Gay/Straight hypothetical

[jimnyc]

Let's say you're born into a lab of sorts, many of you, but everyone kept isolated. Everyone is kept identical, hair and dress, and you can't even tell apart opposite sexes. You are treated like robots, have no outside influence at all.

Do straights still desire the opposite sex? Do gays desire the same sex?

[Missileman]

Let's say you're born into a lab of sorts, many of you, but everyone kept isolated. Everyone is kept identical, hair and dress, and you can't even tell apart opposite sexes. You are treated like robots, have no outside influence at all.

Do straights still desire the opposite sex? Do gays desire the same sex?

If there's no ability to distinguish between the sexes, how are they supposed to establish a preference?

[OCA]

Everyone desires the opposite sex, in this setting or any other, its innate. Eventually like dogs we would sniff out the opposie of the sexes.

[Missileman]

Everyone desires the opposite sex, in this setting or any other, its innate.

You like to harp about proof...how about backing up this assertion with some of your own?

[OCA]

You like to harp about proof...how about backing up this assertion with some of your own?

Biology 101...........take it.

[Missileman]

Biology 101...........take it.

Post a quote from any Biology 101 text book that says everyone is born heterosexual.

[OCA]

Post a quote from any Biology 101 text book that says everyone is born heterosexual.

http://www.inforefuge.com/science-of-smell-opposite-sex-attraction

[OCA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

[Missileman]

http://www.inforefuge.com/science-of-smell-opposite-sex-attraction

There isn't anything in this link that says everyone is born heterosexual, only that pheremones might play a role in mate selection in humans.

If you have an "A" game, break it out...this minor league shit isn't cutting it.

[Missileman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

And as further proof, you offer an article that says gays are born that way?

[OCA]

You are silly.

Produce an article that says heterosexuality is a choice.

[ConHog]

And as further proof, you offer an article that says gays are born that way?

He has no A game as evidenced by the fact that he argued for outlawing gay MARRIAGE because gay SEX is icky.

My bottom line is who gives a shit if it's a choice or not. Some guys CHOOSE to fuck women in the ass, or were they just born preferring ass to pussy? Whichever way , as long as their partner consents who cares?

[OCA]

He has no A game as evidenced by the fact that he argued for outlawing gay MARRIAGE because gay SEX is icky.

My bottom line is who gives a shit if it's a choice or not. Some guys CHOOSE to fuck women in the ass, or were they just born preferring ass to pussy? Whichever way , as long as their partner consents who cares?

You are cute.

Why do you hate America so much?

[Missileman]

You are silly.

Produce an article that says heterosexuality is a choice.

I might be inclined to do just that, IF, that were an argument I was making.

[ConHog]

You are cute.

Why do you hate America so much?

I LOVE my country, especially the fact that the government nor the people are allowed to just take people's freedom of choice away from them .

Tell the truth OCA, ever took part in anal sex (giving or receiving?)

[OCA]

I might be inclined to do just that, IF, that were an argument I was making.

Do it anyway........because I told you to.

[Missileman]

Do it anyway........because I told you to.

LOL...now who's being silly?

[OCA]

I LOVE my country, especially the fact that the government nor the people are allowed to just take people's freedom of choice away from them .

Tell the truth OCA, ever took part in anal sex (giving or receiving?)

No you don't.

The rest, well, I usually don't pay any mind to the words of.............hypocrites.

Thats right.........thats pretty much the majority opinion on you...........lol.

[OCA]

LOL...now who's being silly?

Certainly not me........go do it now.

[ConHog]

No you don't.

The rest, well, I usually don't pay any mind to the words of.............hypocrites.

Thats right.........thats pretty much the majority opinion on you...........lol.

hilarious that you won't answer the question about anal sex because you know your answer will make you a hypocrite, all the while calling me a hypocrite. :laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

hilarious that you won't answer the question about anal sex because you know your answer will make you a hypocrite, all the while calling me a hypocrite. :laugh2:

So you wanna openly discuss anal sex with the boys, gotta say thats a shocker........:laugh:

[OCA]

hilarious that you won't answer the question about anal sex because you know your answer will make you a hypocrite, all the while calling me a hypocrite. :laugh2:

Nope, never had anal sex hypocrite..............just like you've never had sex with a female.

Now don't you have some Blacks to be hating on?

[Jess]

So you wanna openly discuss anal sex with the boys, gotta say thats a shocker........:laugh:

He does have a point, though. One I've often wondered about and have actually asked a few men. Two questions really:

1. If anal sex is "gay", why do many supposedly straight men think it's ok/great/wonderful?

2. If anal sex is a punishment (i.e. "She's such a bitch! I'd/somebody should f*&$ her in the a**!", how can it also be ok between a man and another woman?

[OCA]

He does have a point, though. One I've often wondered about and have actually asked a few men. Two questions really:

1. If anal sex is "gay", why do many supposedly straight men think it's ok/great/wonderful?

2. If anal sex is a punishment (i.e. "She's such a bitch! I'd/somebody should f*&$ her in the a**!", how can it also be ok between a man and another woman?

Answer to #1=its betwen a man and a woman.

Answer to #2=first off where did you get the idea that its about punishment? There are plenty of babes who love a stiff cock in the pooper!

[Jess]

Answer to #1=its betwen a man and a woman.

Yes, but doesn't a woman have at least two other acceptable orifices? And if we're going biologically - *DON'T READ THIS JIMMY!*- no man would ever get a bj because there is no possibility whatsoever that it will perpetuate the species.

Anal sex is the stereotypical preference of gay men. Why would a straight man want anything that "deviant"? And it would be considered deviant, since it is not the "norm", right?


Answer to #2=first off where did you get the idea that its about punishment? There are plenty of babes who love a stiff cock in the pooper!

Well, then I've some fellas for you to talk to a bit - ones that think it's a supreme form of punishment or control. And if you do the research, you'll probably not be able to deny that it is used as both.

[fj1200]

http://www.inforefuge.com/science-of-smell-opposite-sex-attraction

Interestingly enough from the same site.


Evidence supporting the biological reasoning for existence of homosexuality in the human species is growing. ... the recent research into pheromones has a reassuring sense about the overall biological explanation of homosexuality. ... This gives conclusive evidence to support the biological reasoning for homosexuality. ... but there is enough data to support a mechanical pathway of determining the sexuality of human men. In the study of human pheromones, a chemical pathway has also been identified suggesting a train of reasoning for natural occurrences of homosexuality.
http://www.inforefuge.com/science-of-smell-same-sex-attraction

[Sir Evil]

He does have a point, though. One I've often wondered about and have actually asked a few men. Two questions really:

1. If anal sex is "gay", why do many supposedly straight men think it's ok/great/wonderful?

2. If anal sex is a punishment (i.e. "She's such a bitch! I'd/somebody should f*&$ her in the a**!", how can it also be ok between a man and another woman?


Anal sex is simply a perversion of sexual ritual between male and female, two men engaging in anal sex is just perverting perversion from the word go..

[jimnyc]

If there's no ability to distinguish between the sexes, how are they supposed to establish a preference?

Because they are born that way, or so I'm told? If not, then I suppose what you're implying is that it's a learned behavior of sorts.

[Sir Evil]

There are plenty of babes who love a stiff cock in the pooper!

Good way to present that to a lady in conversation! some things never change...:laugh2:

[OCA]

Yes, but doesn't a woman have at least two other acceptable orifices? And if we're going biologically - *DON'T READ THIS JIMMY!*- no man would ever get a bj because there is no possibility whatsoever that it will perpetuate the species.

Anal sex is the stereotypical preference of gay men. Why would a straight man want anything that "deviant"? And it would be considered deviant, since it is not the "norm", right?


Well, then I've some fellas for you to talk to a bit - ones that think it's a supreme form of punishment or control. And if you do the research, you'll probably not be able to deny that it is used as both.

*sigh*

Do I have to spell this out for you?

Anything goes................as long as its between a man and a woman.

[OCA]

Good way to present that to a lady in conversation! some things never change...:laugh2:

It is what it is Evil!
:coffee:

[Jess]

Anal sex is simply a perversion of sexual ritual between male and female, two men engaging in anal sex is just perverting perversion from the word go..

Hmmmm ... I'm gonna have to disagree with that, my friend.

The female body is designed and made to accept the male member in one specific site. Anal sex is inherently and very literally dirty (go figure) and can significantly damage the woman. That cannot in any way be denied.

