[rex3]

So now that every one knows that homosexuality isn't really a choice, becuase research has shown that its all to do with the genes and pre-birth. Does that change anything? does that mean they have some sort of disability? becuase a pre-birth disablity isn't a choice?

That changes all the commercial built gay scene, becuase if not, then we could be soon having a wheel chair scene and have "wheel-chair" night clubs.

This may seem rude, but nothing is left alone in this forum, why should this be?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35176


Im on a wheel chair by the way, just thought this thread can help make acceptance for a new scene for me and my fellows.


Please dont take offence, iv just been reading some topics about *****s on the other topics in this forum, thought you cant critisize one topic and not an obvious other.

I dont actually know if any ones meant to reply to this dumb ass topic iv just opened, i should really think before i post.

[James]

Well, if a trait being present at birth meant it was a disability then something like, say, having blonde hair, or brown eyes or being short or tall would be considered disabilites.

[Sidrat2006]

Just because a gene is present it doesn't mean it's active.

I will have the courtesy of reading the link before posting my Views though.

To Be Edited.

excerpts from the source.

"Posted: October 20, 2003"

"The UCLA scientists discovered 54 genes in mice they say indicate sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth and the development of the sex organs."

Ahhh, just noticed the three year old date of the study.

So they're talking about MICE!! Okay. The UCLA is the University of California, Los Angeles. It does have a very good reputation for research and scientifical studies.

So it's a three year old study. Science and understand moves VERY fast boyo, so post something a bit more up to date if you will, helpfully including a study based on Human Beings.

The topic you refer to can be found here http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru....php?tid=45130

The topic was in no way derogatory to or about any particular grouping of human beings. It was merely the word in question and the uses. There are many posts and none of them (alright maybe one?) were negative. In fact it was one of my most enjoyable discussions in the TiBB forum. There's also a link to the wiki featuring the history and origin of the word that is very useful. I urge everyone to read it and see how a civilised discussion can be participated in without degrading anyones viewpoint.

As for the site, it seemed to be playing devils advocate for the sake of it. Which is fine if it sparks debate, and the study probably did three years ago.

Personally I believe sexuality is a preference. A straight guy who feels and acts feminine doesn't necessarily mean he's in denial of his sexuality.

Please spark debates on anything in the relevant threads, back up arguements or viewpoints with up to date material though.

Good luck.

[James]

Worldnetdaily (aka wingnut) is a US religious right website which is full of nonsense science and conspiracy theories.

[rex3]

very good point james, but having blonde hair is just the genes appearance, but turning gay at birth, is got to be some sort of disablity made by nature to keep the end of human kind playing on. And Im not being offensive, every one has the right to critisize everything. Theres this auro around certain communities, and the gay community play victim to make any questions or criticism offensive.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by rex3
the gay community play victim to make any questions or criticism offensive.

Thats awfully generalising.

But as Sidrat said; this experiment/study was done on rats which have a completely different physiology to humans. So it loses ecological validity.

[Sidrat2006]

James wrote "Worldnetdaily (aka wingnut) is a US religious right website which is full of nonsense science and conspiracy theories"

Which was exactly my impression. I'm glad I'm not too blinded by the term "scientific study" not to spot the sort of material they were hawking.

I don't mind if some people believe sexuality, choice of religion, the time they start their day is biological, nature or nurture. It could even be a mixture of all the above and still not make a blind bit of difference.

When does a Human Being stop being a human being? When they fall in love with the same gender? When they kill forty thousand human beings? When they take one life in self defense?

When humanity and society (whatever that actually is. If it means group of people, then boy are we in trouble as I believe a mob is reduced to the lowest and loudest mentality), can stop the need to label and pidgeon hole people I'm sure we'll all get on just fine and dandy.

I'm really wanting a drink now.

[rex3]

Thats awfully generalising.

Well why does poeple say Aislyne thinks she black, thats generalising all black people to speak like here... See things like that gets on my tits...

people generalised on that but not on other things (that has been made more socialy sensative). I dont have nothing against gays, but its the mind set that builds in society. My point is how people actually think, and how black people must FEEL when people go on about AISLYNE BEING BLACK!!!!!

[lily.]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

People aren't generalising black people anyway. People are stating that Aisleyne is acting like a stereotype. Which she is... Fashizzle mah nizzle... Get me?

Richard is also acting like a stereotype. The outfits.. the camp-ness. He is a joke. Not all gay people act like that.

You can't generalise in any situation... I wouldn't say that everyone who has a disability thinks the world owes them a living, or acts like they are superior etc... I wouldn't generalise. Every individual is different, and can't be pigeonholed on account of colour, race, gender, sexual preference, or in your case, disability.

edit to add: There's one wheelchair bound guy I know and he is an ar5ehole. That has nothing to do with his disability. That has to do with his unfortunate personality. It's the same with gays. I'm sure I won't like every gay person I meet. Some will have decent personalities, and some wont. That's life.

[rex3]

So the stereotype is that black people speak like that. And people actually go on about that stereotype. What about the stereotype that germans are still Nazis.


Before you get it all wrong i have nothing against gays, its just society im making a point of and i just used this paticular example.

[lily.]

Yes, the stereotype of a "gangsta" is to speak like that.

The stereotype of a "gay guy" is Graham Norton.

[rex3]

strops you say you wouldnt generalise a situation but isnt a stereotype a generalisation... at the end of the day what do you thinks the effect of a stereotype is? I obviously know that not every gay is good or bad.

ADD TO EDIT: But what Russel on national TV stated that "Aislyne thinks she black" imaging you were black and you herd that?

Statements like that is what divides communities in this country.

[rex3]

Nice avatar stropz i guess im on the wrong forum, i dont think i can post another 2000 posts about big brother.

[lily.]

A stereotype is a generalisation. However, I don't create a stereotype. It's there. Fact. I merely pointed out what the stereotype is. That does not mean that I adhere to stereotype rules to make judgement on people. Obviously.

You can't deny that stereotyping exists. Whether you use it as a basis to pass judgement on others is personal choice. I choose not to.

[lily.]

Personally, the term I would use to describe Aisleyne is "Wigga".

Tim Westwood fits into that category ...although he fits into the "Pr1ck" category also. But that's a whole other story...

I don't use the term wigga derogatively. I don't think it's a put-down or an insult to anyone. The fact remains that Aisleyne has adopted some stereotypical black/gangsta mannerisms.

For more information on the word "wigga", Click Here

[rex3]

Ok nice one Stropz, but an ass like Russel Brand chose to tell the nation that sterotype, the growth of that stereotype would surely grow.

[lily.]

I doubt that Russell has much influence on how the nation thinks. The bottom line is that if people are so easily influenced, then they probably have little or no intelligence to begin with.

Those are the people who create stereotypes and generalisations. Smarter people have more sense.

[rex3]

Well tell the sun readers.. you cant tell me that the sun doesnt influence, otherwise why would people look for guidance init.

[rex3]

OK I think this is abit dramatical and i wrote this post 1:30 in the morning and i shouldnt have on this forum. I think this is a complex situations but the bottom line is that there are the controllers of this society and we are not them. The Sun, TV and News stations are, what there agendas are is unknown, but undoubtly they are the ones that start stereotypes. E.g. Muslims are suicide bombers and so on.

Girls should be skinny guess what all girls arnt and untill they all are, then mags will find another money provoking method.