes up a child's life, then get into a bitter divorce hurting the child more, ruining their finances, and generally causing issues with everybody for years to come - just as any man and woman can.
> 
> I find the act of marriage to be ridiculous in nature, but if you are gay you should be able to fully partake in the ridiculousness.


I often wonder how the divorce rate of gay couples would compare to the divorce rate of straight couples. 

I also get a kick out of the well if gays are allowed to get married then a guy will marry his dog. To quote Louie C.K "good I hope he marries his dog, why do you care! It doesn't have any effect on your life."

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Iuanes said:


> ...You want to prohibit gay parents from adopting children from horrible situations because it doesnt model the 'ideal' family.


I would commend anyone taking on a child no one else wants. And yes, i would support a gay couple in their efforts to take in a child like this, in that I would support anyone wanting to take a child like this married or not. 

But that doesn't mean we should not shoot for and promote the ideal situation of a mom and dad. 



Iuanes said:


> Having non-traditional relationships recognized by the government somehow weakens traditional relationships and gender roles.
> 
> Recognizing gay marriages isn't going to undermine gender differences. By your own logic it CAN'T because lesbians are so traumatic for a child and inherently bad child rearers.


Okay, so your one one of the idiots that believes that homes without fathers are no big deal and haven't hurt anyone. There's no reasoning with someone like you. You're actually proud of being stupid. 

And BTW, gays are allowed to marry right now. It's not illegal. They can marry all they want, and it doesn't affect anyone in any way. Let's keep in that way.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

Calminian said:


> BTW, gays are allowed to marry right now. It's not illegal. They can marry all they want, and it doesn't affect anyone in any way. Let's keep in that way.


Where do you get this ludicrous idea? Very few states allow gay marriage, and very few countries allow it as well. You are mistaken if you think that government shouldn't have to recognize equal marriage rights. In today's secular world, most of the marriages aren't for religious reasons, but for legal purposes. Legal benefits that the homosexual community don't have access to because their marriages are not legal.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

This is not I repeat NOT a UFC conversation and should be moved elsewhere...


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

drifting off topic (of sorts) guys.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Cowgirl said:


> Where do you get this ludicrous idea? Very few states allow gay marriage,


All states allow gay marriage. All of them. You need to seriously get this through your head. No one has ever been denied the right to publicly exchange vows and live together. 



Cowgirl said:


> You are mistaken if you think that government shouldn't have to recognize equal marriage rights.


Really! Do you think the government should recognize polygamous marriages? 



Cowgirl said:


> In today's secular world, most of the marriages aren't for religious reasons, but for legal purposes. Legal benefits that the homosexual community don't have access to because their marriages are not legal.


Wrong again. Adults are allowed to enter into any kind of personal contracts they wish to. If they want to share their finances, they can. If they want hospital visits they can have them too. 

It's a phony issue you've been feed for years. None of it's true. 

Please give me one example of a gay couple exchanging vows, sharing finances, etc. that's been punished or fined in any; way. If they existed it would be all over the news.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

Calminian said:


> All states allow gay marriage. All of them. You need to seriously get this through your head. No one has ever been denied the right to publicly exchange vows and live together.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've gone ahead and sent you a PM, I don't think this thread needs anymore derailing, and this is my last post in this thread.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

Calminian said:


> I would commend anyone taking on a child no one else wants. And yes, i would support a gay couple in their efforts to take in a child like this, in that I would support anyone wanting to take a child like this married or not.
> 
> But that doesn't mean we should not shoot for and promote the ideal situation of a mom and dad.


But you ARE basically saying gays shouldn't marry because its not ideal. What IS proven, is that a stable, monogamous relationships are good for children. Allowing gays to marry encourages this stability.

Again, this isn't about 'promotion', its about allowing basic civil rights and recognizing and giving couples who legitimately love each the rights that the government allows to other couples.

The idea that this somehow is about 'promotion' and 'non-promotion' is your silly side vendetta. Whether gay marriage is allowed or not, people will be gay. Allowing gay marriages doesn't somehow reduce traditional marriages, unless your'e talking about a gay person forcing themselves into a heterosexual marriage, which is likely more harmful for everyone.



Calminian said:


> Okay, so your one one of the idiots that believes that homes without fathers are no big deal and haven't hurt anyone. There's no reasoning with someone like you. You're actually proud of being stupid.


Actually, its IRRELEVANT what I think about males and child rearing. It's you who have the problem with comprehending the fact that gay marriages don't reduce the net amount of male child rearers. They're not related. 

I definitely would say that there is nothing inherently harmful about having lesbian mothers, perhaps a child would do better with a father, but this child ISNT being taken away from a father somehow. IT IS proven that having two parents is better, I haven't seen any data about a mother and father, unless you would like to show me some. I've NEVER said a father wouldn't necessarily be better, but again, that's irrelevant.

Your position is basically, if a child can't have a father, two mother's is worse, because he can't have a father. Allowing gay marriages somehow makes more fatherless homes and therefore is 'tragic'
It's retarded.


----------



## Budhisten (Apr 11, 2010)

Life B Ez said:


> I often wonder how the divorce rate of gay couples would compare to the divorce rate of straight couples.
> 
> I also get a kick out of the well if gays are allowed to get married then a guy will marry his dog. To quote Louie C.K "good I hope he marries his dog, why do you care! It doesn't have any effect on your life."
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Here in Denmark (Gay marrige has been legal since 1989) divorce rates for homosexual couples are 17% - straight couples 46%. More female/female couples get divorces than male/male couples.



> The Gay Divorcee is not just an old Fred Astaire musical. In Denmark, where homosexuals have been legally able to get hitched (and unhitched) since 1989, it's a modern reality. But despite stereotypes of gay relationships as short-lived, the divorce rate among Danish homosexuals is only 17 percent, compared to 46 percent for heterosexuals. Can gay Danes teach us something about lasting marital bliss?
> 
> One lesson may be to wait before tying the knot. Many of the gays and lesbians who've married had been in their relationships for years beforehand, notes Dorte Gottlieb, a Danish psychologist who studies homosexuality. They have also been older on average than newly married heterosexuals.
> 
> ...


*Source: Psychology Today*


----------



## Budhisten (Apr 11, 2010)

Also:

*Iuanes, Calminian and so on...*

*Take your discussion elsewhere, try doing what Cowgirl did and take it to PMs, we don't need this on the board and you will end up infracted/banned soon.*

I don't want to close this thread because it's a great thing when fighters come out and voice their opinions and support a good cause - so please. Personal discussion like that goes in PMs.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)




----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

> You know it's a bit ironic, but those in favor of gay marriage and particularly gay couples adopting children, actually don't believe either gender has any particular unique intrinsic value. There is really no value of a man being in a home to teach young boys how to become men. And conversely there's no unique value possessed by women. A gay man can easily replace her.


I just have to ask, and I mean no offense, but isn't the idea of "gender" a relative term? I would imagine judging by your opinions that you disagree but I would like to know what your point of view on what a "man" is supposed to do and conversely what a "woman" is supposed to do.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Ari said:


> I just have to ask, and I mean no offense, but isn't the idea of "gender" a relative term? I would imagine judging by your opinions that you disagree but I would like to know what your point of view on what a "man" is supposed to do and conversely what a "woman" is supposed to do.


I believe "scientifically" speaking, gender applies to the social construct of what each sex is supposed to do. It doesn't apply to the actual sex of a person. But I wouldn't quote me on that it's been a minute since social sciences.


----------



## HellRazor (Sep 24, 2006)

deadmanshand said:


> It's like having 2 full moons in a month or a Blackzilian winning.


What's your problem with the Blackzillians? They seem like a competent crew of professional fighters.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

HellRazor said:


> What's your problem with the Blackzillians? They seem like a competent crew of professional fighters.


hey i like a lot of their fighters individually but they actually are failing hard as a camp lately


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Budhisten said:


> Here in Denmark (Gay marrige has been legal since 1989) divorce rates for homosexual couples are 17% - straight couples 46%. More female/female couples get divorces than male/male couples.
> 
> 
> 
> *Source: Psychology Today*


No marriages resultant of unplanned pregnancy has to give a big boost to the numbers.


----------



## zarny (Mar 4, 2007)

Good for Rashad. 

Opposition to gay marriage is puzzling. Mostly it's just Jesus freaks that quote the bible wrong.


----------



## zarny (Mar 4, 2007)

Calminian said:


> Well we're going to disagree. I think gay marriage is a bad thing, and not a noble thing to take up.
> 
> I do believe people should be free in their relationships and free to love who they want. But getting government to see the gay unions as marriages opens up a can of worms that hurts our nation or any nation for that matter.
> 
> ...




200 years ago called and they want their century back.

There is no "ideal" situation.

Children in homes without fathers suffer?

Guess what...children in homes where the father is a drunk, beats his kids, cheats on his wife and has children with other women suffer too. 

In those cases a lesbian woman is better....much better. 

Children adopted by gay couples however, don't tend to suffer. Most actually do really well. Not because the parents are gay. They simply tend to be active and interested parents. They love their children. You see the same results with single parents and traditional parents who do the same thing.

Who parents want to **** has nothing to do with how good they are at being a parent. The world is filled with shitty parents where both genders are represented. 

Your notion of gender is also antiquated and uneducated. 

The only thing intrinsic to being a man or a woman is a different set of sex organs. Which isn't irrelevant. Men will never be able to fully understand what's it's like to get your first period and women will never really know what's like to get a hard on.

Behavior associated with either is 100% a construct of society. 

Boys don't need to be taught how to be men; girls don't need to be taught how to be women.