Why is it filthy and contributing to disease if it's male on male but just a sexual ritual if it's male on woman?


And what a lovely discussion for a bright, sunny Sunday. :laugh:

[Jess]

*sigh*

Do I have to spell this out for you?

Anything goes................as long as its between a man and a woman.

Wrong.

Anything goes ... as long as both ...
Agree on it
Are comfortable with it
It does not do harm to either party.

[jimnyc]

He has no A game as evidenced by the fact that he argued for outlawing gay MARRIAGE because gay SEX is icky.

My bottom line is who gives a shit if it's a choice or not. Some guys CHOOSE to fuck women in the ass, or were they just born preferring ass to pussy? Whichever way , as long as their partner consents who cares?

Maybe society as a whole? Would you take issue with a couple of people, either orientation, that stood on a street corner smearing one another with feces and eating it? Believe it or not, people do this crap in the privacy of their own homes, and aren't hurting anyone.

[jimnyc]

Lets try and get back on point a little...

In the scenario I put up, I am of the belief that NEITHER would have an interest in either, sexually, if they were treated as such, and kept 100% alike as lab rats. The reason being, is neither is getting an opportunity to LEARN their behavior, however that may be. I'm betting that in this case, all parties would remain the same, unless of course subjected to outside life/influence.

[Sir Evil]

Hmmmm ... I'm gonna have to disagree with that, my friend.

The female body is designed and made to accept the male member in one specific site. Anal sex is inherently and very literally dirty (go figure) and can significantly damage the woman. That cannot in any way be denied.

Why is it filthy and contributing to disease if it's male on male but just a sexual ritual if it's male on woman?


And what a lovely discussion for a bright, sunny Sunday. :laugh:


BINGO!

If you read me clearly then you will see I stated its an act of perversion between male and female of ritual instinct, I never stated it was of the norm but a perversion of the norm.

Between two male is perverting the perversion... Still disagree?

[Sir Evil]

It is what it is Evil!
:coffee:

Yes I suppose it is, but damn you just have to find better termonology when women are present! :laugh2:

[OCA]

Maybe society as a whole? Would you take issue with a couple of people, either orientation, that stood on a street corner smearing one another with feces and eating it? Believe it or not, people do this crap in the privacy of their own homes, and aren't hurting anyone.

A SCATOLOGIST! Thats what Connie is, it all fits now!:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

If there's no ability to distinguish between the sexes, how are they supposed to establish a preference?

Pheromones. ;)

[OCA]

Yes I suppose it is, but damn you just have to find better termonology when women are present! :laugh2:

It was just descriptive, I guess its better than Connie and his constant attacking and abuse of women here and on other boards.

[Jess]

BINGO!

If you read me clearly then you will see I stated its an act of perversion between male and female of ritual instinct, I never stated it was of the norm but a perversion of the norm.

Between two male is perverting the perversion... Still disagree?

Ah, I read it as a "sexual ritual between male and female" and a perversion when between a male and another male. My bad.

[Sir Evil]

It was just descriptive, I guess its better than Connie and his constant attacking and abuse of women here and on other boards.

:laugh2:

[Jess]

Lets try and get back on point a little...

In the scenario I put up, I am of the belief that NEITHER would have an interest in either, sexually, if they were treated as such, and kept 100% alike as lab rats. The reason being, is neither is getting an opportunity to LEARN their behavior, however that may be. I'm betting that in this case, all parties would remain the same, unless of course subjected to outside life/influence.

Very interesting.

Being the animals we are, biological imperative would assert itself at some point and there might not be any differentiation between Man A deciding to try to impregnated either Woman A or Man B. He would have the drive, no doubt, but not the education to tell him what to do with the drive.

Pheromones/hormones might sway some people but others may not be as sensitive and would just run around having sex with anything that didn't move fast enough. Dunno.

[Sir Evil]

Ah, I read it as a "sexual ritual between male and female" and a perversion when between a male and another male. My bad.

Sex is ritual between male and female or male and palm in Jim's case.... Either way what happens between adults is their business I agree but need no excuse hailed upon the gays that they were born genetaically deficient or with some other sort of abnomality..... They are perverting the norm by extremes and want equality? screw that, they should feel lucky to be accepted..

[Jess]

Sex is ritual between male and female or male and palm in Jim's case.... Either way what happens between adults is their business I agree but need no excuse hailed upon the gays that they were born genetaically deficient or with some other sort of abnomality..... They are perverting the norm by extremes and want equality? screw that, they should feel lucky to be accepted..

Brotherly love. :slap:

[Sir Evil]

Brotherly love. :slap:

:laugh2:

damn, was trying to slip that one past but you exposed me!!!

[jimnyc]

Sex is ritual between male and female or male and palm in Jim's case....

You've outted me and my long time "girlfriend". I feel so ashamed. Not that it'll stop me, but still ashamed! LOL

[Jess]

You've outted me and my long time "girlfriend". I feel so ashamed. Not that it'll stop me, but still ashamed! LOL

"Rosey", right?:cool:

[jimnyc]

"Rosey", right?:cool:

Not rosey or hairy, and I'm not going blind. That's why I go to the gym, to keep myself in shape for my girlfriend! :poke:

[ConHog]

You've outted me and my long time "girlfriend". I feel so ashamed. Not that it'll stop me, but still ashamed! LOL

Do you ever use the back of your hand? :coffee:

[Sir Evil]

You've outted me and my long time "girlfriend". I feel so ashamed. Not that it'll stop me, but still ashamed! LOL

:smoke:

On that note think I'll get my shower in and head out for the big game..... In the mean time go ahead and be proudly ashamed so this way when I check in later I won't find that you and oca are asking for the same rights of the averge married couple.

guys arguing about gay sex between men.... something unatural about this thread I think.... :scared:

[ConHog]

Anal sex is simply a perversion of sexual ritual between male and female, two men engaging in anal sex is just perverting perversion from the word go..

So then it's all about how much of a perversion YOU think something is? Yeah, that makes sense.

[Sir Evil]

Do you ever use the back of your hand? :coffee:


Been there, done that as well? ....... I don't even wanna know. :uhoh:

[Sir Evil]

So then it's all about how much of a perversion YOU think something is? Yeah, that makes sense.

Never asked exactly what you thought or what makes sense to you boyhog... go sharpen a ginzu on your wrist.

[jimnyc]

So then it's all about how much of a perversion YOU think something is? Yeah, that makes sense.

Either society sets limitations, or don't set any. If society CAN'T determine what is bad/good as a majority, then like my earlier post states, stuff like scat and marrying animals should be just fine too, as it hurts nobody.

[Sir Evil]

Either society sets limitations, or don't set any. If society CAN'T determine what is bad/good as a majority, then like my earlier post states, stuff like scat and marrying animals should be just fine too, as it hurts nobody.

have fun with this... give a ring later.. :321:

[OCA]

boyhog... go sharpen a ginzu on your wrist.

:laugh2:
:laugh2:

[ConHog]

Either society sets limitations, or don't set any. If society CAN'T determine what is bad/good as a majority, then like my earlier post states, stuff like scat and marrying animals should be just fine too, as it hurts nobody.

Come on Jim, flinging poop in public =/= gay and neither does marriage and thus having sex with animals.

[jimnyc]

Come on Jim, flinging poop in public =/= gay and neither does marriage and thus having sex with animals.

Why, as you said, because YOU don't like it? You see a huge distance between the 2, others may not. If your barometer is that it hurts no one, then neither do the examples I mentioned.

[ConHog]

Why, as you said, because YOU don't like it? You see a huge distance between the 2, others may not. If your barometer is that it hurts no one, then neither do the examples I mentioned.

Really? Hmm having poop in public poses a HUGE health hazard to anyone around and fucking animals of course is just being cruel to animals.

If you and yours want to smear shit all over each other at home and assume the health risks yourself, go for it. As for sex with animals. Let's be real here. No one has a right to harm an animal.

[jimnyc]

So then it's all about how much of a perversion YOU think something is? Yeah, that makes sense.


Really? Hmm having poop in public poses a HUGE health hazard to anyone around and fucking animals of course is just being cruel to animals.

If you and yours want to smear shit all over each other at home and assume the health risks yourself, go for it. As for sex with animals. Let's be real here. No one has a right to harm an animal.

