NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I said I didn't want to argue about it, so... whatever. Theres really no reason to change your mind.

The only mind that will be changing is yours. Give it time. In due time, the "bisexuals" grow into what they truly are.

That's heterosexuality for you. Senseless.
Probably more my senseless bisexuality....

That's heterosexuality for you. Senseless.

What about homosexuality!? Isn't that senseless? :p

Bisexuality does not exist. Women who claim to be bi are attention whores, the men who claim to be bi are poofs in denial.

And

So sad to see people stuck half-way in the closet thinking themselves less gay if they keep appearances up.


Oy, this is the same crap as the homophobic/holier-than-thou-religious-ignorants use against homosexuality, just homosexuality-high-roaders used against bisexuality. Similarly, I stand up. Don't make me start.

The only mind that will be changing is yours. Give it time. In due time, the "bisexuals" grow into what they truly are.
Dinobots?

Probably more my senseless bisexuality....

The word you were looking for is "imaginary."

The word you were looking for is "imaginary."
And suddenly... I cease to exist. *poof*

What about homosexuality!? Isn't that senseless? :p

No, it's the only thing that makes sense in this crazy world.

The only mind that will be changing is yours. Give it time. In due time, the "bisexuals" grow into what they truly are.

No, that's pansexual. Completely different thing.

And

Oy, this is the same crap as the homophobic/holier-than-thou-religious-ignorants use against homosexuality, just homosexuality-high-roaders used against bisexuality. Similarly, I stand up. Don't make me start.

Oh, please don't. I know exactly what platitudes about sexual fluidity and bi-supremacist nonsense you'll drudge up.

There was also something to do with stones in there. Which you seem to forget.

Hense not hating. You disapprove of sinners but nothing more. Too bad many Christians seem not to understand that. :(

No, that's pansexual. Completely different thing.

Nope.

Nope.
Where are the gay haters? That's where the real fun argument is.

The Bible tells you to love your neighbor and your enemies, even the most vile sinners so hating them should be against the teachings of Christianity.

Fine ... but I'm not Christian and not bound by such rules any more than a Danish cartoonist is bound by Islam.

I can hate whomever I please.

I love homosexuals.

In fact, I'm more or less one myself. I'm bisexual. And actual bisexual, not one of those "I do it because I'm a stupid teenage girl" bisexuals, or one of those "I love people for themselves not their gender" bisexuals. A proper, "I just happen to be attracted to both men and women", bisexual.

So I like homosexuals. All is well.

Where are the gay haters?

Busy beating their sons for walking "a little funny".

Oh, please don't. I know exactly what platitudes about sexual fluidity and bi-supremacist nonsense you'll drudge up.

Actually, I was just going to point out that the same arguments for homosexuality apply to bisexuality, and that most bisexuals don't change.

And pansexual =/= bisexual. The definition is different. If you want the argument, you would have to say that bisexuals don't exist instead.

Hense not hating. You disapprove of sinners but nothing more. Too bad many Christians seem not to understand that. :(

I hate the sinner, but the sin still gets me hot.

Where are the gay haters?

Out back, doing jobs we call "blow" filled with the kind of shame only done justice by the harshness of the incandescence of low street lighting filtered through shrubbery in cruising parks they frequent during the day when they act straight for their wife and kids.

That's where the real fun argument is.

Stuffing them is the only way of shutting them up.

Where are the gay haters? That's where the real fun argument is.

O.O You WANT them here? :o

Actually, I was just going to point out that the same arguments for homosexuality apply to bisexuality, and that most bisexuals don't change.

That's what they say. Then they grow up.

And pansexual =/= bisexual. The definition is different. If you want the argument, you would have to say that bisexuals don't exist instead.

I thought I'd already done that.

I love homosexuals.

That's more than I do.

Where are the gay haters? That's where the real fun argument is.
Heh, I doubt there were any gay haters in the first place.

Personally, I was just stating a couple of points I believe on about homosexuality, but I don't consider gay people to be inferior or less human than me nor anyone else. I have a couple of gay friends, but their sexuality doesn't affect our friendship in any way.

When people bring up arguments against homosexuality, you seem to raise up in arms like we're coming to impale and/or burn you on a pyre (at least that's the impression I got from my discussion with you several pages ago) but, as far as I'm concerned, that's not the case.

That's what they say. Then they grow up.

Too many die still bisexual for that to be the case. Certainly some people mistakenly call themselves bisexual when they are pansexual, but some people mistakenly call themselves gay or straight when they are bisexual, and occassionally you have people who are so ashamed of being gay that they call themselves straight. So the fact that some people change cannot be used to say that bisexuals do not exist. And since most people who report themselves to be bisexual die still bisexual, clearly bisexuality is a sexuality just as homosexuality and heterosexuality are.

Every argument that can be used for homosexuality or heterosexuality can be used for bisexuality. So, unless you can find a way to debunk homosexuality, you can't debunk bisexuality.

Heh, I doubt there were any gay haters in the first place.

Personally, I was just stating a couple of points I believe on about homosexuality, but I don't consider gay people to be inferior or less human than me nor anyone else. I have a couple of gay friends, but their sexuality doesn't affect our friendship in any way.

When people bring up arguments against homosexuality, you seem to raise up in arms like we're coming to impale and/or burn you on a pyre (at least that's the impression I got from my discussion with you several pages ago) but, as far as I'm concerned, that's not the case.
Yeah, whatever.

Welcome back!

That's more than I do.
I don't think anybody here loves homosexuals more than you do...

Too many die still bisexual for that to be the case

We can't eradicate all teen deaths, unfortunately.

Certainly some people mistakenly call themselves bisexual when they are pansexual, but some people mistakenly call themselves gay or straight when they are bisexual, and occassionally you have people who are so ashamed of being gay that they call themselves straight. So the fact that some people change cannot be used to say that bisexuals do not exist. And since most people who report themselves to be bisexual die still bisexual, clearly bisexuality is a sexuality just as homosexuality and heterosexuality are.

Too bad most who call themselves bisexuals are in denial. The rest, they know what they are, but use it to give their mothers hope, or to titillate their boyfriends or other straight men with girl on girl action, or to just plain old show how cool and openminded they are.

Every argument that can be used for homosexuality or heterosexuality can be used for bisexuality. So, unless you can find a way to debunk homosexuality, you can't debunk bisexuality.

Unless of course that it doesn't exist, thus not needing any debunking.

I don't think anybody here loves homosexuals more than you do...

Then homosexuals here find themselves quite unloved, as I do not love homosexuals at all. I don't love people I don't know.

Then homosexuals here find themselves quite unloved, as I do not love homosexuals at all. I don't love people I don't know.
Hmmm....never mind. You missed the rather unfunny joke. Ah well.

Hmmm....never mind. You missed the rather unfunny joke. Ah well.

Unfunny joke is an oxymoron.

We can't eradicate all teen deaths, unfortunately.
One reason why I can't say all, along with the few people who mistakenly call themselves bi when they are pansexual.


Too bad most who call themselves bisexuals are in denial. The rest, they know what they are, but use it to give their mothers hope, or to titillate their boyfriends or other straight men with girl on girl action, or to just plain old show how cool and openminded they are.
I can use the same arguments as can be used for homosexuality. Now prove your side.

Unless of course that it doesn't exist, thus not needing any debunking.
Debunking is proving that it is false. So, in this context, I'm saying that you have to prove that it doesn't exist. So prove it.

Unfunny joke is an oxymoron.
That's why there's "rather" as a qualifier.

Fine, ignore me. I say something nice to you and you don't even notice it, but I merely say girlie and I get blasted by ten people simultaneously, spitting five posts per minute.

You're like Predators, your sight ignores everything it perceives as harmless!

Fine, ignore me. I say something nice to you and you don't even notice it, but I merely say girlie and I get blasted by ten people simultaneously, spitting five posts per minute.

You're like Predators, your sight ignores everything it perceives as harmless!

What's this about!? O.o

What's this about!? O.o
I'd appreciate knowing that too.

What's this about!? O.o

If you wanted to understand say "rape victims are partly to blame because of the clothes they wear" again. It'd likely work this time.

Fine, ignore me. I say something nice to you and you don't even notice it, but I merely say girlie and I get blasted by ten people simultaneously, spitting five posts per minute.

You're like Predators, your sight ignores everything it perceives as harmless!
You do realize that there is a long history behind gay bashing? Much longer than say, the length of this thread. You've said things that people took as offensive. So, when you just happen to say something which doesn't offend, you shouldn't expect everyone to swoon around you for being so good as to be civil.

This:
Where are the gay haters? That's where the real fun argument is.
Heh, I doubt there were any gay haters in the first place.

Personally, I was just stating a couple of points I believe on about homosexuality, but I don't consider gay people to be inferior or less human than me nor anyone else. I have a couple of gay friends, but their sexuality doesn't affect our friendship in any way.

When people bring up arguments against homosexuality, you seem to raise up in arms like we're coming to impale and/or burn you on a pyre (at least that's the impression I got from my discussion with you several pages ago) but, as far as I'm concerned, that's not the case.

If you wanted to understand say "rape victims are partly to blame because of the clothes they wear" again. It'd likely work this time.

>.> Don't mock the studies! :p

I can use the same arguments as can be used for homosexuality.

Nope, since homosexuality clearly exists.

Now prove your side. Debunking is proving that it is false. So, in this context, I'm saying that you have to prove that it doesn't exist. So prove it.

Don't they teach logic in schools? A negative cannot be proved. However. (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/110/109804?src=RSS_PUBLIC)

This:

Uh ya....was that the deleted post?

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?


If you get the chance to read the first part of the bible, Genisis, it clearly states that it is man AND woman. Also they are breaking a commandment because they "do it" before they are married, this is regardless of whether they are gay or not. Also there is another commandment that it is not right to kill and that God loves all no matter what so a good Christian won't actually discriminate against gay people, they simply are against it. But the truth is, there are dozens of priests that are actually gay, yet Christians still welcome them to the community like brothers so you can't say that they are discriminating them. This is also a known fact that there are many priests out there that are indeed gay.

Nope, since homosexuality clearly exists.



Don't they teach logic in schools? A negative cannot be proved. However. (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/110/109804?src=RSS_PUBLIC)
Fass bad. *slaps him*

This means guys think with their penis way. Not infact being turned on by it. You don't have to be sporting a tent to be aroused!

You do realize that there is a long history behind gay bashing? Much longer than say, the length of this thread. You've said things that people took as offensive. So, when you just happen to say something which doesn't offend, you shouldn't expect everyone to swoon around you for being so good as to be civil.
"Unnatural" unfortunately has a negative connotation, and it shouldn't. For that and everything I said that might've offended anyone, I apologize since I didn't mean any harm. I was just stating my point of view.

And Asbena, no, I didn't delete that.

If you get the chance to read the first part of the bible, Genisis, it clearly states that it is man AND woman. Also they are breaking a commandment because they "do it" before they are married, this is regardless of whether they are gay or not. Also there is another commandment that it is not right to kill and that God loves all no matter what so a good Christian won't actually discriminate against gay people, they simply are against it. But the truth is, there are dozens of priests that are actually gay, yet Christians still welcome them to the community like brothers so you can't say that they are discriminating them. This is also a known fact that there are many priests out there that are indeed gay.