They both need to be taught how to be mature adults. And in they year 2013 there isn't any difference.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

Pretty meh news. Cool rashad, who really cares? But honestly.. this is how sports news is. Saw an article about kobe saying something along the same lines on his twitter on yahoo news the other day. But that might be because he got in trouble for calling people ***gots but still.




zarny said:


> Good for Rashad.
> 
> Opposition to gay marriage is puzzling. Mostly it's just Jesus freaks that quote the bible wrong.


Lol? Man the people who don't know anything about the Bible that talk like they do get under my skin. But again.. should have expected it. Nothing new really. For your information though,





> The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.
> 
> The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature.
> 
> ...


There's you're lesson for the day/night.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> Pretty meh news. Cool rashad, who really cares? But honestly.. this is how sports news is. Saw an article about kobe saying something along the same lines on his twitter on yahoo news the other day. But that might be because he got in trouble for calling people ***gots but still.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really??you quote someones opinion on the bible, not the actual bible, don't even name that person and call that our lesson for the day? lesson on what? how to look foolish?

I take it you follow the bible's teaching on this subject?

Leviticus 20:13 says that homosexuals must be killed.
Leviticus 20:9 says disobedient children shall be killed.
Exodus 21:7-11 lays out the proper way to sell your daughter into slavery.

Do you follow these teachings? have you ever killed a homsexual as the bible tells you to?? How much would you sell your daughter for?

Martin Sheen says it better than I can.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

oldfan said:


> Really??you quote someones opinion on the bible, not the actual bible, don't even name that person and call that our lesson for the day? lesson on what? how to look foolish?
> 
> I take it you follow the bible's teaching on this subject?
> 
> ...



I'll refute your statements, then let this be the end of this considering it's taking the thread off topic. 

Those verses in Leviticus were strict commandants given to Israel to distinguish them from other nations. There are many laws given to Israel during certain times that pertain to those certain times. And of course, we are no longer under those laws as Jesus has taken our place. So no, i have never killed a homosexual or sold my non existent daughter, nor would i, nor do i think anyone should.

The entire reason behind them being killed was because they were apart of God's nation and knew the truth but decided to otherwise. 

Exodus 21:7-11. Selling you're children as slaves was a very common practice at the time. Slaves were fed, clothed, housed, and even payed. So a family that was very poor would often give their children into slavery so for them to have all those things. Not to mention they were treated much differently then the way we treated slaves.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

the bible was really all about the good kind of slavery where they get clothes and get to live in the house with the humans.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

I know the world is changing. People do have the right to do what they want in order to be happy, without interfering with other people's rights, of course. I support that freedom. However, when I say they are suppose to have this right, this freedom, I mean adult people. That is the reason I still don't agree with a child being raised by gay parents, IF it could be avoided. That is like children will see a gay world by default and that's way too advanced for me, I admit.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> I'll refute your statements, then let this be the end of this considering it's taking the thread off topic.
> 
> Those verses in Leviticus were strict commandants given to Israel to distinguish them from other nations. There are many laws given to Israel during certain times that pertain to those certain times. And of course, we are no longer under those laws as Jesus has taken our place. So no, i have never killed a homosexual or sold my non existent daughter, nor would i, nor do i think anyone should.
> 
> ...


Well said. God established the nation of Israel in order to eventually bring about the Messiah, Jesus. Many rules applied to that nation to keep it pure and healthy. But the Mosaic laws only applied to israel. 

And yes, slavery in early human history was usually initiated by the slave, not the master. Finding a good master was often essential to staying alive. And Mose put very strict regulations on slavery, so as it would never be abusive. 

That's likely still not going to satisfy most, but will some.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> I know the world is changing. People do have the right to do what they want in order to be happy, without interfering with other people's rights, of course. I support that freedom. However, when I say they are suppose to have this right, this freedom, I mean adult people. That is the reason I still don't agree with a *child being raised by gay parents*, IF it could be avoided. That is like *children will see a gay world by default* and that's way too advanced for me, I admit.


I'm not too sure I like the insinuation here, we don't teach our children to be gay. My ex had a 7 year old son and I spent two years of my life with those two. My sexuality never came up.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> I know the world is changing. People do have the right to do what they want in order to be happy, without interfering with other people's rights, of course. I support that freedom. However, when I say they are suppose to have this right, this freedom, I mean adult people. That is the reason I still don't agree with a child being raised by gay parents, IF it could be avoided. That is like children will see a gay world by default and that's way too advanced for me, I admit.


Well said. That really sums it up for me as well. I don't want to regulate what people do or who they love. But when it comes to marriage, I don't want the government recognizing gay marriages or polygamous ones for that matter, for the very reason that would make them equally eligible to adopt children. While some don't perform their duties well, a father and mother are both essential to parenting. 1 father and 1 mother are the ideal parents. 

Now if you people want to exchange vows and live together, I have no desire to regulate that. But let's give kids ideal homes.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)




----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Ah yes the recently divorced guy who left his wife and kids to create a camp full of self-centered douchebags now supports gay marriage, of course, big surprise. Enjoy your great career rise with it Rashad.

The family as a unit is already considered trash in America and the western world nowadays, fewer and fewer people know what it means so why am I not surprised. Most of this generation already hates marriage, and so few have known what the love and unconditional support of a stable family means, something that was taken for granted earlier.

I'm sure LiberalForum will hate me and the two other token people on here who still express any sort of opinion against the noble gay marriage. Let alone that gay people were always free to do what they want and live together, and already have civil unions that put them at par legally and on a tax basis with heterosexual couples. 

No they must have "marriage", and EVERY CHURCH or institution which most of them hate anyway must be FORCED to perform or recognize their marriage at the point of the govts. gun. No child put up for adoption can be refused to a gay couple.

Only their "freedom" matters, not the freedom of belief for anyone else. Not the freedom of any of the churches or communities or their stance on performing the marriages. Not the freedom of children who were never asked if they wanted two same-sex parents who are not capable of CREATING them in the first place (not even in principle mind you, as opposed to mere infertility). Taking away other people's rights for some is the new "personal freedom", what a laugh. 

I'm sure fakepaidliberalstudies.com has lots of great studies about how two dads is so healthy for little jimmy how nice. And how the divorce rate for straight couple is 50000% higher than paragon gay couples. Of course of all the gay people I've known in relationships or live-ins (and yes surprisingly I do know many and am friends with otherwise), most of them lasted less than a few weeks or couple of months, were non-exclusive (i.e. open relationships), and the "good ones" lasted a few years. But what does my stupid anecdotal evidence have next to fakepaidliberalstudies and it's excellent staff of unbiased scientists, I'll believe them over my eyes any day.

Let the negs flow, will be glad to return it nicely wrapped in red.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Just out of interest, how many of you see being gay as a 'choice' as opposed to a genetic trait you are born with?

Im pretty sure you can't raise a child to be gay if they are genetically hetrosexual.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Killz said:


> Just out of interest, how many of you see being gay as a 'choice' as opposed to a genetic trait you are born with?
> 
> Im pretty sure you can't raise a child to be gay if they are genetically hetrosexual.


There is NO proven reliable study to give the existence a gay gene or it being genetically predestined, not a single one. Go ahead, google it. Every study you find will give a negative in that regard or give a small print footnote about how it's not actually proven in human genes but is a hypothesis (i.e. bs propaganda for gullible readers). 

There is some pseudoscience nonsense about "epigenetics", but without any proof, isolated/documented case, or actual "epi-genetic" isolation shown (if such a thing is possible) for homosexuality in humans or any other species for that matter.

As far as is it a conscious choice, I believe it is probably not in many or most cases. There are many subconscious and historical factors involved, though sometimes it is conscious as well. I know a guy that was a total womanizer, went bi for a while after he was unable to get turned on with just girls, crossed over to exclusively gay for a while, then got back to bi. I know most people would technically categorize him as "bi" then, but I've heard many gay people talk about how it's not 3 simple categories of "gay", "straight" and "bi", how it's actually a continual spectrum across all of it and people move across the spectrum all the time, and in that respect or sort of situation I believe there is choice involved.

I'm not saying I understand all of it or am an expert, nor do I believe homosexual people are less of a person or better/worse than me overall as a human beings. All I'm saying is, it is not proven to be genetic, nor is the actual lifestyle proven to be good or stable for a family unit / children's health.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Being heterosexual isn't a choice (as far as I know at least... let me know if it isn't because being gay would solve most of my problems) so being homosexual is not a choice either. 

I don't believe it's genetic as in the sense of "that's the gay gene right there" but as everything in human physiology it's chemical. There are drugs that can alter sexual behaviour, some can cause hypersexuality and some can alter sexual orientation. All of these effects wear off once you're clean. It's _probably_ genetic but most likely there's more than one gene that cause the effect.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Being heterosexual isn't a choice (as far as I know at least... let me know if it isn't because being gay would solve most of my problems) so being homosexual is not a choice either.
> 
> I don't believe it's genetic as in the sense of "that's the gay gene right there" but as everything in human physiology it's chemical. There are drugs that can alter sexual behaviour, some can cause hypersexuality and some can alter sexual orientation. All of these effects wear off once you're clean. It's _probably_ genetic but most likely there's more than one gene that cause the effect.


And until you offer me hard proof or an isolated gene or set of genes, your "probably" is as good as "in my biased opinion / fantasy I would like you to believe". 

And you're saying your "probably" / liberal opinion is now good enough to force all of society to comply and play along / physically perform these ceremonies at gunpoint, without any proof whatsoever? Whether they accept your "probably" as proof or not? Because that's what Gay Marriage is asking for, excuse me, forcing. 

At least heterosexuals having/raising kids is built in to biology, nature, evolution and common sense.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> At least heterosexuals having/raising kids is built in to biology, nature, evolution and common sense.