And anyone who can read knows that homo sex causes all kinds of health hazards too. And I said marrying animals, not having sex with them.

the point being is that YOU think something is a perversion, gross, nasty or whatever you want to call it - but you call out others for having a similar opinion about gay sex and thinking it's wrong. Where does society draw the line? WHO gets to decide when things are being pushed too far? In other words, YOU find scat to be gross, and a health hazard, and think the notion is ridiculous. Many think gay sex is a health hazard and gross too. But you're hypocritical, and think people are wrong for judging one, while you are very quick to judge the other.

[Jess]

And anyone who can read knows that homo sex causes all kinds of health hazards too. And I said marrying animals, not having sex with them.

the point being is that YOU think something is a perversion, gross, nasty or whatever you want to call it - but you call out others for having a similar opinion about gay sex and thinking it's wrong. Where does society draw the line? WHO gets to decide when things are being pushed too far? In other words, YOU find scat to be gross, and a health hazard, and think the notion is ridiculous. Many think gay sex is a health hazard and gross too. But you're hypocritical, and think people are wrong for judging one, while you are very quick to judge the other.

ANY anal sex, sex with animals, blood-letting and a bunch of other things are or can be health hazards, whether done by two men, a man and a woman, two women or a man and three goats. :cool:

You know what? Your romance is probably really the only safe one, now that you mention it. ;)

[OCA]

Really? Hmm having poop in public poses a HUGE health hazard to anyone around and fucking animals of course is just being cruel to animals.

If you and yours want to smear shit all over each other at home and assume the health risks yourself, go for it. As for sex with animals. Let's be real here. No one has a right to harm an animal.

You really are a dumbfuck. Do I need to repost the links that show the health risks involved within the queer choice community?

[ConHog]

And anyone who can read knows that homo sex causes all kinds of health hazards too. And I said marrying animals, not having sex with them.

the point being is that YOU think something is a perversion, gross, nasty or whatever you want to call it - but you call out others for having a similar opinion about gay sex and thinking it's wrong. Where does society draw the line? WHO gets to decide when things are being pushed too far? In other words, YOU find scat to be gross, and a health hazard, and think the notion is ridiculous. Many think gay sex is a health hazard and gross too. But you're hypocritical, and think people are wrong for judging one, while you are very quick to judge the other.

Jim the difference is that gay sex presents a health hazard to the people engaging in said sex (and even that is debatable) gays don't represent a health hazard to other people just by walking down the street the way two people having shit out it in the open would . So they aren't equal. Being gay would more be equal to smearing shit all over each other in private , which I have said go for it.

As for animal marriage. I suppose if one wants to pretend that allowing animal marriage wouldn't lead to animal sex they could make a case that animal marriage doesn't = animal sex, but in the real world we know that one will lead to the other and objecting to having sex with animals has nothing to do with thinking it's gross and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that we have laws which prevent a person from being cruel to animals. Some dude fucking his pug dog is certainly being cruel to that pug. I think we can agree on that.

As for judging, I have NEVER EVER once suggested that a person couldn't/shouldn't judge gays or anyone else. So how could I be hypocritical? Hypocritical would be if I judged someone and then said "hey Jim, don't judge anyone", but I've never said that now have I. All I have said is that they should be allowed to do as they please as long as both parties are consenting and they aren't harming anyone/anything. But , and I have said this before in fact, you or anyone else absolutely has the right to make fun of them, judge them, criticize them, or whatever........ That is a far cry from outlawing their behavior.

[OCA]

And anyone who can read knows that homo sex causes all kinds of health hazards too. And I said marrying animals, not having sex with them.

the point being is that YOU think something is a perversion, gross, nasty or whatever you want to call it - but you call out others for having a similar opinion about gay sex and thinking it's wrong. Where does society draw the line? WHO gets to decide when things are being pushed too far? In other words, YOU find scat to be gross, and a health hazard, and think the notion is ridiculous. Many think gay sex is a health hazard and gross too. But you're hypocritical, and think people are wrong for judging one, while you are very quick to judge the other.

Jimmy you can't change Connie's hypocritical personality.

[jimnyc]

Jim the difference is that gay sex presents a health hazard to the people engaging in said sex (and even that is debatable) gays don't represent a health hazard to other people just by walking down the street the way two people having shit out it in the open would . So they aren't equal. Being gay would more be equal to smearing shit all over each other in private , which I have said go for it.

As for animal marriage. I suppose if one wants to pretend that allowing animal marriage wouldn't lead to animal sex they could make a case that animal marriage doesn't = animal sex, but in the real world we know that one will lead to the other and objecting to having sex with animals has nothing to do with thinking it's gross and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that we have laws which prevent a person from being cruel to animals. Some dude fucking his pug dog is certainly being cruel to that pug. I think we can agree on that.

As for judging, I have NEVER EVER once suggested that a person couldn't/shouldn't judge gays or anyone else. So how could I be hypocritical? Hypocritical would be if I judged someone and then said "hey Jim, don't judge anyone", but I've never said that now have I. All I have said is that they should be allowed to do as they please as long as both parties are consenting and they aren't harming anyone/anything. But , and I have said this before in fact, you or anyone else absolutely has the right to make fun of them, judge them, criticize them, or whatever........ That is a far cry from outlawing their behavior.

I can come up with a billion other things that some see as sick/twisted/vile/gross, but not everyone thinks so, about each and every one of them. You minimize what another says by asking "So then it's all about how much of a perversion YOU think something is? Yeah, that makes sense" - but YOU will dismiss other things, simply because it's YOU who find those things vile/disgusting. So since you're not a hypocrite, you agree that people dealing in scat should be a respected group in society, and maybe even receive some extra benefits/privileges, they just need to keep the behavior off the streets, like drinking for example?

[DragonStryk72]

Let's say you're born into a lab of sorts, many of you, but everyone kept isolated. Everyone is kept identical, hair and dress, and you can't even tell apart opposite sexes. You are treated like robots, have no outside influence at all.

Do straights still desire the opposite sex? Do gays desire the same sex?

Okay, so then, to be clear:

We have no moral values of any kind, since we are not taught any
We have no language, since that, again, would require teaching

Well, it wouldn't matter. It would go by personality up to the point of sex, since there is no way to tell anyone apart, then there would likely be some experimenting, while others would go looking for something else. Some would find out they enjoy both kinds, while others discover they like one or the other.

All I know for certain is that's gonna be one messy floor, since they don't know to clean up after themselves.

[ConHog]

I can come up with a billion other things that some see as sick/twisted/vile/gross, but not everyone thinks so, about each and every one of them. You minimize what another says by asking "So then it's all about how much of a perversion YOU think something is? Yeah, that makes sense" - but YOU will dismiss other things, simply because it's YOU who find those things vile/disgusting. So since you're not a hypocrite, you agree that people dealing in scat should be a respected group in society, and maybe even receive some extra benefits/privileges, they just need to keep the behavior off the streets, like drinking for example?

Once again you suggest that I have said that gays should be a respected group in society or receive extra anything. I have NEVER suggested such things Jim. Perhaps your confusing me with someone else. My ONLY comment has been live and let live. I don't want to see people smearing shit on each other on the street corner, and I don't want to see gays making out on the street corner, but neither do I really want to see straights making out on the street corner.

You speak of morals, but what of the morals of keeping your private life, private? My gay friends don't show ANY affection outside of their own home, they don't grope each other, neither wears assless chaps, they don't call each other girlfriend. Hell , my guess is you could sit and watch a football game with both of them and never even realize they were gay unless I had told you. In fact I know that is so. So, if you want to go after the flaming idiots who feel the need to shove their gay in our faces, I'm with you. I would just expect you to be with me when I go after the shit flingers who wish to throw their shit in our faces.

[Abbey Marie]

And the more you "normalize" it by allowing marriage, the more of this you (and your children) WILL see. Looks like lots of shoving it in our faces to me.
(I used relatively tame photos, btw)

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/1/8/0/3/5/a1335682-102-Gay-parade-1998-002.jpg?d=1180812126


3251

http://righttruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e2014e8a67d148970d-800wi

[ConHog]

And the more you "normalize" it by allowing marriage, the more of this you (and your children) WILL see. Looks like lots of shoving it in our faces to me.
(I used relatively tame photos, btw)

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/1/8/0/3/5/a1335682-102-Gay-parade-1998-002.jpg?d=1180812126


3251

http://righttruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e2014e8a67d148970d-800wi

gay or straight, those people would be idiots. By the way in the third picture , is that Sly Stallone? :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Abbey, people will tell you that's not the norm. Well, it sure as shit is within several parades yearly in NYC. Then I defy you to go to several public neighborhoods you can go to where the dress and actions are like that all the time. I've been in and out of the City my entire life, and worked there for many years and have been out for "nights" on more occasions than I care to admit. A lot of the gay stuff is out in full bloom like that in the City and has been for many years. YeK!