Partly to blame for celibacy maybe? :o
Protestant priests can marry women btw.

Don't they teach logic in schools? A negative cannot be proved. However. (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/110/109804?src=RSS_PUBLIC)

Logic courses don't come until college. Math, however, does. And you can prove a negative in math - you typically prove by absurd (prove that the contrary cannot be true).

Furthermore, thank you for giving me an article that proves my point (NOT yours) on the first page. I'll read the rest to make sure it doesn't try to disprove mine later. Will be back in a moment.

Fass bad. *slaps him*

This means guys think with their penis way. Not infact being turned on by it. You don't have to be sporting a tent to be aroused!

They eliminated those whose arousal couldn't be measured with the method. In the end, those who said they were "bi" did sport a tent with one movie, but not with both.

If you get the chance to read the first part of the bible, Genisis, it clearly states that it is man AND woman. Also they are breaking a commandment because they "do it" before they are married, this is regardless of whether they are gay or not.
Where in Genesis do Adam and Eve get married?

They eliminated those whose arousal couldn't be measured with the method. In the end, those who said they were "bi" did sport a tent with one movie, but not with both.

Give me a guy or a girl (gotta be hot lol)....I'd have sex with either and be just happy and it would be 'right'. Though arousal is 90% in your head, 10% in your dick. Too bad that is a bad way to measure.

They eliminated those whose arousal couldn't be measured with the method. In the end, those who said they were "bi" did sport a tent with one movie, but not with both.

This article proves my point, not yours.
A) The "science" for your point is bad. VERY bad. (Don't they teach science in school?)
B) It measures physical response, not what the person is actually attracted to. Some people orgasm while being raped. They still did NOT enjoy being raped. Distinct difference between physical response and cognition.
C) If you do hold with the results, you STILL have bisexuals. All of them are female, but bisexuals definitely exist.

Now that I've read the full article, I find that yes, you really did just prove my point. Thank you.

This article proves my point, not yours.
A) The "science" for your point is bad. VERY bad. (Don't they teach science in school?)
B) It measures physical response, not what the person is actually attracted to. Some people orgasm while being raped. They still did NOT enjoy being raped. Distinct difference between physical response and cognition.
C) If you do hold with the results, you STILL have bisexuals. All of them are female, but bisexuals definitely exist.

Now that I've read the full article, I find that yes, you really did just prove my point. Thank you.

I love it when people give you the info you need to prove your point in what they think is their arguement against it. :p

Thanks Fass. *hug*

Oh BTW..forgot to say this...Its not a disease or psychological disorder. Just a lifestyle.

Just like being heterosexual is just a lifestyle.

HAHAH!!!

ROFL!!!

WOW! to think you are actually serious is rather scary! :eek: :headbang:

I am a gay guy. you are not. all of the "exterminations", the religo-extremeo-ignorant-nut-cases, the concentration camps, the tragedy of Matthew Shepard in the "civilized, 1st world country" of the USa, hell...my frackin' neighbors! :(

none of it good. why on this nuclear waste dung heap called Earth would anyone "choose" to live a lifestyle of a persecuted people? :confused:

many places you could walk, holding hands with a fellow man, kiss him in public as innocently as you straight people do, and it be the last thing you ever did, because you'd be gunned down where you stand...honestly, most often by christians.

tell me i chose that!!!!!!!!!

you could line up ..ALL.. the worlds women in front of me, naked, and for 30 minutes, they could try to excite me sexually how ever they wish, one at a time.

if i were following a "lifestyle", all of them would succeed. truth is; none of them would.

you call the above senario a fantasy...what with all those women, to me it would be called rape. think on that.

bottom line: you have gay/bi/lesbian friends. if you were more diplomatic, you would not be laughed at for your ignorance, you may even learn something, and as such, grow;you may even change your viewpoint! *gasp!!!*

we are not your friend to get you in bed with us; remember that.

-Rafe

Oh BTW..forgot to say this...Its not a disease or psychological disorder. Just a lifestyle.

Wow... none of that made sense to me Rafe. Well, the lining up women thing (and it being rape to you) did, but the rest of it did not. I think it was the wording, not the content, that confused me. Can you restate it, and preferably a little less angry (although I can understand why you're angry)?

Fass, the study you posted a link to wouldn't apply to me. I tend to go on month long streaks being much more attracted to one gender or the other, then feeling that attraction shift for a few months. Not to mention that 20 bisexuals chosen god knows how are hardly a statistically powerful sample.

So why do you suddenly become so bigotted when another facet of sexuality comes up? You would think that you would know how we feel, Fass. I imagine you've had people tell you that you don't really feel the way you do before.

You think you can't decide who you're attracted to, but you do, if not consciously then subconsciously. Homosexuality is a lifestyle;

No, it's a sexuality.

people are not born with it, no matter how many people say it and no matter how hard they try to convince themselves of it.

We don't know if that's true or not. But even if it's not born with, but consequences of childhood, it's still not a "choice". Like people can prefer blondes or brunes, it's not a "choice" either.

Hint: study the anatomy of a human male and a human female, then tell me whether homosexuality can be inherent or not.

That shows your complete lack of understanding of genetics. I'm not saying homosexuality is genetic, I've no idea if it's or not. But it's possible, and wouldn't mean homosexual have to have homosexual parents. There are many genetical characteristic that can show in the children but in the parents, because it requires a combination of genes.

Homosexuals can hurt people, especially children, mentally. They don't mean to, but they do. How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that guys are meant to be with girls, where homosexuality fits in? He would be traumatized at how a man can intimately kiss another man.

The problem is in what you teached to your son. You teached lies to your son, and he may be traumatised when he realises that it's a lie. Guys are "meant" to be with girls, it's what happen most of the time, but that's all.

Sounds like the old "well, sexuality is bad, it can hurt children when they learn about it" when parents used to teach children that kids were born in flowers or whatever... answer is simple: do not teach bullshit and then try to change reality to make it match your bullshit, but teach reality to your kids.

Great, I thought I was bisexual, but apparently I do not excist.:confused:

I'm surprised this discussion continues. The only proper response is to say that homosexuality, anything else and you will be accused of some kind of prejudice correct? Doesn't exactly leave any kind of room for debate.

If you're going to say anything other than, "I believe this and that's just what I believe," then you have to back something up. Thus far, we have seen no support, simply idiotic statements that something that occurs in the natural world, "ain't natural." Or, "OMG! My child is hurt by knowing that some men like men!"


So sad to see people stuck half-way in the closet thinking themselves less gay if they keep appearances up.

So sad to see someone who has been the target of bigotry perpetuating it against others.

If it is possible for men/women to be attracted to men, and it is possible for them to be attracted to women, there is no reason to think it is impossible for them to be attracted to both.

So my first sentence isn't complete, I have argued that grammer nazis should take their red pens elsewhere. Still I would think that those who are against homosexuality on religious reasons would still not feel any hatred towards them or shouldn't. The Bible tells you to love your neighbor and your enemies, even the most vile sinners so hating them should be against the teachings of Christianity. Disapproval being one thing but hatred quite another.

You could have a religious belief that eating peanuts was a sin, and, as long as you didn't try and make peanut-eating illegal, or infringe upon the rights of those of us who like peanuts, I wouldn't care. I might think it was a silly religious belief, but I really wouldn't care what you choose to eat and not eat.

Now, if you then started screaming that, because your religious books says it is wrong, eating peanuts is "unnatural" or is a mental disease, that starts getting into bigotry.

Heh, I doubt there were any gay haters in the first place.

No, just people like you, who stereotype all gay mean as "girlie" or effeminate, while calling all homosexuals unnatural.

Personally, I was just stating a couple of points I believe on about homosexuality, but I don't consider gay people to be inferior or less human than me nor anyone else. I have a couple of gay friends, but their sexuality doesn't affect our friendship in any way.

I'm guessing you don't often call them "unnatural" to their face, then?

Fine, ignore me. I say something nice to you and you don't even notice it, but I merely say girlie and I get blasted by ten people simultaneously, spitting five posts per minute.

Every bigot that comes on here follows what they have to say with, "Oh, but I have gay friends...."

"Unnatural" unfortunately has a negative connotation, and it shouldn't. For that and everything I said that might've offended anyone, I apologize since I didn't mean any harm. I was just stating my point of view.

And your "point of view" is entirely illogical. You kept saying over and over and over again that homosexuals are "unnatural", without providing any evidence for how something that occurs in nature (making it natural) is unnatural.

The thing that pisses me off about Christians that scream and shout is their hypocrisy. GAYS ARE BAD! THE WISDOM OF MAN IS IDIOCY TO GOD! CONVERT!

All I ask is - if the wisdom of man is idiocy to God and yet you're trying to convert me, doesn't that make you an idiot?

Your wisdom says : Convert! God says - You fool. Correct?

I actually had an argument with a preacher who was screaming this in the centre of my town and she punched me as a response, rather than giving any decent arguments. Which seems fairly ridiculous, as it's not a bad question to ask.

*edits*

Oh and they said that homosexuality is a sin, to make this relevant.

I love it when people give you the info you need to prove your point in what they think is their arguement against it. :p

Thanks Fass. *hug*

It helps to note that about a third of the men enrolled, who would not have been included at all if they had any known sexual dysfunction, were immediately thrown out of the study because they did not get an erection from any of the porn at all. This would lead us to one of two conclusions: Either the method itself is flawed - simply measuring erection is not enough, or all 30 of those men were asexual and are never aroused by anything.

The thing that pisses me off about some Christians that scream and shout is their hypocrisy. GAYS ARE BAD! THE WISDOM OF MAN IS IDIOCY TO GOD! CONVERT!

Edits in bold - you needed a correction.

Don't turn to bigotry yourself by trying to paint an entire group of human beings with one brush.

Only porn that won't get me any kind of sexual stimulation is lesbian porn, or a woman masturbating. No appeal at all. Nada. Though regular plain vanilla straight porn occasionally does. Gay porn, 100%.

This article proves my point, not yours.
A) The "science" for your point is bad. VERY bad. (Don't they teach science in school?)
B) It measures physical response, not what the person is actually attracted to. Some people orgasm while being raped. They still did NOT enjoy being raped. Distinct difference between physical response and cognition.
C) If you do hold with the results, you STILL have bisexuals. All of them are female, but bisexuals definitely exist.

Now that I've read the full article, I find that yes, you really did just prove my point. Thank you.

ur very narrow minded to say only females are bisexual, i know plenty of guys who are bi

You sure? Jocabia mentioned sins others commited a lot (Hence "Bible and Pride" topic), but I imagine he's worth taking seriously.

Dang, I'm trying not to post, remember? I appreciate what you're saying, but I mentioned PRIDE because it fit in what the person I was talking to believed and he was using the Bible to attack others. It's very different to address an act that is performed against the will of others and against others(like the fact that the person in that thread was claiming to be a prophet) and a consensual act performed personally or only with other's consent. I agree with Keruvalia that it is not our job to decide what personal acts are sinful. I will however become involved when that actions of one person are thrust upon others and I'm not sure that Keruvalia would disagree.

