View Full Version : Queers Made Not Born
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts
But this is not news to critical thinkers.
avatar4321
02-03-2012, 01:42 AM
The whole "It's natural" argument is flawed anyway. There are alot of bad things that are natural. Violence is natural. Anger is natural. Lying is natural. Trying to avoid responsibility is natural. Being idle and lazy is natural. Being proud and arrogant is natural.
Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right. Nor does it mean we as humans don't have the power to choose a better path.
Christianity is based on the premise that Christ's Atonement can change human nature and make us new people born of the Spirit and not the flesh. And my life is a testament that the Atonement can change human nature. Because as I've used it in my life, I have overcome emotions or natural inclinations to the point where I am no longer inclined whatsoever to those habits and behaviors.
Repentence requires faith and work. But when you exercise faith to actually try to make changes in your life, God gives you power to overcome your weakness. So much so that former weaknesses become strengths.
I couldn't really care about whether its natural or not, whatever two consenting adults wana do with eachother is their business, not mine.
darin
02-03-2012, 05:48 AM
I couldn't really care about whether its natural or not, whatever two consenting adults wana do with eachother is their business, not mine.
WHATEVER they want to do? Bar nothing?
WHATEVER they want to do? Bar nothing?
Do i really have to attach caveats to such statements so its clear i don't mean they can murder each other etc? If you really want me to i will, but i'd be surprised if there was anyone who read my post who didn't know what i meant in the context of the topic.
darin
02-03-2012, 06:41 AM
Do i really have to attach caveats to such statements so its clear i don't mean they can murder each other etc? If you really want me to i will, but i'd be surprised if there was anyone who read my post who didn't know what i meant in the context of the topic.
You draw lines only when it's convienient.
You draw lines only when it's convienient.
Sigh.
Any sexual act that one or more persons wish to engage in, were all the persons present are of the age of consent, and willingly consenting to such acts (no matter how disguising I, or others may find them) is fine by me.
This does not include the right to take another's life, and you take part in such activities totally at your own risk.
Is that clear enough?
Though as previously said, I'm sure you (and anyone else reading) know exactly what I mean, don't pretend you don't understand.
darin
02-03-2012, 07:14 AM
Sigh.
Any sexual act that one or more persons wish to engage in, were all the persons present are of the age of consent, and willingly consenting to such acts (no matter how disguising I, or others may find them) is fine by me.
This does not include the right to take another's life, and you take part in such activities totally at your own risk.
Is that clear enough?
Though as previously said, I'm sure you (and anyone else reading) know exactly what I mean, don't pretend you don't understand.
So, other than sex, you don't condone any act two consenting adults engage in?
So, other than sex, you don't condone any act two consenting adults engage in?
You're much better than this nonsense dmp, but henceforth I won't be replying to you in this thread, kthanks.
darin
02-03-2012, 08:08 AM
Sorry for asking you to say what you mean. :)
Gunny
02-03-2012, 11:26 AM
The whole "It's natural" argument is flawed anyway. There are alot of bad things that are natural. Violence is natural. Anger is natural. Lying is natural. Trying to avoid responsibility is natural. Being idle and lazy is natural. Being proud and arrogant is natural.
Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right. Nor does it mean we as humans don't have the power to choose a better path.
Christianity is based on the premise that Christ's Atonement can change human nature and make us new people born of the Spirit and not the flesh. And my life is a testament that the Atonement can change human nature. Because as I've used it in my life, I have overcome emotions or natural inclinations to the point where I am no longer inclined whatsoever to those habits and behaviors.
Repentence requires faith and work. But when you exercise faith to actually try to make changes in your life, God gives you power to overcome your weakness. So much so that former weaknesses become strengths.
My first response is you have to explain "human nature". "Human" nature is to seek food, shelter, clothing and procreate. Everything after that is a learned trait. I have issue with the term "human nature" the same as I take issue with people calling these progressive, leftwingnut socialist "liberal, when they're anything but the meaning of the word.
My next response is I bet there are places you can go that'll test your bolded comment REAL good. I will go further to say that "nature" didn't make this socialist, "Big Brother" society we live in. We had our own Hell. Just as soon as we got the first wimpy, geeky lawyer who figured a way to screw over the strong with a bunch of words they aren't smart enough to know are meaningless without the force to back them up.
fj1200
02-03-2012, 11:45 AM
Does this also mean that straights are made and not born?
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 11:49 AM
Does this also mean that straights are made and not born?
I believe we all get our sexuality through learned behavior. I certainly wasn't looking at women and dirty magazines when I was 5, but through TV, friends, school and a ton of other things I was exposed to, I started to look at women in a different way by the time I was 10.
ConHog
02-03-2012, 12:16 PM
I believe we all get our sexuality through learned behavior. I certainly wasn't looking at women and dirty magazines when I was 5, but through TV, friends, school and a ton of other things I was exposed to, I started to look at women in a different way by the time I was 10.
That's part of what makes the issue cloudy.
Anyone who claims they know for fact one way or the other is full of shit.
darin
02-03-2012, 12:21 PM
Does this also mean that straights are made and not born?
Our sexuality is defined by our behavior. Our inclinations seem to be environment/experience-driven.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 12:27 PM
That's part of what makes the issue cloudy.
Anyone who claims they know for fact one way or the other is full of shit.
Except that so many other things are defined by genes, and way too many claim that queers are "born that way". If that was the case, there would be scientific proof of some sort after so many years of investigating the issue by scientists. But NOTHING has ever been found to support that argument, nothing.
ConHog
02-03-2012, 12:32 PM
Except that so many other things are defined by genes, and way too many claim that queers are "born that way". If that was the case, there would be scientific proof of some sort after so many years of investigating the issue by scientists. But NOTHING has ever been found to support that argument, nothing.
I don't know Jim, can you map out Noir's vegetarian gene? Oh and if you go look in the debate thread between OCA and myself, I posted a link to a study done by some pretty smart people that seemed to show that gays have different levels of hormones that straights, they also show a propensity for twins to be both be gay, etc etc.
I for one believe it's a choice, but admit that is my OPINION and I don't really know. Now in THIS thread it is appropriate to debate that but in the other thread, it is irrelevant anyway.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 12:33 PM
I don't know Jim, can you map out Noir's vegetarian gene? Oh and if you go look in the debate thread between OCA and myself, I posted a link to a study done by some pretty smart people that seemed to show that gays have different levels of hormones that straights, they also show a propensity for twins to be both be gay, etc etc.
I for one believe it's a choice, but admit that is my OPINION and I don't really know. Now in THIS thread it is appropriate to debate that but in the other thread, it is irrelevant anyway.
Nope, that's because his veggy is a CHOICE, not a gene.
ConHog
02-03-2012, 12:42 PM
Nope, that's because his veggy is a CHOICE, not a gene.
How do you know that? How do you know some people just aren't born not liking meat? Now granted, I put that in the same category as I put men born not to like women, very weird, but there is a LOT of weird shit out there.
You can't definitely say "gay is a choice end of story"
We CAN say , the evidence seems to suggest that gay is a choice, but that is a long way from saying "gay is choice".
By the same token gays can't definitely say "born gay." I refer to it as the theory of gayativity in that the theory is born gay, but no proof.
fj1200
02-03-2012, 02:21 PM
Except that so many other things are defined by genes, and way too many claim that queers are "born that way". If that was the case, there would be scientific proof of some sort after so many years of investigating the issue by scientists. But NOTHING has ever been found to support that argument, nothing.
Then there clearly must be a straight gene. Has that been discovered yet?
darin
02-03-2012, 02:22 PM
Then there clearly must be a straight gene. Has that been discovered yet?
Jim is saying Genes don't dictate our behaviour; especially sexual behaviour.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 02:38 PM
Then there clearly must be a straight gene. Has that been discovered yet?
WTF are you talking about? I stated VERY clearly that I think the queers learned their behavior, which would support me thinking that straight people did the same. Why you would think I believe there is a gay/straight gene is totally beyond me.
Does this also mean that straights are made and not born?
Weakest argument of them all, every human is born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex, thats unargueable.
fj1200
02-03-2012, 04:27 PM
WTF are you talking about? I stated VERY clearly that I think the queers learned their behavior, which would support me thinking that straight people did the same. Why you would think I believe there is a gay/straight gene is totally beyond me.
I must have completely misread your post or something. You're right, my logic clearly did not follow your post.
fj1200
02-03-2012, 04:28 PM
Weakest argument of them all, every human is born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex, thats unargueable.
Most do. Clearly not all.
Missileman
02-03-2012, 06:40 PM
Weakest argument of them all, every human is born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex, thats unargueable.
Riiight...and everyone is born with sight also, it's just that some people choose not to see.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 06:47 PM
Riiight...and everyone is born with sight also, it's just that some people choose not to see.
Those people would be called "blind" - and the medical and scientific field can both prove, explain & agree on why. Now, since you made the connection to being blind, you can show us the same type of proof and agreement from the medical/scientific field?
Missileman
02-03-2012, 07:12 PM
Those people would be called "blind" - and the medical and scientific field can both prove, explain & agree on why. Now, since you made the connection to being blind, you can show us the same type of proof and agreement from the medical/scientific field?
It's called a developmental disorder. The causes for some are known, others are still a mystery. They cause all sorts of problems, not just blindness. I'm of the opinion that they can also be responsible for homosexuality. There's likely not a gay gene, however, that doesn't mean homosexuals aren't born that way. You have no problem believing someone can be born blind, deaf, retarded, autistic, etc, but summarily dismiss the possibility that some people are born homosexual. It's a position that doesn't pass a common sense test.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 07:21 PM
It's called a developmental disorder. The causes for some are known, others are still a mystery. They cause all sorts of problems, not just blindness. I'm of the opinion that they can also be responsible for homosexuality. There's likely not a gay gene, however, that doesn't mean homosexuals aren't born that way. You have no problem believing someone can be born blind, deaf, retarded, autistic, etc, but summarily dismiss the possibility that some people are born homosexual. It's a position that doesn't pass a common sense test.
I believe someone can be born with those things as 99.99% of the time it can be detected and proven. I summarily dismiss gays being born that way as I've never seen, not a single case, of homosexuality being proven medically or scientifically. NOT EVEN ONE CASE!
Maybe I exaggerate the diseases and disorders that can be detected/discovered/proven or whatever you would like to call it. But we have an EXTREMELY long history with working with the things you describe, and the majority is medically known and can be shown/proven. Even if it was a dead split, 50/50, you would still be talking how many provable cases of the things you mention?