But the parades are the ones that really piss me off, as there are always kids around for parades. Even the queer only parade, it's MANHATTAN, there will ALWAYS be kids around. I don't think that behavior should be brought before the children, but then again they are already teaching this crap to our kids in school.

[ConHog]

Abbey, people will tell you that's not the norm. Well, it sure as shit is within several parades yearly in NYC. Then I defy you to go to several public neighborhoods you can go to where the dress and actions are like that all the time. I've been in and out of the City my entire life, and worked there for many years and have been out for "nights" on more occasions than I care to admit. A lot of the gay stuff is out in full bloom like that in the City and has been for many years. YeK!

But the parades are the ones that really piss me off, as there are always kids around for parades. Even the queer only parade, it's MANHATTAN, there will ALWAYS be kids around. I don't think that behavior should be brought before the children, but then again they are already teaching this crap to our kids in school.

I FULLY agree with you that that bullshit is skirting the edge of decency and shouldn't be in public view. But I would say the same thing about many things that happen at Mardi Gras in NO.

[Missileman]

Because they are born that way, or so I'm told? If not, then I suppose what you're implying is that it's a learned behavior of sorts.

You've set up a scenario where there is no discernable difference between the males and females. It's the same thing as only feeding a group of people oatmeal and then wondering if they prefer beef or pork.

[Missileman]

Pheromones. ;)

Indeed a possibility. Would you say that responses to pheremones would be a learned or innate trait?

[jimnyc]

You've set up a scenario where there is no discernable difference between the males and females. It's the same thing as only feeding a group of people oatmeal and then wondering if they prefer beef or pork.

I supposed I worded it wrong. But my point was, I'd wager anything that if 1000 people were raised side by side, and raised under the exact same circumstances, I think you would find little to no homosexuality, unless it was taught or shown to them in some way. As I said in another thread, I believe it's 100% a "learned" behavior. Absent something, anything at all, to explain it by the medical/scientific field, I have little alternative but to belive it's learned.

[jimnyc]

Indeed a possibility. Would you say that responses to pheremones would be a learned or innate trait?

I'm willing to wager that a persons response to pheremones, while naturally occuring and not learned, can still be explained.

[Missileman]

You really are a dumbfuck. Do I need to repost the links that show the health risks involved within the queer choice community?

What are the health risks of a monogamous homosexual relationship that aren't present in a monogamous heterosexual relationship assuming both engage in anal and oral?

[jimnyc]

Sex In animals, sex pheromones indicate the availability of the female for breeding. Male animals may also emit pheromones that convey information about their species and genotype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype).
At the microscopic level, male copepods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copepod) can follow a three-dimensional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional) pheromone trail left by a swimming female, and male gametes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete) of many animals use a pheromone to help find a female gamete, for fertilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilization).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone#cite_note-12)
Many insect species release sex pheromones to attract a mate, and many lepidopterans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidoptera) (moths and butterflies) can detect a potential mate from as far away as 10 kilometers (6.25 mi). Traps containing pheromones are used by farmers to detect and monitor insect populations in orchards.
Pheromones are also used in the detection of oestrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oestrus) in sows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig). Boar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar) pheromones are sprayed into the sty (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sty), and those sows that exhibit sexual arousal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_arousal) are known to be currently available for breeding. Sea urchins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_urchin) release pheromones into the surrounding water, sending a chemical message that triggers other urchins in the colony to eject their sex cells simultaneously.



There is an awful lot, in the scientific and medical community, known about pheromones.

[Missileman]

I supposed I worded it wrong. But my point was, I'd wager anything that if 1000 people were raised side by side, and raised under the exact same circumstances, I think you would find little to no homosexuality, unless it was taught or shown to them in some way. As I said in another thread, I believe it's 100% a "learned" behavior. Absent something, anything at all, to explain it by the medical/scientific field, I have little alternative but to belive it's learned.


I'm willing to wager that a persons response to pheremones, while naturally occuring and not learned, can still be explained.

Refer to: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34197-Gay-Straight-hypothetical&p=523473#post523473

Homosexual males respond differently to male pheremones than heterosexual males.

Explained as what? Something other than being born that way?

[jimnyc]

Refer to: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34197-Gay-Straight-hypothetical&p=523473#post523473

Homosexual males respond differently to male pheremones than heterosexual males.

Explained as what? Something other than being born that way?

Just about every last thing that humans are born with can be explained in one way or another. Being gay, and living an entire lifestyle as a result of not being to overcome this urge, would be one of the rarer things in the universe that cannot be explained by either medicine or scientifically. Just odd is all.

[fj1200]

But my point was, I'd wager anything...

I'd wager you'd find the same percentage as in the population at large.

[OCA]

What are the health risks of a monogamous homosexual relationship that aren't present in a monogamous heterosexual relationship assuming both engage in anal and oral?

Hard to tell since a major part of the homosexual choice lifestyle is abundant promiscuity.

[fj1200]

Just about every last thing that humans are born with can be explained in one way or another. Being gay, and living an entire lifestyle as a result of not being to overcome this urge, would be one of the rarer things in the universe that cannot be explained by either medicine or scientifically. Just odd is all.

Let's pretend that we find the magic bullet that explains "gay" and is perfectly natural for some to be that way; would you still maintain that they need to be "fixed"?

[jimnyc]

I'd wager you'd find the same percentage as in the population at large.

I think that under the scenario you replied to, that you wouldn't have a single one. I guess we'll never know. But I do know is that there's nothing to support homosexuality being anything that someone is born with. I would love to see concrete proof of this, even if it's because I like to see a puzzle solved. It's one of those extremely rare things that neither doctors or scientists can identify, sorta like aliens! :laugh2: just messin with ya!

[ConHog]

I supposed I worded it wrong. But my point was, I'd wager anything that if 1000 people were raised side by side, and raised under the exact same circumstances, I think you would find little to no homosexuality, unless it was taught or shown to them in some way. As I said in another thread, I believe it's 100% a "learned" behavior. Absent something, anything at all, to explain it by the medical/scientific field, I have little alternative but to belive it's learned.

Do you leave any room for the possibility that maybe 100 of those 1000 have gay tendencies but don't tell anyone because they don't want to be treated differently?

As an example. Left handed people used to be ostracized or else converted to right handed. This was often times not done too nicely, so many left handers just pretended to be right handed . Not a perfect correlation of course, but you get the idea.

[jimnyc]

Let's pretend that we find the magic bullet that explains "gay" and is perfectly natural for some to be that way; would you still maintain that they need to be "fixed"?

It can hardly be natural, as we know the human anatomy already, and the science behind it. Anything added to it, is unnatural to the body by definition. But regardless, and even if, if it was identified, of couse I would still think it needs to be fixed. Homo sex is unnatural, dangerous, bad for families, bad for society & only serve as perversion to those who can't control their urges.

[jimnyc]

Do you leave any room for the possibility that maybe 100 of those 1000 have gay tendencies but don't tell anyone because they don't want to be treated differently?

Nope.

[ConHog]

Hard to tell since a major part of the homosexual choice lifestyle is abundant promiscuity.

How untrue.

http://wigaypedia.com/wiki/Facts_about_Gay_Promiscuity

In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.

I only pasted the results of one of the three studies which ALL concluded that straights have MORE partners than gays in the mean.

[ConHog]

Nope.

IOW this subject is completely emotional for you rather than one you are willing to actually consider the facts before rendering an opinion.

[jimnyc]

IOW this subject is completely emotional for you rather than one you are willing to actually consider the facts before rendering an opinion.

I said my words, you'd be best to just quote what I say, or respond to it, rather than changing what I say to something else.

[ConHog]

I said my words, you'd be best to just quote what I say, or respond to it, rather than changing what I say to something else.

So now IOW is against the board rules?

Got it.

[jimnyc]

So now IOW is against the board rules?

Got it.

Who the hell said it was against the rules? I'm simply saying it would be best. Or do you think its better to misquote people and/or change what they are saying for effect, as if it somehow helps your stance. Not sure about you, but I think its lame.