EDIT: Technically today is the end of the week, so no "I told you so".

ur very narrow minded to say only females are bisexual, i know plenty of guys who are bi

You really should try and read a thread before responding. The post was clear that this is a statement supported by the study under discussion, not Oxymoon's personal opinion.

You really should try and read a thread before responding. The post was clear that this is a statement supported by the study under discussion, not Oxymoon's personal opinion.

whoops, my mistake, i appologise, but my point still sounds true, i know quite a few guys who are bi.

You really should try and read a thread before responding. The post was clear that this is a statement supported by the study under discussion, not Oxymoon's personal opinion.

It's under discussion. 'Nuff said.

Please there is not enough evidence on either side to firmly decide whether or not homosexuality is caused or inherent. There are no settled arguments in this issue and never will be because individuals will take the cards they have and never take anything in that disproves their statement. In all seriousness all this argument does is draw battle lines. I seriously doubt that you will be able to convince someone of their sin, or lack there of, over this electronic medium. People will believe what they think no matter how ignorant it may be.

That being said what really needs to happen rather than beating each other with our political signs is to run a series of UNBIASED tests that could and would determine for sure whether homosexuality is natural or caused. Of course since the extreme opinions will always simply shout at each other rather than come to agreement it is doubtful that even iron clad evidence, of which there is none right now, could firmly seal this debate.

Please there is not enough evidence on either side to firmly decide whether or not homosexuality is caused or inherent.

Caused and inherent are not mutually exclusive. I think you meant inherent or a choice. And considering that there isn't a shred of evidence for the "choice" side, we can firmly conclude that it is not.

That being said what really needs to happen rather than beating each other with our political signs is to run a series of UNBIASED tests that could and would determine for sure whether homosexuality is natural or caused.

Now you are trying to oppose "natural" and "caused", another senseless dichotomy. Every trait we exhibit is both natural and caused. It is caused by our genes, our epigenetic traits, our hormones, our diet, etc...

Of course since the extreme opinions will always simply shout at each other rather than come to agreement it is doubtful that even iron clad evidence, of which there is none right now, could firmly seal this debate.

There is very little "iron-clad evidence" for anything. But when all available studies point to a conclusion, it seems silly not to take it, doesn't it?

Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume that all homosexuality is "unnatural" and a matter of choice. What now? Do we arrest people for having gay sex? Or do we just say, "You're sinners, but we're OK with that".

That being said what really needs to happen rather than beating each other with our political signs is to run a series of UNBIASED tests that could and would determine for sure whether homosexuality is natural or caused. Of course since the extreme opinions will always simply shout at each other rather than come to agreement it is doubtful that even iron clad evidence, of which there is none right now, could firmly seal this debate.


Given the number of animals that have homosexual sex, I"m guessing it's not something an old pervert down the street taught them. I grew up in rural Indiana, I didn't meet anyone I knew was gay til after I finally admitted I was gay. It's kind of hard to fathom that I was mysteriously taught.

I mean hell, we didn't even have cable, 3 damn channels!

Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume that all homosexuality is "unnatural" and a matter of choice.

The problem with this is that, once again, there is no possible way it could be "unnatural". I can choose to get a tan and therefore go out in the sun. That doesn't make a tan "unnatural".

The problem with this is that, once again, there is no possible way it could be "unnatural". I can choose to get a tan and therefore go out in the sun. That doesn't make a tan "unnatural".

True....if he means it as all humans are straight but some choose to be gay...that would be 'unnatural'. :o

True....if he means it as all humans are straight but some choose to be gay...that would be 'unnatural'. :o

If it is possible to "choose" to be straight, then the choice cannot possibly be unnatural. It must be a part of human nature. Otherwise, it would be impossible to make such a choice...

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?

Who are you to call homosexuality a problem? It's not for you to decide who someone should be attracted to, or to judge them because they express feelings for the same gender. You're just as ignorant as the Christians you criticize.

If it is possible to "choose" to be straight, then the choice cannot possibly be unnatural. It must be a part of human nature. Otherwise, it would be impossible to make such a choice...

I find some things unnatural..its cause we have 'free-will' :P

I find some things unnatural..its cause we have 'free-will' :P

The word unnatural has nothing to do with personal feelings on a matter. It has, quite simply, to do with what does and does not occur in nature. If homosexuality occurs in nature, and it obviously does, then it is natural, by definition.

The word unnatural has nothing to do with personal feelings on a matter. It has, quite simply, to do with what does and does not occur in nature. If homosexuality occurs in nature, and it obviously does, then it is natural, by definition.

Uh ya....I know. >.>
Why you lecturing me on that?

We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.


Any thoughts?

What's even more frustrating is that some people see homosexuality as a problem or a disease that can be cured.

What's even more frustrating is that some people see homosexuality as a problem or a disease that can be cured.

I hate people like that. :mad:

What's even more frustrating is that some people see homosexuality as a problem or a disease that can be cured.

Agreed.

Well, I find it even more frustrating that everyone is willing to sit around and debate about this, thrusting their opinions in each others' faces time and time again. This debate has and will continually be entertained for years, as no one will back down, no one will admit defeat, and everybody thinks they are of the correct mind.

The problem is that there isn't always a right or wrong answer. Every single person on this planet has an individual opinion which to them is truth. Fighting about it will not change anyone else's opinion or paradigms. People don't change unless they wish to change; it's not as though if you wish hard enough that whomever will change their stance on homosexuality, his or her opinion will change.

Everyone has their own truth which is correct in their own mind. Just because someone finds a particular painting to be beautiful does not mean that everyone else will find it to be the same.

Well, I find it even more frustrating that everyone is willing to sit around and debate about this, thrusting their opinions in each others' faces time and time again. This debate has and will continually be entertained for years, as no one will back down, no one will admit defeat, and everybody thinks they are of the correct mind.

The problem is that there isn't always a right or wrong answer. Every single person on this planet has an individual opinion which to them is truth. Fighting about it will not change anyone else's opinion or paradigms. People don't change unless they wish to change; it's not as though if you wish hard enough that whomever will change their stance on homosexuality, his or her opinion will change.

Everyone has their own truth which is correct in their own mind. Just because someone finds a particular painting to be beautiful does not mean that everyone else will find it to be the same.

True...but for those who don't have an opinion or have a MESSED up one...we can change that!

Uh ya....I know. >.>
Why you lecturing me on that?

If you know that there is no way that homosexuality can be deemed "unnatural", choice or not, why are you saying that it can?

Well, I find it even more frustrating that everyone is willing to sit around and debate about this, thrusting their opinions in each others' faces time and time again. This debate has and will continually be entertained for years, as no one will back down, no one will admit defeat, and everybody thinks they are of the correct mind.

The problem is that there isn't always a right or wrong answer. Every single person on this planet has an individual opinion which to them is truth. Fighting about it will not change anyone else's opinion or paradigms. People don't change unless they wish to change; it's not as though if you wish hard enough that whomever will change their stance on homosexuality, his or her opinion will change.

Everyone has their own truth which is correct in their own mind. Just because someone finds a particular painting to be beautiful does not mean that everyone else will find it to be the same.

You know what? You're absolutely right. It is impossible to affect others' opinions on an issue like this. That is why the vast majority of white people in this country still think black people are inferior. Oh, wait.....

Some people, maybe even most, are willing to reexamine an irrationally held opinion when faced with evidence to the contrary.

Dem I never said that. Yeesh. Why would I if I am bi?

True...but for those who don't have an opinion or have a MESSED up one...we can change that!

You may think you can change that person's opinion and convince them that being homosexual is okay, but his or her opinion will only change if it is personally realized and the opinion is changed by its possessor's own volition.

Meanwhile, the same thing can be said of those trying to convince others that homosexuality is immoral. It works both ways, and the constant bickering does nothing but aggravate the situation.

You know what? You're absolutely right. It is impossible to affect others' opinions on an issue like this. That is why the vast majority of white people in this country still think black people are inferior. Oh, wait.....

Some people, maybe even most, are willing to reexamine an irrationally held opinion when faced with evidence to the contrary.

I never said it is impossible to affect someone's way of thinking. What I did say is that it is impossible to change his or her way of thinking.

You may think you can change that person's opinion and convince them that being homosexual is okay, but his or her opinion will only change if it is personally realized and the opinion is changed by its possessor's own volition.

Meanwhile, the same thing can be said of those trying to convince others that homosexuality is immoral. It works both ways, and the constant bickering does nothing but aggravate the situation.
Yep. My point. :)

the constant bickering does nothing but aggravate the situation.

It also amuses me at work. Though when the politicians start in on it that's when it stops being a fun topic and starts getting nasty. Falwell, Phelps et al can really suck the fun out of a debate.

What's the best way of coming out?

What's the best way of coming out?

Never going in. :p

What's the best way of coming out?

Introducing the boyfriend works. I don't see the need to "come out" to random people, once they see me kissing a guy, they'll figure it out pretty quick.

What's the best way of coming out?
You wouldn't take go up and say "mum, dad, I think I'm straight", would ya?

Dem I never said that. Yeesh. Why would I if I am bi?

Then what was this:

I find some things unnatural..its cause we have 'free-will' :P?

You clearly stated that something that occurs in nature can be unnatural, simply based on "free will".


I never said it is impossible to affect someone's way of thinking. What I did say is that it is impossible to change his or her way of thinking.

if you affect someone's way of thinking, then you have changed it. Otherwise, it stayed exactly the same (ie. you had no effect).

No one is suggesting that a fundie is going to go from "All teh gays should go to hellzor!" to "Wow, I really like people, regardless of sexual orientation," but, by bringing up the facts of the matter, one can keep the bigots from convincing rational people of their position.

You wouldn't take go up and say "mum, dad, I think I'm straight", would ya?

LOL! XD

There's no need to declare you're straight, it's implied. Everyone presumes that all kids will grow up to be good little heteros.

What's the best way of coming out?

"Hey could you pass the potatoes? I'm gay. Oh, and the salt too, please?"

=)

"Hey could you pass the potatoes? I'm gay. Oh, and the salt too, please?"

=)

rofl.

There's no need to declare you're straight, it's implied. Everyone presumes that all kids will grow up to be good little heteros.
Yes but we're trying to progress equality.

Yes but we're trying to progress equality.

That means you were gay and think your straight though.

Then what was this:

?

You clearly stated that something that occurs in nature can be unnatural, simply based on "free will".



if you affect someone's way of thinking, then you have changed it. Otherwise, it stayed exactly the same (ie. you had no effect).

No one is suggesting that a fundie is going to go from "All teh gays should go to hellzor!" to "Wow, I really like people, regardless of sexual orientation," but, by bringing up the facts of the matter, one can keep the bigots from convincing rational people of their position.


There's no real need to convince them, just get them to live and let live. I don't honestly give a rat's ass if someone says I'm going to hell for liking cock, and I don't care if a church ever deigns marry any of "my kind". What would be just spiffy is if they'd leave us alone. I mean, it's my immortal soul, I think I should be concerned, not them.