BUT NOT ONE CASE of anything to be "proven" about hoomosexuality, where it came from, genes, or ANYTHING.
Absent ANY such proof, I'm of the belief that it is learned behavior. As more cases come up and reasons are specifically pinpointed, I'll change my stance.
BUT NOT ONE CASE exists where ANYTHING can be proven to support humans are born with anything that causes them to be homosexuals.
Missileman
02-03-2012, 07:35 PM
I believe someone can be born with those things as 99.99% of the time it can be detected and proven. I summarily dismiss gays being born that way as I've never seen, not a single case, of homosexuality being proven medically or scientifically. NOT EVEN ONE CASE!
Maybe I exaggerate the diseases and disorders that can be detected/discovered/proven or whatever you would like to call it. But we have an EXTREMELY long history with working with the things you describe, and the majority is medically known and can be shown/proven. Even if it was a dead split, 50/50, you would still be talking how many provable cases of the things you mention?
BUT NOT ONE CASE of anything to be "proven" about hoomosexuality, where it came from, genes, or ANYTHING.
Absent ANY such proof, I'm of the belief that it is learned behavior. As more cases come up and reasons are specifically pinpointed, I'll change my stance.
BUT NOT ONE CASE exists where ANYTHING can be proven to support humans are born with anything that causes them to be homosexuals.
When you say proven, what proof do you think is needed to attest to someone being a homosexual over the fact that they are sexually attracted to/only interested in the same gender, especially if it's a developmental disorder?
Sir Evil
02-03-2012, 07:47 PM
the never ending debate of a bunch of guys talking about sticking another guy in the ass.... :gives:
Anyone have an interest in two hot women getting it on? that seems perfectly natural to me...:laugh2:
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 07:50 PM
When you say proven, what proof do you think is needed to attest to someone being a homosexual over the fact that they are sexually attracted to/only interested in the same gender, especially if it's a developmental disorder?
Even much of developmental disorders can be medically and scientifically explained, and at the very least, can be discussed. There isn't even anything to discuss amongst the scientific community, as there is nothing at all to discuss.
But, let's assume for a second that you are going in the right direction. We treat every other person with developmental disorders, even if not medicinally, so why aren't we doing the same for homos if it's a disorder?
Missileman
02-03-2012, 08:06 PM
Even much of developmental disorders can be medically and scientifically explained, and at the very least, can be discussed. There isn't even anything to discuss amongst the scientific community, as there is nothing at all to discuss.
But, let's assume for a second that you are going in the right direction. We treat every other person with developmental disorders, even if not medicinally, so why aren't we doing the same for homos if it's a disorder?
I know of no treatment for retardation. There hasn't been much success in treating blindness and deafness either. The brain's been hardwired incorrectly, short of a brain transplant, not sure much can be done. It is a scientifically proven fact that male and female brains are wired differently. If a male's brain developed along female lines or vice versa I can see that causing attraction to the wrong gender.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 08:12 PM
I know of no treatment for retardation. There hasn't been much success in treating blindness and deafness either. The brain's been hardwired incorrectly, short of a brain transplant, not sure much can be done. It is a scientifically proven fact that male and female brains are wired differently. If a male's brain developed along female lines or vice versa I can see that causing attraction to the wrong gender.
Via therapy, psychiatry and other means we help/treat the mentally retarded. People who are blind/deaf also get treatment via clinics and other places to help with their disorder. In fact, just about EVERY developmental disorder I can think of is treated in some manner. If you want to go a disorder route, you would need to explain why it's not treated in any way as a disorder by the medical community. We treat autism patients, we treat mental disorders, we treat ADD, we even treat downs syndrome which can't be cured. I don't think I can think of a single other medical disorder that we ignore.
Missileman
02-03-2012, 08:17 PM
Via therapy, psychiatry and other means we help/treat the mentally retarded. People who are blind/deaf also get treatment via clinics and other places to help with their disorder. In fact, just about EVERY developmental disorder I can think of is treated in some manner. If you want to go a disorder route, you would need to explain why it's not treated in any way as a disorder by the medical community. We treat autism patients, we treat mental disorders, we treat ADD, we even treat downs syndrome which can't be cured. I don't think I can think of a single other medical disorder that we ignore.
When you say treat, I assume you mean assist them in living with their condition? To my knowledge, there are no treatments for these afflictions where when finished the person is no longer afflicted.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 08:23 PM
When you say treat, I assume you mean assist them in living with their condition? To my knowledge, there are no treatments for these afflictions where when finished the person is no longer afflicted.
Every developmental disorder I am aware of gets a lifetime worth of treatment. That treatment being therapy, medication, psychiatry, living assistance, disability help... Every single developmental disorder I have looked up, and there are lots of them, are acknowledged as disabilities, much of that in a legal sense. Are you saying that being a homosexual is a disability as well?
Missileman
02-03-2012, 08:28 PM
Every developmental disorder I am aware of gets a lifetime worth of treatment. That treatment being therapy, medication, psychiatry, living assistance, disability help... Every single developmental disorder I have looked up, and there are lots of them, are acknowledged as disabilities, much of that in a legal sense. Are you saying that being a homosexual is a disability as well?
No, because the only symptom of their disorder is their sexual orientation. Most are quite capable of taking care of themselves without any special considerations.
DragonStryk72
02-03-2012, 08:30 PM
I believe we all get our sexuality through learned behavior. I certainly wasn't looking at women and dirty magazines when I was 5, but through TV, friends, school and a ton of other things I was exposed to, I started to look at women in a different way by the time I was 10.
Okay, so explain my dad Jim. He had a standard Mom and Dad, in an Irish catholic household. The 8th of 9 nine children, he has both sisters and brothers. Not one of them is gay, save him. His parents were not anyone's definition of liberal, or progressive for that matter, and frankly, had they discovered his secret, his parents would have put him out on the street. They had no gay friends, and were of the pure belief that gay=going to hell, period. So what if you saved a bus load of dying children from going off a cliff at the cost of your life, you're still going to hell cause you put from the rough. Yeah, Irish catholic essentially means "You are absolutely going to hell, unless you can prove otherwise."
This is not to say they didn't love him. They loved him every bit as much as they loved all their children, but those were the times. He was brought up to the standards of : You will find a woman, you will marry her, and you will produce offspring.
He is not effeminate, he was a Marine in Vietnam by his own choice, and if he didn't tell you himself that he was gay, you'd never realize it. No lisp (Though his accent is right outta Hell's Kitchen), no limp wrist, no dressing in female clothes. He wears flanel and jeans most the time, and/or his Yankees shirt and cap. He tried to "play straight" for more than 20 years, and his sexuality was a root cause of his alcoholism. He didn't want to be gay, Jim, at no point did he want it, and saw himself as a hideous for decades because of it. This is not an isolated story, Jim, and that's the problem.
Now, to be fair, yes, there are people who choose it. There are people who play up their "gayness", effecting a lisp and manner of walk that I find insulting in the extreme, not only to the gay community, but to those who legitimately have a lisp. We would used to joke that our friend Hector was a closet hetero because he would act so "gay", but had this obsession with breasts that was bit odd in someone who only wanted dick. We also called him the Puerto-Rican Princess, a name he took for his own.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 08:36 PM
No, because the only symptom of their disorder is their sexual orientation. Most are quite capable of taking care of themselves without any special considerations.
I'm confused, you did state it was a "developmental disorder", no? You do realize that by the very definition and name it's a disorder that makes it harder for one to "develop". They are considered "physical or psychological" disorders. Again, this would be the first one that the medical community ignores as if it were "normal".
Missileman
02-03-2012, 08:40 PM
I'm confused, you did state it was a "developmental disorder", no? You do realize that by the very definition and name it's a disorder that makes it harder for one to "develop". They are considered "physical or psychological" disorders. Again, this would be the first one that the medical community ignores as if it were "normal".
I'm using the term as a disorder that occurs during development, not as something that causes one to be "under-developed".
Edited to add, A birth defect if you will.
jimnyc
02-03-2012, 08:50 PM
Okay, so explain my dad Jim. He had a standard Mom and Dad, in an Irish catholic household. The 8th of 9 nine children, he has both sisters and brothers. Not one of them is gay, save him. His parents were not anyone's definition of liberal, or progressive for that matter, and frankly, had they discovered his secret, his parents would have put him out on the street. They had no gay friends, and were of the pure belief that gay=going to hell, period. So what if you saved a bus load of dying children from going off a cliff at the cost of your life, you're still going to hell cause you put from the rough. Yeah, Irish catholic essentially means "You are absolutely going to hell, unless you can prove otherwise."
This is not to say they didn't love him. They loved him every bit as much as they loved all their children, but those were the times. He was brought up to the standards of : You will find a woman, you will marry her, and you will produce offspring.
He is not effeminate, he was a Marine in Vietnam by his own choice, and if he didn't tell you himself that he was gay, you'd never realize it. No lisp (Though his accent is right outta Hell's Kitchen), no limp wrist, no dressing in female clothes. He wears flanel and jeans most the time, and/or his Yankees shirt and cap. He tried to "play straight" for more than 20 years, and his sexuality was a root cause of his alcoholism. He didn't want to be gay, Jim, at no point did he want it, and saw himself as a hideous for decades because of it. This is not an isolated story, Jim, and that's the problem.
Now, to be fair, yes, there are people who choose it. There are people who play up their "gayness", effecting a lisp and manner of walk that I find insulting in the extreme, not only to the gay community, but to those who legitimately have a lisp. We would used to joke that our friend Hector was a closet hetero because he would act so "gay", but had this obsession with breasts that was bit odd in someone who only wanted dick. We also called him the Puerto-Rican Princess, a name he took for his own.
I have to be honest, I have trouble replying to you sometimes as I feel like I'm walking on egg shells, and that if I speak my mind I'll offend you in a way not intended. I guess we all offend one another in a way when we write about very hot topics, but it's the intent that should matter. With my words, I am not going out of my way to say anything to personally offend you.
With that said, would YOU consider that your Dad has a "disorder"? And if so, what kind would you consider it? And wouldn't you then want to know further about this disorder, and if anything could have been done to help/prevent the affliction? If it's NOT a disorder, and it's not learned behavior, than what exactly does cause homosexuality then? (I know you don't know, just want your thoughts). I'm of the belief that if it's learned behavior, steps can be taken to help. If it's a disorder, it should be treated as such, medically. If it's the "born this way" route, surely with the amount of money tossed at it, something should be found.
You're Dad sounds like a great guy, and I salute him for defending our country.