[ConHog]

Who the hell said it was against the rules? I'm simply saying it would be best. Or do you think its better to misquote people and/or change what they are saying for effect, as if it somehow helps your stance. Not sure about you, but I think its lame.

I didn't change the meaning of what you feel at all. And I sure didn't change your actual words.

My OPINION is that your words on this subject tell us that you are unwilling to even explore the possibility that you are wrong.

[jimnyc]

I didn't change the meaning of what you feel at all. And I sure didn't change your actual words.

My OPINION is that your words on this subject tell us that you are unwilling to even explore the possibility that you are wrong.

Whatever, that's not the way I read it, but I'm not dwelling on it. I understand that there are plenty of scenarios where I can be wrong on this subject, I just think your statements are dumb.

[ConHog]

Whatever, that's not the way I read it, but I'm not dwelling on it. I understand that there are plenty of scenarios where I can be wrong on this subject, I just think your statements are dumb.

List those scenarios that you think you could be wrong Jim, because EVERY scenario someone has posted you have said "nope" to. Lending credence to my opinion that your opinion won't change no matter the evidence presented to you.

[OCA]

How untrue.

http://wigaypedia.com/wiki/Facts_about_Gay_Promiscuity

In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.

I only pasted the results of one of the three studies which ALL concluded that straights have MORE partners than gays in the mean.

http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

[ConHog]

http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

What's that prove OCA you showed 3 studies, I showed 3 studies, seems to me that proves that we have no actual proof one way or the other, making YOUR absolute statement that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals untrue, just as I originally stated.

[jimnyc]

List those scenarios that you think you could be wrong Jim, because EVERY scenario someone has posted you have said "nope" to. Lending credence to my opinion that your opinion won't change no matter the evidence presented to you.

When I see proof of gays being born with anything different than you and I. Until then - learned behavior, IMO.

[OCA]

What's that prove OCA you showed 3 studies, I showed 3 studies, seems to me that proves that we have no actual proof one way or the other, making YOUR absolute statement that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals untrue, just as I originally stated.

I'll tell you what, ask those queers you have over at your place how many they've blown.

[ConHog]

When I see proof of gays being born with anything different than you and I. Until then - learned behavior, IMO.

Okay, then let me amend my earlier statement to read "IOW until you see some as yet unidentified proof that I deem acceptable I won't leave room for the possibility that I'm wrong"

And still yet, all this argument about choice, or born that way. WHO CARES? Why do you care what someone else is doing with another adult? I'm not talking about all the idiots running around in parades and such. I'm talking about the actual state of being gay. WHO CARES?

[ConHog]

I'll tell you what, ask those queers you have over at your place how many they've blown.


"those queers" as you put them are both better men than you, and I couldn't care less about their sexual life.

[OCA]

"those queers" as you put them are both better men than you, and I couldn't care less about their sexual life.

I'll bet you their parents are ashamed.

[OCA]

WHO CARES? WHO CARES?

Why do you hate America so much?

[ConHog]

I'll bet you their parents are ashamed.


Oh, I don't know, the "queers" parents seemed just as proud as my own parents did when we returned from overseas.

[OCA]

Oh, I don't know, the "queers" parents seemed just as proud as my own parents did when we returned from overseas.

Peace Corps?

[Missileman]

Hard to tell since a major part of the homosexual choice lifestyle is abundant promiscuity.

Yet you complain endlessly at their attempts to adopt and would deny them a legally binding monogamous arrangement.

[ConHog]

Yet you complain endlessly at their attempts to adopt and would deny them a legally binding monogamous arrangement.

Here's how stupid OCA is. He thinks that GAY is a choice, but those who CHOOSE to be gay can't also choose to be monogamous. LOL

[OCA]

Yet you complain endlessly at their attempts to adopt and would deny them a legally binding monogamous arrangement.

Marriage changes nothing about their lifestyle.

[OCA]

Here's how stupid OCA is. He thinks that GAY is a choice, but those who CHOOSE to be gay can't also choose to be monogamous. LOL

There are plenty of links to prove my POV.

[ConHog]

There are plenty of links to prove my POV.

https://www.google.com/search?q=big%20foot%20found&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=zCZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=np&source=hp&q=confirmed+bigfoot+sighting&pbx=1&oq=confirmed+big+foot&aq=1lv&aqi=g-lv3&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=10374l21402l0l25079l43l28l6l2l2l3l398l4724l 0.21.3.3l36l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=20d79f0a81e4895c&biw=1787&bih=783

Links mean less than what you wish they did.

[OCA]

https://www.google.com/search?q=big foot found&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=zCZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=np&source=hp&q=confirmed+bigfoot+sighting&pbx=1&oq=confirmed+big+foot&aq=1lv&aqi=g-lv3&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=10374l21402l0l25079l43l28l6l2l2l3l398l4724l 0.21.3.3l36l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=20d79f0a81e4895c&biw=1787&bih=783

Links mean less than what you wish they did.

They don't mean shit when they don't support Boytoucher Hog's position.

[ConHog]

They don't mean shit when they don't support Boytoucher Hog's position.

LOL onto the pedophile claims? Grow up.

[Missileman]

Marriage changes nothing about their lifestyle.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[OCA]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It is so because I say so.

[Missileman]

It is so because I say so.

Another minor league post on your part. For someone who claims to bring it, you are nothing other than unbrung...and yeah, I know it's not a word.

[ConHog]

Another minor league post on your part. For someone who claims to bring it, you are nothing other than unbrung...and yeah, I know it's not a word.

Minor league? You're very generous.

[DragonStryk72]

I supposed I worded it wrong. But my point was, I'd wager anything that if 1000 people were raised side by side, and raised under the exact same circumstances, I think you would find little to no homosexuality, unless it was taught or shown to them in some way. As I said in another thread, I believe it's 100% a "learned" behavior. Absent something, anything at all, to explain it by the medical/scientific field, I have little alternative but to belive it's learned.

Um, jim, not to poke here, but uh, Nobody taught me or showed me masturbation. I pretty much came to that one on my own. We do have instinctual sexual urges, hence why the teen years tend to get to be such a mess. Learned behavior certainly matters a lot, but we still do have the base urges we're born with.

[Noir]

Surly a simple answer can be found by looking to the rest of the animal kingdom...many species of animals have been found to have homosexual/bisexual members, and it seems unlikey that they are such a way because of social pressure, or wanting to be an attention whore...and i also dare say the suicide rates aren't so high.

And as i side note, i remember reading (thought it was a while ago now) that the sheep seems to be one of the most homosexual species (for want of a better expression) and that studies showed that as many as 10% of male sheep would only have sex with other male sheep and ignore the females.

[ConHog]

Surly a simple answer can be found by looking to the rest of the animal kingdom...many species of animals have been found to have homosexual/bisexual members, and it seems unlikey that they are such a way because of social pressure, or wanting to be an attention whore...and i also dare say the suicide rates aren't so high.

And as i side note, i remember reading (thought it was a while ago now) that the sheep seems to be one of the most homosexual species (for want of a better expression) and that studies showed that as many as 10% of male sheep would only have sex with other male sheep and ignore the females.

Just playin devuls advocate here. My dogs eat their own poop. Yhat doesnt mame it acceptable for humans to do so. So thatw. NOt much evidence

[Noir]

Just playin devuls advocate here. My dogs eat their own poop. Yhat doesnt mame it acceptable for humans to do so. So thatw. NOt much evidence

Wasn't debating the morality. Rather the idea that homosexuality/bisexuality is a learned behaviour or one caused by social pressure. Who's pressuring the sheep?

When someone says something is unnatural, yet you see it in nature, a lot, hm...

[Missileman]

Just playin devuls advocate here. My dogs eat their own poop. Yhat doesnt mame it acceptable for humans to do so. So thatw. NOt much evidence


Did your dogs type this? :laugh2:

[fj1200]

I think that under the scenario you replied to, that you wouldn't have a single one. I guess we'll never know. But I do know is that there's nothing to support homosexuality being anything that someone is born with. I would love to see concrete proof of this, even if it's because I like to see a puzzle solved. It's one of those extremely rare things that neither doctors or scientists can identify, sorta like aliens! :laugh2: just messin with ya!

