True, but there's a lot of truth in Herman Edward's "Don't push send" advice

 

We agree.

Irvin.

I didn't have a problem with what he said. He simply said he doesn't understand how a man could be interested in a man.

 

Seriously Clyde?

 

So you think sexual orientation is a choice?

At the top of the list must come the dumbest of them all. Chris Henry. Young man blew chances time and again, then literally threw his life away with yet another poor choice.

 

R.I.P. Chris

Seriously Clyde?

 

So you think sexual orientation is a choice?

 

I don't think it is a choice. Still don't understand it...

Seriously Clyde?

 

So you think sexual orientation is a choice?

 

I'm straight as can be, have no issue at all with gay men and women, don't think it's a choice, and it still baffles me that a guy could be sexually attracted to another guy. :idunno:

I think it's an affinity. I don't think it's genetic. I think Mike Wallace is a moron. A ridiculously fast and wealthy moron.

Mike Wallace can be a moron but I don't think its "okay" that he is getting ripped for these comments. His right to have an opinion. I'm with the others who don't see his comments as a big deal.

Seriously Clyde?

 

So you think sexual orientation is a choice?

 

Yes, seriously.

 

No, I do not think it's a choice.

I don't think it's genetic.

 

Same here. I see nothing wrong with his comments.

Yes, seriously.

 

No, I do not think it's a choice.

 

In other words you think Wallace is uninformed/ignorant on this issue?

Same here. I see nothing wrong with his comments.

 

Deuce, if you do not think it is genetic, do you think it is a choice?

In other words you think Wallace is uninformed/ignorant on this issue?

 

I'm struggling to see how you can come to that conclusion.

In other words you think Wallace is uninformed/ignorant on this issue?

 

I can't tell by that statement. He said he doesn't see how a man can be sexually attracted to another man. I don't see it either. However, I do know it happens. I just don't understand how it works.

 

That's why I took his statement to mean. He didn't say it went against the Bible. He didn't say it was morally wrong. He didn't say it should be illegal. He said he didn't get it.

 

What am I missing?

I'm struggling to see how you can come to that conclusion.

 

Not a conclusion but rather a question for Clyde. I am trying to understand Clyde's thinking because if I can understand that, then maybe I can understand Wallace's comment in some other way than either homophobic and/or derogatory in nature.