I'm using the term as a disorder that occurs during development, not as something that causes one to be "under-developed".
Edited to add, A birth defect if you will.
You shouldn't have edited. You're going to piss a lot of people off by referring to homosexuals as "defective". :coffee:
Sir Evil
02-03-2012, 08:52 PM
without any special considerations.
Keyword right there! problem is they do want special considerations these days.... I say give em' thier own island and be done with the issue altogether...:laugh:
You shouldn't have edited. You're going to piss a lot of people off by referring to homosexuals as "defective". :coffee:
You referred to them as homos! ummm, I think you are dehumanizing them.....:laugh2:
Missileman
02-03-2012, 08:57 PM
You shouldn't have edited. You're going to piss a lot of people off by referring to homosexuals as "defective". :coffee:
I'd say it's inarguably an abnormality. Defect is as good a word as any.
You referred to them as homos! ummm, I think you are dehumanizing them.....:laugh2:
Oh no please don't disparage them!:laugh2:
Thunderknuckles
02-03-2012, 11:40 PM
I'd say it's inarguably an abnormality. Defect is as good a word as any.
You are inarguably correct. Although I like to refer to homosexuals as a genetic mistakes or hellbound sinners depending on who I'm talking to.
fj1200
02-04-2012, 06:56 AM
Keyword right there! problem is they do want special considerations these days.... I say give em' thier own island and be done with the issue altogether...:laugh:
What's special about wanting the same?
What's special about wanting the same?
Fj do you believe that there are absolute right and wrongs in the world?
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 10:58 AM
What's special about wanting the same?
As an aside... Do you think attempts should be made by the worldwide medical community and scientific community to first help and/or look into helping them with their disorder/defect?
Gunny
02-04-2012, 11:10 AM
Except that so many other things are defined by genes, and way too many claim that queers are "born that way". If that was the case, there would be scientific proof of some sort after so many years of investigating the issue by scientists. But NOTHING has ever been found to support that argument, nothing.
I don't know Jim, can you map out Noir's vegetarian gene? Oh and if you go look in the debate thread between OCA and myself, I posted a link to a study done by some pretty smart people that seemed to show that gays have different levels of hormones that straights, they also show a propensity for twins to be both be gay, etc etc.
I for one believe it's a choice, but admit that is my OPINION and I don't really know. Now in THIS thread it is appropriate to debate that but in the other thread, it is irrelevant anyway.
Those people would be called "blind" - and the medical and scientific field can both prove, explain & agree on why. Now, since you made the connection to being blind, you can show us the same type of proof and agreement from the medical/scientific field?
Nope. The fact is, we're homo sapiens, animals, and biology dictates procreation. Homosexuality is an aberrent choice, against biological fact. It's a choice that violates biological nature, for whatever reason.
DragonStryk72
02-04-2012, 11:22 AM
I have to be honest, I have trouble replying to you sometimes as I feel like I'm walking on egg shells, and that if I speak my mind I'll offend you in a way not intended. I guess we all offend one another in a way when we write about very hot topics, but it's the intent that should matter. With my words, I am not going out of my way to say anything to personally offend you.
With that said, would YOU consider that your Dad has a "disorder"? And if so, what kind would you consider it? And wouldn't you then want to know further about this disorder, and if anything could have been done to help/prevent the affliction? If it's NOT a disorder, and it's not learned behavior, than what exactly does cause homosexuality then? (I know you don't know, just want your thoughts). I'm of the belief that if it's learned behavior, steps can be taken to help. If it's a disorder, it should be treated as such, medically. If it's the "born this way" route, surely with the amount of money tossed at it, something should be found.
You're Dad sounds like a great guy, and I salute him for defending our country.
Not offended Jim. I don't see it as a disorder, and I think our society has gotten too into labeling things as "disorders". It's no more a disorder than being born with red hair. I'll use me and my dad here for a comparative we can agree on: My dad had pretty standard friends growing up, all most all boys, and his growing up was pretty typical for NYC. He was active in sports, especially loving softball and baseball, even playing in a bar league as pitcher for years when he became an adult, alongside choosing the Marines. If anyone was looking for "What makes someone gay", Dad hit none of the branches on the way down.
Now me on the other hand, I had more female friends, especially close friends, then I had male friends, and while I played sports, I was never really all that into them. I like watching baseball, but only at the ballpark, and only minor league games (I just think they're trying harder in minors, and they're not perfect games.), playing ultimate frisbee... and that's about it. And I don't mean to hurt my guy friends, but I honestly sort of prefer my female friends, because I can talk more openly about how I feel and such, as well as being able to go watch the movies I want to go watch with them without taking a ration of shit for it. I read romance novels (started in Navy when I was overnight watch at an all-female barracks), and enjoy them immensely. The difference: Man parts are nasty, and my favorite act can only be performed on a woman, since they're the only one with the correctly working anatomical part for it.
If atmosphere was really the answer, my dad would be straight and I would likely be gay, but it's exactly the reverse. The answer, I believe, is not so black and white, with certain instinctual desires, with understanding of those desires bringing choices. Now, some ignore that they are still also attracted to the opposing gender, because they only see the gay or straight issue of sexuality. The problem with all the studies is that 90% are looking for only one or the other as the answer, and almost nothing in life works on a straight A or B answer, so why would this? Bias in studies works both ways, and pretty much everyone has a direct and firmly held opinion on homosexuality.
Though we've come such a long way in regards to studies on genetics and how the brain works, we still don't fully understand them, and certainly we are still a long ways from figuring what makes a person a person.
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Not offended Jim. I don't see it as a disorder, and I think our society has gotten too into labeling things as "disorders". It's no more a disorder than being born with red hair. I'll use me and my dad here for a comparative we can agree on: My dad had pretty standard friends growing up, all most all boys, and his growing up was pretty typical for NYC. He was active in sports, especially loving softball and baseball, even playing in a bar league as pitcher for years when he became an adult, alongside choosing the Marines. If anyone was looking for "What makes someone gay", Dad hit none of the branches on the way down.
Now me on the other hand, I had more female friends, especially close friends, then I had male friends, and while I played sports, I was never really all that into them. I like watching baseball, but only at the ballpark, and only minor league games (I just think they're trying harder in minors, and they're not perfect games.), playing ultimate frisbee... and that's about it. And I don't mean to hurt my guy friends, but I honestly sort of prefer my female friends, because I can talk more openly about how I feel and such, as well as being able to go watch the movies I want to go watch with them without taking a ration of shit for it. I read romance novels (started in Navy when I was overnight watch at an all-female barracks), and enjoy them immensely. The difference: Man parts are nasty, and my favorite act can only be performed on a woman, since they're the only one with the correctly working anatomical part for it.
If atmosphere was really the answer, my dad would be straight and I would likely be gay, but it's exactly the reverse. The answer, I believe, is not so black and white, with certain instinctual desires, with understanding of those desires bringing choices. Now, some ignore that they are still also attracted to the opposing gender, because they only see the gay or straight issue of sexuality. The problem with all the studies is that 90% are looking for only one or the other as the answer, and almost nothing in life works on a straight A or B answer, so why would this? Bias in studies works both ways, and pretty much everyone has a direct and firmly held opinion on homosexuality.
Though we've come such a long way in regards to studies on genetics and how the brain works, we still don't fully understand them, and certainly we are still a long ways from figuring what makes a person a person.
If you don't see it as a disorder, and it's not learned behavior... Am I wrong in assuming you DO believe it's something gay people are "born with" though, just not a disorder or a defect?
If you don't see it as a disorder, and it's not learned behavior... Am I wrong in assuming you DO believe it's something gay people are "born with" though, just not a disorder or a defect?
Jimmy, Dragon's father had a child(Dragon) through natural means(intercourse with a woman) I presume. I just don't buy the "I was trying to live a lie" line, I believe at 1 point Dragon's father made the conscious choice to engage in homosexuality.
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 01:42 PM
Jimmy, Dragon's father had a child(Dragon) through natural means(intercourse with a woman) I presume. I just don't buy the "I was trying to live a lie" line, I believe at 1 point Dragon's father made the conscious choice to engage in homosexuality.
Don't get me wrong, you know my stance on the issue, but I'm willing to explore and learn. Maybe there is something in the body, that homosexuals are born with, that would qualify is a disorder, defect, or something just different. But I think the underlying defect/disorder should then be looked at further and addressed for what it is. Instead of doing that, the underlying medical condition would then be being ignored, which from a medical standpoint I find odd. We don't generally look at abnomalities and disorders and shrug our shoulders and leave as-is. The alternative would be to believe it's a learned psychological behavior, which is also denied. If I were "born that way" with ANY disorder, defect, or whatever you call it, I would want to know why and how.
fj1200
02-04-2012, 02:07 PM
Fj do you believe that there are absolute right and wrongs in the world?
Sure.
As an aside... Do you think attempts should be made by the worldwide medical community and scientific community to first help and/or look into helping them with their disorder/defect?
That presumes the disorder/defect.
Nope. The fact is, we're homo sapiens, animals, and biology dictates procreation. Homosexuality is an aberrent choice, against biological fact. It's a choice that violates biological nature, for whatever reason.
Man is of a higher order than animals.
If you don't see it as a disorder, and it's not learned behavior... Am I wrong in assuming you DO believe it's something gay people are "born with" though, just not a disorder or a defect?
I don't see an issue with being "born with it."
Jimmy, Dragon's father had a child(Dragon) through natural means(intercourse with a woman) I presume. I just don't buy the "I was trying to live a lie" line, I believe at 1 point Dragon's father made the conscious choice to engage in homosexuality.
So a human made the easy choice to be ostracized from friends and family? He made the conscious choice to engage in an act as we all do, it's unlikely that he made the conscious choice to change his attractions.
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 02:24 PM
That presumes the disorder/defect.
I'm running with several ideas, the disorder/defect being from MM. I'm no sold on this either as there is no medical evidence to support this at all.
I don't see an issue with being "born with it."
If someone IS born with it, I think we should find out how. Pretty much every last thing that people are born with, we investigate to find out why, whether that be a trait, genes, disorder, defect... But as soon as we venture into the same subject about homosexuality, many become defensive. I simply would like to find out how, as without that answer, we don't even know WHAT it is and whether or not it's treatable.
fj1200
02-04-2012, 02:41 PM
I'm running with several ideas, the disorder/defect being from MM. I'm no sold on this either as there is no medical evidence to support this at all.