Aliens? I have my doubts about some. :poke:

Did you respond to the pheromone study I linked? I got it via OCA so there must be some relevance to it. :thumb:


It can hardly be natural, as we know the human anatomy already, and the science behind it. Anything added to it, is unnatural to the body by definition. But regardless, and even if, if it was identified, of couse I would still think it needs to be fixed. Homo sex is unnatural, dangerous, bad for families, bad for society & only serve as perversion to those who can't control their urges.

Breeders do the same things. :crossesfingers:

[ConHog]

Did your dogs type this? :laugh2:

LOL , no I was on my Droid. Stupid Droid.

[jimnyc]

Um, jim, not to poke here, but uh, Nobody taught me or showed me masturbation. I pretty much came to that one on my own. We do have instinctual sexual urges, hence why the teen years tend to get to be such a mess. Learned behavior certainly matters a lot, but we still do have the base urges we're born with.

I'm sure it was learned in some manner, that you were aware that orgasm existed, and more or less how to make it happen. Either that or you were just blindly pulling on it hoping it wouldn't fall off?


Surly a simple answer can be found by looking to the rest of the animal kingdom...many species of animals have been found to have homosexual/bisexual members, and it seems unlikey that they are such a way because of social pressure, or wanting to be an attention whore...and i also dare say the suicide rates aren't so high.

And as i side note, i remember reading (thought it was a while ago now) that the sheep seems to be one of the most homosexual species (for want of a better expression) and that studies showed that as many as 10% of male sheep would only have sex with other male sheep and ignore the females.

These are always the dumbest of arguments. We are NOT animals. We are civilized human beings. Animals do many things instinctually and for little reason, it hardly means that it's normal for humans to do or be the same.

[jimnyc]

Wasn't debating the morality. Rather the idea that homosexuality/bisexuality is a learned behaviour or one caused by social pressure. Who's pressuring the sheep?

When someone says something is unnatural, yet you see it in nature, a lot, hm...

So if we see it in nature, that automatically means it can't be unnatural for humans to have similar behavior?

[DragonStryk72]

Wasn't debating the morality. Rather the idea that homosexuality/bisexuality is a learned behaviour or one caused by social pressure. Who's pressuring the sheep?


The shepherd?

[Noir]

So if we see it in nature, that automatically means it can't be unnatural for humans to have similar behavior?

Nope, that would be stupid, you must apply common sense and reasoning to decdide if it is a moral thing for people to be able to do.

However, like i said, i was not discussing the morality, as thats not the OP, so i don't want to get side tracked onto that. I was discussing the nature/non-nature of homosexuality/bisexuality.

So, given it does happen (an observed and studied fact) in nature, without social pressure or anything else of the sort, do you not consider homosexual/bisexual behaviour to be a part of nature?

If not, then by what artificial means are animals deviating?

[Noir]

The shepherd?

Nope.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm sure it was learned in some manner, that you were aware that orgasm existed, and more or less how to make it happen. Either that or you were just blindly pulling on it hoping it wouldn't fall off?



These are always the dumbest of arguments. We are NOT animals. We are civilized human beings. Animals do many things instinctually and for little reason, it hardly means that it's normal for humans to do or be the same.

Nope, just felt good, and I went with it. My dad held off on "the talk" a long time, way too long, and frankly, I slept through the classes, those things were soooo boring. I had no idea, I freaked out, cause I'd peed before and that had never come out, and it was more rubbing than pulling really.

Jim, according to your stated parameters, Everything that *makes* us human was removed from the equation, so Noir's point is correct. With no morality, and no learning, we are little better than animals. Human behavior as we know it is a learned behavior for the most part.

[jimnyc]

Nope, that would be stupid, you must apply common sense and reasoning to decdide if it is a moral thing for people to be able to do.

However, like i said, i was not discussing the morality, as thats not the OP, so i don't want to get side tracked onto that. I was discussions the nature/non-nature of homosexuality/bisexuality.

So, given it does happen (an observed and studied fact) in nature, without social pressure or anything else of the sort, do you not consider homosexual/bisexual behaviour to be a part of nature?

If not, then by what artificial means are animals deviating?

It's a part of animals out in nature, yes. Whether "born with" urges, or learned, or forced or for whatever reason they do what they do - it's not humans. Maybe they think they are trying to procreate and are too dumb to tell apart the sexes?

[Noir]

These are always the dumbest of arguments. We are NOT animals. We are civilized human beings. Animals do many things instinctually and for little reason, it hardly means that it's normal for humans to do or be the same.

I think you're missing the point of your own OP =/

We are animals, with instants, so if (as in the OP) we have no sexual training, we will run on our instincts, and looking to nature they're are countless examples of animals that have homosexual/bisexual instincts.

Should we do the same = Moral question, not in OP, discussion for another thread.
Would we do the same = OP question, based on instinct and nature, according to what we have observed, yes we would.

[ConHog]

It's a part of animals out in nature, yes. Whether "born with" urges, or learned, or forced or for whatever reason they do what they do - it's not humans. Maybe they think they are trying to procreate and are too dumb to tell apart the sexes?

Most every animal can naturally tell the difference between a male and a female of their species. The exceptions of course are the rare animals that can take on traits of both sexes as needed.

[jimnyc]

Nope, just felt good, and I went with it. My dad held off on "the talk" a long time, way too long, and frankly, I slept through the classes, those things were soooo boring. I had no idea, I freaked out, cause I'd peed before and that had never come out, and it was more rubbing than pulling really.

Jim, according to your stated parameters, Everything that *makes* us human was removed from the equation, so Noir's point is correct. With no morality, and no learning, we are little better than animals. Human behavior as we know it is a learned behavior for the most part.

Well, I can't prove your story wrong, so I have no alternative to believe it. But that's like a girl finding a dildo, knowing nothing about how sex works at all, not knowing what would happen, and inserting it and using it in a "sexual" manner all by mistake in the hopes of feeling good, but doing so blindly. Odd is all. The first few times for me were mysterious, but I had seen playboys, hustler, movies, conversations... I kinda had an idea, knew there was light at the end of the tunnel and went with it.

No, CHOICE is a human behavior that animals have very little understanding of. EVEN IF, and even if you could prove the "born with" thing, which no one has yet, it's still a CHOICE. It's been proven in certain studies how people are born with certain tendencies to drink, do drugs, gamble.... But the person doing the actions always has a choice, always.

[Noir]

It's a part of animals out in nature, yes. Whether "born with" urges, or learned, or forced or for whatever reason they do what they do - it's not humans. Maybe they think they are trying to procreate and are too dumb to tell apart the sexes?

There you are then, its part of our animal nature. Without training or education then we would find in a population of humans, hetros, homo's and bisexuals.

Whether you want to put the reason down to the humans being dumb or anything else is of little matter. You've answered your OP question.

[jimnyc]

Most every animal can naturally tell the difference between a male and a female of their species. The exceptions of course are the rare animals that can take on traits of both sexes as needed.

Didn't know you were a scientist or a long serving veterinarian. What proof are you offering?

[jimnyc]

There you are then, its part of our animal nature. Without training or education then we would find in a population of humans, hetros, homo's and bisexuals.

Whether you want to put the reason down to the humans being dumb or anything else is of little matter. You've answered your OP question.

Nice try, but not even close. Humans are simply not animals, not even in the scenario I described.

[Noir]

Nice try, but not even close. Humans are simply not animals, not even in the scenario I described.

Firstly thats remarkably conceited.

Secondly your hypothetical is pointless, because the whole point of it (i thought) was that humans were treated as robots etc, so someone could only become homo/bisexual through instinct and nature, not by social pressure, learning, and nurture.

In which case, i have no idea what you're looking for, or what answer could satisfy you other than the answer i assume you want, because the only way to ensure there would be no homes/bi's, would be to, er, educated the humans out of their instinctive behaviour, contrary to the whole concept of the hypothetical.

[jimnyc]

Firstly thats remarkably conceited.

Secondly your hypothetical is pointless, because the whole point of it (i thought) was that humans were treated as robots etc, so someone could only become homo/bisexual through instinct and nature, not by social pressure, learning, and nurture.

In which case, i have no idea what you're looking for, or what answer could satisfy you other than the answer i assume you want, because the only way to ensure there would be no homes/bi's, would be to, er, educated the humans out of their instinctive behaviour, silly.

Conceited? I didn't even discuss myself? Where did you get that from?

Instinctive, learned, urges... we are NOT animals. You can't say "well, animals do it without it being learned, so that proves it's the same as humans". We are DIFFERENT.