Almost had quite a typo there, licking rather than liking. Which will still true would of been a bit explicit.

Lol and you could argue that what you been doing is what the priests have been for years. :rolleyes:

That means you were gay and think your straight though.
No, it means you have gone through puberty and have not told anyone that you are straight.

if you affect someone's way of thinking, then you have changed it. Otherwise, it stayed exactly the same (ie. you had no effect).

No one is suggesting that a fundie is going to go from "All teh gays should go to hellzor!" to "Wow, I really like people, regardless of sexual orientation," but, by bringing up the facts of the matter, one can keep the bigots from convincing rational people of their position.

I should have said it in a different manner, then. It's not affecting one's thinking so much as giving them the ammunition needed if they should ever decide to change their opinion. They then have that information in their mind.

There is a huge difference between trivial bickering and a solid, informative discussion.

You wouldn't take go up and say "mum, dad, I think I'm straight", would ya?

No....that implies your coming out straight. Cause when you come out....its a homo-thing, not a hetero-thing.

There's no real need to convince them, just get them to live and let live.

Bigots are rarely happy to "live and let live." That is precisely why bigotry is so dangerous to society. As long as there are those who think homosexuality is a disease or a "lifestyle choice", there are those who will seek to use legislation and the like to restrict the rights of homosexuals. Most likely, just like with those whose bigotry falls along lines of ethnicity, there will always be some. But the only way to ensure equal treatment under the law is to convince enough people that it is necessary.

Bigots are rarely happy to "live and let live." That is precisely why bigotry is so dangerous to society. As long as there are those who think homosexuality is a disease or a "lifestyle choice", there are those who will seek to use legislation and the like to restrict the rights of homosexuals. Most likely, just like with those whose bigotry falls along lines of ethnicity, there will always be some. But the only way to ensure equal treatment under the law is to convince enough people that it is necessary.
That is apparent in our own society with the marriage thing, but when it crosses into religion I think more people are wanting to keep the religion and concept of marriage as a man woman thing rather then guy-guy to avoid the law problems that could arise from it that also already exist.

I think the Holy Bible says it best:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
- Leviticus 20:13

The reason so many Christians do not tolerate homosexuals is because we do not have to. But then we are also NOT going to hell for our sexual preference.

:fluffle: :sniper:

I thought it was:

"Thou shall not lie with mankind." >.>

No....that implies your coming out straight. Cause when you come out....its a homo-thing, not a hetero-thing.

That was my point; you wouldn't come out straight, why would you come out as homo?

1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
1:6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
1:7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
1:8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of "a sweet savour unto the LORD".
1:10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
1:11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
1:12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
1:13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
1:14 And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
1:15 And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:


God's a funny guy!

That was my point; you wouldn't come out straight, why would you come out as homo?

I just made it so clear.

You start out as being assumed hetero....when you 'come out' it means you are gay. >.>

I think the Holy Bible says it best:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
- Leviticus 20:13

The reason so many Christians do not tolerate homosexuals is because we do not have to. But then we are also NOT going to hell for our sexual preference.

:fluffle: :sniper:

So men can't lie together, fine. what about lesbians?

Unfortunately, most people fail to realize that bigots have a right to an opinion as much as those against bigots have the right to theirs.

I should have said it in a different manner, then. It's not affecting one's thinking so much as giving them the ammunition needed if they should ever decide to change their opinion. They then have that information in their mind.

There is a huge difference between trivial bickering and a solid, informative discussion.

Yes, there is. Unfortunately, it is difficult to have an informative discussion with a bigot, because they don't *want* the information. So it gets put out there for those who haven't seen it (see one of my previous post with quite a few pubmed links) and the bigots ignore it.


That is apparent in our own society with the marriage thing, but when it crosses into religion I think more people are wanting to keep the religion and concept of marriage as a man woman thing rather then guy-guy to avoid the law problems that could arise from it that also already exist.

Everyone is free to their own religion - and will continue to be. If they don't want to marry blonde people on a Tuesday, they don't have to.

Of course, marriage is only one of many inequalities facing homosexuals.

I think the Holy Bible says it best:

Did you personally translate that from the original? Are you aware that the passage can be translated as a prohibition against a man sleeping on a woman's menstrual bed?

The reason so many Christians do not tolerate homosexuals is because we do not have to. But then we are also NOT going to hell for our sexual preference.

Way to follow Christ's teachings there. :rolleyes:

Last I checked, Christ was clear that we should tolerate all human beings, and that we shouldn't throw stones without first removing all of our own sins....

So men can't lie together, fine. what about lesbians?
What if you fuck standing up?

Dem you are a master of stating the obvious. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, most people fail to realize that bigots have a right to an opinion as much as those against bigots have the right to theirs.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, even a bigotted one. What they don't have the right to do is use that opinion to harm others. And, while it certainly isn't a necessity, most people like to be able to actually support their opinions. Since bigotry is inherently irrational, there is no support for their opinions.

What's even more frustrating is that some people see homosexuality as a problem or a disease that can be cured.
Considering the current guidelines from the APA, they're still classifying sexual orientations as diseases. Sure, homosexuality has finally been removed, but I think that's only because it's one of the more popular ones (good advocacy groups and whatnot), rather than because people really believe that who or what a person is attracted to isn't a problem. Pedophelia, after all, is still classified as a mental disorder (a much less popular orientation).

Even people who have been persecuted their whole lives, tollerence can be surprisingly absent. You would think that being persecuted would go hand in hand with learning tollerance, but it doesn't. Black people who've been shit on by society can still end up homophobic.

The wheel is turning, and we have collectively learned nothing about tollerance. Ending discrimination against one group does nothing to help the causes of another group. The struggle of the blacks for equal rights has not helped the hispanics one bit. Neither group's struggle has helped the gays. Each minority seems to have to force society to accept them one at a time. Tollerance always fails to take root. Biggots just find a new target to be biggoted toward. It's sad.
"Hey could you pass the potatoes? I'm gay. Oh, and the salt too, please?"

=)
Sounds like you're never going to get those potatoes to me. :lol:

Dem you are a master of stating the obvious. :rolleyes:

If people didn't attempt to argue with the obvious, then stating it would be unnecessary. I am left believing that either the obvious isn't so obvious, or some people just don't want to see it.


Considering the current guidelines from the APA, they're still classifying sexual orientations as diseases. Sure, homosexuality has finally been removed, but I think that's only because it's one of the more popular ones (good advocacy groups and whatnot), rather than because people really believe that who or what a person is attracted to isn't a problem. Pedophelia, after all, is still classified as a mental disorder (a much less popular orientation

Pedophilia isn't still classifed as a mental disorder because it is "less popular", but because it is inherently harmful.

Dem, I do agree with what you're saying. People do not want to see the obvious. However, if they don't want to see the obvious, they will never, ever see it unless something utterly personal happens to them.

Considering the current guidelines from the APA, they're still classifying sexual orientations as diseases. Sure, homosexuality has finally been removed, but I think that's only because it's one of the more popular ones (good advocacy groups and whatnot), rather than because people really believe that who or what a person is attracted to isn't a problem. Pedophelia, after all, is still classified as a mental disorder (a much less popular orientation).

Even people who have been persecuted their whole lives, tollerence can be surprisingly absent. You would think that being persecuted would go hand in hand with learning tollerance, but it doesn't. Black people who've been shit on by society can still end up homophobic.

The wheel is turning, and we have collectively learned nothing about tollerance. Ending discrimination against one group does nothing to help the causes of another group. The struggle of the blacks for equal rights has not helped the hispanics one bit. Neither group's struggle has helped the gays. Each minority seems to have to force society to accept them one at a time. Tollerance always fails to take root. Biggots just find a new target to be biggoted toward. It's sad.

Sounds like you're never going to get those potatoes to me. :lol:


It's not that we need to fight for tolerance, we need to realize that we all are similar. When we separate ourselves according to any single characteristic, a wedge is driven between that group and the rest of society. That's why progress on one minority's acceptance is so slow...everyone else who ISN'T part of that minority feels excluded. America needs to focus on getting everyone on the SAME PAGE, before you move on to celebrating other cultures, Just like you learn to stand before you learn to walk.

It's not that we need to fight for tolerance, we need to realize that we all are similar. When we separate ourselves according to any single characteristic, a wedge is driven between that group and the rest of society. That's why progress on one minority's acceptance is so slow...everyone else who ISN'T part of that minority feels excluded. America needs to focus on getting everyone on the SAME PAGE, before you move on to celebrating other cultures, Just like you learn to stand before you learn to walk.

The problem is that "same page" is all being accepted. A few people in the majority might feel excluded, but that is a rather silly thing to feel - considering that the minorities are only trying to get the *same* recognition that the minorities already have.

It's like if I had a cake, and you didn't. Then, you went out and got a cake too. And I felt left out. Wtf?

God is shellfish

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Great, I thought I was bisexual, but apparently I do not excist.:confused:

-pats- It's okay, hun... we'll all exist together in limbo and let the nice straights and gays have their fun pretending we aren't there. -goes to haunt someone-

Seriously, though. I don't pretend to fully understand my sexuality (I don't think fifteen-year-olds typically do... I have that same problem with spirituality...) so I can't make a definitive statement in any direction. All I can say is that I find myself sexually aroused by both males and females to an equal extent. Of course, I live in an area where it would be in my best interests not to tell people that, but I've never been known for my prudence (or my tact, for that matter...)

So I don't think that the statement that people can't be bisexual is accurate. If you want to think that, though, you can go right ahead. Be warned, however, that there will probably be sarcasm in your future.

The problem is that "same page" is all being accepted. A few people in the majority might feel excluded, but that is a rather silly thing to feel - considering that the minorities are only trying to get the *same* recognition that the minorities already have.

It's like if I had a cake, and you didn't. Then, you went out and got a cake too. And I felt left out. Wtf?

You're missing my point, though I do see where you are coming from. Groups in this country are so busy turning INWARD, looking at what THEY as a group have or don't have (not that I'm denying them anything), they don't bother joining the mainstream, instead focusing on sectarian problems (whether deserved or not, I"m not making a judgement, only an observations). As such, the community is restricted to those who fit in the sect, and all others are excluded. This mass-egotism, combined with a sullenness towards mainstream society bred in by long years of repression and underrepresentation rapidly morph into extremism and isolationism that lashes out at any foreign, non-member object. And there you have why african-americans, who have so brutally been persecuted, can sometimes be homophobic, as was mentioned on this thread earlier.

-pats- It's okay, hun... we'll all exist together in limbo and let the nice straights and gays have their fun pretending we aren't there. -goes to haunt someone-

Seriously, though. I don't pretend to fully understand my sexuality (I don't think fifteen-year-olds typically do... I have that same problem with spirituality...) so I can't make a definitive statement in any direction. All I can say is that I find myself sexually aroused by both males and females to an equal extent. Of course, I live in an area where it would be in my best interests not to tell people that, but I've never been known for my prudence (or my tact, for that matter...)