No (if you're talking of the concept of heterosexual couples alone), the only thing that you could say is built in to biology is a male and a female individual having sex so the female gets pregnant. How kids are raised is much more a social construct. Particularly in primitive (so to say closer to nature) cultures it is pretty common to find poligamy and/or children being raised by the whole community, often particularly the grandparent generation, and not necessarily by the couple they are the offspring of.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> And until you offer me hard proof or an isolated gene or set of genes, your "probably" is as good as "in my biased opinion / fantasy I would like you to believe".
> 
> And you're saying your "probably" / liberal opinion is now good enough to force all of society to comply and play along / physically perform these ceremonies at gunpoint, without any proof whatsoever? Whether they accept your "probably" as proof or not? Because that's what Gay Marriage is asking for, excuse me, forcing.
> 
> At least heterosexuals having/raising kids is built in to biology, nature, evolution and common sense.


No, man. I was just answering Killz's question. And yeah, I used "probably" because I don't know. Just an educated guess.

My personal belief is that nobody should ever get married. I just think that homosexuals should have the same privileges as anyone. Who am I to deny someone's unhappiness?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Voiceless said:


> No (if you're talking of the concept of heterosexual couples alone), the only thing that you could say is built in to biology is a male and a female individual having sex so the female gets pregnant. How kids are raised is much more a social construct. Particularly in primitive (so to say closer to nature) cultures it is pretty common to find poligamy and/or children being raised by the whole community, often particularly the grandparent generation, and not necessarily by the couple they are the offspring of.


Yes, sometimes by the COMMUNITY / lion pride / elephant herd / ant workers etc. at large, or by grandparents which has the same dynamics just of an older generation, but never by a gay couple within the same group. That example just doesn't exist in nature or any society, no matter how primitive, so your own example fails you.



Hammerlock2.0 said:


> No, man. I was just answering Killz's question. And yeah, I used "probably" because I don't know. Just an educated guess.
> 
> My personal belief is that nobody should ever get married. I just think that homosexuals should have the same privileges as anyone. Who am I to deny someone's unhappiness?


Then that is your belief and your peer groups alone, do not try to force it on society. 

Who are you to deny someone's happiness? EXACTLY. Who are you or the govt to force a church to perform a marriage against EVERYTHING they have been taught or believe? 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Who are you to force a child to be raised by a gay couple without his or her say? This is different than a hetero couple by the way, because the answer to that would be "nature". Nature forced that child to be raised by a hetero couple by default, if there's a problem with that, take it up with THE UNIVERSE.

No one is denying gays their right to happiness, that's the point. Gay Civil Unions are ALREADY THE LAW in ALL OF THE US and WESTERN EUROPE. They already have the right to do exactly they want as couples, be recognized for it, and LEGALLY have all the same rights as a married couple.

What they want now is the RIGHT to take others rights. Their RIGHT to make OTHERS unhappy. Their RIGHT to override children's and churches and communities' rights. That is no RIGHT.

So your question back to you, who are you to deny people their happiness? Or do only those people who the media caters to matter in terms of happiness?


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

It takes a special kind of person to be so stonewall against something that has no effect on anyones lives, other than the people directly involved, in anyway shape or form. 

This thread has done nothing to prove to me otherwise. Some very surprising and bigoted opinions flying round here lately.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Yes, sometimes by the COMMUNITY / lion pride / elephant herd / ant workers etc. at large, or by grandparents which has the same dynamics just of an older generation, but never by a "gay couple" within the same group. That example just doesn't exist in nature or any society, no matter how primitive, so your own example fails you.


Not really, I didn't even mention gay couples. I just contradicted the idea that a heterosexual couple is the "natural" constellation to raise children.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Killz said:


> It takes a special kind of person to be so stonewall against something that has no effect on anyones lives, other than the people directly involved, in anyway shape or form.
> 
> This thread has done nothing to prove to me otherwise. Some very surprising and bigoted opinions flying round here lately.
> 
> ...


How does it not affect my life? If my church or minister is forced against his will to perform a ceremony he or the church at large does not believe in (as is the case in Netherlands), that very much affects me, via my concern for him and the church and my community, and what it preaches to me and my kids.

On the contrary, why do gay couples care so much about forcing churches to recognize or perform their union? What are WE doing to affect THEIR lives with ALL THEIR rights within their civil unions? Yeah there are some hate groups / extreme churches that preach hatred for other human beings, but they are a minority, go take it up with them, not ALL OF SOCIETY OR ALL FAITHS and force them to do you bidding at gunpoint.

And why is it "stonewalling" to be concerned for kids? Do you flip the channel whenever a missing child ad comes on? Do you tell a child crying alone on the street to bugger off? As a society, it's NORMAL to be concerned for kids, who are not mature enough to voice their own opinions or will yet.



Voiceless said:


> Not really, I didn't even mention gay couples. I just contradicted the idea that a heterosexual couple is the "natural" constellation to raise children.


Fine, please allow me to append. Heterosexual couples + community rearing, both are good and validated in nature. The topic Rashad brought up is Gay (Homosexual couples) marriage and child rearing, and that's still not validated.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> How does it not affect my life? If my church or minister is forced against his will to perform a ceremony he or the church at large does not believe in (as is the case in Netherlands), that very much affects me, via my concern for him and the church and my community.
> 
> On the contrary, why do gay couples care so much about forcing churches to recognize or perform their union? What are WE doing to affect THEIR lives with ALL THEIR rights within their civil unions? Yeah there are some hate groups / extreme churches that preach hatred for other human beings, but they are a minority, go take it up with them, not ALL OF SOCIETY OR ALL FAITHS and force them to do you bidding at gunpoint.
> 
> ...


Firstly, no vicar is forced against his will to marry gay couples. Vicars can pick and choose who they marry, and im talking about straight couples as well. In this country, it is pretty difficult to get a vicar to marry you if you don't attend the church or live in the parish for that church. Talking about vicars being forced is ludicrous.

Secondly, the fact that vicars would feel forced is part of the problem. Why should they be so against it? For moral reasons? I highly doubt it. A lot of vicars are more than willing to overlook the morality of something when they choose to.

There is ZERO evidence that children raised by gay couples grow up any different or worse to those raised by straight couples. Hell, there are some straight couples who do absolutely TERRIBLE jobs of raising children. Just look at prisons, murderers, rapists, child molestors... 99.9% of those people have not been raised in a gay household.

I have no experience of childrens homes but I bet the vast majority, given the option at a young age would rather have grown up in a loving home where both parents of the same sex than in a government home.


----------



## Budhisten (Apr 11, 2010)

Might I also add that homosexual parents are, on average, more engaged and prepared for parenthood.

Roughly half of heterosexual couples have their first child "accidentally" whereas homosexual couples have to make a decision (And still fight a pretty hard fight some places) to have a child of their own.


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

I have seen a difference of opinion on this issue all through this thread but I have not noticed many Bigoted statements or anti gay comments.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Just to clarify, I wasn't singling liddlienko out as making anti gay or bigoted comments. I was speaking in the general sense of this thread and more specifically, the transgender thread.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Killz said:


> Firstly, no vicar is forced against his will to marry gay couples. Vicars can pick and choose who they marry, and im talking about straight couples as well. In this country, it is pretty difficult to get a vicar to marry you if you don't attend the church or live in the parish for that church. Talking about vicars being forced is ludicrous.
> 
> Secondly, the fact that vicars would feel forced is part of the problem. Why should they be so against it? For moral reasons? I highly doubt it. A lot of vicars are more than willing to overlook the morality of something when they choose to.
> 
> ...


Two wrongs don't make a right.

The fact that there are some priests in a certain denomination that are child abusers does not mean all vicars in all denominations of every religion must then acknowledge and promote child sexual abuse, or that all of them are hypocrites. The argument is ludicrous, just because there are some people in society that commit murders, should we be forced to make murder legal then?

Same logic again, the fact that there are some TERRIBLE straight parents does not gay child rearing right. Again this is the same faulty logic, 2 wrongs making a right. Those bad straight parents are also not healthy or right, and gay parents are also not healthy. 

You can't give me examples of other wrong things to justify more wrong things ... if there are straight men who commit domestic violence and beat their wives, the solution is not to say, well let's make it so that gay people can do it too! They have a right! The solution is to say, no, actually it's wrong for both of them. People need to do a better job and be held more accountable for it, period.

Secondly yes, the current law in Denmark doesn't force individual vicars, but it does force THE CHURCH itself. Regardless of what it believes or teaches it's individual vicars. It will be FORCED to find someone within it's church, even if they don't believe in it, and do it. If they don't, they are penalized or liable. Forcing at a slightly higher level to pressure the individuals from the top instead of directly is still force.

There is absolutely no evidence FOR the argument that children could be raised healthily by gay couples either. As I said, not a single organism or society in nature does it, and no UNBIASED studies can prove it. Besides, not ending up in prison isn't the only parameter, I would like a detailed look at how the kids themselves feel, achieve and sustain relationships in their future.

I DO know that the STABLE, LOVING, HETEROSEXUAL relationship and constant support of my parents has been an ANCHOR in my life (in addition to constant attention from my grandparents as well) and has been a tremendous role model from both sides. I am thankful every day for their love, support and teachings, something I really don't think is completely received from two people of the same sex. The higher rate of broken marriages, depressions etc. from children of single parents confirms this. I don't mean to hurt anyone about this, but I just think it's a very positive thing to have that love and rounded support.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

> I DO know that the STABLE, LOVING, HETEROSEXUAL relationship and constant support of my parents has been an ANCHOR in my life (in addition to constant attention from my grandparents as well) and has been a tremendous role model from both sides. I am thankful every day for their love, support and teachings, something I really don't think is completely received from two people of the same sex. The higher rate of broken marriages, depressions etc. from children of single parents confirms this. I don't mean to hurt anyone about this, but I just think it's a very positive thing to have that love and rounded support.