[ConHog]

Didn't know you were a scientist or a long serving veterinarian. What proof are you offering?

My credentials on the subject are about equal to yours. You offer some proof that some animals can't tell the difference between the sexes and I'll rebut.

Or we could act like grown ups and acknowledge that my post was an OPINION the same as yours. Your choice.

[jimnyc]

It's a part of animals out in nature, yes. Whether "born with" urges, or learned, or forced or for whatever reason they do what they do - it's not humans. Maybe they think they are trying to procreate and are too dumb to tell apart the sexes?


Most every animal can naturally tell the difference between a male and a female of their species. The exceptions of course are the rare animals that can take on traits of both sexes as needed.


My credentials on the subject are about equal to yours. You offer some proof that some animals can't tell the difference between the sexes and I'll rebut.

Or we could act like grown ups and acknowledge that my post was an OPINION the same as yours. Your choice.

Mine sure as hell looks like my opinion, where your statement appears to be trying to come across as fact. You want to state things as fact, then be expected to back it up. Asking for proof is hardly being less than "grown up" - so save your lame comments till they accumulate and shove them up your ass. Talk about being grown up - why did you race away like a little bitch when I destroyed your argument about resisting arrest being a right? You whine like a little girl about how friends should "apologize" to one another. When you become a man someday and have it in you to stay put and admit when your ass is whooped, then you can start whining about other shit. Until then, save your whining bullshit for people in your league, because you're not even close to mine.

[Noir]

Conceited? I didn't even discuss myself? Where did you get that from?

Instinctive, learned, urges... we are NOT animals. You can't say "well, animals do it without it being learned, so that proves it's the same as humans". We are DIFFERENT.

Conceited not in terms of you as a person, but in your view as us as a species. We are animals, with animal instants, and thats a fact, like it or not.

If you think for some reason, that humans are an exception to the rule regarding sexuality, fair enough, but it makes your OP question pointless, because you are coming in with an (unscientific) bias that since we just happen to be 'different' in a certain way that means only the answer you want can be right. That's no basis from with to have a hypothetical discussion.

[jimnyc]

Conceited on in terms of you as a person, but as us as a species. We are animals, with animal instants, and thats a fact, like it or not.

If you think for some reason, that humans are an exception to the rule regarding sexuality, fair enough, but it makes your OP question pointless, because you are coming in with (an unscientific) bias that since we just happen to be 'different' in a certain way that means only the answer you want can be right. That's no basis from with to have a hypothetical discussion.

The very definition of an "animal":


any such living thing other than a human being.



Want to try again?

[Noir]

The very definition of an "animal":



Want to try again?

Don't know where you got that from, but i'd prefer a biological definition -

noun, plural: animals
A living organism (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism) belonging to Kingdom Animalia (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Kingdom_Animalia) that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:
(1) being eukaryotic (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Eukaryotic) (i.e. the cell (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cell) contains a membrane-bound nucleus (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Nucleus)) and usuallymulticellular (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Multicellular) (unlike bacteria (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Bacteria) and most protists (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Protists), an animal is composed of severalcells (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cells) performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Heterotrophic) (unlike plants (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Plants) and algae (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Algae) that are autotrophic (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Autotrophic), an animal depends on another organism (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism) for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Digestive_tract))
(3) lacking cell wall (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cell_wall) (unlike plants (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Plants), algae (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Algae) and some fungi (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fungi) that possess cell walls (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cell_walls))
(4) being generally motile (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Motile), that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Embryo) passing through a blastula (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Blastula) stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs (http://www.biology-online.org/bodict/index.php?title=Sensory_organ&action=edit) for recognizing and responding to stimuli (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Stimuli) in the environment (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Environment)
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Animal


Then of course you could define humans...

noun, plural: humans
A bipedal (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Bipedal) primate (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Primate) belonging to the genus (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genus) Homo, especially Homo sapiens (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homo_sapiens).

adjective
Of, pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species) of theHomo sapiens (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homo_sapiens).
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human

In any case, i wanted to discuss the OP hypothetical, not drivel about word definitions. And i believe i explained, within the context of the OP, and with reference to nature and scientific studies that in the case of the OP you would find gays and bisexuals in the human population, i can't think of anything more i'd like to say on the matter, and if you wish merely to argue definitions, then i'll leave that to others.

[jimnyc]

In any case, i wanted to discuss the OP hypothetical, not drivel about word definitions. And i believe i explained, within the context of the OP, and with reference to nature and scientific studies that in the case of the OP you would find gays and bisexuals in the human population, i can't think of anything more i'd like to say on the matter, and if you wish merely to argue definitions, then i'll leave that to others.

I'm simply stating that we cannot compare humans to animals. Even biologically speaking, there are many, many differences. Animals are not human and humans are not animals. I'm not "arguing" the definition, just rebutting since it was YOU who said that it was a fact that humans were animals, and that's simply not true either. Humans have animal instincts as they're referred to, and that's about it. Then we are biologically similar to many species, but not the same.

As to your argument, really all you did was proclaim that it happens in nature, and no one taught the animals, and therefore came to the conclusion that all homosexuality must be natural as a result. And my stance is that you are comparing 2 different species. If you want to believe animals engaging in certain acts proves that it's natural for humans to do so as well, so be it.

[jimnyc]

Btw, since you did ask where I got that definition, and realizing I didn't cite a source, let me do so:


1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

2. any such living thing other than a human being.


3. a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.

4. the physical, sensual, or carnal nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature) of human beings; animality (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animality): the animal in every person.

5. an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal.




http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animal

[ConHog]

Mine sure as hell looks like my opinion, where your statement appears to be trying to come across as fact. You want to state things as fact, then be expected to back it up. Asking for proof is hardly being less than "grown up" - so save your lame comments till they accumulate and shove them up your ass. Talk about being grown up - why did you race away like a little bitch when I destroyed your argument about resisting arrest being a right? You whine like a little girl about how friends should "apologize" to one another. When you become a man someday and have it in you to stay put and admit when your ass is whooped, then you can start whining about other shit. Until then, save your whining bullshit for people in your league, because you're not even close to mine.

If I meant it to appear as a fact, I would have written "THIS IS A FACT"

the rest of your post is just some bullshit.

[jimnyc]

If I meant it to appear as a fact, I would have written "THIS IS A FACT"

the rest of your post is just some bullshit.

Actually, the rest of my post is what is FACT, unless of course you can show me where you DID return to the thread where you told me I wasn't educated on the subject. You stated as much, were proven wrong, then disappeared while I laughed and danced. Sucks to be wrong, but sucks even more when you act like a know it all ass, belittle your opponent, and THEN be wrong. You were embarrassed, and you disappeared. FACT.

[ConHog]

Actually, the rest of my post is what is FACT, unless of course you can show me where you DID return to the thread where you told me I wasn't educated on the subject. You stated as much, were proven wrong, then disappeared while I laughed and danced. Sucks to be wrong, but sucks even more when you act like a know it all ass, belittle your opponent, and THEN be wrong. You were embarrassed, and you disappeared. FACT.

Well for one I disagree that your proved me wrong in that thread, but that being said, that has NOTHING to do with THIS thread.

[Missileman]

So if we see it in nature, that automatically means it can't be unnatural for humans to have similar behavior?

If homosexuals are indeed born that way, then by definition it IS their nature and not unnatural.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, I can't prove your story wrong, so I have no alternative to believe it. But that's like a girl finding a dildo, knowing nothing about how sex works at all, not knowing what would happen, and inserting it and using it in a "sexual" manner all by mistake in the hopes of feeling good, but doing so blindly. Odd is all. The first few times for me were mysterious, but I had seen playboys, hustler, movies, conversations... I kinda had an idea, knew there was light at the end of the tunnel and went with it.

No, CHOICE is a human behavior that animals have very little understanding of. EVEN IF, and even if you could prove the "born with" thing, which no one has yet, it's still a CHOICE. It's been proven in certain studies how people are born with certain tendencies to drink, do drugs, gamble.... But the person doing the actions always has a choice, always.

No, it's like a woman finding her clitoris, rubbing and realizing that feels pretty damned good.

So then you want to have sex with men, but choose not to?

[gabosaurus]

Are we really going to play "my survey is better than your survey" again? :rolleyes:

It's not like we haven't debated this many many times. Those of us who believe in genetics are going to believe in it. Those of you who believe otherwise aren't going to change your minds.