If someone IS born with it, I think we should find out how. Pretty much every last thing that people are born with, we investigate to find out why, whether that be a trait, genes, disorder, defect... But as soon as we venture into the same subject about homosexuality, many become defensive. I simply would like to find out how, as without that answer, we don't even know WHAT it is and whether or not it's treatable.
That all presumes that it is a bad thing. Usually with a disorder people have difficulty coping with life and need treatment to gain some sort of normalcy to help them deal. From what I see the ones who have difficulty coping with it are not the ones "afflicted." I was arguing about rights on another forum with minorities being protected by the Civil Rights Act and wouldn't gays be more accepted with the same Title VII protections. What I came up with is why would they need protections when gays earn more, are higher educated, and are more likely to be in white collar positions than the population in general. Does that sound like a group suffering from a disorder?
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 02:49 PM
That all presumes that it is a bad thing. Usually with a disorder people have difficulty coping with life and need treatment to gain some sort of normalcy to help them deal. From what I see the ones who have difficulty coping with it are not the ones "afflicted." I was arguing about rights on another forum with minorities being protected by the Civil Rights Act and wouldn't gays be more accepted with the same Title VII protections. What I came up with is why would they need protections when gays earn more, are higher educated, and are more likely to be in white collar positions than the population in general. Does that sound like a group suffering from a disorder?
The amount of disease and death from homosexual sex alone is enough to at least look into HOW and WHAT it exactly is. The deviant sexual lifestyles are known factually to place much higher risks of disease and death from said diseases. If it's possible to prevent people from leaning towards deviant and abnormal sexual desires, we should at least look into it.
fj1200
02-04-2012, 02:58 PM
The amount of disease and death from homosexual sex alone is enough to at least look into HOW and WHAT it exactly is. The deviant sexual lifestyles are known factually to place much higher risks of disease and death from said diseases. If it's possible to prevent people from leaning towards deviant and abnormal sexual desires, we should at least look into it.
I think CH posted a link that brought into question those findings, I'll have to take another look. That being said, the basic definition of deviance is anything outside the norm. The norms of society right now are so adamantly anti-gay that I find it specious that the comparisons are made. I recall a study that showed the gays had more out-of-wedlock relationships than straights; of course they do because they are not allowed a marriage based stable relationship. I do have a feeling however that gays will never have stats that equate to straights but that doesn't change my thoughts on it right now.
I think CH posted a link that brought into question those findings, I'll have to take another look. That being said, the basic definition of deviance is anything outside the norm. The norms of society right now are so adamantly anti-gay that I find it specious that the comparisons are made. I recall a study that showed the gays had more out-of-wedlock relationships than straights; of course they do because they are not allowed a marriage based stable relationship. I do have a feeling however that gays will never have stats that equate to straights but that doesn't change my thoughts on it right now.
What is "normal" and who gets to define it?
To some, "normal" might be sex in the missionary position and anything other than that is deviant. To others, anything short of using the whole chicken instead of just the feathers is "normal". To yet another group, even using the whole, live chicken, handcuffs, a can of Cool Whip and a weed eater is fine.
"Normal" is in the eye of the beholder, methinks.
So a human made the easy choice to be ostracized from friends and family? He made the conscious choice to engage in an act as we all do, it's unlikely that he made the conscious choice to change his attractions.
Sure.
I'll use heroin or crack use as an example. Unless you live under a rock everyone has at 1 point seen a movie or documentary or knows of someone who uses, the results are always the same, filthy, penniless, in poor health etc. etc. etc. yet people still choose to do it.
Does that clear anything up for ya?
Sir Evil
02-04-2012, 03:45 PM
Does that clear anything up for ya?
What, that you're queer??? :laugh2:
darin
02-04-2012, 03:47 PM
... it's unlikely that he made the conscious choice to change his attractions.
Time out - different topic now. We're not speaking of one's 'attractions' - Gay is a behaviour. A lifestyle. A preference - NOT mere attraction or desire for the same. Fundamentally, Gay folk choose that lifestyle based on probably lots of things; but until they decide to indulge their attractions, they aren't gay/homosexual.
What, that you're queer??? :laugh2:
Well i'm so fucking good looking that chicks and queers alike want me, thats no bullshit!
shattered
02-04-2012, 03:48 PM
Sure.
I'll use heroin or crack use as an example. Unless you live under a rock everyone has at 1 point seen a movie or documentary or knows of someone who uses, the results are always the same, filthy, penniless, in poor health etc. etc. etc. yet people still choose to do it.
Does that clear anything up for ya?
So.. Did you make the conscious decision to fall in love with your wife (I ASSUME you actually love her), or did it just happen without your control?
Since when can you control who you love?
Sir Evil
02-04-2012, 03:49 PM
Well i'm so fucking good looking that chicks and queers alike want me, thats no bullshit!
:lol:
So.. Did you make the conscious decision to fall in love with your wife (I ASSUME you actually love her), or did it just happen without your control?
Since when can you control who you love?
You can't.........when its man vs woman.
We simply are in no way wired to love someone of the same sex in the manner of what is traditionally known as a "couple".
It is what it is.
shattered
02-04-2012, 03:53 PM
You can't.........when its man vs woman.
We simply are in no way wired to love someone of the same sex in the manner of what is traditionally known as a "couple".
It is what it is.
YOU are in no way wired.
That doesn't mean the next person is.
I've seen 10 year old boys act more feminine than your average teenage girl - it's obvious they're going to grow up to be gay, but you're going to chalk it up to a conscious decision at depravity on their part?
YOU are in no way wired.
That doesn't mean the next person is.
I've seen 10 year old boys act more feminine than your average teenage girl - it's obvious they're going to grow up to be gay, but you're going to chalk it up to a conscious decision at depravity on their part?
Sorry Shattered, you are arguing against simple logic and fact.
Move on.
Sir Evil
02-04-2012, 04:01 PM
I've seen 10 year old boys act more feminine than your average teenage girl - it's obvious they're going to grow up to be gay, but you're going to chalk it up to a conscious decision at depravity on their part?
Nah, just inbred....
shattered
02-04-2012, 04:01 PM
Sorry Shattered, you are arguing against simple logic and fact.
Move on.
If that's the best response you've got, it just solidifies the fact that I''m right, and you're wrong.
Otherwise, you can feel free to address the 10 year old in my example who has a mother AND a father, as well as a brother AND a sister, all of which are your definition of "normal".
So...
Nah, just inbred....
Get stuffed, cupcake. :lame2:
Missileman
02-04-2012, 04:03 PM
Time out - different topic now. We're not speaking of one's 'attractions' - Gay is a behaviour. A lifestyle. A preference - NOT mere attraction or desire for the same. Fundamentally, Gay folk choose that lifestyle based on probably lots of things; but until they decide to indulge their attractions, they aren't gay/homosexual.
If someone is attracted sexually to the same gender, they are homosexual, whether they've acted on the attraction or not. To claim otherwise is pure nonsense.
If that's the best response you've got, it just solidifies the fact that I''m right, and you're wrong.
Otherwise, you can feel free to address the 10 year old in my example who has a mother AND a father, as well as a brother AND a sister, all of which are your definition of "normal".
So...
Shattered you are better than this.
But i'll bite.......the 10 yr old needs a male role model to kick him in the ass and tell him to man up.
Sir Evil
02-04-2012, 04:07 PM
Get stuffed, cupcake. :lame2:
Well then you would feel bad for me because I have a genetic issues....:rolleyes:
Want the answers then look to the facts, it's pretty much that simple... When there is factual evidence to make your point fine but for now it's conjecture...
shattered
02-04-2012, 04:14 PM
Shattered you are better than this.
But i'll bite.......the 10 yr old needs a male role model to kick him in the ass and tell him to man up.
He's got an older brother.. I'm going to bet he probably gets pounded on by said brother...
Well then you would feel bad for me because I have a genetic issues....:rolleyes:
Want the answers then look to the facts, it's pretty much that simple... When there is factual evidence to make your point fine but for now it's conjecture...
You've always had genetic issues, but I've never felt sorry for you. I'm mean like that.
Sir Evil
02-04-2012, 04:15 PM
He's got an older brother.. I'm going to bet he probably gets pounded on by said brother...
And that might be some reason for his gayish attitude?? thats lamer then lame... thats just fucking stupid!
You've always had genetic issues, but I've never felt sorry for you. I'm mean like that.
you're probably right about that but don't need to lack the compassion just because we disagree on the subject!:laugh:
He's got an older brother.. I'm going to bet he probably gets pounded on by said brother...
Probably because older brother is embarrassed by him, i'm not condoning the pounding, older brother should be training or planning on taking him to a whorehouse at 18.
shattered
02-04-2012, 05:19 PM
Probably because older brother is embarrassed by him, i'm not condoning the pounding, older brother should be training or planning on taking him to a whorehouse at 18.
Not everything in life is as black and white as you stomp your feet, and insist it be...
Just sayin.
I'd think you'd want to spend more time in life righting more significant wrongs in life than some guy liking another guy so long as it has zero impact on you personally.
(Besides, you (guys in general) seem to have no problem cheering lesbians on, and YOU, personally have no problem laying claim to pounding several men in the ass.. Something you're trying to tell us, OCA?)
And that might be some reason for his gayish attitude?? thats lamer then lame... thats just fucking stupid!
You couldn't have misread my statement any more if you'd had coke bottle glasses on...
Not everything in life is as black and white as you stomp your feet, and insist it be...
Just sayin.
I'd think you'd want to spend more time in life righting more significant wrongs in life than some guy liking another guy so long as it has zero impact on you personally.
(Besides, you guys in general) seem to have no problem cheering lesbians on, and YOU, personally have no problem laying claim to pounding several men in the ass.. Something you're trying to tell us, OCA?)
I think its cute you trying to debate.............really I do.
shattered
02-04-2012, 05:24 PM
I think its cute you trying to debate.............really I do.
I simply think you're full of shit.
Not much to debate there..
I simply think you're full of shit.
Not much to debate there..
And I simply think you are a fucking mullet wearing bulldyke........not even debateable.
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 05:31 PM
(Besides, you (guys in general) seem to have no problem cheering lesbians on
Only if they're hot! Lipstick lesbians as they call them. But I think guys cheer them on because they/we see their hotness, and then them together, and we secretly wish we were in the middle of this womenly oreo cookie. In short, we're pigs, so it's against the law to use us cheering on lipstick lesbians as our personal fantasies.
Sir Evil
02-04-2012, 05:35 PM
You couldn't have misread my statement any more if you'd had coke bottle glasses on...