So I don't think that the statement that people can't be bisexual is accurate. If you want to think that, though, you can go right ahead. Be warned, however, that there will probably be sarcasm in your future.

Meh. If you don't tell me not to be straight, I won't tell you not to be whatever you are...although that would be impossible, since you don't exist. :p

Why does it always have to be "The Oppressive Christians vs. The Mistreated Gay Folks"? I am no expert, but if I had to guess, I would say that Islam takes a rather dim view of homosexuality, too. I could be wrong though.

Why does it always have to be "The Oppressive Christians vs. The Mistreated Gay Folks"? I am no expert, but if I had to guess, I would say that Islam takes a rather dim view of homosexuality, too. I could be wrong though.

Not enough close minded Muslims on here?

Christians are a lot better at showing their asses unasked than the Muslims, notice the American Muslims are quiet when the debate comes up? Near as I can tell it's not something their religion opts to discuss. There's something to be said for that, even if they're no more liberal than the christians they're atleast quieter.

Christians are a lot better at showing their asses unasked than the Muslims, notice the American Muslims are quiet when the debate comes up? Near as I can tell it's not something their religion opts to discuss. There's something to be said for that, even if they're no more liberal than the christians they're atleast quieter.

Christians.....liberal...HA!

Why does it always have to be "The Oppressive Christians vs. The Mistreated Gay Folks"? I am no expert, but if I had to guess, I would say that Islam takes a rather dim view of homosexuality, too. I could be wrong though.

Because Muslim government leaders are dictators in every sense of the word, not just gay rights, and rule in one small part of the world. Christians are generally part of free democracies, yet continue to oppress a certain minority, and are doing this in the entire Western world. Islam's anti-gay influence<Christianity's anti-gay influence, on a global scale.

Why does it always have to be "The Oppressive Christians vs. The Mistreated Gay Folks"? I am no expert, but if I had to guess, I would say that Islam takes a rather dim view of homosexuality, too. I could be wrong though.

Most likely because, in most of the countries represented here (and on the internet in general, in large numbers at least), fundamentalist Christians tend to have more power than fundamentalist Muslims.

Homosexuality is a result of an imbalance in androgens during pregnancy. The hypothalamus controls the secretion of hormones, and in the case of a male, not enough testosterone during pregnancy will create a smaller hypothalamus. bam, you have a homosexual. Theres a Y chromosome, implying a male body, but it contains a more female hypthalamus (the hypothalamus in females is normally smaller, but in the case of a lesbian its too many androgens and the hypothalamus becomes enlarged). It cannot be treated or changed, and people should just accept the fact that it exists.

Homosexuality is a result of an imbalance in androgens during pregnancy. The hypothalamus controls the secretion of hormones, and in the case of a male, not enough testosterone during pregnancy will create a smaller hypothalamus. bam, you have a homosexual. Theres a Y chromosome, implying a male body, but it contains a more female hypthalamus (the hypothalamus in females is normally smaller, but in the case of a lesbian its too many androgens and the hypothalamus becomes enlarged). It cannot be treated or changed, and people should just accept the fact that it exists.

Just to be a bit pedantic, this is one possible contribution to sexuality, but there is no evidence that it happens in all cases of homosexuality. There is also evidence for genetic factors and possible early childhood factors. My guess is that sexuality is much too complicated a trait to boil down to a simple cause, and that the sexuality of a person, much like their skin color (which also exists along a spectrum), is determined by a combination of factors, including genetics, hormones, and other environmental factors.

So men can't lie together, fine. what about lesbians?

Lesbianism is okay, biblically speaking.
Which, combined with other information, leads me to believe that the ban on homosexuality was purely for reasons of disease control and public health.
Many of the old laws were.

Lesbianism is okay, biblically speaking.
Which, combined with other information, leads me to believe that the ban on homosexuality was purely for reasons of disease control and public health.
Many of the old laws were.

Ya....we don't need anymore kids now to. X-x

If you get the chance to read the first part of the bible, Genisis, it clearly states that it is man AND woman.

Quite true, but I'm constantly puzzled why this is brought up.
If you chance to read Genesis, Adam and Eve were both vegetarian nudists.
Does this mean that everybody has to act the same?
Eve took dietary advice from a talking snake, and Adam took dietary advice from a woman who talks to snakes. Should everybody else do likewise?
For that matter, Adam and Eve both disobeyed God.
Do you really think that everybody on the planet should act like Adam and Eve?

Also they are breaking a commandment because they "do it" before they are married, this is regardless of whether they are gay or not.

Nope, sorry. I don't buy that.
The commandment is not to commit adultery, and fornication is not adultery. People have claimed that it's "cheating on your future spouse", but that's nonsense. Especially for people who never get married.

Also there is another commandment that it is not right to kill and that God loves all no matter what so a good Christian won't actually discriminate against gay people, they simply are against it. But the truth is, there are dozens of priests that are actually gay, yet Christians still welcome them to the community like brothers so you can't say that they are discriminating them. This is also a known fact that there are many priests out there that are indeed gay.

Yup.
That's what happens when one of the qualifications of priesthood is that people give up their sex life; you get a bunch of recruits who are willing to give up their sex life (well, or who try to).
Which often means that their sex life is something that they're ashamed of.
Also, people in denial about their sexual appetites tend to go deep into denial about their true nature, leading them to try to become the sort of person that "could not" be gay.
Like priests, for example. Or homophobes.
Not that every priest or homophobe is gay, but it's one of the reasons why so many are.

Ya....we don't need anymore kids now to. X-x

Word.

My guess is that sexuality is much too complicated a trait to boil down to a simple cause, and that the sexuality of a person, much like their skin color (which also exists along a spectrum), is determined by a combination of factors, including genetics, hormones, and other environmental factors.

Of course.
There are all kinds of reasons why a person might be gay.
They might be born that way.
They might be going through a phase.
They might be in denial of their bisexuality.
They might be socialized to be gay.
They might be cut off from the opposite sex (physically or mentally) to the point that they seek sexual outlet from members (no pun intended) of their own sex.

Of course.
There are all kinds of reasons why a person might be gay.
They might be born that way.
They might be going through a phase.
They might be in denial of their bisexuality.
They might be socialized to be gay.
They might be cut off from the opposite sex (physically or mentally) to the point that they seek sexual outlet from members (no pun intended) of their own sex.

I'm bi...:)

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?
I don't think you can overcome homosexuality. That's just inborn. Of course, there are guys who pretend to be gay so they could get women, but that's another story entirely.

Then again, I'm a straight guy, so what do I know?

Pedophilia isn't still classifed as a mental disorder because it is "less popular", but because it is inherently harmful.
Need I point out that raping children is not a part of the definition of pedophelia, and that the mental disorder is defined by a person's thoughts and fantasies? Acting it out most certainly is harmful, but in what way is the sexual prefference inherently harmful.
You're missing my point, though I do see where you are coming from. Groups in this country are so busy turning INWARD, looking at what THEY as a group have or don't have (not that I'm denying them anything), they don't bother joining the mainstream, instead focusing on sectarian problems (whether deserved or not, I"m not making a judgement, only an observations). As such, the community is restricted to those who fit in the sect, and all others are excluded. This mass-egotism, combined with a sullenness towards mainstream society bred in by long years of repression and underrepresentation rapidly morph into extremism and isolationism that lashes out at any foreign, non-member object. And there you have why african-americans, who have so brutally been persecuted, can sometimes be homophobic, as was mentioned on this thread earlier.
That makes sense. So, what you're saying is that it's the cultural isolationism of the minority group from everyone else, which they percieve to be part of the larger society repressing them which silmotaneously prevents coordination of efforts with other minority groups, and limits their ability to connect with mainstream society well enough to make as large an impact as they would like?

Need I point out that raping children is not a part of the definition of pedophelia, and that the mental disorder is defined by a person's thoughts and fantasies? Acting it out most certainly is harmful, but in what way is the sexual prefference inherently harmful.

The very fact that they cannot act upon their impulses, and are ashamed of them, is harmful to them. Even if they never hurt another person, their own wishes will harm them.

It would be as if you constantly had fantasies to brutally murder people. That would be inherently harmful because you would know that doing so would be wrong, but the urge would still be there.

This argument is utterly futile.

The very fact that they cannot act upon their impulses, and are ashamed of them, is harmful to them. Even if they never hurt another person, their own wishes will harm them.

It would be as if you constantly had fantasies to brutally murder people. That would be inherently harmful because you would know that doing so would be wrong, but the urge would still be there.

I think we all have those fantasies....but we don't murder anyways. :P

gays?
another noisy minority...

:fluffle:

The very fact that they cannot act upon their impulses, and are ashamed of them, is harmful to them.

Much like what happens to some homosexuals? Maybe we should put homosexuality back in the category of a mental illness if that's your standard.

Even if they never hurt another person, their own wishes will harm them.

I see this all the time, and it's total bullshit. Prove that I've harmed myself by indulging in certain thoughts, and maybe I'll dignify this with a proper arguement.

It would be as if you constantly had fantasies to brutally murder people. That would be inherently harmful because you would know that doing so would be wrong, but the urge would still be there.
So you're saying that whenever I get the urge to beat the shit out of idiots telling me how to live my life, I'm harming myself by dreaming about things I can never do? And I suppose that's a mental disorder to?

You are pathetic.....its not bad!

The very fact that they cannot act upon their impulses, and are ashamed of them, is harmful to them. Even if they never hurt another person, their own wishes will harm them.

I wish you could be a homosexual, just for one day. Maybe you will see what it is ACTUALLY like.

It would be as if you constantly had fantasies to brutally murder people. That would be inherently harmful because you would know that doing so would be wrong, but the urge would still be there.

Murder ends a person's life, same-sex relationships do not.

I wish you could be a homosexual, just for one day. Maybe you will see what it is ACTUALLY like.



Murder ends a person's life, same-sex relationships do not.
So that you don't mischaracterise Dempublicents1 as an anti-gay biggot, you should know that he's talking about pedophiles, rather than gays.

Isn't it telling how the arguements against one can be misinterpreted as an arguement against another, Dempublicents1?

gays?
another noisy minority...

:fluffle:


Yes, but atleast we're colorful! Though the occasional bouts of drama are somewhat annoying. I've never understood why some go out of their ways to live up to every single stereotype though.

Queer Eye nauseates me.

So that you don't mischaracterise Dempublicents1 as an anti-gay biggot, you should know that he's talking about pedophiles, rather than gays.

Isn't it telling how the arguements against one can be misinterpreted as an arguement against another, Dempublicents1?

Oh, should have read the quote that he was responding to. It sounded like a typical argument against general homosexuality. That was my bad.

I wish he was homo.....so he could learn and stay that way. XD

Oh, should have read the quote that he was responding to. It sounded like a typical argument against general homosexuality. That was my bad.
I know it sounds like a typical arguement against homosexuality. That was actually my point in making the comparison in the first place. The arguements against one can quite easily be lifted from a discussion about one, and dropped into the other.

The differences between the two groups (homosexuals and pedophiles) comes down to two things:

1) There is nothing wrong with gays acting out their unpopular desires because willing partners can be found.

2) Gays are far less discriminated against.