[jimnyc]

Well for one I disagree that your proved me wrong in that thread, but that being said, that has NOTHING to do with THIS thread.

There are LAWS dictating that one cannot resist arrest, even if unlawful. You can't prove any further at all that it's NOT A RIGHT then that. And even in the handful of cases where you can, it's a legal scenario, not a right. If it were a right, laws couldn't be made to take them away.

[jimnyc]

If homosexuals are indeed born that way, then by definition it IS their nature and not unnatural.

But it's still unnatural to humans in a civilized society. By your definition, the people born with tendencies to murder, drink, do drugs, gamble - if they are born with these tendencies, then it's "natural" to them. That hardly means it's something society as a whole should embrace.

[jimnyc]

No, it's like a woman finding her clitoris, rubbing and realizing that feels pretty damned good.

So then you want to have sex with men, but choose not to?

No, when growing up, and seeing movies, magazines, stories from friends, parenting and a ton of other things - I learned that a man is supposed to be attracted to women. I didn't look at women in such a way until my life experiences pushed me in that direction. But when push comes to shove, it's still a CHOICE that I have to engage in intercourse with women or not.

I was born with an addictive personality, medically diagnosed. I CHOOSE not to allow myself to succumb to certain urges.

[fj1200]

Conceited not in terms of you as a person, but in your view as us as a species. We are animals, with animal instants, and thats a fact, like it or not.

I had a sociology professor who argued humans did not have instincts. I'm sure others would argue that as well but it's clear that we are of a higher order than animals. Not much conceit given our level of development.

[Noir]

I had a sociology professor who argued humans did not have instincts. I'm sure others would argue that as well but it's clear that we are of a higher order than animals. Not much conceit given our level of development.

I see, presumably when this professor was a baby, and was subject to hunger or pain etc, he did not cry, or make any such fuss. After all he had no instinct to do so...

[fj1200]

I see, presumably when this professor was a baby, and was subject to hunger or pain etc, he did not cry, or make any such fuss. After all he had no instinct to do so...

Hungry -> cry -> fed... learned that crying = eating
Hurt -> cry -> fed... learned that crying = getting picked up

[ConHog]

I had a sociology professor who argued humans did not have instincts. I'm sure others would argue that as well but it's clear that we are of a higher order than animals. Not much conceit given our level of development.

I had a professor who taught the same thing, teaching that mankind long ago bred out our own instincts.

[Jess]

I had a sociology professor who argued humans did not have instincts. I'm sure others would argue that as well but it's clear that we are of a higher order than animals. Not much conceit given our level of development.

I don't think we're that much higher than some other animals. In fact, I like some animals way better than I like some people a majority of the time. ;)

As for instincts - what about when the back of your neck bristles cuz you know something/somebody is there ... you just don't know what yet? If that isn't back-to-basics, instinctual action, I don't know what is. And most of us have had that at one time or another.

[Noir]

Hungry -> cry -> fed... learned that crying = eating
Hurt -> cry -> fed... learned that crying = getting picked up

But there will of been a time, before its first feed, or when it first felt pain, that it would of cried out of instinct and instinct alone.

Not to mention other instincts, like dreaming. No one teaches a baby to dream, it just does, part of the very instinctive nature of the baby is to dream while asleep. Then there's yawning, hiccups...the list goes on.

[Jess]

But there will of been a time, before its first feed, or when it first felt pain, that it would of cried out of instinct and instinct alone.

Not to mention other instincts, like dreaming. No one teaches a baby to dream, it just does, part of the very instinctive nature of the baby is to dream while asleep.

A baby's first breath would be instinct, wouldn't it? No one teaches it to breathe.

And yes, when they first feel pain or even anything different, they cry like little wrinkled banshees.

[fj1200]

I don't think we're that much higher than some other animals. In fact, I like some animals way better than I like some people a majority of the time. ;)

As for instincts - what about when the back of your neck bristles cuz you know something/somebody is there ... you just don't know what yet? If that isn't back-to-basics, instinctual action, I don't know what is. And most of us have had that at one time or another.

No argument there. :) Your example could easily be based on learned response.


But there will of been a time, before its first feed, or when it first felt pain, that it would of cried out of instinct and instinct alone.

Not to mention other instincts, like dreaming. No one teaches a baby to dream, it just does, part of the very instinctive nature of the baby is to dream while asleep. Then there's yawning, hiccups...the list goes on.

You can make up quite the long list of things that are not instincts but it doesn't make them instincts. Hiccups? Dreaming? :slap: Just because something happens doesn't make it instinct. Fight or flight would be an example of instinct not autonomic responses.

[Noir]

You can make up quite the long list of things that are not instincts but it doesn't make them instincts. Hiccups? Dreaming? :slap: Just because something happens doesn't make it instinct. Fight or flight would be an example of instinct not autonomic responses.

An instinct is a default respoinse to stimuli. So tell me, when a baby feels pain for the very first time, why does it cry? It can't be a learned trait, and according to you its not instinct. So what is it?

[fj1200]

An instinct is a default respoinse to stimuli. So tell me, when a baby feels pain for the very first time, why does it cry? It can't be a learned trait, and according to you its not instinct. So what is it?

Just because they do something the first time doesn't make it instinct. My leg jumps when my knee is tapped below the knee cap, that's not instinct, it's reflex.

[Noir]

Just because they do something the first time doesn't make it instinct. My leg jumps when my knee is tapped below the knee cap, that's not instinct, it's reflex.

Instinct is an action whereas a reflex is a reaction.

Knowing you are hungry, and knowing you have to act upon it is instinct.

[fj1200]

Instinct is an action whereas a reflex is a reaction.

Knowing you are hungry, and knowing you have to act upon it is instinct.

It was a default reaction to a stimuli. And you learn hunger awfully early.

[logroller]

It was a default reaction to a stimuli. And you learn hunger awfully early.

Chicken or the egg perhaps; take suckling-- babies instinctively suck and are pacified by the act. Despite the fact little milk is produced in the first few days, or that other objects (pacifiers or fingers) invoke a similar response. If it were purely a learned response to the satisfaction of hunger-- that wouldn't happen. They learn, of course, that some things satisfy their hunger, while others do not, that is indeed learned-- but the primal act is instinctive, else they would die. Of course modern medicine allows for us to subvert this instinct, but to think that mankind has lost all its instincts over the period of a few hundred years of modern medicine is, at best, far-fetched.

[fj1200]

... but to think that mankind has lost all its instincts over the period of a few hundred years of modern medicine is, at best, far-fetched.

Not necessarily but quite open to debate.

[Jess]

And the more you "normalize" it by allowing marriage, the more of this you (and your children) WILL see. Looks like lots of shoving it in our faces to me.
(I used relatively tame photos, btw)

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/1/8/0/3/5/a1335682-102-Gay-parade-1998-002.jpg?d=1180812126


3251

http://righttruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e2014e8a67d148970d-800wi

Hmmm ... which is worse? The pics above ... or the one below?

3259

[Gunny]

Let's say you're born into a lab of sorts, many of you, but everyone kept isolated. Everyone is kept identical, hair and dress, and you can't even tell apart opposite sexes. You are treated like robots, have no outside influence at all.

Do straights still desire the opposite sex? Do gays desire the same sex?

We're animals at base. The drive to procreate trumps all but the aberrent.

[fj1200]

We're animals at base. The drive to procreate trumps all but the aberrent.

When animals who were typically prey suddenly have no known predators the ecosystem suffers. I thought you would agree we live for God not for tail.

[ConHog]

We're animals at base. The drive to procreate trumps all but the aberrent.

IF that were true, we'd all have many many children.

[Abbey Marie]

Hmmm ... which is worse? The pics above ... or the one below?

3259

Why do we need to pick one? They are different, and they all suck.

[bullypulpit]

Let's say you're born into a lab of sorts, many of you, but everyone kept isolated. Everyone is kept identical, hair and dress, and you can't even tell apart opposite sexes. You are treated like robots, have no outside influence at all.

Do straights still desire the opposite sex? Do gays desire the same sex?

Your hypothetical is based on a false premise, and hence, is meaningless.

[Jess]

IF that were true, we'd all have many many children.

The drive to procreate is offset by the drive to remain somewhat sane. Therefore, nix on the "many, many children". :laugh:

In addition, I've been told by a reliable source that once a man sees his beloved giving birth to his offspring, said gentleman's desire to re-impregnate her wanes. Significantly. :cool: