Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Would you abort a homosexual fetus and should it be allowed?

Yes, allowed
17
25%
No, allowed
21
31%
Yes, not allowed
1
1%
No, not allowed
24
36%
Other
4
6%
#13904647
Dave wrote:Today's liberals are wholly illiberal in that they routinely oppose the rule of law and seek to impose a pseudo-theocracy of liberal values and myths. We are entering into a new puritan period of religious hatred.

You're an avowed liberal speaking whacky Santorum-speak. What is this liberal pseudo-theocacy of which you speak?
#13904683
TruePolitics wrote:I don't really care about their sex lives. Why should I?


I am sure you don't really care. There must be some other reason why you must "understand WHY it happens". :|
#13904792
I am sure you don't really care. There must be some other reason why you must "understand WHY it happens".
No I think he is sincerely inquisitive, I too asked myself question about homosexuality and found answers impossible to come by? There are just so many questions, do most people become gay at certain point of their life, switching their interest, or they just never had interest for opposites sex. But can they have interest or arousal to opposite sex if they try or is it the opposite they try not to have attraction to same sex? Or what do homosexuals think about being together with the a person with whom they will not be able to conceive a child? There is actually lots of more questions that there is'nt answers for.
#13904881
Plaro wrote:No I think he is sincerely inquisitive, I too asked myself question about homosexuality and found answers impossible to come by? There are just so many questions, do most people become gay at certain point of their life, switching their interest, or they just never had interest for opposites sex. But can they have interest or arousal to opposite sex if they try or is it the opposite they try not to have attraction to same sex? Or what do homosexuals think about being together with the a person with whom they will not be able to conceive a child? There is actually lots of more questions that there is'nt answers for.


It's not easy being a queen among plebs.

There are whole categories of study, theory, history, sociology, psychology etc. that cover a range of knowledge derived from the homosexual experience. Why is it that some heterosexual men are able to absorb an elementary quantity of information relevant to the subject, while people like you and TruePolitics are monkeys at the monolith?

Are you stupid or something?
#13905332
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am sure you don't really care. There must be some other reason why you must "understand WHY it happens". :|


Why do you have to speak in sarcasm? Why can't you make a direct statement instead of using sneaky code language? Talk like a man not like a homosexual.
#13905693
Just found some studies that are very interesting.
Kinsey Reports
Vol1
Vol2

Also these two look good.
Researches on the Riddle of Male-Male Love by Karl Heinrich
"The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" by Evelyn Hooker

Also
http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Science_of_Desire.html?id=-q7tNRUn6b8C&redir_esc=y
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/kgiamanco.html

It seem from what I've read so far, no one really knows exactly what the heck is going on. Pretty much the less you think the better you are off. lol
#13905707
It seem from what I've read so far, no one really knows exactly what the heck is going on. Pretty much the less you think the better you are off. lol


Try reading your studies FIRST and then post what you believe the results mean? :roll:

It
#13905711
Well I have been, and that is my opinion so far, but yea point take I do have to read them fully to form my conclusion justifiably. I just know I will not finish reading them soon though, if ever. Ohh if I just had all the time in the world and a job that allowed for this with money to have access to the studies in fullness of material. :O
#13905881
Go to a school of Public Health. Then your career can be reading studies just like these. And doing some of your own. It is a fascinating field.
#13906778
Stormsmith wrote:You're an avowed liberal speaking whacky Santorum-speak. What is this liberal pseudo-theocacy of which you speak?

The set of values broadly lumped together as "political correctness" constitute a pseudo-religious doctrine which is enforced in polite society in all Western countries. Deviation from these values is considered immoral and frequently medicalized and criminalized--not unlike the Soviet Union's habit of labeling dissidents as insane.
#13906886
Dave wrote:The set of values broadly lumped together as "political correctness" constitute a pseudo-religious doctrine which is enforced in polite society in all Western countries. Deviation from these values is considered immoral and frequently medicalized and criminalized--not unlike the Soviet Union's habit of labeling dissidents as insane.


So, in your mind pseudo-theocracy is what was politically correct which was originally being well-bred or common courtesy? Ok. Thing is, when Santarum says it, it sounds as if he wants a school-boy's desk for himself in the oval office, and means to have the president's desk for the pope.

PS Deviation may mean amoral, or merely unschooled, which is polite speak for boarish.
#13907323
Stormsmith wrote:So, in your mind pseudo-theocracy is what was politically correct which was originally being well-bred or common courtesy? Ok. Thing is, when Santarum says it, it sounds as if he wants a school-boy's desk for himself in the oval office, and means to have the president's desk for the pope.

PS Deviation may mean amoral, or merely unschooled, which is polite speak for boarish.

Revisionism. It was considered impolite in the past to call a woman a whore. In fact, it was a rather more serious offense than today. It was not impolite to suggest that a woman's proper place is in the home as a dutiful and obedient wife.

So in my mind political correctness is not a euphemism for being well-bred, but rather one for cultural Marxism. The post-1960s attitudes on race, sex, and other prominent human cleavages are what I refer to.

As for Santorum he belongs to the school of people who knows that something seriously wrong has happened, but he doesn't know what is wrong. This basically describes the entire religious right.
#13907445
So in my mind political correctness is not a euphemism for being well-bred, but rather one for cultural Marxism. The post-1960s attitudes on race, sex, and other prominent human cleavages are what I refer to.


Cultural Marxism? :eh: You sound like William Lind. I prefer the notion that much of what is disparaged as Political Correctness is indeed just objection to good manners and even more importantly the rejection of plain clear thinking and common sense. Boorish behavior has allways been marginalized by the people with some form of good breeding.

I just voted in the Republican primary in Arizona. There was not choice on the ballot that reflected either smart thinking or good breeding.


Good-breeding is the result of much good sense, some good nature, and a little self-denial for the sake of others, and with a view to obtain the same indulgence from them.


The scholar, without good-breeding, is a pedant; the philosopher, a cynic; the soldier, a brute; and every man disagreeable.
#13907447
Drlee wrote:Cultural Marxism? :eh: You sound like William Lind.

Thanks, that is where I got the term from.

Drlee wrote: I prefer the notion that much of what is disparaged as Political Correctness is indeed just objection to good manners and even more importantly the rejection of plain clear thinking and common sense. Boorish behavior has allways been marginalized by the people with some form of good breeding.

I just voted in the Republican primary in Arizona. There was not choice on the ballot that reflected either smart thinking or good breeding.

Getting drunk in public and kicking over trash cans doesn't violate political correctness, but it is boorish.

Stating that discrepancies in achievement and behavior between various human populations has genetic causes violates political correctness, but it is not boorish.

You equating political correctness with good behavior reinforces my earlier point about political correctness being increasingly enforced on Western societies by social censure. Political correctness is basically the new Christianity, but with worse social results.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Key Rasmussen Polls

Or it was a vaguely worded question. "Additi[…]

UK votes to exit EU

I believe Nigel should be the next prime minister.

I hope Britain won't go down the route of voting u[…]

I think this guy has alot of insight. There are to[…]