Irrelevant! don't care what you meant, it's not going to be the reason someone is gay... or at least until proven otherwise.
Only if they're hot! Lipstick lesbians as they call them. But I think guys cheer them on because they/we see their hotness, and then them together, and we secretly wish we were in the middle of this womenly oreo cookie. In short, we're pigs, so it's against the law to use us cheering on lipstick lesbians as our personal fantasies.
Thats only in the movies.
In real life they are like Shattered, 250lbs, hair that looks like 80's Def Leppard, construction boots and a harley.
Sir Evil
02-04-2012, 05:38 PM
Thats only in the movies.
In real life they are like Shattered, 250lbs, hair that looks like 80's Def Leppard, construction boots and a harley.
You just described Jims dreamgirl! :laugh:
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 05:42 PM
Thats only in the movies.
Well, of course it's only in the movies. No man really bumps into 2 beautiful babes who happen to be lesbians, and who just happen to be in search of a loser like one of us to be the creamy filling in their cookies (Oreos you pigs).
Thats only in the movies.
In real life they are like Shattered, 250lbs, hair that looks like 80's Def Leppard, construction boots and a harley.
Hey! 80s hair was the bomb, Def Leppard rocks, I wear sh*t-kicker boots all the time and Harleys are fun. Oh, and I'm thinking Shattered ain't 250 lbs.
But if that's the fantasy you got, roll with it OCA. :poke:
Only if they're hot! Lipstick lesbians as they call them. But I think guys cheer them on because they/we see their hotness, and then them together, and we secretly wish we were in the middle of this womenly oreo cookie. In short, we're pigs, so it's against the law to use us cheering on lipstick lesbians as our personal fantasies.
Ummmm ... the whole point of being a lesbian is so a gal doesn't have to put up with men. If gal A hooked up with the lusciousness of gal B, why would they want any dude involved? :wtf99:
DragonStryk72
02-04-2012, 05:58 PM
If you don't see it as a disorder, and it's not learned behavior... Am I wrong in assuming you DO believe it's something gay people are "born with" though, just not a disorder or a defect?
to an extent. Using me and my dad again, we both have a thing for the Entemann's chocolate covered donuts, but there are plenty of things that we each like that the other does not, such as my love and his hatred of mushrooms. Genetics can give us certain instinctual urges, tastes and such, but it doesn't override our ability to make decision.
For instance, I like the taste of Woodchuck hard cider, but that doesn't excuse drinking to excess, because I know when to stop.
jimnyc
02-04-2012, 05:59 PM
Ummmm ... the whole point of being a lesbian is so a gal doesn't have to put up with men. If gal A hooked up with the lusciousness of gal B, why would they want any dude involved? :wtf99:
That's why it's a fantasy, cause it ain't happening. Now stop impeding on my impure thoughts!
to an extent. Using me and my dad again, we both have a thing for the Entemann's chocolate covered donuts, but there are plenty of things that we each like that the other does not, such as my love and his hatred of mushrooms. Genetics can give us certain instinctual urges, tastes and such, but it doesn't override our ability to make decision.
For instance, I like the taste of Woodchuck hard cider, but that doesn't excuse drinking to excess, because I know when to stop.
Got five more Raspberry ones left. Want one? :beer:
That's why it's a fantasy, cause it ain't happening. Now stop impeding on my impure thoughts!
Gunny says he can't fault lesbians cuz they want p****. He understands that. He just can't figure the dudes wanting d***. :laugh:
And impure thoughts are bad for you.
Hey! 80s hair was the bomb, Def Leppard rocks, I wear sh*t-kicker boots all the time and Harleys are fun. Oh, and I'm thinking Shattered ain't 250 lbs.
But if that's the fantasy you got, roll with it OCA. :poke:
Ok not 250, more like 300 and on an episode of "Hoarders".
DragonStryk72
02-04-2012, 11:06 PM
Got five more Raspberry ones left. Want one? :beer:
sigh... so very badly. Work week's been a monument of fail, and all my money went to the rent
fj1200
02-05-2012, 12:36 AM
What is "normal" and who gets to define it?
To some, "normal" might be sex in the missionary position and anything other than that is deviant. To others, anything short of using the whole chicken instead of just the feathers is "normal". To yet another group, even using the whole, live chicken, handcuffs, a can of Cool Whip and a weed eater is fine.
"Normal" is in the eye of the beholder, methinks.
Exactly. Normal is defined by the majority. They can claim anyone not like them is deviant.
Sure.
I'll use heroin or crack use as an example. Unless you live under a rock everyone has at 1 point seen a movie or documentary or knows of someone who uses, the results are always the same, filthy, penniless, in poor health etc. etc. etc. yet people still choose to do it.
Does that clear anything up for ya?
Not at all. It's a dumb comparison. Of the many gay couples I know, mostly lesbian couples frequently with kids, none are filthy, none are penniless, none are in poor health, none are etc. etc. etc. They appear to be quite happy. Maybe I should tell them that you said that it was all going to go downhill soon.
Time out - different topic now. We're not speaking of one's 'attractions' - Gay is a behaviour. A lifestyle. A preference - NOT mere attraction or desire for the same. Fundamentally, Gay folk choose that lifestyle based on probably lots of things; but until they decide to indulge their attractions, they aren't gay/homosexual.
I guess you aren't straight then until you choose that lifestyle and you're not straight until you indulge your attraction. Straight is a behavior. A lifestyle. A preference.
Thats only in the movies.
In real life they are like Shattered, 250lbs, hair that looks like 80's Def Leppard, construction boots and a harley.
You need to get out more then.
Thunderknuckles
02-05-2012, 01:28 AM
6 pages of debate and no one comes to the understanding that homosexuality is either a genetic mistake or a behavioral aberration?
I have gay friends and even they know this.
That said, live and let live.
fj1200
02-05-2012, 10:00 AM
^How is their treatment going?
EDIT:
Aberrant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aberrant):
straying from the right or normal way
Aberration (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aberration):
the fact or an instance of deviating or being aberrant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aberrant[1]) especially from a moral standard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard[2]) or normal state
Another majority based definition.
Thunderknuckles
02-05-2012, 11:04 AM
^How is their treatment going?
EDIT:
Aberrant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aberrant):
Aberration (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aberration):
Another majority based definition.
Perfect example of the liberal idea that we can intellectualize our way of being what we are.
fj1200
02-05-2012, 01:43 PM
Perfect example of the liberal idea that we can intellectualize our way of being what we are.
As opposed to the conservative idea that we can force people into living in a way that they don't want?
ConHog
02-05-2012, 01:45 PM
As opposed to the conservative idea that we can force people into living in a way that they don't want?
Perfect example of my statement that being conservative doesn't have to mean being a mean asshole. I just don't know why we care what others do in the privacy of their own homes.
fj1200
02-05-2012, 01:52 PM
Perfect example of my statement that being conservative doesn't have to mean being a mean asshole. I just don't know why we care what others do in the privacy of their own homes.
Yeah, I almost put social in front of conservative.
Perfect example of my statement that being conservative doesn't have to mean being a mean asshole. I just don't know why we care what others do in the privacy of their own homes.
It's none of our business.
The gay people I know are much less nosy/busybodies than a lot of straight people. They don't force their preferences on me, they don't butt into my personal life and they are generally decent members of society. That's much more than I can say for a lot of other people.
Hell, that's more than I can say for some people who don't even know me, save for words on a screen, who think they are entitled to tell me who and what I am. That doesn't pertain to anyone here, btw.
ConHog
02-05-2012, 02:58 PM
It's none of our business.
The gay people I know are much less nosy/busybodies than a lot of straight people. They don't force their preferences on me, they don't butt into my personal life and they are generally decent members of society. That's much more than I can say for a lot of other people.
Hell, that's more than I can say for some people who don't even know me, save for words on a screen, who think they are entitled to tell me who and what I am. That doesn't pertain to anyone here, btw.
I really only KNOW one gay guy (well two I guess b/c I know his SO as well) and it's funny that I hear more about gay sex on this site then I ever do from both of them combined. In fact the both of them will be over soon and they are welcome visitors at my house any time.
PS I likewise don't sit around talking about fucking my wife in front of him, hmmm mutual respect and all that i suppose.
I really only KNOW one gay guy (well two I guess b/c I know his SO as well) and it's funny that I hear more about gay sex on this site then I ever do from both of them combined. In fact the both of them will be over soon and they are welcome visitors at my house any time.
PS I likewise don't sit around talking about fucking my wife in front of him, hmmm mutual respect and all that i suppose.
Do you have enough lube?
I really only KNOW one gay guy (well two I guess b/c I know his SO as well) and it's funny that I hear more about gay sex on this site then I ever do from both of them combined. In fact the both of them will be over soon and they are welcome visitors at my house any time.
PS I likewise don't sit around talking about fucking my wife in front of him, hmmm mutual respect and all that i suppose.
Yep.
I've heard more about sex in general from church ladies than I ever do the gay guys.
ConHog
02-05-2012, 03:23 PM
Do you have enough lube?
Are you really this mad just because I lead you by a single vote? Grow up.
Are you really this mad just because I lead you by a single vote? Grow up.
I don't even think about that, between you and me you know you got crushed.
You are just an easy mark is all....just a mark, a fish.
ConHog
02-05-2012, 03:34 PM
I don't even think about that, between you and me you know you got crushed.
You are just an easy mark is all....just a mark, a fish.
LOL @ I got crushed. Already setting up how to defend your loss eh?
jimnyc
02-05-2012, 03:39 PM
LOL @ I got crushed. Already setting up how to defend your loss eh?
People determined how they would vote before the debate started. But I only saw one participant that outright dismissed the others words as "irrelevant" because it pointed out hypocrisy. Just sayin'!
ConHog
02-05-2012, 04:04 PM
People determined how they would vote before the debate started. But I only saw one participant that outright dismissed the others words as "irrelevant" because it pointed out hypocrisy. Just sayin'!
You don't actually know HOW people determine who they voted for. But that's irrelevant anyway. The voting is so close that neither OCA nor myself needs to be crowing about victory, that was my point in laughing about him declaring he crushed me.
As for dismissing his arguments, I think you need to look the word hypocrite up in a dictionary. I dismissed his arguments because all the arguments he made were that gay sex is bad for society, not gay marriage. And while true gay marriage WILL lead to gay sex, as I said I think all us married guys can attest that marriage leads to LESS sex than dating did. LOL
jimnyc
02-05-2012, 04:15 PM
You don't actually know HOW people determine who they voted for. But that's irrelevant anyway. The voting is so close that neither OCA nor myself needs to be crowing about victory, that was my point in laughing about him declaring he crushed me.
