NationStates Jolt Archive

So the other thread got locked and you replied here why?

(Specially cause this thread topic is not about biblical contradictions)



Because.

I never said wikipedia was homophobic.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost....6&postcount=461 Right. You said it was anti-gay.

Bozzy, you were the one who I defeated some pages back... you tried to claim homosexuality was a choice. I did away with that argument so you had to find a different ground

You take many liberties to flatter yourself. Maybe someday your self perception will be positive enough you don't need to create these illusions for yourself. My point and position have not changed.

I have issues with wikipedia:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html

"Any member of the Wikipedia community can write an entry, which then can be edited by other members. Entries are never finished, given that anyone can make edits to any of them. But that also means there is no final authority who signs off on the accuracy of entries; veracity is assumed to come from the self-policing nature of the community.

Yet that lack of official vetting is central to many of the questions facing Wikipedia today. To academics like Danah Boyd, a graduate student and instructor at the University of California at Berkeley, that is precisely the problem: Wikipedia, for all its breadth of coverage, cannot claim that each and every one of its entries meets any bottom-line standard for accuracy."

Kaboom.

I cannot use Wikipedia for any of my papers for university. It isn't considered a valid source because of questionable articles that get through.

Ya, so? A good deal of your approach here could not be used in any university paper - hasn't stopped you yet. It is safe to say that Wikipedia is NOT garbage, obviously slanted or biased with an anti-gay slant
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9350816&postcount=461
and IS a valid source of information - particularly in the absence of a university library and abstracts.

Because.
Oh ok then :p

Well I shouldn't of called anyone a religious bigot (except for neo)... I'm truly sorry to you.



Bigot? Did you of all people just call me a bigot? Who's the one who has been making lots of generalizations about who for the past day or two, hon?

Homosexuality like heterosexuality is a orientation.. it isn't like being drunk or getting angry.. or committing murders.

Nobody ever said it was. It is also not like being left handed. It does however, according to your last twenty or so posts here, share a common root origin - an observed genetic difference compared to a test sample. Are you now backing off of that assertion?

My you take many liberties to flatter yourself. Maybe someday your self perception will be positive enough you don't need to create these illusions for yourself. My point and position have not changed.


Fantastic, continue believeing those falsehoods.


Ya, so? A good deal of your approach here could not be used in any university paper - hasn't stopped you yet. It is safe to say that Wikipedia is NOT garbage, obviously slanted or biased with an anti-gay slant
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9350816&postcount=461
and IS a valid source of information - particularly in the absence of a university library and abstracts.

Wikipedia is very much garbage because of lack of authority over articles and lack of verification. It can be very biased, and very slanted because anyone can write for it. Also it is not a valid source of information.

The rest of the article:

"Yet that lack of official vetting is central to many of the questions facing Wikipedia today. To academics like Danah Boyd, a graduate student and instructor at the University of California at Berkeley, that is precisely the problem: Wikipedia, for all its breadth of coverage, cannot claim that each and every one of its entries meets any bottom-line standard for accuracy.

"Usually there's only one or two people involved in writing the entries," Boyd said, "and you don't know anything about who they are."

To Boyd, who said she finds the project "an exceptionally valuable tool," the problem is that while some entries, particularly those about technology, are well-read and edited by many community members, countless others have received little or no scrutiny.

"Guess what?" Boyd said. "A lot of ancient-history specialists? They're not online, let alone involved in Wikipedia. But a lot of students are going to Wikipedia for information on ancient history."

In a recent article posted on community site Kuro5hin.org, former Wikipedia developer Lawrence Sanger addressed a litany of problems with the project.

In some Wikipedia areas, "academics and experts of all sorts generally are not accorded any sort of special respect by some Wikipedians," Sanger told Wired News. "If someone is made to defend his or her contribution by some crank, or a troll, the rest of the community, generally speaking, will not come to the defense of the expert.""

---

Wikipedia is very dangerous academically and anyone on there can write anything they want. There is not enough proper authority on there. You must be very careful. The news media cites Wikipedia often, and they have been at fault for that.

Bigot? Did you of all people just call me a bigot? Who's the one who has been making lots of generalizations about who for the past day or two, hon?

Nope. YOU are a religious bigot.

And bozzy, I'm never backing off the fact that sexuality is genetic. However, left handedness is on a different part of the genetic code.

Well, I think I have found a possible answer myself. Have you ever heard of the "Exotic becomes Erotic" theory? There's a great article about it I am reading right now (hence my late response). Read it here (http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_theory.html).

I had not heard of that theory. It seems very interesting and certainly plausible. Very difficult to test, though, and ultimately a waste of time and research money.

Nope. YOU are a religious bigot.

And bozzy, I'm never backing off the fact that sexuality is genetic. However, left handedness is on a different part of the genetic code.



Bigotry = hatred towards someone of a particular race/persuasion/gender/etc.

I've denied hating anyone so many times by now.

You seem to embrace hatred of Christianity.

Therefore, YOU are the bigot. Sorry, it's not just a religious to secular thing, it works as secular to religious as well.

Bigotry = hatred towards someone of a particular race/persuasion/gender/etc.

I've denied hating anyone so many times by now.

You seem to embrace hatred of Christianity.

Therefore, YOU are the bigot. Sorry, it's not just a religious to secular thing, it works as secular to religious as well.

Nope. I don't hate religions.. I hate bigots like you who abuse religion for your own twisted goals.

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

do i need to explain it, neo?

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

do i need to explain it, neo?



Fits Mesa perfectly. Say what you want, but I personally have nothing against homosexuals except for the annoying types like Will on Will and Grace. My viewpoint is entirely religious, there's no underlying prejudice here :)

snip

And bozzy, I'm never backing off the fact that sexuality is genetic. However, left handedness is on a different part of the genetic code.

So what difference does it make that predispositions for left-handedness, sexual preference, alcoholism or violent tendencies all reside in a different part of the brain? The owner of the brain is "hard-wired' to that behavior - is he not?

Nope. I don't hate religions.. I hate bigots like you who abuse religion for your own twisted goals.



Thank you for proving my point :rolleyes:

Fits Mesa perfectly. Say what you want, but I personally have nothing against homosexuals except for the annoying types like Will on Will and Grace. My viewpoint is entirely religious, there's no underlying prejudice here :)

No, it does not fit me. My sister converted to islam and I respect her totally. So therefore your accusation is shot down. Annoying types? Will is cool, and you know what you have plenty of prejudices.

Fits Mesa perfectly. Say what you want, but I personally have nothing against homosexuals except for the annoying types like Will on Will and Grace. My viewpoint is entirely religious, there's no underlying prejudice here :)

so you're saying you respect all religions equally? you find as much truth in the koran and the vedas as your bible?

No, it does not fit me. My sister converted to islam and I respect her totally. So therefore your accusation is shot down. Annoying types? Will is cool, and you know what you have plenty of prejudices.



Another example of your bigotry: You think that you know my entire mindset. Your prejudice against me will not allow you to see the truth in me, you just see what you want to see.

Rather than continuing a flamefest against an individual you disagree with, who not ignore them? The intelligent people who read this discussion will be able to tell who is right and who is incompetent fairly quickly in this case, as it is quite obvious. Who cares what other incompetent people believe? You dont need to prove anything, people can read the discussions and decide for themselves who the ignorant person is here. Honestly, in this thread it is startlingly obvious who the ignorant persons are. So quit arguing back and forth with them, just ignore them. If they are being ignored and still continue shouting about things that have nothing to do with what is being discussed, people are gonna notice they are nuts and they will ignore them too. If you keep shouting back and forth though, then you're just flooding the thread with garbage and proving you are not much better than that person.

Another example of your bigotry: You think that you know my entire mindset. Your prejudice against me will not allow you to see the truth in me, you just see what you want to see.

I don't. And guess what? I don't think I want to know. I only know what you say, and this is how I come to my conclusions. I have not one shred of bigotry in me. I apologized to those people who I got mad at. You do not have truth in you in any measure.

And I also apologize to lazyhippies.

so you're saying you respect all religions equally? you find as much truth in the koran and the vedas as your bible?



I respect everyone, although I do believe Christianity holds the Truth. Much as a scientist is not bigoted for believing that science holds the Truth.

No, it does not fit me. My sister converted to islam and I respect her totally. So therefore your accusation is shot down. Annoying types? Will is cool, and you know what you have plenty of prejudices.
Yeah, those Islamic types tend to be reeeely tolerant - especially toward the alternative lifestyle crowd...

oh, and Will is cool, but that other guy? Ack! Gay or not he's just annoying!

I don't. And guess what? I don't think I want to know. I only know what you say, and this is how I come to my conclusions. I have not one shred of bigotry in me. I apologized to those people who I got mad at. You do not have truth in you in any measure.

And I also apologize to lazyhippies.



Your bigotry continues ;)

I respect everyone, although I do believe Christianity holds the Truth. Much as a scientist is not bigoted for believing that science holds the Truth.

Dude, Mesatecala asked nicely once, and I'm going to second it - stick to the topic at hand or take off. Quit hijacking.

Rather than continuing a flamefest against an individual you disagree with, why not ignore them? The intelligent people who read this discussion will be able to tell who is right and who is incompetent fairly quickly in this case, as it is quite obvious. Who cares what other incompetent people believe? You dont need to prove anything, people can read the discussions and decide for themselves who the ignorant person is here. Honestly, in this thread it is startlingly obvious who the ignorant persons are. So quit arguing back and forth with them, just ignore them. If they are being ignored and still continue shouting about things that have nothing to do with what is being discussed, people are gonna notice they are nuts and they will ignore them too. If you keep shouting back and forth though, then you're just flooding with the thread with garbage and proving you are not much better than that person.
Words of wisdom.

I respect everyone, although I do believe Christianity holds the Truth. Much as a scientist is not bigoted for believing that science holds the Truth.

A scientist cannot be a scientist if he doesn't accept science.

And christianity holds what truth? Your own perception?

Bozzy, my sister in fact does respect me and she knows I'm gay. She says it is cool with her, and her religion is one of tolerance. She is a moderate muslim.

um... a scientist who only believes his own unfounded theories and ignores everyone else (when not imposing his theories on them) would qualify as a bigot.

Bozzy, my sister in fact does respect me and she knows I'm gay. She says it is cool with her, and her religion is one of tolerance. She is a moderate muslim.
Good for her. There are likely many moderate versions of a wide assortment of religions.
Here's one even you could learn to love; (ok - a bad pun on my part)
United Church of Christ (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/miamiherald/living/people/gay_lesbian/12054894.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_gay_lesbian) (trust me and click - I'm trying to get back on topic here Let's leave the hijacker alone, eh?)

Good for her. There are likely many moderate versions of various religions.
Here's one even you could learn to love; (ok - a bad pun on my part)
United Church of Christ (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/miamiherald/living/people/gay_lesbian/12054894.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_gay_lesbian) (trust me and click - I'm trying to get back on topic here Let's leave the hijacker alone, eh?)

I'm not going religious. If that is what you are trying to do.... one christian sect even endorsed gay marriage... but still I'm not going religious.

lets not forget the unitarians...

i think the point was to prove not all religious people, and not all christians, are bigots like neo. i doubt he was out to convert you.

I'm not going religious. If that is what you are trying to do.... one christian sect even endorsed gay marriage... but still I'm not going religious.
That wasn't my point at all. It must be late - either you missed it or I didn't express it well enough. It was a subtle jest. Trying to segue from the hijacker back to our topic.