I agree with that, at least for the most part. I happen to believe a gay couple can show equal love and support as a straight couple. You don't, which is fine. I'm not one to force my opinions on to people but someone has to debate the other side of this topic.






Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Cowgirl said:


> I'm not too sure I like the insinuation here, we don't teach our children to be gay. My ex had a 7 year old son and I spent two years of my life with those two. My sexuality never came up.


I insinuated nothing. It was a clear statement and I don't know about your private life with your ex, but in my opinion, two men kissing each other in their sofa will somehow affect a watching kid's life.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Killz said:


> I agree with that, at least for the most part. I happen to believe a gay couple can show equal love and support as a straight couple. You don't, which is fine. I'm not one to force my opinions on to people but someone has to debate the other side of this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True that, props to your right to your beliefs and double props to the way you express them and debate. There are some touchy topics sometimes, but hey it's them fighters that bring it up.

At the end of the day, whether I agree with someone here or not, I admire how mature and civil the membership here generally is at discussion and sharing ideas. 

Many times I have gained insights because of it, and hopefully the reverse is true as well at times (though I'm probably not as mature about it as many others, such as yourself). Cheers !


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> I insinuated nothing. It was a clear statement and I don't know about your private life with your ex, but in my opinion, two men kissing each other in their sofa will *somehow affect a watching kid's life.*


You're right. It will probably make them extremely accepting and understanding people when it comes to minorities and their struggles.

It won't affect their sexuality, though.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Ape City said:


> You're right. It will probably make them extremely accepting and understanding people when it comes to minorities and their struggles.
> 
> It won't affect their sexuality, though.


Yes, because clearly kids aren't shown to be easily influenced emulators. 

http://www.drugfree.org/uncategorized/young-children-emulate-habits

You're right, they're probably there tapping their pipe and thinking "By George, the minorities, how they suffer! I must write a thesis forthwith!"


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Ape City said:


> You're right. It will probably make them extremely accepting and understanding people when it comes to minorities and their struggles.
> 
> It won't affect their sexuality, though.


Kids learn a lot by example, so instead of walking hand to hand with a little girlfriend in the kindergarten, there will be examples of little boys doing it with other little boys instead, because their "parents" do it in front of them. I understand some people believe this is not only natural, but also desirable. Not for me, I reckon.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

This debate is silly. My oldest sister is a lesbian. Both of our parents and our stepmother are straight as are all of our siblings but her. She didn't "learn it" from anyone's example, its just the way she is.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

HexRei said:


> This debate is silly. My oldest sister is a lesbian. Both of our parents and our stepmother are straight as are all of our siblings but her. She didn't "learn it" from anyone's example, its just the way she is.


Again, this is faulty logic. Just because things can happen without a certain factor does not mean a factor can't increase likelyhood.

Jusy because a fire can happen without open flamea (from circuits etc.) doesn't mean we should all light bonfires in our living rooms.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> I insinuated nothing. It was a clear statement and I don't know about your private life with your ex, but in my opinion, two men kissing each other in their sofa will somehow affect a watching kid's life.


Well first off, we weren't two men, we were two women. Second off, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect your opinion, however we disagree at the core of it all here as you seem to be under the impression that it would have a negative effect on a child, whereas I can see that it makes them more accepting and therefore it's a positive effect.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

I like this idea that somehow gay people flaunt themselves having sex in front of their children....I'm pretty sure they would treat it the same way straight couples do.

Also more gay people would benefit this world, overpopulation is a serious problem.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Again, this is faulty logic. Just because things can happen without a certain factor does not mean a factor can't increase likelyhood.


Except you have no proof that it does. I'll take my anecdotal evidence over your opinion for now.



edit: this is getting hilarious. All you manly men here, are you really telling me that you'd be off sucking dicks if you'd witnessed more gay people doing gay stuff when you grew up? Seriously? You're straight, but you'd actually begin to like gay sex that easily and simply? i'm beginning to think there's a lot more slightly not-straight people in this thread than are willing to admit it...


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Except you have no proof that it does. I'll take my anecdotal evidence over your opinion for now.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: this is getting hilarious. All you manly men here, are you really telling me that you'd be off sucking dicks if you'd witnessed more gay people doing gay stuff when you grew up? Seriously? You're straight, but you'd actually begin to like gay sex that easily and simply? i'm beginning to think there's a lot more slightly not-straight people in this thread than are willing to admit it...


I'm more curious to the religious beliefs of those manly men you are referring to. I think that could be a major factor in this debate.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Yes, because clearly kids aren't shown to be easily influenced emulators.
> 
> http://www.drugfree.org/uncategorized/young-children-emulate-habits
> 
> You're right, they're probably there tapping their pipe and thinking "By George, the minorities, how they suffer! I must write a thesis forthwith!"


that isnt the point at all. the point i was making is they will have to deal with being different growing up. the will be less likely to grow up homophobic or racist since their parents are also accepting people and had to deal with adversity. im not trying to say they understand from your persective what is going on. they will form their own perception.

kids emulating their parents proves me point. the real question is do you believe sexuality is a learned behavior? you seem to think it is when in fact studies show the opposite. ill find you some later if you want.







MMA-Sportsman said:


> Kids learn a lot by example, so instead of walking hand to hand with a little girlfriend in the kindergarten, there will be examples of little boys doing it with other little boys instead, because their "parents" do it in front of them. I understand some people believe this is not only natural, but also desirable. Not for me, I reckon.



so what if a little boy is comfortable holding hands with anotherittle boy? do you think that makes him gay? the little boy wouldnt even attach sexual reference to that and when he grows up will end up straight (most likely) like the majority of the world. he just is less likely to be a narrow minded homophobe.




Liddellianenko said:


> Again, this is faulty logic. Just because things can happen without a certain factor does not mean a factor can't increase likelyhood.
> 
> Jusy because a fire can happen without open flamea (from circuits etc.) doesn't mean we should all light bonfires in our living rooms.


the only likelyhood that would be increased are the chances of someone who is already homosexual coming out of the cloaet instead of lying to themselves for 20 years because daddy always hated "them damn queers".

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> This debate is silly. My oldest sister is a lesbian. Both of our parents and our stepmother are straight as are all of our siblings but her. She didn't "learn it" from anyone's example, its just the way she is.


The example you gave is valid, but the debate is far from being silly. I absolutely believe when someone is bound to be gay or even have other extra-ordinary aspirations, that will happen one way or another. However, those are not the only cases. Many people just don't have an identification yet and those, as children, will have their judgment affected by what they see in front of them.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> The example you gave is valid, but the debate is far from being silly. I absolutely believe when someone is bound to be gay or even have other extra-ordinary aspirations, that will happen one way or another. However, those are not the only cases. Many people just don't have an identification yet and those, as children, will have their judgment affected by what they see in front of them.


That doesn't make sense to me. You must believe that sexuality is a choice to be made then, rather than a physiological response? Answer me this please, if sexuality were simply a choice, why would I choose to subject myself to back alley beatings, verbal slurs on an almost daily basis, and losing close friends, All of which have happened to me? Also, if it's not too personal, if you do believe it is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?


----------



## H33LHooK (Jul 13, 2011)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> The example you gave is valid, but the debate is far from being silly. I absolutely believe when someone is bound to be gay or even have other extra-ordinary aspirations, that will happen one way or another. However, those are not the only cases. Many people just don't have an identification yet and those, as children, will have their judgment affected by what they see in front of them.


Let's say you're correct: children will model what they see daily- two people deeply committed to each other and him, working hard every day, and doing all the Good Things parents and spouses should.

Why would anyone have a problem with Johnny seeing this behavior every day?

For the most part, I think people disguise their squeamishness for two men kissing as something else; specifically, "Think of the poor children!".

There are crappy people and crappy parents. What we need more of in this world are good _people_.

I believe in human rights- equally applied. No one should have more rights than anyone else.

.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

Cowgirl said:


> That doesn't make sense to me. You must believe that sexuality is a choice to be made then, rather than a physiological response? Answer me this please, if sexuality were simply a choice, why would I choose to subject myself to back alley beatings, verbal slurs on an almost daily basis, and losing close friends, All of which have happened to me? Also, if it's not too personal, if you do believe it is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?


I personally don't think it has to be either or. I don't think all gay people were born gay. I do think some where born gay. Why does it have to be one or the other? Everyone is different. You can't always compare your situation to others. Just my opinion.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

This thread has shown us exactly how ugly and ignorant some of our members can be.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

OU said:


> I personally don't think it has to be either or. I don't think all gay people were born gay. I do think some where born gay. Why does it have to be one or the other? Everyone is different. You can't always compare your situation to others. Just my opinion.


A learned preference would fall under fetishism which isn't the same thing as predisposition. It is likely that many people described as bisexual or pansexual started off with a single predisposition but developed fetishes for others. A learned attraction wouldn't erase an existing one.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

I would like to say I'm shocked by some of the statements I've read in this thread, but I'm really not.

I find it offensive that some members think that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or some kind of mental health problem. If two gay parents have a kid who turns out to be gay...so what? As long as they're good human beings and contribute to society and respect themselves, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I know an older lesbian couple who have three children who are all married and in heterosexual relationships. Parents are not always the primary factor of influence to children, they interact with more people than just their parents and are influenced by other children and other adults.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

Ari said:


> I would like to say I'm shocked by some of the statements I've read in this thread, but I'm really not.
> 
> I find it offensive that some members think that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or some kind of mental health problem. If two gay parents have a kid who turns out to be gay...so what? As long as they're good human beings and contribute to society and respect themselves, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I know an older lesbian couple who have three children who are all married and in heterosexual relationships. Parents are not always the primary factor of influence to children, they interact with more people than just their parents and are influenced by other children and other adults.
> 
> ...