That's not to say that they aren't discriminated against. The degree to which gays are discriminated against is sickening. Nor is it to say that discrimination against gays is justified. It's just that for pedophiles, even those who claim to preach a doctrine of tollerance tend to advocate for castration and stoning even celebate ones. Gays just get that shit from the fundies.

That they do....but its changing.

That they do....but its changing.
I'll be honest. I have no idea what you're reffering to here.

But I do agree, forcing someone to "convert" to a different orientation is wrong and harmful. The homo/bisexual has to want to "convert."
Homophobics need to realize that you can't "convert" your sexual orientation.

I'll be honest. I have no idea what you're reffering to here.

That homosexuals are being recognized as not as people with a disease and it is becoming a way of life, and they are getting more recognition as of late.

Homophobics need to realize that you can't "convert" your sexual orientation.
And even if you could, why the bloody hell would anyone want to?

To please the fundies and homophobes? I've heard better reasons for change than that.

That homosexuals are being recognized as not as people with a disease and it is becoming a way of life, and they are getting more recognition as of late.
Thank you.

And that is good news. I just wish that minority groups didn't have to gain acceptance one by one, and that real tollerance would manage to take root.

Too bad most who call themselves bisexuals are in denial. The rest, they know what they are, but use it to give their mothers hope, or to titillate their boyfriends or other straight men with girl on girl action, or to just plain old show how cool and openminded they are.
Funny. I find men hot, I find women hot. I fantasize about both genders and rarely make a mention of this to anyone with the exception of a few close friends. I guess this makes me an attention whore or means that I'm in denial or feigning my attraction to both genders for fun.

Seriously Fass, aside from the fact that female bisexuality has been shown to exist you of all people should be less of a douche about someone's sexual orientation, you get all pissy when someone says the slightest thing against gay people and then go bashing bisexuals left and right. It's like someone who bitches about how they face racial discrimination bitching about the existence of another race.

And even if you could, why the bloody hell would anyone want to?

To please the fundies and homophobes? I've heard better reasons for change than that.
The only reason I could think of is if you wanted biological children... but then you really just need a friend of the opposite gender and a couple thousand dollars to pay a lab technician...

Funny. I find men hot, I find women hot. I fantasize about both genders and rarely make a mention of this to anyone with the exception of a few close friends. I guess this makes me an attention whore or means that I'm in denial or feigning my attraction to both genders for fun.

Seriously Fass, aside from the fact that female bisexuality has been shown to exist you of all people should be less of a douche about someone's sexual orientation, you get all pissy when someone says the slightest thing against gay people and then go bashing bisexuals left and right. It's like someone who bitches about how they face racial discrimination bitching about the existence of another race.
I brought up this phenomenon earlier. People who are discriminated against don't neccisarily learn tollerance. By advocating for their specific group's interests, they look tollerant, but many members of minority groups can be just as biggoted as members of the majority group.

As a result, each minority has to acheave acceptance on its own, and when it does, society as a whole learns nothing about real tollerance.

The only reason I could think of is if you wanted biological children... but then you really just need a friend of the opposite gender and a couple thousand dollars to pay a lab technician...

Or just bed your friend....or do artifical insemination.

Funny. I find men hot, I find women hot. I fantasize about both genders and rarely make a mention of this to anyone with the exception of a few close friends. I guess this makes me an attention whore or means that I'm in denial or feigning my attraction to both genders for fun.

Seriously Fass, aside from the fact that female bisexuality has been shown to exist you of all people should be less of a douche about someone's sexual orientation, you get all pissy when someone says the slightest thing against gay people and then go bashing bisexuals left and right. It's like someone who bitches about how they face racial discrimination bitching about the existence of another race.
I've always been rendered speechless by the displays of intolerence I sometimes see in the gay community. It came to me as an (unpleasant) surprise that there is homophobia even amonst gays. For example, "straight" acting gays dissing the more effiminate men. Or gay men and lesbians denying the existence of bisexuality.

Personally, I think a little display of solidarity between all those who suffer discrimination would be nice. As a rule of thumb, I always stand up against suchs displays whenever I witness them. It's rather hypocritical for us to scream "discrimination" and yet discriminate others ourselve.

The only reason I could think of is if you wanted biological children... but then you really just need a friend of the opposite gender and a couple thousand dollars to pay a lab technician...
Well put. Often, people forget that gay =/= sterile.

Don't they teach logic in schools? A negative cannot be proved. However. (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/110/109804?src=RSS_PUBLIC)
By the way, aside from the fact that that particular study had a very small sample population, your own article mentions that female bisexuality clearly exists.

Last year, Bailey, Rieger, and others published a study in which they measured female sexual arousal. They concluded that women - whether they identify themselves as homosexual or heterosexual - have bisexual arousal patterns. That's because the genitals of women participating in the study became aroused when they watched porn, regardless of whether it featured men or women.

But I'm sure they're all attention whores who are out to tittilate straight men, right?

-snip-

They also said no bisexuality exists among men. XD

Or just bed your friend....or do artifical insemination.
The "couple thousand dollars and a lab technician" bit was in refrence to artificial insemination.

They also said no bisexuality exists among men. XD
Yeah, but that study had a very small sample size and when you consider that many men didn't respond to either set of video, it seems silly to say that because some men didn't respond to one or the other it means they're not attracted to the gender shown in that video. Does that mean that the men who weren't aroused by either are nonsexual beings?

Yeah, but that study had a very small sample size and when you consider that many men didn't respond to either set of video, it seems silly to say that because some men didn't respond to one or the other it means they're not attracted to the gender shown in that video. Does that mean that the men who weren't aroused by either are nonsexual beings?

True. Though some people touted it like it was PROOF bisexuality didn't exist... *cough* *cough*

Though this shows it does. :)

Yeah, but that study had a very small sample size and when you consider that many men didn't respond to either set of video, it seems silly to say that because some men didn't respond to one or the other it means they're not attracted to the gender shown in that video. Does that mean that the men who weren't aroused by either are nonsexual beings?

Asexuals do exist, and apparently it's more commonly seen in males than females.

Asexuals do exist, and apparently it's more commonly seen in males than females.

Sure...but many women can repress it to.

Sure...but many women can repress it to.

Exactly. By the standards of society, women are supposed to repress it, and seem virginal and pure, whereas men are allowed to openly display their attractions. But truly, without suppression, women actually have a higher sex drive than men do.

Asexuals do exist, and apparently it's more commonly seen in males than females.
Ok, so all the men who didn't respond to either set of porn are asexuals in denial, despite their claims to be gay/straight/bi?

But truly, without suppression, women actually have a higher sex drive than men do.
Depends on the man and depends on the woman. There aren't set standard sex drives for each gender, you know.

Yeah, but that study had a very small sample size and when you consider that many men didn't respond to either set of video, it seems silly to say that because some men didn't respond to one or the other it means they're not attracted to the gender shown in that video. Does that mean that the men who weren't aroused by either are nonsexual beings?
And let's not forget that ALL porn arouses everyone equally. :rolleyes:

Could be those men simply had preferences or fetishes not displayed in those videos. For example, one could make me view a video about bears in their 40s having S&M sex. If I wasn't aroused by it, could it be concluded that I'm not gay? Likewise, if a gay man aroused by bears in their 40s doing B&D was shown a video about college guys, could we conclude he wasn't gay if he didn't get aroused by it?

Ok, so all the men who didn't respond to either set of porn are asexuals in denial, despite their claims to be gay/straight/bi?

I'm not saying all of them, because maybe the videos just didn't appeal to them. But if we can have gays in denial and involved in heterosexual marriages, why can't we have asexuals do that as well? Maybe just to have offsprings or even conform to society's standards.

But truly, without suppression, women actually have a higher sex drive than men do.
There ain't a woman in this land with a higher sex drive than this male, I tell you! :p

Depends on the man and depends on the woman. There aren't set standard sex drives for each gender, you know.

yes, but on average, women's are higher than men's. But I think that's a bit skewed because of the amount of time women spend in pregancy, when their sex drives just rocket off.

Perhaps my tastes are too broad, or I'm in too dire a need to get laid, but honestly unless it was truely horrifyingly bad porn it'd get a reaction.

There ain't a woman in this land with a higher sex drive than this male, I tell you! :p
Nor this one.....I'd put you to shame I bet to!

And let's not forget that ALL porn arouses everyone equally. :rolleyes:

Could be those men simply had preferences or fetishes not displayed in those videos. For example, one could make me view a video about bears in their 40s having S&M sex. If I wasn't aroused by it, could it be concluded that I'm not gay? Likewise, if a gay man aroused by bears in their 40s doing B&D was shown a video about college guys, could we conclude he wasn't gay if he didn't get aroused by it?
Bears?

And yeah, exactly. There's also the possibility that these guys aren't big on video porn, you'd need other mediums, perhaps get some strippers to come in...

yes, but on average, women's are higher than men's. But I think that's a bit skewed because of the amount of time women spend in pregancy, when their sex drives just rocket off.

Ah yes, that is because it is nature! The woman is going to have a baby so she must keep her man at all costs, which means lots of sex for her mate to keep him nice and happy!

I wouldn't ignore my wife if she was having a baby. Best way to make her pregancy a fun one. :)

There ain't a woman in this land with a higher sex drive than this male, I tell you! :p

You'd be surprised. Women are just naturally good at hiding things.

You'd be surprised. Women are just naturally good at hiding things.

So are most horny horny men.

yes, but on average, women's are higher than men's. But I think that's a bit skewed because of the amount of time women spend in pregancy, when their sex drives just rocket off.
I don't think that women on average have a higher sex drive than me. Although I've only encountered one man with a higher sex drive than I, I'm told I'm not really representative of the average female population.

And times of huge hormone fluctuations hardly count as an average.

Ah yes, that is because it is nature! The woman is going to have a baby so she must keep her man at all costs, which means lots of sex for her mate to keep him nice and happy!

I wouldn't ignore my wife if she was having a baby. Best way to make her pregancy a fun one. :)

I'll stick with the hormonal imbalance theory, thank you.

You'd be surprised. Women are just naturally good at hiding things.
Women aren't naturally better at hiding things than men are...

I'll stick with the hormonal imbalance theory, thank you.

That's how it happens....not why. :D

I don't think that women on average have a higher sex drive than me. Although I've only encountered one man with a higher sex drive than I, I'm told I'm not really representative of the average female population.

And times of huge hormone fluctuations hardly count as an average.

But it is counted into the average, therefore at least bringing it up a little. Also apparently coffee can increase a female's sex drive...:confused: (completely off topic, I know)

Women aren't naturally better at hiding things than men are...

But they're required to hide their sexual arousals so they don't get called sluts, etc. After a while, you just get used to it.

But they're required to hide their sexual arousals so they don't get called sluts, etc. After a while, you just get used to it.
We're not required to hide our sexual arousals any more than men are. It's not like either gender talks about how horny they are in mixed company, and you don't have to be promiscuous to have a lot of sex anyways.

We're not required to hide our sexual arousals any more than men are. It's not like either gender talks about how horny they are in mixed company, and you don't have to be promiscuous to have a lot of sex anyways.