But it was for naught for now I am going night-night. -Almost 1AM on a worknight. :eek:
g'night.

lets not forget the unitarians...

i think the point was to prove not all religious people, and not all christians, are bigots like neo. i doubt he was out to convert you.



I offer proof that I am no bigot, and I'm still called a bigot :eek: . Oy, some people...

That wasn't my point at all. It must be late - either you missed it or I didn't express it well enough. It was a subtle jest. Trying to segue from the hijacker back to our topic.

But it was for naught for now I am going night-night. -Almost 1AM on a worknight. 8O

g'night.

Yes i did miss what you were saying.. anyways, have a good night.

if you genuinely believe your opinion is the only one that holds any Truth, then you are a bigot.

if you genuinely believe your opinion is the only one that holds any Truth, then you are a bigot.



Following that logic, anyone who believes 2 + 2 = 4 is a bigot. Way to go, now we're all bigots :rolleyes:

if you cant see the difference between fact and opinion, or between science and christianity... i think you missed a lesson around fourth grade.

if you cant see the difference between fact and opinion, or between science and christianity... i think you missed a lesson around fourth grade.


The Bible is inerrant, and therefore fact ;)

and as an afterthought, if someone had a logical argument concerning the 2+2=4 thing, i'd be happy to listen. but you're beyond logic, it seems.

The Bible is inerrant, and therefore fact ;)

I pointed out errors and huge contradictions in the bible.. so therefore it isn't inerrant, therefore is not factual at all.

The Bible is inerrant, and therefore fact ;)

that's your fucking opinion, you stupid bucket of shit.

flame on.

that's your fucking opinion, you stupid bucket of shit.

flame on.



....wow....

I pointed out errors and huge contradictions in the bible.. so therefore it isn't inerrant, therefore is not factual at all.



I have a strong feeling you chose to ignore the two articles I showed you :rolleyes:

I have a strong feeling you chose to ignore the two articles I showed you :rolleyes:

No. I stick by my sources. Not your religionist sources.

No. I stick by my sources. Not your religionist sources.



So, you openly admit to choosing the evidence you want to see and if anything refutes that evidence, you choose to ignore it? At least you're honest...

So, you openly admit to choosing the evidence you want to see and if anything refutes that evidence, you choose to ignore it? At least you're honest...

No. I chose the evidence that is proper and correct. My own evidence refutes yours.

Your religion is starting to collapse.

Homovox is right.. you are a stupid idiot...

No. I chose the evidence that is proper and correct. My own evidence refutes yours.

Your religion is starting to collapse.

Homovox is right.. you are a stupid idiot...



Well, it's nice to know that you've got your head so far in the sand that you refuse anything that would disagree with you. Few have ever openly admitted to being that way :D

NR perhaps you'd be good enough to either stay on topic or start a thread of your own?

Everyone knows you don't consider yourself a crazed loon, biggot or just a plain ole troll. However, that doesn't mean anyone else shares your optimism.

Instead of hijacking a thread in an effort to justify your own opinions, could you please not respect that at least three people have now asked you to stop doing it here?
There was an on-topic debate going on here before your hijack ;)

Well, it's nice to know that you've got your head so far in the sand that you refuse anything that would disagree with you. Few have ever openly admitted to being that way :D

Guess what? you have your head up your rear end. I mean what the hell? How more of a stooge can you be? You are so blind you can't even consider evidence.

You are nothing more then a damn troll...

NR perhaps you'd be good enough to either stay on topic or start a thread of your own?

Everyone knows you don't consider yourself a crazed loon, biggot or just a plain ole troll. However, that doesn't mean anyone else shares your optimism.

Instead of hijacking a thread in an effort to justify your own opinions, could you please not respect that at least three people have now asked you to stop doing it here?
There was an on-topic debate going on here before your hijack ;)



If you review the thread entirely, you will see that Mesa originally hijacked it onto the issue of the morality of homosexuality instead of the whether or not it's natural. Please read the thing before you chime in.

If you review the thread entirely, you will see that Mesa originally hijacked it onto the issue of the morality of homosexuality instead of the whether or not it's natural. Please read the thing before you chime in.

You stooge.. I didn't do a damn thing. I was arguing whether people choose to be gay or not, you are the one who brought in morality. Don't you fucking dare say otherwise because you don't have the slightest clue.

Guess what? you have your head up your rear end. I mean what the hell? How more of a stooge can you be? You are so blind you can't even consider evidence.

You are nothing more then a damn troll...



http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html



There's your evidence blown out of the water. Either read them and come up with a decent response, or just admit you pick and choose what you want to hear.

If you review the thread entirely, you will see that Mesa originally hijacked it onto the issue of the morality of homosexuality instead of the whether or not it's natural. Please read the thing before you chime in.
That's strange. I got the exact opposite impression. However, it doesn't really matter. You're still actively derailing the thread.

But what do I care? Have fun with your pink unicorns and bible quotes.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html



There's your evidence blown out of the water. Either read them and come up with a decent response, or just admit you pick and choose what you want to hear.

You can't blow anything out of the war wtih your stupid irrationalchristianity websites and idiotic websites.

One last time: Get the fuck out of this thread and stop hijacking.

If you review the thread entirely, you will see that Mesa originally hijacked it onto the issue of the morality of homosexuality instead of the whether or not it's natural. Please read the thing before you chime in.
Regardless of who started it, can you be mature and respectful enough to end it now? Consider this four people asking you to either stick to the topic at hand or find a new thread. Thanks.

You stooge.. I didn't do a damn thing. I was arguing whether people choose to be gay or not, you are the one who brought in morality. Don't you fucking dare say otherwise because you don't have the slightest clue.




http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9329090&postcount=2


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9329963&postcount=30

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330038&postcount=33

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330101&postcount=36

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330131&postcount=41

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330137&postcount=42

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330712&postcount=76



Seems to me like you were the one eager to hijack it.

Regardless of who started it, can you be mature and respectful enough to end it now? Consider this four people asking you to either stick to the topic at hand or find a new thread. Thanks.



Alright, I'm done. It's obvious Mesa chooses to ignore evidence that disagrees with him, so it would be rather asinine of me to spend much more time trying to disprove the articles he cites anyway. If anyone who really cares about proving the bible has contradictions wants to continue this, PM me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9329090&postcount=2


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9329963&postcount=30

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330038&postcount=33

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330101&postcount=36

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330131&postcount=41

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330137&postcount=42

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9330712&postcount=76



Seems to me like you were the one eager to hijack it.

Seem to me you don't have a damn clue. I kept going back to my original argument and you were the one who brought it up. Stop hijacking this thread. I didn't hijack it. I just responded to some people in here.

I think its something genetic. Homosexuality is a recessive trait, while Heterosexuality is a dominant trait. Or something like that.

I think its something genetic. Homosexuality is a recessive trait, while Heterosexuality is a dominant trait. Or something like that.
SHUSH! I'm trying to enjoy the "debate" between Neo and Mesa!!

SHUSH! I'm trying to enjoy the "debate" between Neo and Mesa!!



Too late, I had to cut it short since we really weren't getting anywhere :p

Too late, I had to cut it short since we really weren't getting anywhere :p

Yes you were being too stubborn and you have to stop hijacking this thread.

*sigh*

It takes one extreme to control the other. No wonder Hitler was at Stalin's throat.

I can't respond to this poll - we need a third option of Both. I think some people are born that way, some people choose it. Just depends on the person. Can you add that?

*sigh*

It takes one extreme to control the other. No wonder Hitler was at Stalin's throat.

Don't ever accuse me of being an extremist.

Don't ever accuse me of being an extremist.

Okay. What are you then? You can't accept criticism, don't know what sarcasm is, and won't consider opposing viewpoints. Sounds pretty extreme to me.

Okay. What are you then? You can't accept criticism, don't know what sarcasm is, and won't consider opposing viewpoints. Sounds pretty extreme to me.

Dead wrong on all counts. You are the extremist.

I'm a moderate. I apologized to people when I did wrong by lashing out at them, I do accept sarcasm, and I do consider opposing view points by apologizing.

So what next extremist? More false accusations?

I can't respond to this poll - we need a third option of Both. I think some people are born that way, some people choose it. Just depends on the person. Can you add that?

Thats actually my belief as well. Some people are just born like that, maybe it's a birth defect. Others grow to be gay, possibly a result from a hatred of the oppisite sex.

Dead wrong on all counts. You are the extremist.

I'm a moderate. I apologized to people when I did wrong by lashing out at them, I do accept sarcasm, and I do consider opposing view points by apologizing.

So what next extremist? More false accusations?


:headbang: Quit baiting me again, I'm not starting it back up.

Oh yes, and Mesa and Neo, keep it clean, don't get this thread closed like the others.

:headbang: Quit baiting me again, I'm not starting it back up.

Look at who I was responding to: Originally Posted by Dragons Bay

Please understand it was not you. I'm tired of arguing with you... do what you want.

Thats actually my belief as well. Some people are just born like that, maybe it's a birth defect. Others grow to be gay, possibly a result from a hatred of the oppisite sex.



Is it possible to hate a gender so vehemently as to develop an attraction towards the same gender? I would think that would be impossible. I guess you learn something new every day :D

Yeah, I figured that would be a bad example, but others might include sexual abuse from a parent or adult, psychological damage, realationship problems, etc.

A whole boatload of different things, basically.

Yeah, I figured that would be a bad example, but others might include sexual abuse from a parent or adult, psychological damage, realationship problems, etc.

A whole boatload of different things, basically.

That's cited often, and is found not to be true because there are too many counter-examples to it. People who got abused but still were heterosexual.

Well, I choose to act on my heterosexual urges. At a point if I push my body to far, it can't stop. So...does it make sense that it can also be the other way?

That's cited often, and is found not to be true because there are too many counter-examples to it. People who got abused but still were heterosexual.

It still may be a possiblity. Who knows, there may even be a gay gene.

It still may be a possiblity. Who knows, there may even be a gay gene.

I don't think the argument holds.

I'm more for the genetical argument.

Look I'm real tired. I've been arguing about this all day, I don't have anything else to say.

Can we declare a cease-fire?

Can we declare a cease-fire?



Give me some time to sneak my commandos into your capital so I can violate the treaty when you let your guard down.

Really how? Do the boys bat their eyelashes at you?

Oh, come on, if you saw a picture of me when I was 5, it screamed "gay" with a capital 'G'.

That's cited often, and is found not to be true because there are too many counter-examples to it. People who got abused but still were heterosexual.
Very few people who have been sexually abused or assaulted claim that it has not had any effect whatsoever on their sexual inclinations, feelings and behaviours.

The notion that environment plays an important role in shaping an individual, is (so far as I know) not particularly controversal or contested in mainstream sciences.

To suggest that 'non-genetic' aspects of the environment play a role, does not negate the role played by genetics.

I myself believe that true love begins not with the body, but with the emotion. If you truly romantically love a person you first love him/her because you like spending time with him/her. If you like the person that way, you will soon also like the body and contemplate sex.

Thats assuming the individual is attracted to the masculine or feminine body.

I'm not saying two guys or two girls can't like each other emotionally, but I would view it as a "buddyship". Maybe some homosexuals just don't know what the difference between fraternity and romance is, I don't know. Maybe some.

You're assuming that a gay male can't have female friends; I have close female friends, but that doesn't mean I wish to have sex with them.

I'm a gay male, I'm attracted to male features; just as a male is attracted to female features - the classic hour glass figure, curvaceous hips and so forth - all part of mate selection.

Oh, come on, if you saw a picture of me when I was 5, it screamed "gay" with a capital 'G'.

Rubbish.

Very few people who have been sexually abused or assaulted claim that it has not had any effect whatsoever on their sexual inclinations, feelings and behaviours.

That's very unsubstantiated. Many people who were molested stayed attracted to the opposite sex.

That's very unsubstantiated.
Actually I understand that it is very well substantiated.

Many people who were molested stayed attracted to the opposite sex.
I have not suggested otherwise.

Actually I understand that it is very well substantiated.


I have not suggested otherwise.

It may cause issues for them emotionally, but to suggest it changes sexual orientation is not well substantiated.

It may cause issues for them emotionally, but to suggest it changes sexual orientation is not well substantiated.
That depends on what you mean by 'orientation'.

That depends on what you mean by 'orientation'.

You know what I mean. Heterosexuality, homosexuality...

You know what I mean. Heterosexuality, homosexuality...
I had a fairly good idea, but I dont really agree with the validity of the 'sexual orientation' model as it appears to popularly conceived.

I had a fairly good idea, but I dont really agree with the validity of the 'sexual orientation' model as it appears to popularly conceived.

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?
Well what are you talking about? Homosexuality, heterosexuality, what about repelled by feet, turned on by feet, or neutral to feetsexuality? Why so much emphasis on one particular preference?

I think this whole 'orientation' thing is a distorting oversimplification.

My friend prefers no labels and say he dates "people" as opposed to genders.

Other people I know prefer the term "queer" to describe themselves for pretty mush the same reason, they feel that all the other words are too presumtuous and restrictive while they believe sexuality is fluid.

I say diversity is the spice of life!

My friend prefers no labels and say he dates "people" as opposed to genders.

Other people I know prefer the term "queer" to describe themselves for pretty mush the same reason, they feel that all the other words are too presumtuous and restrictive while they believe sexuality is fluid.

I say diversity is the spice of life!

You are not listening to my argument. I'm not talking about labels. I'm talking about whether abuse can change attraction. It simply doesn't. It may impact emotional states but I do not believe it changes attraction. Maybe that's better for you.

Zagat, I'm talking about attraction. And orientation is not simplified (I will not use the word lifestyle).

Zagat, I'm talking about attraction. And orientation is not simplified (I will not use the word lifestyle).
Aha, but you also appear to consider that emotional state does not bear on 'attraction'. I do not see that the model of 'orientation' you appear to be conceptualising is compatable with my understanding.

In my earlier example I pointed out that we dont similarily categorise people based on other 'sexual' preferences yet there is a lot more to attraction than the sex or gender of a person.

Aha, but you also appear to consider that emotional state does not bear on 'attraction'. I do not see that the model of 'orientation' you appear to be conceptualising is compatable with my understanding.

In my earlier example I pointed out that we dont similarily categorise people based on other 'sexual' preferences yet there is a lot more to attraction than the sex or gender of a person.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I've already talked to someone before about that. You aren't understanding my views and you know what? I'm tired and I'm not going to clarify for someone who seems unabled to distinguish between emotions and sexual orientation.

my favorite is pomosexuality (post-modern sexuality). no gender barriers.

Okay, I'm sorry if this is repeating what anyone [read: everyone] else has already said, but there's no way I'm reading 40 freakin' pages of posts.

This poll is inherently flawed. It asks if people choose to be homosexual (or accordingly bisexual or hetero). This implies that the choice is a conscious one. This leaves out the possibility (the one I agree with) that it is an undeniable part of who they are resulting not from birth but from developement and upbringing.

First, let's debunk the 'choice' idea. This is asinine. As any homosexual, or even just someone who's had to question their sexual identity, can tell you, this was not consciously under their control. Logically, if it was, there would not be people in denial over their orientation, and the whole issue would be a lot simpler.

As for the 'birth' hypothesis, if they were born gay, then that would imply that the condition was genetic. For obvious reasons, natural selection would've eliminated such a gene long ago.

I would argue that, as personal experience dictates, we're all a little bi. I figure that personal preferences arise from conditioning that would vary from individual to individual based on personality and experiences with members of both sexes. But that part's just speculation. All I'm sure of is that the alternatives are entirely unreasonable. :D

Well what are you talking about? Homosexuality, heterosexuality, what about repelled by feet, turned on by feet, or neutral to feetsexuality? Why so much emphasis on one particular preference?

I think this whole 'orientation' thing is a distorting oversimplification.
Indeed! I don't see why penises and vaginas should be regarded as more important than all other body parts. After all, when I date somebody I'm not dating their crotch, and when I have sex with somebody it involves many different body parts, sometimes not even including the genitals. Why should I define my sex life or my romantic life based on my partner's groin?

Indeed! I don't see why penises and vaginas should be regarded as more important than all other body parts. After all, when I date somebody I'm not dating their crotch, and when I have sex with somebody it involves many different body parts, sometimes not even including the genitals. Why should I define my sex life or my romantic life based on my partner's groin?


Haha, I invisage you at a remantic table with a large penis saying "Pass the salt would you love"

Haha, I invisage you at a remantic table with a large penis saying "Pass the salt would you love"
Or perhaps asking the giant vagina across from me if perhaps she can uncork the wine...? But I may be getting a tad pornographic now. :P

Indeed! I don't see why penises and vaginas should be regarded as more important than all other body parts. After all, when I date somebody I'm not dating their crotch, and when I have sex with somebody it involves many different body parts, sometimes not even including the genitals. Why should I define my sex life or my romantic life based on my partner's groin?

Cause thats where the most important action is.
Everything else is called foreplay.

Cause thats where the most important action is.
Everything else is called foreplay.
Your sex sounds very sad.

" I am Gay, therefore I am ... "

Gay.

Wait straight people shouldn't be allowed to vote on this poll. What would they know?

Wait straight people shouldn't be allowed to vote on this poll. What would they know?
LOL - very funny.

LOL - very funny.


Funny but true.

You are not listening to my argument. I'm not talking about labels. I'm talking about whether abuse can change attraction. It simply doesn't. It may impact emotional states but I do not believe it changes attraction. Maybe that's better for you.

Zagat, I'm talking about attraction. And orientation is not simplified (I will not use the word lifestyle).
Abuse doesn't always change orientation, but it certainly can. Sometimes it could be the catalyst that leads someone to their true orientation, other times it could turn them from what would otherwise have been their orientation if not for the abuse. There are documented cases of this happening. I might look some up later if I get time. As it is now I'm off to bed...

Here's one link anyway:
[removed]

(Sorry, I only read the first few paragraphs of the link I provided - I didn't realise how horribly biased and insulting it was.)

Funny but true.
True? So you're saying that a heterosexual cannot have an informed opinion about the aspects, causes and other issues related to homosexuality? That's untrue. A gay individual would have more insight into their personal experience than anyone else, but you cannot be suggesting that heterosexuals cannot have an informed opinion on the subject, can you?

That's like saying no-one could have an opinion on the plight of Jews during the Holocaust except concentration camp surviviors.

I guess for straight people they would have to look at studies on Gay people and draw their own conclusion, but there is also a personal dimension if you're gay. However if someone is well read, it shouldn't matter.

However, if you're young and haven't fully developed your empathic maturity yet, you could think that what happened you in your own private experience happens to everyone, and therefore feel that all gay people choose or don't choose, are born that way or are influenced that way early on.

Suffice to say people are approaching this argument from many different view points

Wait straight people shouldn't be allowed to vote on this poll. What would they know?
Yeah, and white people shouldn't be able to express opinions about slavery in the American South, because what would they know? People who've never driven an SUV can't possibly have opinions about SUVs, and people who've never been to the Moon can't express any opinions or beliefs about the Moon.

Ouch, I rolled my eyes so hard I gave myself a little headache...

Abuse doesn't always change orientation, but it certainly can. Sometimes it could be the catalyst that leads someone to their true orientation, other times it could turn them from what would otherwise have been their orientation if not for the abuse. There are documented cases of this happening. I might look some up later if I get time. As it is now I'm off to bed...
)

Yes but there are too many counter-examples and it invalidates the abuse theory. Abuse doesn't turn people gay... and that's a fact. Documented cases? Like on that link you removed? I believe tying abuse to someone changing as faulty.

Yes I don't think straight people really know what it is like to be gay. It doesn't matter if they are well read. They just simply don't know. We gay people get a personal insight that heterosexuals just can't have.

Yes I don't think straight people really know what it is like to be gay. It doesn't matter if they are well read. They just simply don't know. We gay people get a personal insight that heterosexuals just can't have.
Random Tangent of Interest:
Along similare lines of reasoning to those, would you say that homosexuals don't know what it is like to be straight? What would you say about bisexuals, that they have the personal insight of both sides, or neither, or that they have an entirely different one?

Random Tangent of Interest:
Along similare lines of reasoning to those, would you say that homosexuals don't know what it is like to be straight? What would you say about bisexuals, that they have the personal insight of both sides, or neither, or that they have an entirely different one?

I don't know what it is like to be straight nor do I care. Heterosexuals don't get bashed by other heterosexuals for being who they are. So I would say it is not difficult at all. Bisexuals yes would have personal insight of both sides. Being straight in this world is no big deal.. afterall it is what society wants.

I don't know what it is like to be straight nor do I care. Heterosexuals don't get bashed by other heterosexuals for being who they are. So I would say it is not difficult at all. Bisexuals yes would have personal insight of both sides. Being straight in this world is no big deal.. afterall it is what society wants.
Heterosexuals DO get bashed by other heterosexuals for being who they are. All the time. Haven't you noticed how many goddam RULES there are about sex? It's not easy being sexual, regardless of what your sexuality is...even if you are straight, you're always having too much sex, or not enough, or the wrong kind, or with the wrong person, or SOMETHING. Hell, I still think straight women have it worse than gays when it comes to sex in some ways.

Heterosexuals DO get bashed by other heterosexuals for being who they are. All the time. Haven't you noticed how many goddam RULES there are about sex? It's not easy being sexual, regardless of what your sexuality is...even if you are straight, you're always having too much sex, or not enough, or the wrong kind, or with the wrong person, or SOMETHING. Hell, I still think straight women have it worse than gays when it comes to sex in some ways.

I don't bloody think so. I see heterosexual couples making out, practically groping each other in public and people walk by saying nothing. If it was me and my boyfriend, I get mean stares, names and even threats of physical violence. All those problems you name happen to anybody. But gay people have it far worse socially... we are put under incredible pressure by society.

Heterosexuals DO get bashed by other heterosexuals for being who they are. All the time. Haven't you noticed how many goddam RULES there are about sex? It's not easy being sexual, regardless of what your sexuality is...even if you are straight, you're always having too much sex, or not enough, or the wrong kind, or with the wrong person, or SOMETHING. Hell, I still think straight women have it worse than gays when it comes to sex in some ways.
Yeah … what saddens me is a lot of that pressure is applied by other females … specially the “slut” term

(not saying others don’t do it but in my experience other women start to really apply the name with the meaning behind it)

I'm not even going to bother to read the pages of this, my answer is that they choose to become it.

I'm not even going to bother to read the pages of this, my answer is that they choose to become it.

Nope. That is as simple as my answer will be. People don't choose to become gay.

People aren't born gay, if they were, then there would be no gays because there would be a gene for homosexuality. At the same time they don't choose to be gay either, I would say that it is a combination of certain conditions in their social environment and their inherent personality features reacting together to produce homosexuality.

So neither option is correct.

People aren't born gay, if they were, then there would be no gays because there would be a gene for homosexuality. At the same time they don't choose to be gay either, I would say that it is a combination of certain conditions in their social environment and their inherent personality features reacting together to produce homosexuality.

So neither option is correct.

Not so. Social environment? Inherent personality features? Really? Care to back that up?

Can't stay for long tonight, but Mesa - you never responded to my point at post 505 - probably due to the hijacker stepping on my toes.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9351907&postcount=505


Homosexuality like heterosexuality is a orientation.. it isn't like being drunk or getting angry.. or committing murders.


Nobody ever said it was. It is also not like being left handed. It does however, according to your last twenty or so posts here, share a common root origin - an observed genetic difference compared to a test sample. Are you now backing off of that assertion?

You aren't wise or mighty at all.

Nobody ever said it was. It is also not like being left handed. It does however, according to your last twenty or so posts here, share a common root origin - an observed genetic difference compared to a test sample. Are you now backing off of that assertion?

It shares an origin with a different part of the genes, that we have not found yet, not a common origin. The genes are a complex thing. I'm not backing off anything. I never back off ever... especially not against someone whose argument I did away with.

WHO GIVES A S@#$?!!They're gay they always will be, who cares how they got that way? :mp5:

You aren't wise or mighty at all.



It shares an origin with a different part of the genes, that we have not found yet, not a common origin. The genes are a complex thing. I'm not backing off anything. I never back off ever... especially not against someone whose argument I did away with.

I never claimed that it shared a commn gene between these conditions. Quit reading more into what I'm saying than there is.

Your claim, then, is that homosexuality is genetic. Am I correct? And if so, then your claim is that, because it is genetic, there is no choice or reversal of the reality of homosexuality? Have I hit your argument on the head or is it off - if off, then in what way?

Your claim, then, is that homosexuality is genetic. Am I correct? And if so, then your claim is that, because it is genetic, there is no choice or reversal of the reality of homosexuality? Have I hit your argument on the head or is it off - if off, then in what way?

OMG. I'm going to scream. How difficult for you is it to understand my arguments? Congrats, finally you understand my argument.

OMG. I'm going to scream. How difficult for you is it to understand my arguments? Congrats, finally you understand my argument.

So then, according to your argument, everyone who is left-handed, alcoholic, violent or depressed is that way solely because of their genetic make up. Anyne who also shares similar genes would also be 'faking' it - the would really be depressed or alcoholic - but suppressing the behavior. By your argument it would then reason that they are completely unresponsive to therapy or training to change their condition - it would, in fact, be a complete waste of time based on your position.

So then, according to your argument, everyone who is left-handed, alcoholic, violent or depressed is that way solely because of their genetic make up. Anyne who also shares similar genes would also be 'faking' it - the would really be depressed or alcoholic - but suppressing the behavior. By your argument it would then reason that they are completely unresponsive to therapy or training to change their condition - it would, in fact, be a complete waste of time based on your position.

Congrats for putting words in my mouth. I'm tired of arguing with someone as stubborn as you. Once you learn not to put words in my mouth then I will talk to you again. Again, I never said anything about people being left-handed, alcoholic, violent or depressed. You and others brought that up. I didn't.

Homosexuality is not something you could treat. No you don't fucking know my position. So please stop talking for me. I think alcoholics and violent individuals make themselves that way to try to cover reality. My uncle certainly did, but now he's a gentle person. He also suffered a depression.

OMG. I'm going to scream. How difficult for you is it to understand my arguments? Congrats, finally you understand my argument.


The impass here iappeasrs to be the fact gene theory is poorly understood. On one side you have people saying it is genetic becuase I was always this way or citing intriguing though inconclusive studies while the other side does much the same or concludes it cannot be genetic becaue it's a dead end behavior, genetically speaking. This however runs counter to everything I know regarding gene theory and if sexual oriantation followed Mendelian genetics we would have found the gene for homosexuality and heterosexuality long ago. It's 2005 and to date no one has found either!!!

Mendelian genetics theory really only covers the 1% total (by nucleotide sequence) genetic variablity within a species but says nothing about the dynamics between environment and genes of an entire species. While people throw around the environment and/or "genes" as a possible explantion, there is a inescapable interchangibility and feedback between genes and environment, unless you disblelieve ecology and natural selection utterly.

Since the sate of heterosexuality appears to be the deemed 'norm' and hence obviously genetically determined what else could one conclude regarding a behavior which excludes the 'norm' and is often accompanied by gender atypical behavior? Who knows really. What difference does it make? But in this day and age for people to believe it's a choice should be shown the ridicule they deserve.

Well NF, it may be poorly understood.. but you know what.. I think I might want give up on explaining my views and this thread. I mean look how many posts I made in this thread.. damn...

Well NF, it may be poorly understood.. but you know what.. I think I might want give up on explaining my views and this thread. I mean look how many posts I made in this thread.. damn...

Good plan. You aren't an expert in genetics, psychology, ecology, evolutionary behavioral genetics, yada yada and neither are your opponents but I reckon you like myself know one key fact on which they can only speculate.

Congrats for putting words in my mouth..
I did not put words in your mouth - I simply carried your argument through to its logical conclusion regarding all non-typical behaviors with a root in brain structure. If it is true for one it is true for all. You cannot deny that without contradicting yourself. I hope you enjoy the view of the paint from your corner.


I'm tired of arguing with someone as stubborn as you. Once you learn not to put words in my mouth then I will talk to you again. Again, I never said anything about people being left-handed, alcoholic, violent or depressed. You and others brought that up. I didn't.

So you quit when you are cornered by your fallacy? Good. That's the first step.


Homosexuality is not something you could treat. No you don't fucking know my position. So please stop talking for me. I think alcoholics and violent individuals make themselves that way to try to cover reality. My uncle certainly did, but now he's a gentle person. He also suffered a depression.
Your position is quite apparent to all - and now I've demonstrated to you the logical fallacy of it. You claim alcoholics choose their action - even though there is a genetic difference for those with addidictive disorders. Then you deny that homosexuals are afforded a choice because there is a genetic difference.
You cannot have it both ways. No amount of cursing will dig you out of the logic pit you sprung on yourself, nor will it endow you with any appearance of additional 'fucking' intellect.

"Showmanship, George. When you hit that high note, you say goodnight and
walk off."
http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym/S...TheBurning.html

goodnight.

I did not put words in your mouth - I simply carried your argument through to its logical conclusion regarding all non-typical behaviors with a root in brain structure. If it is true for one it is true for all. You cannot deny that without contradicting yourself. I hope you enjoy the view of the paint from your corner.

You did try to state my beliefs. You are the one who is contradicting yourself. Damn it, look at your statements. I destroyed your argument once and I'm not afraid in doing it again. But I'm a nice guy... I'm not going to go after your BS because I don't have the time, nor the patience.

Your position is quite apparent to all - and now I've demonstrated to you the logical fallacy of it. You claim alcoholics choose their action - even though there is a genetic difference for those with addidictive disorders. Then you deny that homosexuals are afforded a choice because there is a genetic difference.
You cannot have it both ways. No amount of cursing will dig you out of the logic pit you sprung on yourself, nor will it endow you with any appearance of additional intellect.

I don't fucking have logical fallacies in my argument. Thank you very much. There is no genetic evidence to show alcoholics are that way by genetics. There is evidence for homosexuality being genetic. I can have it both ways. In fact, I just destroyed you again.

Yes but there are too many counter-examples and it invalidates the abuse theory. Abuse doesn't turn people gay... and that's a fact. Documented cases? Like on that link you removed? I believe tying abuse to someone changing as faulty.
You keep mentioning counter examples. I never said 100% of abuse victims "trun gay" - but some certainly do. I, in fact, have one female friend who believes that early sexual abuse may have had a strong imapct on her becoming a lesbian. Those memories plagued her so much that she finds the thought of sex with a male partner repellant.

I am NOT claiming that every single child molested has their sexual orientation altered; nor am I claiming that every single homosexual ended up that way because of abuse. Therefore your "counter-examples" are not valid against what I am saying...

You keep mentioning counter examples. I never said 100% of abuse victims "trun gay" - but some certainly do. I, in fact, have one female friend who believes that early sexual abuse may have had a strong imapct on her becoming a lesbian. Those memories plagued her so much that she finds the thought of sex with a male partner repellant.

And there are many abuses victims who remain heterosexual. In this country alone.. there are thousands of children getting molested... and abused...

My counter examples are very valid against these arguments that homosexuals have been abused at greater rates then heterosexuals.

And there are many abuses victims who remain heterosexual. In this country alone.. there are thousands of children getting molested... and abused...

My counter examples are very valid against these arguments that homosexuals have been abused at greater rates then heterosexuals.
Do you understand the word "some" or not? Or are you categorically stating that noone ever had their sexual orientation affected by abuse?

...and please, if you are going to quote me, don't just quote half of my post - it changes context.

Do you understand the word "some" or not? Or are you categorically stating that noone ever had their sexual orientation affected by abuse?

You aren't seeing what I'm saying. I don't know why it is relevant when the rate of abuse isn't higher for homosexuals then heterosexuals.

You aren't seeing what I'm saying. I don't know why it is relevant when the rate of abuse isn't higher for homosexuals then heterosexuals.
You don't see what I'm saying. Answer the question please - are you categorically stating that noone ever had their sexual orientation affected by abuse?

are you categorically stating that noone ever had their sexual orientation affected by abuse?

No comment. I think you know the answer of that already.

No comment. I think you know the answer of that already.
Yes, as I thought... If you are going to debate, at least debate honestly, and not "plead the 5th" when you are put on the spot for a difficult answer.

I don't bloody think so. I see heterosexual couples making out, practically groping each other in public and people walk by saying nothing. If it was me and my boyfriend, I get mean stares, names and even threats of physical violence. All those problems you name happen to anybody. But gay people have it far worse socially... we are put under incredible pressure by society.
No offense, but have you ever lived as a straight woman? Heterosexual MEN have dominated our culture for long enough that they've probably got it the easiest, but please remember that their comfort is founded upon grinding female sexuality into the dirt. Gay men are still men, and--like it or not--enjoy some of the bonuses of maleness in our patriarchal culture. The sad thing is that women participate enthusiastically in perpetuating the very myths that keep women lower on the food chain...at least gays are pretty well unified at fighting AGAINST oppression, instead of making babies for the very people who want to take away their fundamental human rights.

*Sigh* Sometimes being a female in this world makes me not so happy...

Us white, heterosexual men aged 18-35 are the source of all societies' problems...sometimes I just don't know how I can live with myself...:p

No offense, but have you ever lived as a straight woman? Heterosexual MEN have dominated our culture for long enough that they've probably got it the easiest, but please remember that their comfort is founded upon grinding female sexuality into the dirt. Gay men are still men, and--like it or not--enjoy some of the bonuses of maleness in our patriarchal culture. The sad thing is that women participate enthusiastically in perpetuating the very myths that keep women lower on the food chain...at least gays are pretty well unified at fighting AGAINST oppression, instead of making babies for the very people who want to take away their fundamental human rights.

*Sigh* Sometimes being a female in this world makes me not so happy...

Have you ever lived as a homosexual man? do you even know the abuse we get put through? Homosexuals have been executed in mass. We are treated like shit. Can women serve in the military? Can women get married?

Us white, heterosexual men aged 18-35 are the source of all societies' problems...sometimes I just don't know how I can live with myself...:p
"I'm a white male, age 18-45. Everybody listens to me!"
-Homer Simpson

Seriously though, a major part of my point was that gay people are a pretty well-unified movement at this point, and that's really helping them. They still (obviously) have a very long way to go, but at least they are working together. The women's movement is tanking to the point where we actually have to contemplate America losing Roe v Wade, and it's largely because so many women actively fight against their own rights and freedoms.

I'm not saying I'm any more of an authority than anybody else, but I do feel like I've gotten a more comprehensive set of personal experiences than the average bear. Having been straight, gay, and female, I feel like I've almost rounded the bases when it comes to human sexual interaction. I'm working on the male gay and male straight thing, too, but until the Lazarus Pit is in readiness I must bide my time...

Uh, gays can serve in the military, you know...

Not a flamer like me...

Have you ever lived as a homosexual man? do you even know the abuse we get put through? Homosexuals have been executed in mass. We are treated like shit. Can women serve in the military? Can women get married?
Uh, gays can serve in the military, you know...and I think during the inquisition, a few more women were executed (for being "witches") than homosexuals...and I think you'll find far more women are the victims of rape and domestic violence every year than homosexuals...

Seriously though, a major part of my point was that gay people are a pretty well-unified movement at this point, and that's really helping them. They still (obviously) have a very long way to go, but at least they are working together. The women's movement is tanking to the point where we actually have to contemplate America losing Roe v Wade, and it's largely because so many women actively fight against their own rights and freedoms.

The womens movement have a longer history in the United States then we do.. it goes back to voting rights, etc.

Are movement is unified, but this progress only have come in the past thirty years in large amounts.

Homosexuals do not choose their homosexual tendencies, their sexual attractions. However, they do choose to act upon their homosexual urges, but then my argument becomes "Who cares."

Uh, gays can serve in the military, you know...and I think during the inquisition, a few more women were executed (for being "witches") than homosexuals...and I think you'll find far more women are the victims of rape and domestic violence every year than homosexuals...

What about gay bashing? What about young gay men who are put out on the streets because they are gay by their parents?

My final statement: Both women and homosexuals don't have it easy. Some gay rights activists I know aren't gay, male.. but in fact straight females. Women and homosexuals don't have it easy by any means... I'm not saying women have it easy. I'll say right now they don't. I also don't view abortion as a human right.

Have you ever lived as a homosexual man?

Dude, I'm a bisexual intellectual libertarian female living in the United States. I eat discrimination and oppression for brunch.


do you even know the abuse we get put through?

Yes. I have been active in the gay rights movement since I was 14. I do not mean to trivialize the persecution of homosexuals, and I am sorry if I have come across as doing so.

Homosexuals have been executed in mass.

So have women.

We are treated like shit.

So are women. Did you know the leading cause of death for pregnant women in America is homicide by a spouse or lover? Did you know the most common cause of hospitalization for women in America is domestic abuse?

Yes, gay men are treated like shit. So are all women, gay or straight. Why are you trying to make enemies with the people who should be your allies? We are all victims of a traditionalist mentality that puts impregnation above love, penis + vagina above all meaningful human interaction, and procreation above the wonderful potential of human sexuality. And straight men are losing out along with the rest of us, as we all suffer when sexuality and love are debased in this manner, it's just that most of the straight men haven't felt the pinch quite as sharply...yet.


Can women serve in the military?

Yes, and in fewer roles than gay men.


Can women get married?
You know, there are gay women, too. Just a reminder, it seems like maybe you've forgotten.

What about gay bashing? What about young gay men who are put out on the streets because they are gay by their parents?
So this is now a pissing contest over "my minority is more persecuted than your minority!"? That's a discussion I can do without thanks - not to mention offtopic...but, for the record, I think you'll find incidents of gay bashing are abating far more rapidly than domestic violence and abuse against women...

So this is now a pissing contest over "my minority is more persucted than your minority!"? That's a discussion I can do without thanks - not to mention offtopic...but, for the record, I think you'll find incidents of gay bashing are abating far more rapidly than domestic violence and abuse against women...

Please, bottle and fubaria, read my final statement. I cleared up my stance.

i also find it very fucking unfair that either of you accuse me of pissing on other civil rights movement. I'm not trying to make any enemies. I think you both owe me an apology.

Dude, I'm a bisexual intellectual libertarian female living in the United States. I eat discrimination and oppression for brunch.
<Snip>
Yes, gay men are treated like shit. So are all women, gay or straight. Why are you trying to make enemies with the people who should be your allies? We are all victims of a traditionalist mentality that puts impregnation above love, penis + vagina above all meaningful human interaction, and procreation above the wonderful potential of human sexuality. And straight men are losing out along with the rest of us, as we all suffer when sexuality and love are debased in this manner, it's just that most of the straight men haven't felt the pinch quite as sharply...yet.
<And again>

Sorry, I just felt like repeating that. Brilliant.

By the way, will you marry me?

No it is very unfair because neither of them know my views on womens movement, in fact I sympathize with them. I find their statements towards me as abusive and downright disgusting. Good job on hurting someone who could support you.

Please, bottle and fubaria, read my final statement. I cleared up my stance.

Read it, thanks. I respond to what you post, so if you correct it later then you can't really blame me if I've already posted :)


i also find it very fucking unfair that either of you accuse me of pissing on other civil rights movement.

As NF pointed out, you seem to be determined to prove that you are part of the "most persecuted" group, which is a waste of your time and ours. If you can't accept that other people (including heterosexuals) are victims of our current culture, then you can't really expect them to show you much sympathy.


I'm not trying to make any enemies. I think you both owe me an apology.
Forgive me while I titter. You'll need a thicker skin than this if you want to hang around NS General.

As NF pointed out, you seem to be determined to prove that you are part of the "most persecuted" group, which is a waste of your time and ours. If you can't accept that other people (including heterosexuals) are victims of our current culture, then you can't really expect them to show you much sympathy.

Actually I said one of the most persecuted groups.. I sympathize with other civil rights movements including that of african americans..


Forgive me while I titter. You'll need a thicker skin than this if you want to hang around NS General.

You're nothing more then someone with sour grapes. I'm the one who has the resislence to stand up to your crap. If you want respect, treat people with respect.

Sorry, I just felt like repeating that. Brilliant.

By the way, will you marry me?
I am extremely unattractive when I blush, so you should knock that off :).

Your sex sounds very sad.

At least my sex is about what it shoud be about, not your stupid touch everything except the genitals crap.
You only do that for foreplay, then sex.
If you let some guy do everything to you in bed except that, there would be agood chance you could get raped.

Actually I said one of the most persecuted groups.. I sympathize with other civil rights movements including that of african americans..

Great. So why waste your time trying to prove gay men have it worse than women?


You're nothing more then someone with sour grapes.

To the best of my understanding, the idiom "sour grapes" refers to the denial of one's desire for something that one fails to acquire or sometimes to the person with such denial. I fail to see how that idiom is pertinent here. I very much desire equal rights for gays, women, men, black people, yellow people, and sea water turtles. I am deeply bothered that we have not yet achieved the social and political equality of all genders and sexual orientations.



I'm the one who has the resislence to stand up to your crap. If you want respect, treat people with respect.
"Stand up to your crap"? What "crap" would that be? Are you really oppressed by the voicing of opinions other than your own? Is any contradiction to your dogma "crap"?

Great. So why waste your time trying to prove gay men have it worse than women?

Point well taken.

I posted this thread in the moderation because of high amounts of thread hijacking.


I very much desire equal rights for gays, women, men, black people, yellow people, and sea water turtles. I am deeply bothered that we have not yet achieved the social and political equality of all genders and sexual orientations.

Great. So do I.


"Stand up to your crap"? What "crap" would that be? Are you really oppressed by the voicing of opinions other than your own? Is any contradiction to your dogma "crap"?

Not your opinions.. but your attitude.

At least my sex is about what it shoud be about, not your stupid touch everything except the genitals crap.
You only do that for foreplay, then sex.
If you let some guy do everything to you in bed except that, there would be agood chance you could get raped.
Dude, shouldn't you be out hunting mammoths or discovering fire or something? :p

At least my sex is about what it shoud be about, not your stupid touch everything except the genitals crap.

Um, how about touch everything INCLUDING the genitals? I have a tip for you: girls like it if you know how to do more than stick it in and wiggle for 30 seconds.


You only do that for foreplay, then sex.

Yeah, and why do people bother marinating when they could just chew the raw flesh straight off the cow's ribs?


If you let some guy do everything to you in bed except that, there would be agood chance you could get raped.Yeah, because all men are cowardly pathetic bastards who are so intent on penetrating a female that they will rape her rather than submit to mutual oral sex. Any of the men around here want to stand up for the male species a bit? This guy is telling us that you are all dick-crazed animals with fewer brains than a dog in heat...do you really want to be viewed in that manner?

Not your opinions.. but your attitude.
Again, I invite you to grow a thicker skin. Yes, I'm blunt, and often somewhat rude. But I've actually been on good behavior on this thread, so you should count your blessings.

Man, I thought you were a gay guy! Where are your freaking claws, child? Surely you aren't really cut by the gentle ribbing you've been subjected to on this thread!

There is a third option here, which I would put down: People do not CHOOSE their sexuality, but I don't think it's something you're born with. It doesn't seem to me that it would actually be bred into a sexual preference. I'm firmly in the nurture camp on this one, although I don't really think you can MAKE your child homo or hetero; it's something that happens under the radar in prepubescent years, then firms up during puberty.

Man, I thought you were a gay guy! Where are your freaking claws, child? Surely you aren't really cut by the gentle ribbing you've been subjected to on this thread!

Eh check the rest of the thread for that. I think we were trying a cooling off process after I ripped people to pieces.

Eh check the rest of the thread for that. I think we were trying a cooling off process after I ripped people to pieces.
Roger that. I will switch to Defcon 2. :)

But seriously, I'm sorrry if I got under your skin. I've got some serious pressure points about sex and sexuality, and I can't blame a gay guy for being touchy too...life sucks for anybody who likes non-procreative sex these days...

Roger that. I will switch to Defcon 2. :)

But seriously, I'm sorrry if I got under your skin. I've got some serious pressure points about sex and sexuality, and I can't blame a gay guy for being touchy too...life sucks for anybody who likes non-procreative sex these days...

Eh, no problem. I just don't want to get in trouble with the moderators for going overboard again... I'm a bit touchy yeah... and yep yep, I like gay sex... nothing society can do about that. :)

Dude, shouldn't you be out hunting mammoths or discovering fire or something? :p

Yeah, now that would be living, bringing home the mammoth, lighting a fire to cook it, then flinging my cave woman down on a fur bed to make some more cavekiddys.

[QUOTE=Bottle]Um, how about touch everything INCLUDING the genitals? I have a tip for you: girls like it if you know how to do more than stick it in and wiggle for 30 seconds.

I was responding to your statement of having no sex but everything else, how cold are the showers your man has to take?


Yeah, because all men are cowardly pathetic bastards who are so intent on penetrating a female that they will rape her rather than submit to mutual oral sex. Any of the men around here want to stand up for the male species a bit? This guy is telling us that you are all dick-crazed animals with fewer brains than a dog in heat...do you really want to be viewed in that manner?

When it comes to sex we are, for you to deny this to him after letting him do everything else, speaks volumes for your cruelty.
Sometimes oral sex isnt enough.

[QUOTE]
When it comes to sex we are, for you to deny this to him after letting him do everything else, speaks volumes for your cruelty.
Sometimes oral sex isnt enough.

You need to understand not all men are like you.

[QUOTE=Gessler]

You need to understand not all men are like you.

Well their not men then, if they dont understand this.

Well their not men then, if they dont understand this.

You are posting on false stereotypes, and not all men follow your line of thinking.

You are posting on false stereotypes, and not all men follow your line of thinking.

Yes they do.
If not, then their hardly men to begin with.

Yes they do.
If not, then their hardly men to begin with.

People this is called circular debating. Grow up, and understand people don't fit into your mold of what men should be. I don't agree with you and I'm a guy.

People this is called circular debating. Grow up, and understand people don't fit into your mold of what men should be. I don't agree with you and I'm a guy.

Its not my mould, its 'the' mould, if you dont fit it, then your not really much of a man.
Your just a mouse.

Don't try to put words in my mouth.
I dont believe I have put any words in your mouth. In fact I believe that I've made a very good effort to ensure I have allowed you to present your own definitions of the terms you are employing. I am simply reasoning based on the assumption that your veiws are coherent (that is not self contrary or contradictory). I'm not sure you are aware of all the hidden premises that many of your statements seem (to me) to imply.

I've already talked to someone before about that.
I've read all the previous posts, and have considered their points before I posted.

You aren't understanding my views
I dont know that this is entirely true, or at least I believe I understand your views better than you understand mine.

and you know what? I'm tired and I'm not going to clarify for someone who seems unabled to distinguish between emotions and sexual orientation.
I find this to be a cop-out. I infer that you are implying that the distinguishment you refer to is so obvious that one would have to be somewhat 'challenged' to not work it out for themselves. I suggest if this were the case, the distinguishment would be so easy to explain that one would have to be at least very nearly as challenged, to not be able to simply and quickly describe that difference, even if tired. I suggest the issue is more complicated than your comment seem to imply.

Yes but there are too many counter-examples and it invalidates the abuse theory. Abuse doesn't turn people gay... and that's a fact.
This is what I mean by oversimplification. The term 'orientation' seems to me (probably) originally intended to suggest not a fixed location, but rather a 'directedness' that is contextual. To me the manner in which people appear to reckon orientation, seems more analogous to a location, since it seems people expect that if two people have the 'same' 'orientation-label', they must be in the same place and have arrived there by the same means. But if I tell you both Jane and David and orientated Northward, does this suggest to you where they are, where they are going, where they have been and how they got there, much less that the answers to the above questions are identical for both Jane and David?

The fact is that abuse provides very good evidence of people having their sexual behaviours, responses,and feelings effected by their 'experiance', so we know that at least some experiances can effect at least some peoples' sexual behaviours, responses, and feelings. Now if you consider 'orientation' to be analogous to some fixed geographical location, rather than an entirely contextual 'directedness', the sentence 'environment/experiance can effect a person's sexual orientation' could mean "abuse might 'turn someone heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or a-sexual'", however to me I simply do not conceive that human beings' sexual behaviours, feelings and responses are an isolated fixed entity that neatly categorises people according to their relationship (i.e. same or opposite) to the sex/gender that they are attracted to.

People aren't born gay, if they were, then there would be no gays because there would be a gene for homosexuality.
Not so. Just as one (of many) examples that disprove this theory, such a gene might be recessive.

While people throw around the environment and/or "genes" as a possible explantion, there is a inescapable interchangibility and feedback between genes and environment,
Who knows really. What difference does it make?
Hurray! :)
As a matter of interest, I am curious about human beings in general, but it seems to me that a lot of people consider that the answer to the question 'what causes people's "sexual morphology"?' carries with it some kind of moral imperative with regards to homosexuality.

Its not my mould, its 'the' mould, if you dont fit it, then your not really much of a man.
Your just a mouse.
Lol that was horrible :p

Yes they do.
If not, then their hardly men to begin with.
Says you

Gessler has been reported.

More debunking!

I am simply reasoning based on the assumption that your veiws are coherent (that is not self contrary or contradictory). I'm not sure you are aware of all the hidden premises that many of your statements seem (to me) to imply.

You need to really read my posts and not over analyze them. I'm direct and to the point. If you cannot accept that you have your own fair share of issues.


I find this to be a cop-out. I infer that you are implying that the distinguishment you refer to is so obvious that one would have to be somewhat 'challenged' to not work it out for themselves. I suggest if this were the case, the distinguishment would be so easy to explain that one would have to be at least very nearly as challenged, to not be able to simply and quickly describe that difference, even if tired. I suggest the issue is more complicated than your comment seem to imply.

You are the one committing the great array of cop-outs. That's your own fault and you shouldn't go around accusing people of doing that. You are the one who needs to be attacked on every front. I know more about this issue then you do, apparently.. as I have demonstrated my knowledge.

The term 'orientation' seems to me (probably) originally intended to suggest not a fixed location, ***SNIP*** where they have been and how they got there, much less that the answers to the above questions are identical for both Jane and David?

This is the weakest respone from you I have seen of yet. Orientation refers to sexual orientation in this regard. Nothing else. If you cannot accept that then leave this thread.


The fact is that abuse provides very good evidence of people having their sexual behaviours, responses,and feelings effected by their 'experiance', so we know that at least some experiances can effect at least some peoples' sexual behaviours, responses, and feelings. Now if you consider 'orientation' to be analogous to some fixed geographical location, rather than an entirely contextual 'directedness', the sentence 'environment/experiance can effect a person's sexual orientation' could mean "abuse might 'turn someone heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or a-sexual'", however to me I simply do not conceive that human beings' sexual behaviours, feelings and responses are an isolated fixed entity that neatly categorises people according to their relationship (i.e. same or opposite) to the sex/gender that they are attracted to.

This is all very wordy, but not very substantiated. Thanks for that. Maybe next time you would at least back it up and fix your typos? I'm considering orientation... as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and well.. asexual. I do not feel abuse turns people gay, anymore then it does turning people straight.

You're one of the worst debators I've seen of yet. I'm sorry.

Its not my mould, its 'the' mould, if you dont fit it, then your not really much of a man.
Your just a mouse.
What I wouldn't give to have a nice little fight with you :mad:

You need to really read my posts and not over analyze them. I'm direct and to the point. If you cannot accept that you have your own fair share of issues.
It is not a matter of whether or not I can accept something. The fact that you may not be aware of the implications of a particular statement, claim or point of view, does not (so far as I can tell) necessitate or indicate that I have issues.

You are the one committing the great array of cop-outs.
Could you be more specific?

That's your own fault and you shouldn't go around accusing people of doing that.
Again could you be more specific, I really dont quite know what it is that is supposed to be my fault, or what it is I should not be accusing people of.

You are the one who needs to be attacked on every front.
I really dont follow your logic here, why need anyone be attacked?

I know more about this issue then you do, apparently.. as I have demonstrated my knowledge.
I do not agree with your accessment.

This is the weakest respone from you I have seen of yet. Orientation refers to sexual orientation in this regard. Nothing else. If you cannot accept that then leave this thread.
As I posted earlier, I believe I have a good awareness of the concept people most usually seem to be referring to when they refer to 'sexual orientation'. My issue is not what people mean when they use the phrase, but rather concept itself.

This is all very wordy, but not very substantiated. Thanks for that.
Again can you be more specific, what exactly do you believe has not been substantiated?

Maybe next time you would at least back it up and fix your typos?
If there was something in my post you were unsure about, due for instance to a typo, I will be more than happy to clarify if you could specify what it is you find unclear.

I'm considering orientation... as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and well.. asexual.
Why?

I do not feel abuse turns people gay, anymore then it does turning people straight.
Yes, I know, what I would query is whether or not you are under the impression I that I feel "abuse turns people gay or straight'?

It is not a matter of whether or not I can accept something. The fact that you may not be aware of the implications of a particular statement, claim or point of view, does not (so far as I can tell) necessitate or indicate that I have issues.

You argue in a circular manner, and it is quite annoying. That's why I get frustrated with you.

I do not agree with your accessment.

Fine don't agree with me.. you aren't getting anywhere.

As I posted earlier, I believe I have a good awareness of the concept people most usually seem to be referring to when they refer to 'sexual orientation'. My issue is not what people mean when they use the phrase, but rather concept itself.

Then you can have issues with the way I use it. I could care less what you think about my wording.

If there was something in my post you were unsure about, due for instance to a typo, I will be more than happy to clarify if you could specify what it is you find unclear.

You argue in logical fallacy, and circular arguments. It is very quite annoying. You need to form a coherent argument. I pretty much had issues with every point you bring up. Not because I disagree with them, but because your clarity is inadequate.

since when is being a man something to strive for? and since when are there no gender identities for biological males aside from "man" and "mouse"?

actually, since when is "mouse" a gender identity?

You argue in a circular manner, and it is quite annoying. That's why I get frustrated with you.
Mestecala, if this were so, then it should be easy for you to provide a specific example.

Then you can have issues with the way I use it. I could care less what you think about my wording.
No I dont. If when you intended to communicate 'horse' you said 'cat', and I objected, that would be an issue with your wording. It is not that I believe the word you are using to communicate a concept, is the incorrect word, but rather that I dont think the concept itself is 'true'.

You argue in logical fallacy,
If this is true it should be easy to provide a specific example.

and circular arguments. It is very quite annoying. You need to form a coherent argument.
I believe I do have a coherent argument. You have not provided a single empiracal objection to any comment I have made, it seems that you are describing arguments as though they were obviously flawed. If that is the case, it should be very easy to provide a specific example and demonstrate the flaws.

I pretty much had issues with every point you bring up. Not because I disagree with them, but because your clarity is inadequate.
Er, right. As I posted, if you can point to what exactly you find unclear, I will happily do my best to clarify the particular point.

I believe I do have a coherent argument. You have not provided a single empiracal objection to any comment I have made, it seems that you are describing arguments as though they were obviously flawed. If that is the case, it should be very easy to provide a specific example and demonstrate the flaws.

Why are you so full of yourself? Dude, you have not presented a coherent argument. And that's all I will say.

Why are you so full of yourself? Dude, you have not presented a coherent argument. And that's all I will say.
Full of myself?

Mesatecala, it is a longstanding convention that the burden of proof lies with the case for the affirmitive, I have stated that I have doubts about the concept referred to as 'sexual orientation' (as people most usually concieve it). If you are so certain that it is a robust concept, or an accurate description of objective facts, surely it should be a simple matter for you to present a convincing argument to this effect.

Are you able to give me good reasons why I should concieve of human sexual behaviours, traits and feelings within the 'sexual orientation' model?

Mesatecala, I must ask, where is your own non-circular, coherent argument?

Your whole debate has been an expression of a personal opinion, and denying all sources that have contradicted or questioned it...

I provided my own sources.

Mesatecala, it is a longstanding convention that the burden of proof lies with the case for the affirmitive, I have stated that I have doubts about the concept referred to as 'sexual orientation' (as people most usually concieve it). If you are so certain that it is a robust concept, or an accurate description of objective facts, surely it should be a simple matter for you to present a convincing argument to this effect.

Dude, get real. You are making the affirmatives, therefore you must provide the evidence. Again get a real argument, and back it up with facts like I have throughout this thread.

Dude, get real. You are making the affirmatives, therefore you must provide the evidence. Again get a real argument, and back it up with facts like I have throughout this thread.
Of course I have made some affirmative arguments, do you care to specify which you disagree with and why?

With regards to 'sexual orientation' (the argument I was referring to when I mentioned the onus of proof convention) you are arguing in the affirmitive. Regardless, either you do or do not believe that 'sexual orientation' (as it tends to be 'popularly concieved) is a valid and useful concept. If you dont accept it is a valid and useful concept then I'd have to wonder what exactly we have been discussing. If you do find it a valid and useful concept then you should be able to state why. Further if you feel as strongly about it as you appear to, surely you would be more than happy to take the opportunity to try to convince others (such as myself).

Well, I think the whole debate (with Mesatecala) has well and truly entered stalemate. You are convinced you are right, and refuse to even consider other people's arguments or sources they have provided. Which is fine - you are certainly entitled to have your own opinion and keep it - but from a debate point of view, we're dead in the water.

If anyone else raises interesting points I may respond, but trying to debate with Mesatecala about whether environmental factors can influence sexuality, and that sexuality is not determined 100% by genetics, is played out...

Well, I think the whole debate (with Mesatecala) has well and truly entered stalemate. You are convinced you are right, and refuse to even consider other people's arguments or sources they have provided. Which is fine - you are certainly entitled to have your own opinion and keep it - but from a debate point of view, we're dead in the water.

I of course looked at them, especially Wikipedia. You like it what I did to wikipedia? Completely blew its credibility with a source that was like TNT? I'm convinced I'm right because my sources have credibility.

With regards to 'sexual orientation' (the argument I was referring to when I mentioned the onus of proof convention) you are arguing in the affirmitive. Regardless, either you do or do not believe that 'sexual orientation' (as it tends to be 'popularly concieved) is a valid and useful concept.
If I understand you correctly, Zagat, you are saying that the concept of an absolute sexual orientation is outdated and/or inaccurate? That earch person has an entriely unique perspective of sexuality that cannot be defined under a simple banner of sexual orientation?

I of course looked at them, especially Wikipedia. You like it what I did to wikipedia? Completely blew its credibility with a source that was like TNT? I'm convinced I'm right because my sources have credibility.
Well, not to rehash the whole thing for the Nth time, but I never presented Wikipedia as a source, and the 8 or so diverse sources I did provide you merely dismissed with a wave of the hand as erroneous...

Well, not to rehash the whole thing for the Nth time, but I never presented Wikipedia as a source, and the 8 or so diverse sources I did provide you merely dismissed with a wave of the hand as erroneous...

I questioned the credentials on the sources. I provided my own credible sources.. you dismissed those yourself.

If I understand you correctly, Zagat, you are saying that the concept of an absolute sexual orientation is outdated and/or inaccurate? That earch person has an entriely unique perspective of sexuality that cannot be defined under a simple banner of sexual orientation?
Kind of. I dont see that 'sexual orientation' if it refers exclusively to the relationship between a person and the sex/gender identity of their 'desires' is a very useful concept, (in fact I find it counterproductive) because it reifies one particular aspect of a persons 'sexuality' and collapses the importance (or even the existence) of all other aspects, and further there is a tendency for people to view 'orientation' as not only a set number of boxes people might fit into, but also as 'fixed' for each individual.

I questioned the credentials on the sources. I provided my own credible sources.. you dismissed those yourself.
I'm afraid "credible" is a highly subjective term. And are you sure it was me that dismissed your sources? I don't seem to recall doing so.

...but as I said, we are at a logical impasse, and I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind. I firmly believe that sexuality is not 100% genetically determined, you don't. We both have presented sources. What more is there left to do? :p

I'm afraid "credible" is a highly subjective term. And are you sure it was me that dismissed your sources? I don't seem to recall doing so.

...but as I said, we are at a logical impasse, and I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind. I firmly believe that sexuality is not 100% genetically determined, you don't. We both have presented sources. What more is there left to do? :p

Suit yourself. I myself am tired of this thread. Look at how many posts I have here. It isn't anything to be happy about really. So I think we will wrap this up and agree to disagree.

I don't fucking have logical fallacies in my argument. Thank you very much. There is no genetic evidence to show alcoholics are that way by genetics. There is evidence for homosexuality being genetic. I can have it both ways. In fact, I just destroyed you again.


ROFLMAO! Goddam Mesa - it is so easy to make a fool out of you I almost feel guilty.... almost.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076928
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/24/1728_57710?src=Inktomi&condition=Home%20&%20Top%20Stories

Go ahead, tell s all that MSNBC and WEBMD are both wildly anti-gay! It seems to be your SOP everytime you find yourself confronted with the undeniable truth that you are wrong. Make sure to use the word 'fucking' alot - it compliments the desperate tone of your posts.

What I wouldn't give to have a nice little fight with you :mad:

I'm sure you would slap me to death.

since when is being a man something to strive for? and since when are there no gender identities for biological males aside from "man" and "mouse"?
actually, since when is "mouse" a gender identity?

Its an expression for a meek, pleasing, weakwilled man.
The snag is a good modern example, of what a 'mouse like' man is.

Do they choose to have homosexual tendencies? I would say not. Do they choose to act on their tendencies? Yes.

Neo Rogolia ended this thread on the first post. Moderator, lock please? ;)

ROFLMAO! Goddam Mesa - it is so easy to make a fool out of you I almost feel guilty.... almost.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076928
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/24/1728_57710?src=Inktomi&condition=Home%20&%20Top%20Stories

Go ahead, tell s all that MSNBC and WEBMD are both wildly anti-gay! It seems to be your SOP everytime you find yourself confronted with the undeniable truth that you are wrong. Make sure to use the word 'fucking' alot - it compliments the desperate tone of your posts.

You are making a fool out of yourself. Homosexuality is on a different gene area. You are the one who needs your mind reworked because you are a liar. It is not my fault, that you choose to make an fool of yourself. Desperate tones? I don't ever get defeated on this, I will crush you to pieces.

Bozzyism is the new ignorance.

holy crap! this thread is still going? Wow...and still in circles too. You guys going for the record on this one?

i had a small fight with my boyfriend, so i don't think i'm in the mood to debate this for a while... we are staying together.. but i'm a bit upset... i'm a very sensitive guy when it comes to him... so i'm not feeling too well...

You are making a fool out of yourself. Homosexuality is on a different gene area.

Oh, I see - it is on the "optional" gene area of DNA - as opposed to the homosexual gene - which is on the "mandatory" gene area. How convenient for you. Maybe you should activate your "common sense" gene - which you apparently also have placed on your "optional" DNA gene area.


You are the one who needs your mind reworked because you are a liar. It is not my fault, that you choose to make an fool of yourself. Desperate tones? I don't ever get defeated on this, I will crush you to pieces.

Bozzyism is the new ignorance.

LOL! Aparently you play RA2 - Yuri's Revenge - If not then you have missed the hilarity of your statement. "I will crush you"
"Give to me your lunch money!"

When you get your head out of the sand let me know - until then you can freak out and deny the fact that you are wrong, multiple sources proove you are wrong, and your arguments are empty. Your empty boasts do quite the opposite of reinforcing your credibility.

You have very much in common with those who cling to faith without any supporting fact. You deny data that you don't like and make up data that you know little about (homosexuality is on a different gene area?! hehe that's almost as funny as thinking it makes a difference WHAT 'gene area' it is at) It seems you've found your new religion.

Here's your sign (http://www.lonestarstangs.com/forum/images/smilies/sign.gif)

hehe that's almost as funny as thinking it makes a difference WHAT 'gene area' it is at


Actually what he's referring to is the postitioning (locii) of genes on chromosomes and in fact it does matter.

Actually what he's referring to is the postitioning (locii) of genes on chromosomes and in fact it does matter.

Thank you.

In fact you know what? Bozzy apparently thinks that the genes are changeable and are all uniform. I'm simply saying that is not true and genes are highly complex and very dynamic. They are made up of a dynamic structure.

"Maybe you should activate your "common sense" gene - which you apparently also have placed on your "optional" DNA gene area."

This is what you call an ad hominem. Which is against the rules. Bozzy again feels the need to result to desperation.

"When you get your head out of the sand let me know - until then you can freak out and deny the fact that you are wrong, multiple sources proove you are wrong, and your arguments are empty. Your empty boasts do quite the opposite of reinforcing your credibility."

No I'm sorry, you are the one who is wrong and you have your head up your arse. That's not my fault. And what multiple sources? You mean the BS you happen to post that has nothing to do with homosexuality? You know nothing, and you have nothing. I'm the one who totally ruined you before and I'm not afraid of doing it again.

"You have very much in common with those who cling to faith without any supporting fact. You deny data that you don't like and make up data that you know little about (homosexuality is on a different gene area?! hehe that's almost as funny as thinking it makes a difference WHAT 'gene area' it is at) It seems you've found your new religion."

You are the one who is denying data like you wouldn't believe. The genes aren't all uniform. You know nothing about genes or anything for that matter. In fact you qualify as one of the worst debators on this forum. I call this new style "bozzyism", ignore all.. make up bullshit... and bring up irrelevant links.

Homosexuality is genetic. It is not on the same part of the gene structure as the "alcoholic" gene or all that other voodoo science you bring up. It seems you are the one who found a new religion. BS.

Homosexuality is genetic. It is not on the same part of the gene structure as the "alcoholic" gene or all that other voodoo science you bring up. It seems you are the one who found a new religion. BS.
Just curious - do you believe that a predisposition for alcholoism is not genetic?

And if a predisposition to alcoholism is genetic, what difference does it make whether it is the same gene cluster as a predisposition towards homosexuality or not?

...not taking either side here, I'm just not sure what the relevance of either of your points is...

Just curious - do you believe that a predisposition for alcholoism is not genetic?


No.

No need to be hostile. I am NOT saying that alcoholism is the same as sexuality. I am asking why you believe one is a genetic trait and the other not?



Good grief, this thread is still going?

No.
Hmm, there is ample medical evidence to suggest that it is...but I'm sure you'll deny any sources I link, so instead I'll ask why? Why a gay gene, but no alcoholic gene?

Hmm, there is ample medical evidence to suggest that it is...but I'm sure you'll deny any sources I link, so instead I'll ask why? Why a gay gene, but no alcoholic gene?

Sexuality is not comparable to alcoholism. You can stop being irrelevant.

Sexuality is not comparable to alcoholism. You can stop being irrelevant.
No need to be hostile. I am NOT saying that alcoholism is the same as sexuality. I am asking why you believe one is a genetic trait and the other not?

No need to be hostile. I am NOT saying that alcoholism is the same as sexuality. I am asking why you believe one is a genetic trait and the other not?

Look I can get hooked on beer but that doesn't mean I have a genetic trait that says I'm more then likely.

So do you believe sexuality is the only personality or psychological trait that is genetically dictated?

So do you believe sexuality is the only personality or psychological trait that is genetically dictated?

i don't believe sexuality is psychological. Genetic, and psychological are two different things.

i don't believe sexuality is psychological. Genetic, and psychological are two different things.
Genetics contribute to a persons psychological makeup.

Anyway, I've lost track of your point. Are you saying sexuality is a unique trait, dictated by genes, while all other aspects of a person's "persona" are not genetically determined? it's almost like you want to justify your sexuality by saying it's genetic. It shouldn't matter what "causes" homosexuality, people should be tolerant of sexuality regardless...

Hmm, there is ample medical evidence to suggest that it is...but I'm sure you'll deny any sources I link, so instead I'll ask why? Why a gay gene, but no alcoholic gene?
I already gave him two links that demonstrate the physiological differences alcoholics have. He is choosing to ignore the information and argue the difference between seuality and alcoholism rather than address the profoundly biased difference in the way he views genetic influences.

His posts now are pretty much a very weak attempt to dodge the issue so he does not have to confront his hypocracy. Apparently all B are C only if they are gay. He knows the fallacy of his argument now - but is too proud to admit it - so he argues pointlessly on trying to deceive his own ego.

i don't believe sexuality is psychological...
:rolleyes:
Congratulations - you get the award for Really Dumb Post of the Day!

i think only a gay person could answer this one and know what they're talking about

Look I can get hooked on beer but that doesn't mean I have a genetic trait that says I'm more then likely.

Hold it up to the mirror and you'll see the point that we've all been making;


Look I can get hooked on gay sex but that doesn't mean I have a genetic trait that says I'm more then likely.

Hmm, what's that flushing sound? Ah yes, your credibility.

i think only a gay person could answer this one and know what they're talking about

Good thing it's not about S+M - you'd only believe a dominatrix's opinion.

i think only a gay person could answer this one and know what they're talking about
Yeah, what would scientists know, damn witchdoctors! :p

I already gave him two links that demonstrate the physiological differences alcoholics have. He is choosing to ignore the information and argue the difference between seuality and alcoholism rather than address the profoundly biased difference in the way he views genetic influences.

His posts now are pretty much a very weak attempt to dodge the issue so he does not have to confront his hypocracy. Apparently all B are C only if they are gay. He knows the fallacy of his argument now - but is too proud to admit it - so he argues pointlessly on trying to deceive his own ego.

This is what I call great denial of facts and genetic variabilities. Comparing sexuality to alcoholism, is like calling Pol Pot a democratic leader. It is something you just don't do.

And your messing around with what I said is false. I'm not hook on gay sex. That is just part of my relationship. Your posts are the weak ass attempt to cover your own false argumentation style. Your arguments are fundamentally flawed in nature and you are the one who has issues with the facts. In the beginning of this thread you got "owned", and you still couldn't concede. For now on, I think anything else that comes out your mouth is ridiculous garbage, and not worth my time.

Hmm, what's that flushing sound? Ah yes, your credibility.

You are part of a new wave of insanity on this forum called: bozzyism. Something that ruins the mind like cocaine. Never have I argued with someone as ignorant on this forum.

This is what I call great denial of facts and genetic variabilities. Comparing sexuality to alcoholism, is like calling Pol Pot a democratic leader. It is something you just don't do.
What a ludicrous comparison. Stop being so overly sensitive and defensive, will you? Nobody is saying that alcoholism and sexuality are the same thing, merely that both are affected by genetic factors.

Besides which, being an alcoholic isn't some sort of crime or sin - you're reacting like people are comparing your sexuality to murder or rape...

What a ludicrous comparison. Stop being so overly sensitive and defensive, will you? Nobody is saying that alcoholism and sexuality are the same thing, merely that both are affected by genetic factors.

Besides which, being an alcoholic isn't some sort of crime or sin - you're reacting like people are comparing your sexuality to murder or rape...

I will take care of what crap I have to. Both are affected by genetic factors? why the hell are you bringing up alcoholism anyways? What does that have to do with this argument?

I don't care what an alcoholic does. It has nothing to do with this topic. In fact, this is what the insigificant irrelevant debaters come up with to discredit the gay rights movement.

I will take care of what crap I have to. Both are affected by genetic factors? why the hell are you bringing up alcoholism anyways? What does that have to do with this argument?

I don't care what an alcoholic does. It has nothing to do with this topic. In fact, this is what the insigificant irrelevant debaters come up with to discredit the gay rights movement.
Well, I didn't actually bring up alcoholism, I believe Bozzy did. But I believe it was brought up in relevance to genetic dispositions to certain behaviours...

...and also, maybe instead of snapping at others in this thread, and continually deriding their debate skills simply because they have a different point of view than you do, you could address their points a little more succintly?

Well, I didn't actually bring up alcoholism, I believe Bozzy did. But I believe it was brought up in relevance to genetic dispositions to certain behaviours...

I don't care. It was totally irelevant as it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Bozzy is just incapable of debating and wants to bash homosexuals. He has done it before and I called him up on it, and broke his argument.

you could address their points a little more succintly?

INCORRECT!

I have addressed their points very well.

I don't care. It was totally irelevant as it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Bozzy is just incapable of debating and wants to bash homosexuals. He has done it before and I called him up on it, and broke his argument.



INCORRECT!

I have addressed their points very well.



So...you can have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality but you can't have a genetic predisposition to alchoholism like so many scientific studies have suggested you can? Gotcha.

I don't care. It was totally irelevant as it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Bozzy is just incapable of debating and wants to bash homosexuals. He has done it before and I called him up on it, and broke his argument.
...I don't see it quite that way, but anyway...
INCORRECT!

I have addressed their points very well.
In your humble opinion. :rolleyes: From my viewpoint, most of your argument has been stating your personal opinion over and over, refuting any counter-sources you have been shown, pointless personal attacks and misinterpretation of other peoples arguments as an attack on homosexuality. (Except for those of course who were simply attacking homosexuality, such as Neo Rogolia).

.
In your humble opinion. :rolleyes: From my viewpoint, most of your argument has been stating your personal opinion over and over, refuting any counter-sources you have been shown, pointless personal attacks and misinterpretation of other peoples arguments as an attack on homosexuality. (Except for those of course who were simply attacking homosexuality, such as Neo Rogolia).

Your opinion, not the reality.

are you born wired to end up gay? probably not. however, at a young age influences have a heavy influence on kids, ie: a dsyfuntctional family unit, gay media, a parent that abuses other sex etc. Also theres the dificult maraige in later life thatll turn strange people.

Your opinion, not the reality.
Is that your equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"...:p

...anyway, once again I withdraw - no progress is being made either way...

are you born wired to end up gay? probably not. however, at a young age influences have a heavy influence on kids, ie: a dsyfuntctional family unit, gay media, a parent that abuses other sex etc. Also theres the dificult maraige in later life thatll turn strange people.
Man, Mesa's gonna toast your chestnuts for that one! " :D It's the diametric opposite of what he's been pushing...

are you born wired to end up gay? probably not. however, at a young age influences have a heavy influence on kids, ie: a dsyfuntctional family unit, gay media, a parent that abuses other sex etc. Also theres the dificult maraige in later life thatll turn strange people.


Tread lightly, young one, for there is a very angry person who disagrees with you roaming about ;)

Mesa, a few questions:

1. Do you think sexuality is determined 100% by genes?

2. What makes you think that?

3. Are you aware that there are alternate explanations to sexuality, such as the "nurture" debate and supported by studies?

4. Why do you disagree with these studies then?

are you born wired to end up gay? probably not. however, at a young age influences have a heavy influence on kids, ie: a dsyfuntctional family unit, gay media, a parent that abuses other sex etc. Also theres the dificult maraige in later life thatll turn strange people.

Care to back that up? I see the homophobes here are jumping in delight at this new person saying that young age influences had an effect. People are born gay. That simple. so tell me I had a disfunctional family unit? I watched gay media..? I had parent that abused me? Not at all. So therefore your argument is void.

Dragon:

3. Are you aware that there are alternate explanations to sexuality, such as the "nurture" debate and supported by studies?

4. Why do you disagree with these studies then?

First off these studies are for the most part bogus. And I presented counter-evidence to these several pages back.

Tread lightly, young one, for there is a very angry person who disagrees with you roaming about ;)

Hey Neo Liar, I'm not angry. You are. You are angry at gay people and you support those accusations.

:p

Dragon:

First off these studies are for the most part bogus. And I presented counter-evidence to these several pages back.

Who determines that they are bogus?

Mesa, a few questions:

1. Do you think sexuality is determined 100% by genes?

2. What makes you think that?

3. Are you aware that there are alternate explanations to sexuality, such as the "nurture" debate and supported by studies?

4. Why do you disagree with these studies then?
If I can answer for him, based on his earlier replies:

1. Yes, he does

2. Personal belief plus selected sources

3. He is, but vehemently thinks they are all wrong

4. I still haven't seen a salient answer on that point

Who determines that they are bogus?

My sources.

I'm pro-gay. I'm not anti-gay like you. And I'm not one who presents the argument that being gay is a sin. Anyways, can I ask you something.. why do you hold such beliefs.

Hey New Fubaria, don't answer for me. You don't speak for me. You are too biased to speak in my regard because you don't like my solid argument. Actually, you are the one who is not making a strong argument.

Care to back that up? I see the homophobes here are jumping in delight at this new person saying that young age influences had an effect. People are born gay. That simple. so tell me I had a disfunctional family unit? I watched gay media..? I had parent that abused me? Not at all. So therefore your argument is void.
*shakes my head* Why are you so convinced that anyone who doesn't think it is 100% genetic is a homophobe? Speaking for myself, I hold my beliefs due to personal experience of people I know and many of the sources I have read. Also, as has been pointed out to you before, many early experiences that shape our life are beyond the recall of the concious mind. And unlike this last poster, I have contended that is is not neccessarily negative experience, difunctional families or abuse that shape sexuality, but experiences in general. My contention is that we are all a product of both our genetics and experience - we are not the product of one or the other exclusively...

Care to back that up? I see the homophobes here are jumping in delight at this new person saying that young age influences had an effect. People are born gay. That simple. so tell me I had a disfunctional family unit? I watched gay media..? I had parent that abused me? Not at all. So therefore your argument is void.

Dragon:



First off these studies are for the most part bogus. And I presented counter-evidence to these several pages back.



Look Mesa, just because people disagree with you does not mean they're a homophobe.

Actually, you are the one who is not making a strong argument.
This claim repeated like a mantra seems to be the extent of your debating prowess. Bye for now.

Look Mesa, just because people disagree with you does not mean they're a homophobe.

Look at your signature. Look at your beliefs. And then come back to me. It very well makes them a homophobe. You shouldn't even be talking.

Fubaria: You were repeating it far more then me.

Fubaria: You were repeating it far more then me.
Again with the "I know you are but what am I?"...:p :rolleyes:

Again with the "I know you are but what am I?"...:p :rolleyes:

Your maturity flies out the window.

Look at your signature. Look at your beliefs. And then come back to me. It very well makes them a homophobe. You shouldn't even be talking.

Fubaria: You were repeating it far more then me.



LOL, thank you for proving my point ;)

I'm going to get out of this thread again before the flames start a-flyin'

Edit: By the way, is your signature implying that Christian fundamentalists are to be equated with Nazis?

LOL, thank you for proving my point ;)

I'm going to get out of this thread again before the flames start a-flyin'

I didn't prove your point. In fact I'm saying you shouldn't be questioning me because you don't have a basis to stand on. :)

Your maturity flies out the window.
Whatever you say. Have the last quip if you must.

Edit: By the way, is your signature implying that Christian fundamentalists are to be equated with Nazis?

They are pretty similiar. Afterall fundies like Phelps protest gay people, and nazis protest jews and others... nonetheless they both hate gay people for the most part too.

My sources.

I'm pro-gay. I'm not anti-gay like you. And I'm not one who presents the argument that being gay is a sin. Anyways, can I ask you something.. why do you hold such beliefs.



You have a circular argument: "Your sources are wrong because my sources are right. My sources are righ because your sources are wrong."

I hold that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it's wrong, and personally homosexuality is just. Wrong.