As for dismissing his arguments, I think you need to look the word hypocrite up in a dictionary. I dismissed his arguments because all the arguments he made were that gay sex is bad for society, not gay marriage. And while true gay marriage WILL lead to gay sex, as I said I think all us married guys can attest that marriage leads to LESS sex than dating did. LOL
Is it not hypocritical to call someone out in a debate for using the term "queer", as if it's "dehumanizing", and then you outright dismissed him showing you saying worse? But let me look it up since you're again insinuation I am not educated...
1-a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2-a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Call me what you will, but it seemed to me like you PRETENDED, at the expense of the debate, that there is something wrong with using the term "queer", but freely used the word "nigger". Call me crazy, but what you did in the debate fits the definition (that you asked me to look up) of a hypocrite to a T, in capital letters.
ConHog
02-05-2012, 04:33 PM
Is it not hypocritical to call someone out in a debate for using the term "queer", as if it's "dehumanizing", and then you outright dismissed him showing you saying worse? But let me look it up since you're again insinuation I am not educated...
Call me what you will, but it seemed to me like you PRETENDED, at the expense of the debate, that there is something wrong with using the term "queer", but freely used the word "nigger". Call me crazy, but what you did in the debate fits the definition (that you asked me to look up) of a hypocrite to a T, in capital letters.
Um yes, there is a difference, or at least I THOUGHT there was, thought the one on one debate was supposed to be under slightly different rules than the usual threads. But in either case, so what? I fully admitted that when I do call someone a nigger, I am dehumanizing them, so are you willing to admit that when someone calls a gay a queer they are also dehumanizing them? I see NO hypocrisy on my part Jim. An inability to read on your part? Possibly, but more likely this is just a hot subject that you are not thinking clearly on, and the fact that you are upset at me about other unrelated matters. Otherwise you would agree, I wasn't being hypocritical at all.
jimnyc
02-05-2012, 04:43 PM
Um yes, there is a difference, or at least I THOUGHT there was, thought the one on one debate was supposed to be under slightly different rules than the usual threads. But in either case, so what? I fully admitted that when I do call someone a nigger, I am dehumanizing them, so are you willing to admit that when someone calls a gay a queer they are also dehumanizing them? I see NO hypocrisy on my part Jim. An inability to read on your part? Possibly, but more likely this is just a hot subject that you are not thinking clearly on, and the fact that you are upset at me about other unrelated matters. Otherwise you would agree, I wasn't being hypocritical at all.
You dismissed OCA's comments as "irrelevant", when it was very relevant. In fact, the definition I posted describes exactly what took place:
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
You tried to win over the readers, or vilify your opponent, by pretending what he said was wrong. But you defend your racist words in other threads, and were even willing to have a debate stating that the terms you use are "defensible".
In other words, you feigned a bit about his term to win over the "public", but your own words/actions/stances belie those public statements.
Once again you accuse me of not reading right, or not thinking clearly... Are you going to bail from this thread too? The last time you made similar comments, I completely obliterated your stance and proved you wrong, and you weren't heard from again.
ConHog
02-05-2012, 04:47 PM
You dismissed OCA's comments as "irrelevant", when it was very relevant. In fact, the definition I posted describes exactly what took place:
You tried to win over the readers, or vilify your opponent, by pretending what he said was wrong. But you defend your racist words in other threads, and were even willing to have a debate stating that the terms you use are "defensible".
In other words, you feigned a bit about his term to win over the "public", but your own words/actions/stances belie those public statements.
Once again you accuse me of not reading right, or not thinking clearly... Are you going to bail from this thread too? The last time you made similar comments, I completely obliterated your stance and proved you wrong, and you weren't heard from again.
You're right, sort of. I did try to win over readers by vilifying what OCA was calling gays in that thread. It's not hypocrisy though because I admitted that when I call people niggers it is for the exact same reason he calls gays queers. The difference is as explained by YOU the one on one debates have slightly different rules. Including flames and slurs, did you only mean those rules to apply towards what we said about each other? Because I thought the point was to get a more "civilized" debate and I think we can agree that calling them gays rather than queers would be more civilized.
In either case, it's not near as big a deal as you or OCA would like to make it and surely shows NO hypocrisy on my part.
jimnyc
02-05-2012, 04:54 PM
You're right, sort of. I did try to win over readers by vilifying what OCA was calling gays in that thread. It's not hypocrisy though because I admitted that when I call people niggers it is for the exact same reason he calls gays queers. The difference is as explained by YOU the one on one debates have slightly different rules. Including flames and slurs, did you only mean those rules to apply towards what we said about each other? Because I thought the point was to get a more "civilized" debate and I think we can agree that calling them gays rather than queers would be more civilized.
In either case, it's not near as big a deal as you or OCA would like to make it and surely shows NO hypocrisy on my part.
True, I was just making a point... But it was a small part of the debate, certainly not a make or break moment. And I don't think you live to be a hypocrite, but what you did in the debate was hypocritical, there is a difference. And you don't want my opinion on using the term queer. If a black person continually uses the term "nigger", I dont want to hear crying when a white person uses it. If the gays want to refer to themselves as queers all over, and for a long history, then don't bitch when a straight person uses it. And neither should be able to say "well, it's OUR term, and we can use it, but if you do it's an insult". Bullshit. You either have an issue with the word or you don't. So no, I don't see any problem at all with using a word that's been part of American vocbulary for a very, very long time, much of it starting with the gay community themselves.
You don't actually know HOW people determine who they voted for. But that's irrelevant anyway. The voting is so close that neither OCA nor myself needs to be crowing about victory, that was my point in laughing about him declaring he crushed me.
As for dismissing his arguments, I think you need to look the word hypocrite up in a dictionary. I dismissed his arguments because all the arguments he made were that gay sex is bad for society, not gay marriage. And while true gay marriage WILL lead to gay sex, as I said I think all us married guys can attest that marriage leads to LESS sex than dating did. LOL
You are so fucking dense, really fucking dumb.
You started off by stating I was "dehumanizing" queers by calling them queer, I found just one of dozens of posts from you referring to Blacks as "niggers".....that is the definition of hypocricy.
ConHog
02-05-2012, 07:39 PM
You are so fucking dense, really fucking dumb.
You started off by stating I was "dehumanizing" queers by calling them queer, I found just one of dozens of posts from you referring to Blacks as "niggers".....that is the definition of hypocricy.
You're a fucking idiot dude. Hypocrisy would be if I called you out for something then denied I did the same thing. That is NOT what I did. Instead I merely pointed out that you call them queers to dehumanize them. You are MORE than welcome to follow me around and post that I am dehumanizing blacks when I call them niggers. You won't get an argument from me because I've already stated that is exactly why I do it.
Retard.
You're a fucking idiot dude. Hypocrisy would be if I called you out for something then denied I did the same thing. That is NOT what I did. Instead I merely pointed out that you call them queers to dehumanize them. You are MORE than welcome to follow me around and post that I am dehumanizing blacks when I call them niggers. You won't get an argument from me because I've already stated that is exactly why I do it.
Retard.
Backpedaling! Look at him go!:laugh2:
:laugh2:
Sad
ConHog
02-05-2012, 08:17 PM
Backpedaling! Look at him go!:laugh2:
:laugh2:
Sad
Anyone who read the thread can tell you that that is EXACTLY what I said right from the start as soon as you made the accusation. I didn't backpedal, you just got caught being an idiot. Not that catching you was that difficult.
bullypulpit
02-06-2012, 10:38 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts
But this is not news to critical thinkers.
Well, old son, seeing as how you wouldn't know what critical thinking was even if it came up and bit you on the ass, your post provoked some laughter on my part. That aside, the link you provided is junk science...as in no peer review...no statement of purpose or objective...no statement of research approach, methodology, research variables or description of the sample population. In other words...agitprop by a bunch of right wing-nuts who are so insecure in their own sexual orientation that they feel threatened by gay men. Objects of pity, really...you and your fellow travelers...given the fear and uncertainty you live with on a daily basis.
Do i really have to attach caveats to such statements so its clear i don't mean they can murder each other etc? If you really want me to i will, but i'd be surprised if there was anyone who read my post who didn't know what i meant in the context of the topic.
As they're bereft of any intellectual, empirical basis for their mortally flawed arguments, it's all these self-righteous prigs have to offer, Noir.
avatar4321
02-08-2012, 01:27 AM
You're much better than this nonsense dmp, but henceforth I won't be replying to you in this thread, kthanks.
I really don't see how him pointing out the flaws in your argument is nonsense. It's just inconvenient.
Does this also mean that straights are made and not born?
Im pretty sure both gays and straights were born.
I am also confident that we have a choice as to what behavior we engage in.
Thing is some people make no choice, which is, in and of itself, a choice. When that happens we go by our default programming.
That's part of what makes the issue cloudy.
Anyone who claims they know for fact one way or the other is full of shit.
Thing is, it's completely irrelevant. Natural doesn not equal right. It's a red herring.
The question that must be answered is: Does Christ have power to change human nature. And I can affirm He does.
Since when can you control who you love?
Since forever...
fj1200
02-08-2012, 11:46 AM
I am also confident that we have a choice as to what behavior we engage in.
Newsflash, it's not about the behavior.
bullypulpit
02-08-2012, 11:55 AM
Thing is, it's completely irrelevant. Natural doesn not equal right. It's a red herring.
The question that must be answered is: Does Christ have power to change human nature. And I can affirm He does.
Your affirmation is no more than an opinion.
ConHog
02-08-2012, 11:57 AM
Thing is, it's completely irrelevant. Natural doesn not equal right. It's a red herring.
The question that must be answered is: Does Christ have power to change human nature. And I can affirm He does.
I of course absolutely agree with you there.
Since forever...
No you can't. You CAN control how you act on that love, but you can't help who you love.
logroller
02-09-2012, 06:37 AM
Thing is, it's completely irrelevant. Natural doesn not equal right. It's a red herring.
The question that must be answered is: Does Christ have power to change human nature. And I can affirm He does.
Man still sins does he not? Man still has the capacity to reason, feel, and seek truth?
So what, pray tell, is your understanding of 'human nature' and how has Christ changed it?
darin
02-09-2012, 06:50 AM
If someone is attracted sexually to the same gender, they are homosexual, whether they've acted on the attraction or not. To claim otherwise is pure nonsense.