I beg to differ. Many MANY guys have talked about how horny they were in front of me. Never seen a woman do that though, even if it was only in the company of other women.

Bears?

And yeah, exactly. There's also the possibility that these guys aren't big on video porn, you'd need other mediums, perhaps get some strippers to come in...


Bear, gay slang, typically a large hairy man. The opposite of Twink, which would be a slender "Swimmer's build" usually younger guy. Twinks are often thought of as cute but stupid.

Im all for gay/lesbian couples. Why should they be oppressed? Because some church thinks it's wrong? They deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

Who cares, in all honesty. If you're gay, you're gay and yes, I am for gay marriages :fluffle: ...so that when a gay person gets divorced, let them go through all the headaches of dividing the assets, child support and alimony. :headbang: Who cares, let them do what they want. And if the religious right says that it's immoral, tell them:upyours: and to look up Bohemian Grove (http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/bohemian-grove/) and Skull and Bones.

I think we all have those fantasies....but we don't murder anyways. :P

I have never in my life had a fantasy of brutally murdering someone.

Much like what happens to some homosexuals? Maybe we should put homosexuality back in the category of a mental illness if that's your standard.

No, not at all like what happens to homosexuals. A homosexual relationship is in no way inherently harmful. Thus, there is absolutley no reason that a homosexual cannot have a meaningful, loving relationship with someone they are attracted to, and there is nothing about it to be ashamed of.

In the case of a homosexual who has been forced to stay in the closet, it is not an inherent problem with homosexuality that has caused it, but is instead society. Thus, it is not a mental illness any more than being unattractive and made to feel bad about it by society is.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, if acted upon, will harm someone - plain and simple. The fact that they cannot act on their impulses isn't because other people are dicks, but because doing so would harm the object of their affections. They are not ashamed because someone has irrationally told them to be, but because they want very badly to harm someone.

I see this all the time, and it's total bullshit. Prove that I've harmed myself by indulging in certain thoughts, and maybe I'll dignify this with a proper arguement.

If you fantasize about having sex with children, and you don't find that to be a problem, then I don't think you're worth talking to.

So you're saying that whenever I get the urge to beat the shit out of idiots telling me how to live my life, I'm harming myself by dreaming about things I can never do? And I suppose that's a mental disorder to?

If you get those urges constantly and they are the only relationship you can imagine having with such people, then yes, it is most definitely a mental disorder.

I beg to differ. Many MANY guys have talked about how horny they were in front of me. Never seen a woman do that though, even if it was only in the company of other women.

Perhaps it is just the women you are around. I just sit eating at the food court at my college and can hear some excruciating detail about their sex lives or lack of one. I'd feel it is fair that both men and women talk openly about how "horny" they are.

I beg to differ. Many MANY guys have talked about how horny they were in front of me. Never seen a woman do that though, even if it was only in the company of other women.
It's rare that I've heard a guy outside of highschool discuss his sexual arousal... however, unless the guys are creepy, I'm always certain to fire a mention back...

I wish you could be a homosexual, just for one day. Maybe you will see what it is ACTUALLY like.

Actually, I'm bisexual.

Hint: Maybe you should look at what is being replied to when you read something.

Murder ends a person's life, same-sex relationships do not.

And pedophilic relationships harm children. Since pedophilia was the discussion at the time....


So that you don't mischaracterise Dempublicents1 as an anti-gay biggot, you should know that he's talking about pedophiles, rather than gays.

Isn't it telling how the arguements against one can be misinterpreted as an arguement against another, Dempublicents1?

Yes, it tells us just how mischaracterized homosexual relationships have been for so long, that many have irrationally placed them on the level of nonconsentual relationships, like pedophilic ones and bestiality.

Bear, gay slang, typically a large hairy man. The opposite of Twink, which would be a slender "Swimmer's build" usually younger guy. Twinks are often thought of as cute but stupid.
Ah, interesting.

It's rare that I've heard a guy outside of highschool discuss his sexual arousal... however, unless the guys are creepy, I'm always certain to fire a mention back...

Good for you. I really don't like listening to them complaining about how their sex life's non-existant. It gets REALLY old after a couple of minutes.

I'd be a twinky bear. XD
roflmao!

Good for you. I really don't like listening to them complaining about how their sex life's non-existant. It gets REALLY old after a couple of minutes.

Good. It should get old, slap them in the face and tell them that attitude is BAD for attracting anyone....even for pity sex!

I know it sounds like a typical arguement against homosexuality. That was actually my point in making the comparison in the first place. The arguements against one can quite easily be lifted from a discussion about one, and dropped into the other.

The differences between the two groups (homosexuals and pedophiles) comes down to two things:

1) There is nothing wrong with gays acting out their unpopular desires because willing partners can be found.

2) Gays are far less discriminated against.

1) I think by "willing partners", you really mean, "partners who are able and willing to consent." Pedophiles fantasize about having sex with those who are incapable of consent. And this is exactly the reason that arguments against pedophilia cannot actually be used against homosexuality. Homosexuals wish to have loving relationships with adults who are capable of consent. There is absolutely no reason to block that.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, want to have sex with prepubescent children. There is certainly a reason to block that.

2) Well, we can't exactly give pedophiles the "right" to have sex with whom they wish, now can we?

It's just that for pedophiles, even those who claim to preach a doctrine of tollerance tend to advocate for castration and stoning even celebate ones. Gays just get that shit from the fundies.

I have no problem with a celibate pedophile, and I would only advocate even chemical castration for those who have demonstrated an inability to control themselves. I would feel sorry for someone who was incapable of attraction to adults, as it would mean that they would simply have to miss out on certain types of life experiences. But it doesn't change the fact that what pedophiles fantasize about is, in and of itself, harmful. I'm not going to start marching for pedophiles' right to have sex with or marry children. If that makes me "intolerant", then the word has become truly useless.

Perhaps it is just the women you are around. I just sit eating at the food court at my college and can hear some excruciating detail about their sex lives or lack of one. I'd feel it is fair that both men and women talk openly about how "horny" they are.
well what else would you talk about in college? sometimes i talk about school too, but somehow, even relativity and quantum mechanics seem to get back to sex...

Asexuals do exist, and apparently it's more commonly seen in males than females.

Yes, but 1/3 of their sample size is a bit high, don't you think?

I haven't seen anything to suggest that asexuals are 1/3 of the male population.

Yes, but 1/3 of their sample size is a bit high, don't you think?

I haven't seen anything to suggest that asexuals are 1/3 of the male population.

yeah, their study do seem very odd. There must be something horribly wrong with the experiment. What does this tell you? Scientists know nothing about pron. :p

Yes, but 1/3 of their sample size is a bit high, don't you think?

I haven't seen anything to suggest that asexuals are 1/3 of the male population.

Ya....its like 2% if anything.

yeah, their study do seem very odd. There must be something horribly wrong with the experiment. What does this tell you? Scientists know nothing about pron. :p

Hehe, well, I know I don't. And, if I had been in the study, they would have probably thrown me out too, because pretty much all porn makes me laugh.

yeah, their study do seem very odd. There must be something horribly wrong with the experiment. What does this tell you? Scientists know nothing about pron. :p


Scientists are nerds, nerds don't get laid. People who don't get laid know about porn.

Scientists are nerds, nerds don't get laid. People who don't get laid know about porn.

O.O Law of Transferance?

Scientists are nerds, nerds don't get laid. People who don't get laid know about porn.

Yes, we are nerds, but we also do get laid. Well, I do at least. But I don't need porn to do it, and for some reason, my fiance won't watch it with me anyways, although I'm pretty sure he occasionally watches it alone. =)

Yes, we are nerds, but we also do get laid. Well, I do at least. But I don't need porn to do it, and for some reason, my fiance won't watch it with me anyways, although I'm pretty sure he occasionally watches it alone. =)

YOU ARE A GIRL!?

YOU ARE A GIRL!?You didn't know Dem was a woman?

Just because her/his intended is male doesn't mean he/she is a female.

YOU ARE A GIRL!?

Yup. I saw someone call me a guy earlier on in the thread, but it seems so silly to reply to something like that with, "I'm a girl! I have boobs!" hehe

But yes, I'm female. =) Is it really that shocking?

Yup. I saw someone call me a guy earlier on in the thread, but it seems so silly to reply to something like that with, "I'm a girl! I have boobs!" hehe

But yes, I'm female. =) Is it really that shocking?

Well...cause someone said that you were a guy and you didn't say anything about it....kinda was why I was shocked now. XD

Yup. I saw someone call me a guy earlier on in the thread, but it seems so silly to reply to something like that with, "I'm a girl! I have boobs!" hehe

But yes, I'm female. =) Is it really that shocking?

*in a ghostly voice* Bah, I have boobs too. That doesn't make a girl. Woooooo. I'm not really hear. I don't post in general anymore. *disappears*

Yup. I saw someone call me a guy earlier on in the thread, but it seems so silly to reply to something like that with, "I'm a girl! I have boobs!" hehe

But yes, I'm female. =) Is it really that shocking?


Bethany: Oh, those weren't tits I saw Jay cozying up to?
Serendipity: What, these? You should know better than anyone at this table that tits don't make a woman.

I love that movie.

*in a ghostly voice* Bah, I have boobs too. That doesn't make a girl. Woooooo. I'm not really hear. I don't post in general anymore. *disappears*

O.O Ewwww. XD

Scientists are nerds, nerds don't get laid. People who don't get laid know about porn.
I'm a nerd and I get laid.

I'm a nerd and I get laid.

As if you didn't know....so do I. :)

I have never in my life had a fantasy of brutally murdering someone.

Strange. I figured it was normal when someone pissed you off enough. It happens to me all the time. (But then again, you think I'm mentally ill anyway.)

No, not at all like what happens to homosexuals.

Oh really? So you're saying that there aren't gays in significant numbers who are told repeatedly by society that they're wrong and evil, and end up feeling guilt and anger over their repressed sex drives? What planet are you living on?

A homosexual relationship is in no way inherently harmful. Thus, there is absolutley no reason that a homosexual cannot have a meaningful, loving relationship with someone they are attracted to, and there is nothing about it to be ashamed of.

I agree 100%. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual relationships, and the only source of "wrongness" comes as a result of societal condemnation. Abscent that, homosexuals would really be no different than their heterosexual counterparts, except perhaps for a few extra complications when they want children, and a few fewer complications when they don't.

In the case of a homosexual who has been forced to stay in the closet, it is not an inherent problem with homosexuality that has caused it, but is instead society. Thus, it is not a mental illness any more than being unattractive and made to feel bad about it by society is.

Again, I'm not denying this. What I am denying is your use of mental stress as the end-all be-all for determining when something is and is not a mental illness.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, if acted upon, will harm someone - plain and simple.

This particular sentence is indeed plain and simple. I agree with it completely.

The fact that they cannot act on their impulses isn't because other people are dicks, but because doing so would harm the object of their affections.

This is indeed the reason. Still not sure where you're going with this.

They are not ashamed because someone has irrationally told them to be, but because they want very badly to harm someone.