Exactly what I was pointing toward before. I think a persons faith plays a large part in where they come out on this subject. Generally Christians are firmly against the belief of transgender and homosexuality with rare exception.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

OU said:


> Exactly what I was pointing toward before. I think a persons faith plays a large part in where they come out on this subject. Generally Christians are firmly against the belief of transgender and homosexuality with rare exception.


And that's understandable. But regardless of their faith in the Bible, they have to remember that the Bible doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a collection of written works and myths from a bygone age that they choose to believe in. It's not scientific fact, and you can't use a faith-based belief system to deny natural rights to human beings.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Cowgirl said:


> Well first off,* we weren't two men, we were two women*. Second off, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect your opinion, however we disagree at the core of it all here as you seem to be under the impression that it would have a negative effect on a child, whereas I can see that it makes them more accepting and therefore it's a positive effect.


The world doesn't turn around you. 1st you said I was insinuating something, now, you believed I was referring on you and your partner specifically. Regardless two men, two women. And also as broad this discussion is you keep bringing yourself into it, than will complain criticism is crashing close to your home. If someone is really happy and secure about it's choices in life, certainly wouldn't be struggling with this subject in an internet forum. It is a matter of taste and choice. I respect that, but do not agree.



Ape City said:


> so what if a little boy is comfortable holding hands with anotherittle boy? do you think that makes him gay? the little boy wouldnt even attach sexual reference to that and when he grows up will end up straight (most likely) like the majority of the world. he just is less likely to be a narrow minded homophobe.cloaet instead of lying to themselves for 20 years because daddy always hated "them damn queers".


If you used to hold hands with another boy when you were a kid or is corfortable with the view of your boy walking hand to hand with another, good for you. Congrats for your far more advanced POV, but don't call everybody disliking this view a homophobe. 



Cowgirl said:


> That doesn't make sense to me. You must believe that sexuality is a choice to be made then, rather than a physiological response? Answer me this please, if sexuality were simply a choice, why would I choose to subject myself to back alley beatings, verbal slurs on an almost daily basis, and losing close friends, All of which have happened to me? Also, if it's not too personal, if you do believe it is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?


Read again. I said when someone is bound to be gay it will be...blahh, go up there and read again. Can't answer something you made up.


----------



## Warning (Nov 18, 2009)

Wow you people 
As long as I get free food at the wedding.
I do not care who is getting married.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

Ari said:


> And that's understandable. But regardless of their faith in the Bible, they have to remember that the Bible doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a collection of written works and myths from a bygone age that they choose to believe in. It's not scientific fact, and you can't use a faith-based belief system to deny natural rights to human beings.


I agree, my thoughts on the bible are very similar to yours.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

Just rofl at the thought of people actually choosing their sexual preference. That's right, people choose to be gay. Forget being wired to like pssy, let's try a bit of cock today instead and turn gay. :laugh: Utterly ridiculous and astounding ignorance.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> The world doesn't turn around you. 1st you said I was insinuating something, now, you believed I was referring on you and your partner specifically. Regardless two men, two women. And also as broad this discussion is you keep bringing yourself into it, than will complain criticism is crashing close to your home. If someone is really happy and secure about it's choices in life, certainly wouldn't be struggling with this subject in an internet forum. It is a matter of taste and choice. I respect that, but do not agree.
> 
> 
> If you used to hold hands with another boy when you were a kid or is corfortable with the view of your boy walking hand to hand with another, good for you. Congrats for your far more advanced POV, but don't call everybody disliking this view a homophobe.
> ...


You were replying to a post I made, I'm sorry I assumed you would be talking about me in that sentence as you had been the sentence before. It was wrong of me to assume, and I apologize. I certainly don't believe the world revolves around me, I'm simply trying to offer my perspective on things, belonging to the homosexual community, the transsexual community and the combat sports community. I also apologize if you think I'm handling any criticism in a bad way, at the end of the day, I don't need a poster on an MMA forum's approval to be happy. I am sorry if I upset you  

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Just rofl at the thought of people actually choosing their sexual preference. That's right, people choose to be gay. Forget being wired to like pssy, let's try a bit of cock today instead and turn gay. :laugh: Utterly ridiculous and astounding ignorance.


I think it's funny for you to assume everyone has the same mentality you do and the same thought process. Just because it doesn't make sense to you and how you are wired doesn't mean someone isn't out there wired differently. I believe in individualism and the idea that there are many different thought process out there. I think to assume no one ever made the "choice" is silly since you are only considering your thought process.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

OU said:


> I think it's funny for you to assume everyone has the same mentality you do and the same thought process. Just because it doesn't make sense to you and how you are wired doesn't mean someone isn't out there wired differently. I believe in individualism and the idea that there are many different thought process out there. I think to assume no one ever made the "choice" is silly since you are only considering your thought process.


would you care to give an example of how such an alternate thought process might unfold?


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

random statistics

more than 43% of serial killers are gay/bi.

3-4% of the population is gay/bi.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

OU said:


> I think it's funny for you to assume everyone has the same mentality you do and the same thought process. Just because it doesn't make sense to you and how you are wired doesn't mean someone isn't out there wired differently. I believe in individualism and the idea that there are many different thought process out there. I think to assume no one ever made the "choice" is silly since you are only considering your thought process.


Rofl, it isn't my "thought process", it's called Biology. People are wired the way they are. Straight or gay, this isn't some choice you make in life. Jesus Christ.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> random statistics
> 
> more than 43% of serial killers are gay/bi.
> 
> 3-4% of the population is gay/bi.


Intriguing, can you cite your source for this?

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> 3-4% of the population is gay/bi.


Not true. That is the number for self identifying homosexual who are living as such through the us census. That doesn't include bisexuals or people who just don't want to reveal their sexuality to the government. Comprehensive studies put the number at between 6-10 percent of the population. Though it is impossible to know really.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

HexRei said:


> would you care to give an example of how such an alternate thought process might unfold?


That would be impossible for anyone to assume. But how can a man be married and have children, loving his wife for years and then later down the road have a relationship with a man? That happens countless times. He loved the mother of his children but now he loves his male partner. I beleive individuals fall in love with individuals and that doesn't have to be limited to gender or sex. Difficult for me to personally understand why someone would do that but that is because that person is wired differently then I am and I accept that. Why do some people like sports and others have no interest in it? People can have varying thought processes on the same subject. I don't understand how someone can't enjoy a good football game, but obviously some people don't. 
People evolve in all kinds of ways, my thought process now is not same as it was when I was 18. I don't even like the same foods. People change, their mentality changes, preferences change, why can't sexual preference change?


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Rofl, it isn't my "thought process", it's called Biology. People are wired the way they are. Straight or gay, this isn't some choice you make in life. Jesus Christ.


Jesus Christ? Are you a Christian? People's preference can't change and you have biology that proves that? No you don't.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

OU said:


> That would be impossible for anyone to assume. But how can a man be married and have children, loving his wife for years and then later down the road have a relationship with a man? That happens countless times. He loved the mother of his children but now he loves his male partner. I beleive individuals fall in love with individuals and that doesn't have to be limited to gender or sex. Difficult for me to personally understand why someone would do that but that is because that person is wired differently then I am and I accept that. Why do some people like sports and others have no interest in it? People can have varying thought processes on the same subject. I don't understand how someone can't enjoy a good football game, but obviously some people don't.
> People evolve in all kinds of ways, my thought process now is not same as it was when I was 18. I don't even like the same foods. People change, their mentality changes, preferences change, why can't sexual preference change?


Loving someone doesn't necessarily have to do with sexual attraction to them. If we are presuming sexual attraction is part of the basis for both situations then that person would be bisexual or pansexual not homosexual.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

Cowgirl said:


> Intriguing, can you cite your source for this?
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com App


just google it, theres 20 pages the come up supporting that number or more


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> just google it, theres 20 pages the come up supporting that number or more


Surely if there's that many you can cite one academic study.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

I'm really surprised at the amount of people who seem to believe that ones sexuality is influenced by watching your parents. Many of our day to day feeling, thoughts, and deep desires are biological, and fall pretty heavily on the nature side of things. Preferences, such as fetishes, tall, short, fat, hairy, skinny, athletic etc, are learned. A non sexual example of this would be a serial killer. They may have a neurological imbalance that may cause them to become obsessed or fixated and lead to erratic behavior, but their choice of victim and fetish relies heavily on the nurture side of things. I like to think of sexuality that way.

A child is born with a sexual predisposition and develops preferences based on what they are exposed to. So you could have a male child who is born being predisposed to be attracted to other males, but if he grows up in a strict ant-gay environment he may marry a women, have three kids, and become the leader of the local anti-gay society. The big difference is a child who is predisposed to be straight growing up in a huge pro-gay city in a gay family doesn't have anything to fear if they "come out" straight. In the first example you have the hate of homophobic people nurturing the gay man to act straight. In theory a straight person has nothing to fear; their parents don't expect them to be gay! 

Children are born with predispositions, similar to instinct in animals but far more malleable. I child could be lacking the correct balance of a certain neurotransmitter and be predisposed to have a short temper, for example. I child could also be spoiled and develop a short temper that has nothing to do with an imbalance cognitively. But I personally have never read a study that indicates sexual preference is a learned behavior. There are many more examples that indicate the opposite, that sexuality is an innate instinct and driving force, and the way in which we satisfy those instincts (our preferences) are learned.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Nature vs nurture absolutely does not matter. there is only one important thing to remember

GOD HATES ***S!


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> just google it, theres 20 pages the come up supporting that number or more


Those 20 pages are irrelevant to my request, I asked you to post *your* source, not for you to tell me to google it, google doesn't prove anything.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Purgetheweak (Apr 23, 2012)

Whoop dee ******* doooooo! Although with the amount of radical christians in MMA, Rashad is probably in the minority.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Purgetheweak said:


> Whoop dee ******* doooooo! Although with the amount of radical christians in MMA, Rashad is probably in the minority.


A Vitor rant on gays?

'Go home! You're a man who loves another man! You're not a man! You're a woman! Go home! I'll take your wife! I need that!'


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

This is just your opinion so why would you be surprised? Nothing is proven either way and never will be. I don't agree with you at all but I can't back up my opinion and respect others opinions. Its all just opinion and specualation.


Ape City said:


> I'm really surprised at the amount of people who seem to believe that ones sexuality is influenced by watching your parents. Many of our day to day feeling, thoughts, and deep desires are biological, and fall pretty heavily on the nature side of things. Preferences, such as fetishes, tall, short, fat, hairy, skinny, athletic etc, are learned. A non sexual example of this would be a serial killer. They may have a neurological imbalance that may cause them to become obsessed or fixated and lead to erratic behavior, but their choice of victim and fetish relies heavily on the nurture side of things. I like to think of sexuality that way.
> 
> A child is born with a sexual predisposition and develops preferences based on what they are exposed to. So you could have a male child who is born being predisposed to be attracted to other males, but if he grows up in a strict ant-gay environment he may marry a women, have three kids, and become the leader of the local anti-gay society. The big difference is a child who is predisposed to be straight growing up in a huge pro-gay city in a gay family doesn't have anything to fear if they "come out" straight. In the first example you have the hate of homophobic people nurturing the gay man to act straight. In theory a straight person has nothing to fear; their parents don't expect them to be gay!
> 
> Children are born with predispositions, similar to instinct in animals but far more malleable. I child could be lacking the correct balance of a certain neurotransmitter and be predisposed to have a short temper, for example. I child could also be spoiled and develop a short temper that has nothing to do with an imbalance cognitively. But I personally have never read a study that indicates sexual preference is a learned behavior. There are many more examples that indicate the opposite, that sexuality is an innate instinct and driving force, and the way in which we satisfy those instincts (our preferences) are learned.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

js9234 said:


> This is just your opinion so why would you be surprised? Nothing is proven either way and never will be. I don't agree with you at all but I can't back up my opinion and respect others opinions. Its all just opinion and specualation.


I developed my opinion getting my psychology degree. So while it may not necessarily be true, and I don't expect anyone to take my word for it based on that, I have had access to enough studies to know that most children coming from gay and lesbian parenthood household do not turn out gay themselves. You can choose to ignore the evidence or not believe it, but there is evidence that supports my opinion. If I could link the journal articles here I would, but here's some I found quite easily:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01182.x/abstract



> 37 children raised by gay mothers or transexuals...most were aware of their parents sexual orintation. Only one child was found to have an atypical sexual orientation. The remaining children all had sex typical preferences. The 13 older children in the study all reported heterosexual erotic fantasies and behavior


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract



> To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances. Having begun to respond to heterosexist and homophobic questions posed by psychological theory, judicial opinion, and popular prejudice, child development researchers are now in a position also to explore a broader range of issues raised by the emergence of different kinds of gay and lesbian families.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract



> Twenty–three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

> Source, "over 43%": "Homosexual **** and Murder of Children", published in Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 18 No. 1, Feb 2003.
> Technically, 69% of the serial killers in this study were homosexuals (i.e., people who were self-described homosexuals or people who had engaged in homosexual behavior immediately prior to, during, or after committing their murders). The lower statistic of 43% cited above is the proportion who were homosexual among people who molested or raped and then murdered children: 43% of these perpetrators were homosexuals. This lower figure, however, includes people who killed only a single person, and are thus not classified as serial killers. The lower figure is used in the article above (as "over 43%") because it comes from a larger sample size. Presumably, if the sample size were expanded to include a wider range of years, the proportion of serial killers who are homosexuals would remain between the proportion in this study who are serial killers (69% homosexuals versus 31% heterosexuals) and the proportion of all killers in this study (43% homosexual versus 57% heterosexual). Also note the approximately 50% of murders committed by homosexuals reported by Warren with regards to murders of adults. See also: Gemert, F. van, "Chicken kills hawk: gay murders during the eighties in Amsterdam", published in Journal of Homosexuality. 26(4), 149-174 (1994).


if you want a source you can actually see if yourself then go find those books/articles.

It makes no difference to me rather or not you take it as truth, im just putting it out there. Hopefully, it is not just you being arrogant that makes you want me to find the truth for you but rather you being lazy.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> if you want a source you can actually see if yourself then go find those books/articles.
> 
> It makes no difference to me rather or not you take it as truth, im just putting it out there. Hopefully, it is not just you being arrogant that makes you want me to find the truth for you but rather you being lazy.


I'm not being arrogant, nor am I being lazy, I'm simply striving to understand your point. If you are going to throw facts around, you should cite the source. That's all.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

Cowgirl said:


> I'm not being arrogant, nor am I being lazy, I'm simply striving to understand your point. If you are going to throw facts around, you should cite the source. That's all.
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com App


understood.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> if you want a source you can actually see if yourself then go find those books/articles.
> 
> It makes no difference to me rather or not you take it as truth, im just putting it out there. Hopefully, it is not just you being arrogant that makes you want me to find the truth for you but rather you being lazy.





> The Family Research Institute (FRI), originally known as the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality (ISIS), is an American non-profit organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado which states that it has "...one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse".[2] The FRI is part of a movement of organizations, often faith-based (sometimes called the Christian right), which seek to influence the political debate in the United States. They seek "...to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level.


And this is why its important to cite your source. This is like using race statistics produced by Stormfront.


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

Furthermore, the FRI's research (and Dr. Cameron's research in general) has been rejected by the scientific community and courts.

In an amicus curiae brief in an ongoing Supreme Court case, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, etc. all rejected his research as methodologically flawed and biased.*

For instance, that study about 43% of serial killers being gay was really about the sex of child molesters and their victims, not the adult to adult sexual relationships of killers.


*They also said, "scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; that most gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults do not experience their sexual orientation as a choice; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; and that same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents."

Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Ape City said:


> I'm really surprised at the amount of people who seem to believe that *ones sexuality is influenced by watching your parents*.





Ape City said:


> A child is born with a sexual predisposition *and develops preferences based on what they are exposed to.*


Big contradiction in one single post, don't you think?

Anyway, it is proven most sex offenders have been abused in childhood, but you really think to watch a gay couple 24/7 under your roof would have zero influence in these children being gay or not in the future, something far less significant than becoming a sex offender? Note, I am not saying it's right or wrong to be gay or not. But you think there's no influence at all? Seriously?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Are we going to try to equate sex abuse with having a LGBT parent?


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Big contradiction in one single post, don't you think?
> 
> Anyway, it is proven most sex offenders have been abused in childhood, but you really think to watch a gay couple 24/7 under your roof would have zero influence in these children being gay or not in the future, something far less significant than becoming a sex offender? Note, I am not saying it's right or wrong to be gay or not. But you think there's no influence at all? Seriously?


Reading comprehension is essential, I see it as, he is saying that sexual orientation is biological, but fetishes are learned.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Big contradiction in one single post, don't you think?
> 
> Anyway, it is proven most sex offenders have been abused in childhood, but you really think to watch a gay couple 24/7 under your roof would have zero influence in these children being gay or not in the future, something far less significant than becoming a sex offender? Note, I am not saying it's right or wrong to be gay or not. But you think there's no influence at all? Seriously?


It isn't a contradiction as Ape and I have both stated in this thread predisposition is genetic and fetishism is learned they are different. Your interactions with everything influence fetishism not your starting point. Severe psychological trauma can't be compared to general existence and fetishism that develops as a result of mental disorder also has to be separated from fetishism that develops as a result of normal interactions.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Big contradiction in one single post, don't you think?
> 
> Anyway, it is proven most sex offenders have been abused in childhood, but you really think to watch a gay couple 24/7 under your roof would have zero influence in these children being gay or not in the future, something far less significant than becoming a sex offender? Note, I am not saying it's right or wrong to be gay or not. But you think there's no influence at all? Seriously?


Nope I meant exactly what I said. You are born with a predisposition and get your preferences from what you are exposed to. Your sexuality, or predisposition, is predetermined and your preferences are influences by what you see. So you might have a straight male who has a huge foot fetish, for one reason or another. His predisposition is to be attracted to women, his preference is for feet.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Cowgirl said:


> Reading comprehension is essential, I see it as, he is saying that sexual orientation is biological, but fetishes are learned.


Sexual orientation is NOT biological. I think that was far covered already. There was no outstanding difference found between gays and straights. That being said. It is clear there are factors that will provoque that turn or not in different people. These factors could come from the environment, they could even be spiritual.
I refuse to believe a fetiche is learned. I assure you I learned mines from no one. 
By the way, Cowgirl, apologies accepted. Don't worry if things are said directly sometimes. There will always be respect. 

Hex. C'mon, I already wrote one thing is far more significant than the other, as the causes are as well. The point is. Kids watch, kids try, kids may like it. Not against no choices, but in favor for maturity to set in before kids can make their choices.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

OU said:


> Jesus Christ? Are you a Christian? People's preference can't change and you have biology that proves that? No you don't.


It's called natural instincts buddy. You don't get to think about your sexual preference and choose who you are attracted to, it's part of nature. The same way it's part of our nature to want to eat food when we are hungry, although you aren't going to die with lack of sex, it's a part of the same natural instinct and urge. You're instincts either draw you in towards women, or draw you in towards men, there is no picking and choosing, and I think it's hilarious that you think people can actually choose whether they want to be straight or gay.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> if you want a source you can actually see if yourself then go find those books/articles.
> 
> It makes no difference to me rather or not you take it as truth, im just putting it out there. Hopefully, it is not just you being arrogant that makes you want me to find the truth for you but rather you being lazy.


Why? You certainly haven't read them, and Smacky already clobbered you on the topic. You cherrypicked the statistic blindly, only bothered to check for a source (which congrats, there again, awesome source) after someone called you out on it, and at this point are still carrying on because it agrees with your established worldview and hey, you already said it so why give up now?



MMA-Sportsman said:


> Hex. C'mon, I already wrote one thing is far more significant than the other, as the causes are as well. The point is. Kids watch, kids try, kids may like it. Not against no choices, but in favor for maturity to set in before kids can make their choices.


If you're advocating for straight people to raise children but that gay parents shouldn't because they might rub off, it actually kind of sounds like you're the one advocating making the choice for them, lol. 

Sorry, I just don't feel like it makes sense. I could see if as Ape mentioned it might cause a person to more readily explore one side of themselves, if that side exists, since they may feel otherwise hindered from doing so in another family culture, but what's to say gay parents will be more guilty of that than straight parents?


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

HexRei said:


> Why? You certainly haven't read them, and Smacky already clobbered you on the topic. You cherrypicked the statistic blindly, only bothered to check for a source (which congrats, there again, awesome source) after someone called you out on it, and at this point are still carrying on because it agrees with your established worldview and hey, you already said it so why give up now?
> 
> If you're advocating that straight people can raise children but that gay parents shouldn't because they might rub off, it actually kind of sounds like you're the one advocating making the choice for them, lol.
> 
> Sorry, I just don't buy feel like it makes sense. I could see if as Ape mentioned it might cause a person to more readily explore of one side of themselves, if that side exists, since they may feel otherwise hindered from doing so in another family culture, but what's to say gay parents will be more guilty of that than straight parents?


simply because there are many sources, i just picked a random one to make someone happy. 

Heres another that deals with murder and much more.



> Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, an on-line search service, scans the whole text of over 50 English regional and national newspapers, largely in the U.S., but also including major papers in Australia, England, Canada, and New Zealand (e.g., the Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, Independent [London], Ottawa Citizen, etc.). For 1989 through 2002 inclusive, every news story that included "child molestation" was examined -- a total of 6,444 stories which, after eliminating repeat stories about the same cases, reduced to 1,914 unique child molestation events. The 6,444 story database was double-checked by running "murder" and "killed" against it. Only news stories were tallied, not editorials or opinion pieces, so these were stories of fairly recent events.
> 
> One hundred and three news stories involved the **** and/or murder of children: 90 involved the molestation and murder of a child or children, 11 stories involved only the abduction and **** of children, and two the **** and mutilation, but not the murder, of the children involved. Of the 90 news stories where the child was raped and murdered (0.47% of the unique child molestation stories), 40% involved homosexual molestation.
> 
> ...


----------



## trimco (Feb 4, 2011)

Many politicians who come out vehemently against homosexuality have (gay) skeletons in their closet.

Rashad is probably not gay.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> If you're advocating for straight people to raise children but that gay parents shouldn't because they might rub off, it actually kind of sounds like you're the one advocating making the choice for them, lol.
> 
> Sorry, I just don't feel like it makes sense. I could see if as Ape mentioned it might cause a person to more readily explore one side of themselves, if that side exists, since they may feel otherwise hindered from doing so in another family culture, but what's to say gay parents will be more guilty of that than straight parents?


Yeah, you used IF to start your post, which means you really are not sure what I stand for, but believes throwing "lol" at me is appropriate. Buzz off, then.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

Wow, what a thread.

For the record, i commend Rashad and support equal rights across all people regardless of sexuality, colour or creed etc

But sexuality isn't biological and there is no evidence to support that idea, it's just a preference - and guess what guys? That's OK.

I don't eat Fish (not a euphemism) but could I technically put it in my mouth, swallow and digest it's meaty goodness? YES!

Could i technically have sex with another man? YES! ..It's just my preference not to.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> *Sexual orientation is NOT biological*. I think that was far covered already. There was no outstanding difference found between gays and straights. That being said. It is clear there are factors that will provoque that turn or not in different people. These factors could come from the environment, they could even be spiritual.
> I refuse to believe a fetiche is learned. I assure you I learned mines from no one.
> By the way, Cowgirl, apologies accepted. Don't worry if things are said directly sometimes. There will always be respect.
> 
> Hex. C'mon, I already wrote one thing is far more significant than the other, as the causes are as well. The point is. *Kids watch, kids try, kids may like it. Not against no choices, but in favor for maturity to set in before kids can make their choices.*


Got anything to prove this? I respect you having an opinion but that seems to be all you have. Could you give me some examples of how your parents influenced you to be straight? Or was it just a rich tapestry of heterosexual behavior that made you who you are today? Do you think you would be gay today if you had homosexual parents?

You refuse to believe fetishes are learned? Perhaps this was a joke, but if not I am now seriously wondering how you can believe sexual orientation is a learned behavior but fetishes are not. 


As for the second part I think that is most classic stereotype of the parent afraid of his kid becoming gay I ever have heard. "Kids may like it" lol. Do you honestly believe someone has ever become gay from experimenting at an early age? "I never liked dicks before but hey this feels great!". Sorry if this comes off harsh but I feel like im talking to 1950 here. And the maturity before making a decision part is awesome. I'll remind all those teenagers trying to decide whether they are gay or straight to wait until they are mature enough to decide their sexuality. Just...wow.

How old were you when you were mature enough to decide to be straight or gay?


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> simply because there are many sources, i just picked a random one to make someone happy.
> 
> Heres another that deals with murder and much more.


That's not another one. That's the same study, by the same guy. His studies aren't scientific, he purposely crafts his methodology to get the results he wants. That's why his work is rejected by every major medical body in the US. He's been ruled to have given factual misrepresentations in legal proceedings. His group is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In short, that's not a credible study from a legitimate researcher. Just because he calls a publication a journal, doesn't make it a legitimate peer reviewed source.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Ape City said:


> Got anything to prove this? I respect you having an opinion but that seems to be all you have. Could you give me some examples of how your parents influenced you to be straight? Or was it just a rich tapestry of heterosexual behavior that made you who you are today? Do you think you would be gay today if you had homosexual parents?


 Do you get anything to prove your point as well? Didn't think so. So, yes, we are debating opinions. 


Ape City said:


> You refuse to believe fetishes are learned? Perhaps this was a joke, but if not I am now seriously wondering how you can believe sexual orientation is a learned behavior but fetishes are not.


Yes, you can learn to have a fetishe, I reckon. Fetishe is a special taste, after all.
Maybe these two things (sex orientation and fetishe) are more mixed up than apart, then. So many ppl fond of men and women at same time and specific fetishes toward one or other gender. 



Ape City said:


> As for the second part I think that is most classic stereotype of the parent afraid of his kid becoming gay I ever have heard. "Kids may like it" lol. Do you honestly believe someone has ever become gay from experimenting at an early age? "I never liked dicks before but hey this feels great!". Sorry if this comes off harsh but I feel like im talking to 1950 here. And the maturity before making a decision part is awesome. I'll remind all those teenagers trying to decide whether they are gay or straight to wait until they are mature enough to decide their sexuality. Just...wow.
> 
> How old were you when you were mature enough to decide to be straight or gay?


You don't sound harsh, you sound like an assh*le pretending to be an expert. Parents would normally educate their children according to their own values. No news here, but with family losing power nowadays, ppl want to criticize parents for that. Yeah, they may like it. Straight guys went to prison and ended up liking it. Maybe it feels good to be banged from behind, but it's not to be homophobic to dislike the idea. 
About the maturity thing, yeah teenagers will have to be controled even for hetero activities while under my roof, so that will apply to gay matters as well. 
And quit this "lol" stuff. This is the most disrespectiful shot line ever.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Do you get anything to prove your point as well? Didn't think so. So, yes, we are debating opinions.
> 
> Yes, you can learn to have a fetishe, I reckon. Fetishe is a special taste, after all.
> Maybe these two things (sex orientation and fetishe) are more mixed up than apart, then. So many ppl fond of men and women at same time and specific fetishes toward one or other gender.
> ...


Let me see if I fully understand your viewpoint, correct me if I'm wrong please as this is simply what I get from reading your posts.

You believe that gay marriage is detrimental to the traditional marriage. You believe that it is harmful for the children to grow up exposed to that environment, because it will make them more likely to be gay themselves. 

My counterpoint, assuming I have understood you correctly, is how can you justify your viewpoint on gay marriage when by extension, your logic also means that straight couples make it more likely to have straight children, and you don't see that as outside interference. Seems like you're limiting your views based on what you want to see.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

So yeah, Rashad publically supporting gay marriage and gay rights....great stuff.

Now lets keep it to THAT topic, everyone has inboxs to PM for a reason!


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

Cowgirl said:


> Let me see if I fully understand your viewpoint, correct me if I'm wrong please as this is simply what I get from reading your posts.
> 
> You believe that gay marriage is detrimental to the traditional marriage. You believe that it is harmful for the children to grow up exposed to that environment, because it will make them more likely to be gay themselves.
> 
> ...


That's funny.

I don't care about gay marriage either way but find it unusual that so many people find homosexuality to be in anyway natural. Not being able to reproduce would be the big indicator for anyone not mentally retarded imo. Sure, they can adopt or acquire a skeet donor but it's not the same. 