Are prisoners latent homosexuals? Does being in prison 'turn' somebody gay?
Attraction is not action. Claiming otherwise is pure nonsense. (see how easy it is to dismiss arguments? The fact is this: The truth 'behaviour defines sexuality' is inconvenient for homosexualphiles.
Missileman
02-09-2012, 07:05 AM
Are prisoners latent homosexuals? Does being in prison 'turn' somebody gay?
Attraction is not action. Claiming otherwise is pure nonsense. (see how easy it is to dismiss arguments? The fact is this: The truth 'behaviour defines sexuality' is inconvenient for homosexualphiles.
Are all the prisoners homosexuals? Of course not. They engage in homosexual sex, because that's all that's availanle to them.
And if you're going to try to turn the tables, at least do it correctly.
darin
02-09-2012, 07:07 AM
Are all the prisoners homosexuals? Of course not. They engage in homosexual sex, because that's all that's availanle to them.
And if you're going to try to turn the tables, at least do it correctly.
Are all homosexuals gay?
Abbey Marie
02-09-2012, 09:19 AM
You're much better than this nonsense dmp, but henceforth I won't be replying to you in this thread, kthanks.
LOL, I guess it's actually Noir who "Doesn't want to discuss it anymore".
LOL, I guess it's actually Noir who "Doesn't want to discuss it anymore".
Tis but a mere footnote on your great work, abbey ^,^
I really don't see how him pointing out the flaws in your argument is nonsense. It's just inconvenient.
Really? So in a topic about homosexuality, when i said
Any sexual act that one or more persons wish to engage in, were all the persons present are of the age of consent, and willingly consenting to such acts (no matter how disguising I, or others may find them) is fine by me.
This does not include the right to take another's life, and you take part in such activities totally at your own risk.
You deduced from that, that what i meant was 'other than sex, Noir doesn't condone any act two consenting adults engage in?'
fj1200
02-09-2012, 10:01 AM
Attraction is not action. Claiming otherwise is pure nonsense.
So you're not heterosexual, and have heterosexual feelings, until you engage in a heterosexual act?
darin
02-09-2012, 10:16 AM
So you're not heterosexual, and have heterosexual feelings, until you engage in a heterosexual act?
Sexuality is defined by actions; not by mere preference for the same reason I'm not in jail for burglary; after all, I REALLY prefer to drive the new Mustang GT500. I'm drawn to; attracted to it. Was I born this way? Either way, until I steal the car, I'm not a theif. I choose women for a number of reasons. Other guys may choose guys - they have their reasons, I'm sure. Until they decide, they aren't either or both.
Abbey Marie
02-09-2012, 10:44 AM
Perhaps we should fund sex change operations for any gay/lesbian person who really thinks he/she was "born that way". If you are a man born with a biological imperative to love a man and his penis, you must really be a woman trapped in a man's body. And vice versa for women. So, go for it. Cut it off, or attach it, as the case may be, and then you can marry someone who is now of the opposite sex. No changes in law or culture required. Surely Obamacare will fund this anyway.
One other thing I've wondered: If there is a gay gene, are gays born with any actual, physical traits of the opposite sex? I would think they would be. Traits that can't be acquired through preference.
Abbey Marie
02-09-2012, 10:52 AM
Tis but a mere footnote on your great work, abbey ^,^
Yup, all kinds of great work by me. Including catching you in doing what you accuse others of.
Nice of you to acknowledge it, though.
fj1200
02-09-2012, 11:11 AM
Sexuality is defined by actions; not by mere preference for the same reason I'm not in jail for burglary; after all, I REALLY prefer to drive the new Mustang GT500. I'm drawn to; attracted to it. Was I born this way? Either way, until I steal the car, I'm not a theif. I choose women for a number of reasons. Other guys may choose guys - they have their reasons, I'm sure. Until they decide, they aren't either or both.
Ridiculous analogy is ridiculous. /noir channeling
I think that is a specious opinion that is straight-centric. You just refuse to acknowledge that there are homosexuals who prefer the same sex. You choose women because you are attracted to them just as a homosexual chooses the same sex because they are attracted to them. It's not a difficult concept.
EDIT:
You choose for a number of reasons? Did you write down a pro-con, or gay-straight as the case may be, list and make the concious decision to be attracted to women? If you kept honest track, how close was the score?
darin
02-09-2012, 11:58 AM
Ridiculous analogy is ridiculous. /noir channeling
I think that is a specious opinion that is straight-centric. You just refuse to acknowledge that there are homosexuals who prefer the same sex.
You state that; despite me saying:
Other guys may choose guys - they have their reasons, I'm sure.
So - to recap: I wrote "Some guys choose to have sex with other guys. They have their reasons.
You write: I am refusing to acknowledge that there are people who prefer the same gender.
Can you clarify why you're accusing/suggesting I believe in a way OTHER than what I've made pretty clear?
You choose women because you are attracted to them just as a homosexual chooses the same sex because they are attracted to them. It's not a difficult concept.
Nobody argues that. I argue nobody is homosexual until they 'do' homosexuality. It's basic truth. Pedophiles are not pedophiles until they engage in the practice of sexual gratification with/around/because of kids. Murders, politicians, Football players - everyone is defined by their choice/actions. NOT their inclination.
EDIT:
You choose for a number of reasons? Did you write down a pro-con, or gay-straight as the case may be, list and make the conscious decision to be attracted to women? If you kept honest track, how close was the score?
No, my brain is wired mostly-right in that regard. I was never terrifically-abused, sexually, physically, or emotionally. I was not left to the lord-of-the-flies instincts common among kids and people. I made my choice because it was EASY and required NO debate. :)
Of course, before I was heterosexual I was asexual in practice. If I decide I'd rather do it with dudes, then I'll be living a homosexual lifestyle or moment.
Choices.
fj1200
02-09-2012, 01:29 PM
You state that; despite me saying:
So - to recap: I wrote "Some guys choose to have sex with other guys. They have their reasons.
You write: I am refusing to acknowledge that there are people who prefer the same gender.
Can you clarify why you're accusing/suggesting I believe in a way OTHER than what I've made pretty clear?
Because you are denying that anyone is gay because until the engage in a homosexual act. That is a fallacy as you like to say.
Nobody argues that. I argue nobody is homosexual until they 'do' homosexuality. It's basic truth. Pedophiles are not pedophiles until they engage in the practice of sexual gratification with/around/because of kids. Murders, politicians, Football players - everyone is defined by their choice/actions. NOT their inclination.
False, I have a friend who identified himself as gay long before he ever engaged in a homosexual act, if he ever has. Under your logic he and his father would have found comfort in his saying that he's gay but... they didn't find comfort.
No, my brain is wired mostly-right in that regard. I was never terrifically-abused, sexually, physically, or emotionally. I was not left to the lord-of-the-flies instincts common among kids and people. I made my choice because it was EASY and required NO debate. :)
Of course, before I was heterosexual I was asexual in practice. If I decide I'd rather do it with dudes, then I'll be living a homosexual lifestyle or moment.
Choices.
Case closed on your straight-centric viewpoint.
darin
02-09-2012, 02:08 PM
Because you are denying that anyone is gay because until the engage in a homosexual act. That is a fallacy as you like to say.
Are all homosexuals gay?
False, I have a friend who identified himself as gay long before he ever engaged in a homosexual act, if he ever has. Under your logic he and his father would have found comfort in his saying that he's gay but... they didn't find comfort.
You have a friend who faced confusion; didn't seek/get help he needs - and therefore acts on his inclinations - without trying to cope or understand the cause of the desire.
Case closed on your straight-centric viewpoint.
You don't know me.
fj1200
02-09-2012, 04:09 PM
Are all homosexuals gay?
How do you want me to wordsmith it? Do you want gay to equate to the inclination and homosexual to equate to the act?
You have a friend who faced confusion; didn't seek/get help he needs - and therefore acts on his inclinations - without trying to cope or understand the cause of the desire.
You are confused as to the words I used. I said he was gay and didn't act on his inclinations. You don't know what he did.
You don't know me.
You don't know my friend.
ConHog
02-09-2012, 04:19 PM
Are all homosexuals gay?
You have a friend who faced confusion; didn't seek/get help he needs - and therefore acts on his inclinations - without trying to cope or understand the cause of the desire.
You don't know me.
I don't equate gay to sex DMP. I mean I was heterosexual before I got laid for the first time. Are you telling me a 14 year old who really wants some but just hasn't had the opportunity yet isn't sexual?
Missileman
02-09-2012, 06:25 PM
Are all homosexuals gay?
Uh, yeah! That's not to say that all homosexual sex is performed by gays though...prison being an example of straights engaging in homosexual acts.
Missileman
02-09-2012, 06:32 PM
I don't equate gay to sex DMP. I mean I was heterosexual before I got laid for the first time. Are you telling me a 14 year old who really wants some but just hasn't had the opportunity yet isn't sexual?
Right...and a retarded person isn't really retarded until they try to solve 1+1 and can't.
ConHog
02-09-2012, 06:38 PM
Right...and a retarded person isn't really retarded until they try to solve 1+1 and can't.
You can't show me the retard gene either, so obviously they choose to be retarded. :laugh:
jimnyc
02-09-2012, 06:43 PM
You can't show me the retard gene either, so obviously they choose to be retarded. :laugh:
You do realize that not everything has to have a "gene" to be proven medically or scientifically? There is so much medical data on retardation that it's ridiculous. But all we have for queers is armpits and womens urine.
ConHog
02-09-2012, 06:51 PM
You do realize that not everything has to have a "gene" to be proven medically or scientifically? There is so much medical data on retardation that it's ridiculous. But all we have for queers is armpits and womens urine.
And you don't think that might be because so much more time and money has been invested in investigating the cause of mental illness than has been spent investigating gay?
I'm not saying that gay is absolutely a choice, in fact my OPINION is that it is not, but as with any OPINION I could be wrong. And so to could you, that's all I'm saying, we don't have PROOF either way.
Obviously no one really believes anyone would choose to be retarded
jimnyc
02-09-2012, 06:54 PM
And you don't think that might be because so much more time and money has been invested in investigating the cause of mental illness than has been spent investigating gay?
I'm not saying that gay is absolutely a choice, in fact my OPINION is that it is not, but as with any OPINION I could be wrong. And so to could you, that's all I'm saying, we don't have PROOF either way.
Obviously no one really believes anyone would choose to be retarded
One can be proven medically the overwhelming majority of times. The other has armpits and urine. Oh, and mice.
ConHog
02-09-2012, 06:57 PM
One can be proven medically the overwhelming majority of times. The other has armpits and urine. Oh, and mice.
It hasn't been proven medically though. A lot of evidence? Yes. Proof? No.
Missileman
02-09-2012, 06:58 PM
But all we have for queers is armpits and womens urine.
Actually, a bit more than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
You can thank OCA for the link.
jimnyc
02-09-2012, 07:28 PM
Actually, a bit more than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
You can thank OCA for the link.
Before I waste my time reading the entire thing and associated links - are there any peer reviewed studies in there? I ask because even the very opening paragraph of that page states that nothing conclusively can be demonstrated and that various studies have conflicting positions.
Before I waste my time reading the entire thing and associated links - are there any peer reviewed studies in there? I ask because even the very opening paragraph of that page states that nothing conclusively can be demonstrated and that various studies have conflicting positions.
No, Jimmy, there isn't.
I used that link to illustrate biology and innate opposite sex attraction but wikipedia is pc so it included faggots in there too.
My bad.
Missileman
02-09-2012, 08:12 PM
Before I waste my time reading the entire thing and associated links - are there any peer reviewed studies in there? I ask because even the very opening paragraph of that page states that nothing conclusively can be demonstrated and that various studies have conflicting positions.
I'm not suggesting there's any proof in there, but there is more evidence than just the Swedish study.
Missileman
02-09-2012, 08:14 PM
No, Jimmy, there isn't.
I used that link to illustrate biology and innate opposite sex attraction but wikipedia is pc so it included faggots in there too.
My bad.
ROFL...so it's Wikipedia's fault that your assertion was ignorant bullshit.
ROFL...so it's Wikipedia's fault that your assertion was ignorant bullshit.
I guess the basis of biology and the fact opposite sex attraction at birth is bullshit?
Lol.......i'm beginning to understand what the "missle" in missleman stands for.:laugh2:
ConHog
02-09-2012, 08:29 PM
I guess the basis of biology and the fact opposite sex attraction at birth is bullshit?
Lol.......i'm beginning to understand what the "missle" in missleman stands for.:laugh2:
I've yet to see a baby boy make a move on a baby girl.
Missileman
02-09-2012, 08:30 PM
I guess the basis of biology and the fact opposite sex attraction at birth is bullshit?
Did you have a different Wiki link that purports all humans are born heterosexual? The links you've provided so far DON'T.
Lol.......i'm beginning to understand what the "missle" in missleman stands for.:laugh2:
Do tell...
darin
02-10-2012, 05:56 PM
Uh, yeah! That's not to say that all homosexual sex is performed by gays though...prison being an example of straights engaging in homosexual acts.
That's a convenient mindset for you. Homosexuals ARE are homosexuals DO. Your, and others' efforts to redefine words to suit circumstances are foolish. Unfortunately, you're not different than the majority of folks who simply can't see beyond their own opinion and overwhelming desire for OTHERS like them to think they are 'open-minded'
Missileman
02-10-2012, 08:06 PM
That's a convenient mindset for you. Homosexuals ARE are homosexuals DO. Your, and others' efforts to redefine words to suit circumstances are foolish. Unfortunately, you're not different than the majority of folks who simply can't see beyond their own opinion and overwhelming desire for OTHERS like them to think they are 'open-minded'
I'm not redefining anything. The adjective "homosexual" means sexually attracted to the same sex. Can you post ANY reference that says the definition of homosexual only applies to someone who's acted on their attraction?
ConHog
02-10-2012, 08:27 PM
That's a convenient mindset for you. Homosexuals ARE are homosexuals DO. Your, and others' efforts to redefine words to suit circumstances are foolish. Unfortunately, you're not different than the majority of folks who simply can't see beyond their own opinion and overwhelming desire for OTHERS like them to think they are 'open-minded'
huh? I don't see why yall are even debating this, it's fairly unimportant but I just don't see how you could say someone isn't something until the engage in a certain act.
When you say homosexuals aren't homosexual unless and until they have homosexual sex, wouldn't it stand to reason that also heterosexuals aren't heterosexual unless and until they engage in heterosexual sex? And wouldn't the logical conclusion to THAT be to say that humans are born asexual ?
I prefer to think I was born liking girls.
huh? I don't see why yall are even debating this, it's fairly unimportant but I just don't see how you could say someone isn't something until the engage in a certain act.
When you say homosexuals aren't homosexual unless and until they have homosexual sex, wouldn't it stand to reason that also heterosexuals aren't heterosexual unless and until they engage in heterosexual sex? And wouldn't the logical conclusion to THAT be to say that humans are born asexual ?
I prefer to think I was born liking girls.
Hey dumbfuck, a thief isn't a thief until he/she steals something.
Its like talking to a goup of retards here sometimes, this is shit kindergartners have a clear understanding of.
Missileman
02-10-2012, 10:35 PM
Hey dumbfuck, a thief isn't a thief until he/she steals something.
Its like talking to a goup of retards here sometimes, this is shit kindergartners have a clear understanding of.
The definition of thief ISN'T someone who thinks about stealing. Idiot!
The definition of thief ISN'T someone who thinks about stealing. Idiot!
You aren't very smart are you?
Missileman
02-10-2012, 10:40 PM
You aren't very smart are you?
A helluva lot smarter than you, fuckhead!
A helluva lot smarter than you, fuckhead!
Ok Richard Simmons!
Missileman
02-10-2012, 10:44 PM
Ok Richard Simmons!
Get the 8-year-old to explain to you that a thief isn't someone who thinks about stealing...he'll get it.
Get the 8-year-old to explain to you that a thief isn't someone who thinks about stealing...he'll get it.
Ok Ellen Degeneres!
Sir Evil
02-11-2012, 07:43 AM
The definition of thief ISN'T someone who thinks about stealing. Idiot!
Hey dumbfuck, a thief isn't a thief until he/she steals something.
I would say you are clearly not reading the message, in fact it would look like you agree with the original statement.
Missileman
02-11-2012, 10:30 AM
I would say you are clearly not reading the message, in fact it would look like you agree with the original statement.
This is why multi-quotes suck sometimes...to whom was this addressed and to which original statement do you refer?
darin
02-11-2012, 12:45 PM
this thread feels like it's full of 14 year olds. :( We can ALL do better.
For the record, I like the ladies. :) Yes, there are some men better-looking than some ladies....there was this time when I was in thailand...nevermind.
fj1200
02-11-2012, 01:56 PM
That's a convenient mindset for you. Homosexuals ARE are homosexuals DO. Your, and others' efforts to redefine words to suit circumstances are foolish. Unfortunately, you're not different than the majority of folks who simply can't see beyond their own opinion and overwhelming desire for OTHERS like them to think they are 'open-minded'
At the risk of sounding like Gunny here, you're hanging your hat on semantics with the end being???
logroller
02-16-2012, 08:13 PM
Well, of course it's only in the movies. No man really bumps into 2 beautiful babes who happen to be lesbians, and who just happen to be in search of a loser like one of us to be the creamy filling in their cookies (Oreos you pigs).
Best line ever in a porno--^ the above bein the setup, then as man walks by open window, "it's a good thing I brought my cock with me" just awesome
darin
02-17-2012, 05:29 AM
At the risk of sounding like Gunny here, you're hanging your hat on semantics with the end being???
I'm hanging my hat on what words mean. Sorry if that inconveniences your argument. :( Truth can be a bitch sometimes.
Missileman
02-17-2012, 07:00 AM
I'm hanging my hat on what words mean.
If only that were true.
fj1200
02-17-2012, 09:41 AM
I'm hanging my hat on what words mean. Sorry if that inconveniences your argument. :( My Truth can be a bitch sometimes.
Alert! Alert! Alert!
The post quoted above was altered by user fj1200 at the time indicated on this post to reflect the editors version of the editees true intention of said post. ;)
At the risk of sounding presumptuous I believe you wish to rely on definitions that reinforce your opinion that a gay person has only chosen to have attractions to those of the same sex. But then I think I've said that before.
logroller
02-17-2012, 11:42 AM
Obviously there's no shortage of cock in this thread, and the greatest line in porn goes unattended.:slap:
Missileman
02-17-2012, 06:33 PM
Alert! Alert! Alert!
The post quoted above was altered by user fj1200 at the time indicated on this post to reflect the editors version of the editees true intention of said post. ;)
At the risk of sounding presumptuous I believe you wish to rely on definitions that reinforce your opinion that a gay person has only chosen to have attractions to those of the same sex. But then I think I've said that before.
If only that were the case. He continues to maintain a person isn't really gay until they've had sex. If indeed true, he gives a solid reason to engage in pre-marital sex. I mean, who would want to get to their wedding night, stick it in and realize that the woman they've just married is a lesbian or that they're actually gay?
fj1200
02-17-2012, 06:35 PM
^Well that would certainly throw the pro/con list way out of whack. :laugh:
ConHog
02-17-2012, 06:38 PM
If only that were the case. He continues to maintain a person isn't really gay until they've had sex. If indeed true, he gives a solid reason to engage in pre-marital sex. I mean, who would want to get to their wedding night, stick it in and realize that the woman they've just married is a lesbian or that they're actually gay?
Another factor that needs to be considered is that if we believe gays aren't gay unless and until they have gay sex then shouldn't two guys be able to marry each other since it is no longer "gay marriage?"
Missileman
02-17-2012, 06:40 PM
Another factor that needs to be considered is that if we believe gays aren't gay unless and until they have gay sex then shouldn't two guys be able to marry each other since it is no longer "gay marriage?"
Assuming they're virgins of course.
ConHog
02-17-2012, 06:43 PM
Assuming they're virgins of course.
Well of course because once you've had sex you're either gay or straight. Well unless of course you just lie and say you're a virgin.
So do we need a don't ask don't tell policy about sex now?:laugh2:
LuvRPgrl
02-22-2012, 06:27 PM
I dont think it matters if its biological or learned, natural or not, what technically defines a homo and what doesnt, if they choose to be or not.
I seriously doubt anyone would "choose" to be homo.
FACTS ARE FACTS. Homo's are usually quite unstable emotionally.
IT is dangerous behavior.
IT does nothing to make our society stronger
Saying its not abherrant behavior is simply a lie.
To define it as just a different lifestyle, is a lie.
Heterosexual is the default posistion.
People dont always need a study to prove something.
There is no legitimate reason for same gender marriage.
A huge majority of heterosexual people find seeing two men kiss or having sex is a turnoff.
IF anal sex was normal, women wouldnt need pussies.
out
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.