Wait. I think I get it. You're saying that because the mental stress inflicted on pedophiles is "right" they have a mental illness, but if the mental stress comes from a source that is "ignorant", then there really isn't a problem with that person after all. Sounds like you're just trying to enforce your morality. Please feel free to point out where I misinterpreted you.

If you fantasize about having sex with children, and you don't find that to be a problem, then I don't think you're worth talking to.

I guess that makes us both hypocrites, since we're both still arguing.

If you get those urges constantly and they are the only relationship you can imagine having with such people, then yes, it is most definitely a mental disorder.
Where do you get the idea that the only kind of relationship a pedophile can immagine having with a child is a sexual one? Do you think the same can be said about women and straight men? You're reaching here.
Actually, I'm bisexual.

Hint: Maybe you should look at what is being replied to when you read something.



And pedophilic relationships harm children. Since pedophilia was the discussion at the time....

I already corrected him, and he realised his mistake. There was no need to bring it up again.

Yes, it tells us just how mischaracterized homosexual relationships have been for so long, that many have irrationally placed them on the level of nonconsentual relationships, like pedophilic ones and bestiality.
I was actually thinking that it showed that people don't really consider a biggot's arguement to be without value, they just take exception to it being used against them. If you really believed that the "mental stress", and "harming yourself through your own immoral thoughts" arguement was bullshit when used against homosexuals, you wouldn't have used it yourself against pedophiles.
1) I think by "willing partners", you really mean, "partners who are able and willing to consent." Pedophiles fantasize about having sex with those who are incapable of consent. And this is exactly the reason that arguments against pedophilia cannot actually be used against homosexuality.

Again, you actually believe that a person "thinking immoral thoughts" is a valid arguement against anything? Let's ignore that you think my thoughts really are immoral and that you think yours are perfectly okay. You really believe that "evil thoughts makes you evil"? If you hadn't been bisexual, I think you would have gotten along famously with the fundie biggots.

Homosexuals wish to have loving relationships with adults who are capable of consent. There is absolutely no reason to block that.

No reason to restrict them any more than heterosexuals. I agree.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, want to have sex with prepubescent children. There is certainly a reason to block that.

Good reason to block the act. No reason to block the thoughts, which seems to be what you're advocating.

2) Well, we can't exactly give pedophiles the "right" to have sex with whom they wish, now can we?

We can't give anyone rights. Rights are inherent, and can be only recognised and reinforced, or resticted. I'm not asking you to accept anyone who goes around raping children. I'm asking you to take your preachy morals, and stay the hell out of my head, like you tell the other biggots to stay out of your bedroom.

I have no problem with a celibate pedophile, and I would only advocate even chemical castration for those who have demonstrated an inability to control themselves.

No. You just think I have a disease. Would you reccomend avoidence theropy for me? (After all, it's worked so well curing gay.)

I would feel sorry for someone who was incapable of attraction to adults, as it would mean that they would simply have to miss out on certain types of life experiences.

Just like I'm sure so many homophobes feel sorry for gays. It's a misguided and insincere kind of sympathy.

But it doesn't change the fact that what pedophiles fantasize about is, in and of itself, harmful.

The fantasy itself? Again, keep your fundamental moralism out of my mind.

I'm not going to start marching for pedophiles' right to have sex with or marry children.

Nor am I. I think you still haven't untangled the terms pedophile and child molester. In your mind, they seem to be so closely interconnected as to be inseparable. They are in fact two different concepts.

If that makes me "intolerant", then the word has become truly useless.
What makes you intollerant is not your oposition to actions which cause direct, measurable harm. What makes you intollerant is your lashing out against a group of people because their sexual thoughts make you angry.

Oh really? So you're saying that there aren't gays in significant numbers who are told repeatedly by society that they're wrong and evil, and end up feeling guilt and anger over their repressed sex drives? What planet are you living on?

No, I'm saying that there is no reason that any homosexual should be told by society that their attractions are wrong, or that they should repress their sex drives.

Again, I'm not denying this. What I am denying is your use of mental stress as the end-all be-all for determining when something is and is not a mental illness.

It isn't the "end-all-be-all", but it is a part of it. Of course, the mental stress has to be from within, not placed externally.

Another issue could be the fact that being sexually attracted to children is no more or less a problem than lacking empathy, or having constant fantasies of harming others.

Wait. I think I get it. You're saying that because the mental stress inflicted on pedophiles is "right" they have a mental illness, but if the mental stress comes from a source that is "ignorant", then there really isn't a problem with that person after all. Sounds like you're just trying to enforce your morality. Please feel free to point out where I misinterpreted you.

You are absolutely misinterpreting me. The mental stress on pedophiles would come from within - from the absolute knowledge that what they wish to do is wrong. It isn't an externally applied mental stress from a society that simply does not want to accept them.

Where do you get the idea that the only kind of relationship a pedophile can immagine having with a child is a sexual one?

I didn't say that. But the thing that makes them pedophiles is the wish to have sexual relationships with children.

I was actually thinking that it showed that people don't really consider a biggot's arguement to be without value, they just take exception to it being used against them. If you really believed that the "mental stress", and "harming yourself through your own immoral thoughts" arguement was bullshit when used against homosexuals, you wouldn't have used it yourself against pedophiles.

The bigot's arguemnt is without rationality. They choose a group and just decide that the group, though causing no harm to anyone, is wrong/inferior/etc. Pedophiles have urges that, if acted upon, will cause harm - plain and simple. It isn't bigotry to point that out.

Again, you actually believe that a person "thinking immoral thoughts" is a valid arguement against anything?

I didn't say anything about "immoral thoughts". I said something about the urge to harm someone. You really need to read what I actually say, instead of what you want to hear.

A pedophile wants to have sex with children - something that would be harmful to the child. Thus, the pedophile wants to do something that would hurt another. It isn't a matter of what I find to be "immoral". You were mischaracterizing pedophilia by acting as if the only difference between homosexuality and pedophilia was the availability of willing partners. The difference has nothing to do with "willingness" and everything to do with the ability to consent.

You really believe that "evil thoughts makes you evil"?

I never said anything even remotely suggesting this. In fact, I have yet to say, at any point, that pedophiles or pedophilia are evil.

Good reason to block the act. No reason to block the thoughts, which seems to be what you're advocating.

Blocking the thoughts is virtually impossible. Sexual attraction is sexual attraction. Helping a person who constantly has urges to harm people cope with that, on the other hand, is not a problem.

I'm asking you to take your preachy morals, and stay the hell out of my head, like you tell the other biggots to stay out of your bedroom.

Ah, I see the problem. You think the "mental illness" label has to do with morals. It does not. There is nothing immoral about having a mental illness. I don't think that those with pedophilia are "evil" or "immoral" (unless they act on it) any more than I think someone who has OCD is "evil" or "immoral".

No. You just think I have a disease. Would you reccomend avoidence theropy for me? (After all, it's worked so well curing gay.)

I would reccomend whatever therapy you may or may not need to repress any and all urges you have to have sex with children and, if possible, find a loving relationship with an adult. If such therapy is not feasible, then there isn't much that can be done, eh?

The fantasy itself? Again, keep your fundamental moralism out of my mind.

You have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? I said that the act being fantasized about is harmful. Try again.

Nor am I. I think you still haven't untangled the terms pedophile and child molester. In your mind, they seem to be so closely interconnected as to be inseparable. They are in fact two different concepts.

The only way we could have an "equal rights" campaign for pedophiles in the same way that we can for homosexuals (which is what you seem to be suggesting) is to march for such recognition. As it is, there is no legal discrimination against pedophiles that I am aware of - unless they have already harmed children.

What makes you intollerant is not your oposition to actions which cause direct, measurable harm. What makes you intollerant is your lashing out against a group of people because their sexual thoughts make you angry.

Please, do show me anywhere that I have "lashed out against" pedophiles. Wait, I haven't. You assume that, when I say that they fantasize about doing something that harms others, that means I am calling them "evil" or "immoral", something I never said or suggested.

i love how every conversation about homosexuallity eventually turns into one about pedophelia and/or beastiality. and by love, i mean "am slightly offended by"

its just a shame that people still equate homosexuality with those sorts of sexual practices.

i love how every conversation about homosexuallity eventually turns into one about pedophelia and/or beastiality. and by love, i mean "am slightly offended by"

its just a shame that people still equate homosexuality with those sorts of sexual practices.

Yes, it is, isn't it?

And now it seems that the equations are coming from both sides - not just from the anti-gay bigots.

i love how every conversation about homosexuallity eventually turns into one about pedophelia and/or beastiality. and by love, i mean "am slightly offended by"

its just a shame that people still equate homosexuality with those sorts of sexual practices.

I think its cause of the other threads that lead it here.

I think its cause of the other threads that lead it here.

well i just mean in general. one of my favorite anti-equal-marriage-rights objection is "well if you allow men to marry men and women to marry women, people will want to marry their horses!!!"

its like "..........stfu."

people will want to marry their horses!!!"
And why the hell shouldn't they be able to?

well i just mean in general. one of my favorite anti-equal-marriage-rights objection is "well if you allow men to marry men and women to marry women, people will want to marry their horses!!!"

its like "..........stfu."

Ya.....though that is pretty sick. x-x

And why the hell shouldn't they be able to?

Cause its WRONG.

And why the hell shouldn't they be able to?

hey now, i say do whatcha want. but thats not a gay issue and we cannot be asked to fight their fight for them. if people want to marry their horses, they need to get off their asses and hit the streets!!!

And why the hell shouldn't they be able to?
Because horses, unlike gays, aren't human beings and therefore aren't able to consent under the law?

Never seen a good ol' horse signing up a contract or getting a loan from the bank, personally. Correct me if I,m wrong.

And why the hell shouldn't they be able to?

Because a horse cannot provide consent, sign a contract, or even have any of the stipulations that go along with marriage applied to it?

Because a horse cannot provide consent, sign a contract, or even have any of the stipulations that go along with marriage applied to it?

It can neigh and kick backwards...

It can neigh and kick backwards...

So?

So?

well...."hey horse, do you wanna marry this dude? neigh if you do"
"neigh"

that sounds like consent to me!!!;)

well...."hey horse, do you wanna marry this dude? neigh if you do"
"neigh"

that sounds like consent to me!!!;)

Hear, hear!

Because horses, unlike gays, aren't human beings and therefore aren't able to consent under the law?

Never seen a good ol' horse signing up a contract or getting a loan from the bank, personally. Correct me if I,m wrong.


Gotta remember, to a fair number of fundies we're not human either, so it's a rational argument for them.

Gotta remember, to a fair number of fundies we're not human either, so it's a rational argument for them.
You hide your tails, well.

Gotta remember, to a fair number of fundies we're not human either, so it's a rational argument for them.

To be rational, the underlying assumptions have to be rational as well. "Teh gays aren't human!" isn't exactly rational.

You hide your tails, well.

LOL! XD
Who said it was just tails?

You hide your tails, well.

Is that what the Lady Chablis meant when she said she was hiding her "T"?

Does anyoen seriously think that homosexuality is connected to beastaility!?