As far as Rashad coming out is concerned, I would bet that he loses many more fans than he gains. Congratulations, Suga', if there were a pile of homosexuals watching mma, you would be their new favorite fighter:laugh:


----------



## Swiss (Jul 19, 2011)

Rusty said:


> That's funny.
> 
> I don't care about gay marriage either way but find it unusual that so many people find homosexuality to be in anyway natural. Not being able to reproduce would be the big indicator for anyone not mentally retarded imo. Sure, they can adopt or acquire a skeet donor but it's not the same.
> 
> As far as Rashad coming out is concerned, I would bet that he loses many more fans than he gains. Congratulations, Suga', if there were a pile of homosexuals watching mma, you would be their new favorite fighter:laugh:


I guess you must find blowjobs to be unnatural as well then? Sucks to be you.

As far as Rashad speaking out, I doubt he cares whether he wins or loses fans. For some people having a voice is more important than following the herd.


----------



## Cookie Monster (Jan 5, 2013)

Swiss said:


> As far as Rashad speaking out, I doubt he cares whether he wins or loses fans. For some people having a voice is more important than following the herd.


I agree, it's vital to have a voice about these things. Props to Rashad.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Cowgirl said:


> Let me see if I fully understand your viewpoint, correct me if I'm wrong please as this is simply what I get from reading your posts.
> 
> You believe that gay marriage is detrimental to the traditional marriage. You believe that it is harmful for the children to grow up exposed to that environment, because it will make them more likely to be gay themselves.


Not detrimental at all and to be gay is not harmful in any way. It's just I am straight(this is a funny word) for whatever reason and because of that, I prefer my children to grow up straight. That's not too hard to accept, I guess. If they will become gays or not is beyond my power and if that really happen they will have my support as a loving father, but will I be jumping of joy inside? No I wouldn't. 


Cowgirl said:


> My counterpoint, assuming I have understood you correctly, is how can you justify your viewpoint on gay marriage when by extension, your logic also means that straight couples make it more likely to have straight children, and you don't see that as outside interference. Seems like you're limiting your views based on what you want to see.


Look, maybe my fault, but I don't know if I got this question quite correctly, but are you aware of my opinion on gay marriage already? I am in favor, yes, just like Rashad. I am in favor that gay people bond together and have the respect of society for their choice and the benefits of countless legal matters straight couples do. I don't agree with institutions being forced to celebrate cerimonies they are against in their core, though. 

I work with gays and I have friends and very close relatives who are gays, one of them, a cousin, grew up with me and I realize he was gay since he was very litlle kid. I can't relate he becoming gay to his parents, who are straight. However, I have other examples close by where external influence and example did lead to a turn in life, icluding little kids. 
I have a colleague from work who left his long loved wife and later attached to a man. Good for him. Everything goes, but the thing is some people are not only satisfied about the great level of freedom they have to do what they want nowadays. They want to criticize my personal view on not wanting my kids to be gay. And some( not you) come with this "lol", "wow" crap as this subject is not even debateble.

And I have showed before how open I am. I am not throwing religion commandments(I very open about people's beliefs in this area, as you may know it) or saying you'll burn in hell or you are wrong to be gay and I am right to be straight, but yet some jump to relate my counterpoint thoughts as homophobic. I realize some don't even read it correctly, so anxious to point a finger to your face.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Not detrimental at all and to be gay is not harmful in any way.


Completely wrong. The average life expectancy of gays is 20-40 years shorter then heterosexuals. 

Source

The amount of people coming infected by hiv/aids is also increasing with the amount of men becoming bisexual/gay thus further decreasing the life expectancy of the LGT community.


----------



## JWP (Jun 4, 2007)

well said rashad

good timing as it reminded me of a comedian i saw just last night named paul foot

among other things he said, "the highest level of homophobia..... is when you beat the shit out of people for not being homophobic" hehe got a good laugh


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

Pillow - please shut the **** up. Everything you have said is wrong and proven to be so. All you are doing now is spewing hate. The fact that you haven't been banned because of your comments so far is insane.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> Completely wrong. The average life expectancy of gays is 20-40 years shorter then heterosexuals.
> 
> Source
> 
> The amount of people coming infected by hiv/aids is also increasing with the amount of men becoming bisexual/gay thus further decreasing the life expectancy of the LGT community.


Oh FFS. You do realize that this guy Paul Cameron who conducted this study is the founder of the Family Research Institute, right? Yeah the same hate group source you cited a few pages ago...



> The Family Research Institute (FRI), originally known as the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality (ISIS), is an American non-profit organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado which states that it has "...one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse".[2] The FRI is part of a movement of organizations, often faith-based (sometimes called the Christian right), which seek to influence the political debate in the United States. They seek "...to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level."[2] The Boston Globe reported that the FRI's 2005 budget was less than $200,000.[3]
> 
> The FRI is run by Paul Cameron, who earned a doctorate in psychology at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1966. Cameron founded the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in 1982, and this institute later became the FRI.[3]
> 
> The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group[4] by the Southern Poverty Law Center[5][6] because of Cameron's discredited research and claims about LGBT people.[7][8][9][10]


 Did you cite them again by accident, or because it was hilariously silly?


I haven't gone back through your other response to me with a fine tooth comb yet but man I hope this is not an indicator of what to expect.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

deadmanshand said:


> Pillow - please shut the **** up. Everything you have said is wrong and proven to be so. All you are doing now is spewing hate. The fact that you haven't been banned because of your comments so far is insane.


No it actually is not, and im not spewing hate. I absolutely do NOT hate homosexuals. At all. None. I don't dislike them, and i dont treat them differently then anybody else. Oh i should be banned because i'm posting my opinions? Come on now, a guy makes a reference to the Bible and what it says and i simply correct him with what the actually says and yeh neg me with the comment "No one cares stfu". You are the only one spewing hate.



HexRei said:


> Oh FFS. You do realize that this guy Paul Cameron who conducted this study is the founder of the Family Research Institute, right? Yeah the same hate group source you cited a few pages ago...
> 
> Did you cite them again by accident, or because it was hilariously silly?
> 
> ...


I knew you would say that so i have another source ready. How can you even argue that a homosexual lifesteal will have the same average life expectancy of a heterosexual lifesteal? I mean come on, you're chance to be infected with aids just increased by like 1000%.

Source


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

Sometime you all should quit feeding this dead horse... No ones opinions are changing. And you all are arguing about shit that belongs on some alternative forum somewhere


----------



## Pif (Jan 25, 2013)

Pillow, how comes all of your sources are listed as "hate group" by SPLC ?

In all fairness, you can find those lists unworthy, but when I look up to studies in order to back up my personnal beliefs, I actually struggle to find them ever produced by "hate groups".
Let alone every damn time.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> I knew you would say that so i have another source ready. How can you even argue that *a homosexual lifesteal will have the same average life expectancy of a heterosexual lifesteal*? I mean come on, you're chance to be infected with aids just increased by like 1000%.
> 
> Source


I think the risks you are mentioning refer better to *promiscuity* rather than *homosexuality*, tough.

@HexRei. Sorry I told you to buzz of, man. I realize you ment no harm. Not characteristic of you, so I apologize for that.:hug:


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

Pif said:


> Pillow, how comes all of your sources are listed as "hate group" by SPLC ?
> 
> In all fairness, you can find those lists unworthy, but when I look up to studies in order to back up my personnal beliefs, I actually struggle to find them ever produced by "hate groups".
> Let alone every damn time.


Any group that doesnt support homosexuality is a hate group apparently.

Go find a study on rapist. post it so i can say "those guys are just a rapist hate group!!!"

Yes, completely different BUT generally when you are trying to prove something negative about a group of people, you're not going to support it!




I feel like i need to make something clear also - I do not hate homosexuals!!! AT ALL!!! I just don't support their lifestyle.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> No it actually is not, and im not spewing hate. I absolutely do NOT hate homosexuals. At all. None. I don't dislike them, and i dont treat them differently then anybody else. Oh i should be banned because i'm posting my opinions? Come on now, a guy makes a reference to the Bible and what it says and i simply correct him with what the actually says and yeh neg me with the comment "No one cares stfu". You are the only one spewing hate.


I'm not spewing any hate. I hate no one based off of skin color, gender, or religion. None of that matters to me in the slightest. Christian, Jew, Muslim, gay, straight, black, white... none of it matters to me. I just can't bring myself to give a **** about any of that.

But there is one thing I hate. Stupidity. Something you have displayed a staggering amount of in this thread. You hide behind the Bible and discredited "studies" to protect yourself from the backlash your kind of narrow mindedness deserves. The very fact that you feel the need to shield yourself so speaks volumes of how aware you are of your views inherent repugnance.



xxpillowxxjp said:


> Any group that doesnt support homosexuality is a hate group apparently.
> 
> Go find a study on rapist. post it so i can say "those guys are just a rapist hate group!!!"
> 
> Yes, completely different BUT generally when you are trying to prove something negative about a group of people, you're not going to support it!


This is your hatred clouding logic. A true scientific study - the only kind that actually means anything - would not have a set goal of proving that the homosexual lifestyle is a bad thing. It would have a goal about determining the sociological impact of same sex relationships. Your group has already determined that homosexuality is bad and is twisting their information to produce the desired result.

This is not science or fact. It is propaganda.



xxpillowxxjp said:


> I feel like i need to make something clear also - I do not hate homosexuals!!! AT ALL!!! I just don't support their lifestyle.


Ah... the vaunted homosexual slanted version of the "I don't mean to sound racist but". A simple disclaimer to try and distract from all of the incredibly hateful comments you have been making.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Hexabob69 said:


> Sometime you all should quit feeding this dead horse... No ones opinions are changing. And you all are arguing about shit that belongs on some alternative forum somewhere


Yes fellow Hex, I have to agree. it's not about Rashad, the UFC, or even MMA anymore, and I'm not sure it's a discussion that's going anywhere or belongs here necessarily. Locking for the moment.


----------

