Are there any homosexuals on Tour?

[14ledo81]

I agree with the logic of your post, and can see the viewpoint that all angles ought to be allowed in a debate. FWIW, I also agree with characterization of people who use the arguments identified above as moronic. And I also believe (as I hope we all do!) that if these same arguments are applied to any other segment of the population,(blacks,women,etc) they would be universally rejected as utterly ignorant and/or idiotic/moronic. Which of course, they would be. "I'm against ((race,gender)) because the bible or 'nature' says so" ... Preposterous. Not acceptable in civilized society. Just my opinion, which may be disputed, I suppose.

Some may think it is "peposterous" or "unacceptable" in todays society to be against (calling them morons) people who believe in the bible.

[sofingaw]

Nothing more, nothing less. Similar to how one who golfs is a golfer, and one who is prone to saying moronic things is a moron.

[nututhugame]

Originally Posted by sofingaw

If you mean characterizing them as gay people, which they are, then yes.

I only ask because although I haven't asked all of them, i'd bet the house that 99% of gay people wouldn't say it's a lifestyle choice. They'd say they were born that way which in their eyes falls firmly in the realm of nature. Is that argument valid for gays or does it make them morons?

[sofingaw]

What I meant (and said) was that if anyone argued that homosexuality was NOT natural, that would be a moronic argument. The laws and allowances of the natural world (see, science) are absolute as I understand them. To argue against them is what would make a moron, IMO. I (think?) we agree. Hope I have been clear enough. Sometimes I ramble and get confusing.

[sofingaw]

Certainly not trying to call anyone a moron who is not. Morons come in all shapes,sizes,colors, and sexual orientations, etc.

[sofingaw]

To be more clear, I would also characterize tall people as tall.

[sofingaw]

Some may think it is "peposterous" or "unacceptable" in todays society to be against (calling them morons) people who believe in the bible.

Yes, you are correct, some do think so.

[Valleygolfer]

Is it wrong that I am only interested in the lesbian side of this question....

[14ledo81]

Is it wrong that I am only interested in the lesbian side of this question....

Hmmm.. might not be wrong, but it could be "moronic".

[nututhugame]

Originally Posted by sofingaw

What I meant (and said) was that if anyone argued that homosexuality was NOT natural, that would be a moronic argument. The laws and allowances of the natural world (see, science) are absolute as I understand them. To argue against them is what would make a moron, IMO.

I (think?) we agree. Hope I have been clear enough. Sometimes I ramble and get confusing.

But a gay person citing nature as the reason they are gay is not moronic? I'm just saying that if the nature argument is not acceptable from one side it should not be acceptable from any side.

[Valleygolfer]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

Is it wrong that I am only interested in the lesbian side of this question....

Hmmm.. might not be wrong, but it could be "moronic".

[Ernest Jones]

Yes, you are correct, some do think so.

Lol, very well played.

[Ernest Jones]

Is it wrong that I am only interested in the lesbian side of this question....

I'll go out on a limb and say that there are no lesbians on the PGA Tour. Maybe the LPGA Tour...

[14ledo81]

But a gay person citing nature as the reason they are gay is not moronic? I'm just saying that if the nature argument is not acceptable from one side it should not be acceptable from any side.

LOL, very well played.

[Valleygolfer]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

Is it wrong that I am only interested in the lesbian side of this question....

I'll go out on a limb and say that there are no lesbians on the PGA Tour.

Maybe the LPGA Tour...

he did not say which tour we were talking about..... any senior tour gay guys here today? We all know there are lesbians on the lpga...

[nututhugame]

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

Is it wrong that I am only interested in the lesbian side of this question....

Lol.

[sofingaw]

LOL, very well played.

No. Here's an example: Gravity, a natural law. It works one way, and not the other. It pulls in a particular direction. Not more than one. To deny the way it works is moronic. Another, perhaps more apt example: Ball flight laws! (Which are governed by laws of physics, which are natural laws and include gravity, for one) A ball may either go left, or right. Lets call these ball flights, instead of hook and slice, just for example....something arbitrary... I dpnt know, how about.... 'Gay' and 'Straight' balls! So, a set of circumstances in nature create the potential for the 'birth' of a shot, gay or straight, based on the particulars of those circumstances. Club face angle, gender, clubhead path, hormones, etc. A shot is born! Is it gay or straight? Who knows right away? Not I. But once it matures, it is evident to all how that shot will be. Also evident to all except for morons, should be that no shot, or person, can be born straight or gay, hook or slice, without being allowed such by natural conditions, or 'nature'. To suggest that hooks come from the devil or slices are black magic, ignores the natural laws that created that shot, and is moronic. If its only gays (or hookers of the ball) that understand ball flight laws, that doesn't make their argument and reasoning invalid. Just misunderstood by those who don't (or choose to ignore it.) THOSE people, I would call morons. Your argument is that nature cannot be used to explain either straightness or gayness. That's wrong, since it clearly explains BOTH.

[shortgame]

Rory was on the Ellen DeGeneres show and came out of the closet the other day.