NationStates Jolt Archive

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?No.

And you aren't all bisexual.

I don't think people are all bisexual.

But I do think bisexuality will increase due to cultural influences. And no I'm not one of those fatalists who believes sexual preference is written in stone from birth/conception nor do I say it is a "choice."

But now that people (and more significantly the law in many countries) are more accepting of alternative relationships. Then people will be free to chose that option.

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?
No the "Worst" that is going to happen is thoes that are bisexual may be a little more open with it (you know not having to fear all the homophobes)

But now that people (and more significantly the law in many countries) are more accepting of alternative relationships. Then people will be free to chose that option.

Well sure, but that doesn't mean that everyone will. Heterosexuality has always been legal, but that doesn't mean that everybody is heterosexual.

No.

And you aren't all bisexual.

I believe we all are to some extent. I am a guy and I prefer women but would not rule out a relationship with the right kind of man

No the "Worst" that is going to happen is thoes that are bisexual may be a little more open with it (you know not having to fear all the homophobes)

With that fear removed won't people be more likely to entertain the option rather than be in denial or repressed

I have no personal interest in the "option". I am so not Bi- or Homosexual. There is zero iota of the female body that I find sexually attractive. I am not into other girls. Yuck!

Does that answer your question?

I'm not sure we're all "bisexual" in that we're all capable of being sexually attracted to both sexes. But I do think that sexual attraction need not be the only basis for sexual relationships. Sometimes sex drive, or just curiosity, takes precedence over actual sexual attraction.

With that fear removed won't people be more likely to entertain the option rather than be in denial or repressed
But does that make more bisexuals or more OPEN bisexuals?

Well, I've often wanted to have sex with two women.
Does that count as bisexual?




Actually when you think about it, I guess we are all bisexual. Bi meaning two obviously, as in two people and I think I can speak for the majority of us and say we'd much prefer having sex with another person than just by ourselves.

I believe we all are to some extent. I am a guy and I prefer women but would not rule out a relationship with the right kind of manNot everyone are like you. It's a strange conclusion, considering there are billions of hetero, homo & bisexuals in the world already. If everyone were bisexual, why would some be straight or gay?

There's no evidence to support your conclusion & quite a lot that contradicts it.

- I'm bisexual, but I very much doubt Fass & Ny Nazi Nordland are.

I have no personal interest in the "option". I am so not Bi- or Homosexual. There is zero iota of the female body that I find sexually attractive. I am not into other girls. Yuck!

Does that answer your question?

You've never once entertained the idea?

I have no personal interest in the "option". I am so not Bi- or Homosexual. There is zero iota of the female body that I find sexually attractive. I am not into other girls.


...Could you pretend you were in exchange for fame and fortune? :D

We are as little "all bisexual" as we are "all heterosexual."

Could bisexuals please stop denying the existence of other sexual orientations? They ought to know, of all people, how it is when someone denies the existence of theirs, yet so many of them are ever so willing to do the same thing.

I have no personal interest in the "option". I am so not Bi- or Homosexual. There is zero iota of the female body that I find sexually attractive. I am not into other girls.
What? not even the taint?

We are as little "all bisexual" as we are "all heterosexual."

Could bisexuals please stop denying the existence of other sexual orientations? They ought to know, of all people, how it is when someone denies the existence of theirs, yet so many of them are ever so willing to do the same thing.
I am not sure that the OP is bisexual and you have at least two bisexuals (me included) arguing against such a thing. so would you please look before accusing "Bisexuals" of doing anything

Not everyone are like you. It's a strange conclusion, considering there are billions of hetero, homo & bisexuals in the world already. If everyone were bisexual, why would some be straight or gay?

There's no evidence to support your conclusion & quite a lot that contradicts it.

- I'm bisexual, but I very much doubt Fass & Ny Nazi Nordland are.

Nazi Nordland may (I would venture) come from a culture that represses any other sexuality bar hetro - Without that repression would he still be hetro?

I have no personal interest in the "option". I am so not Bi- or Homosexual. There is zero iota of the female body that I find sexually attractive. I am not into other girls. Yuck!

Does that answer your question?
Yuck?! :eek:

How can you not like the female body? Think of those curves...

Nazi Nordland may (I would venture) come from a culture that represses any other sexuality bar hetro - Without that repression would he still be hetro?

Actually he appears to be from Norway, of the infamously open-minded-sexually scandinavians.

My public school teachers, unionized professionals who are only hired based on scientific qualifications, have unequivocally stated that there aren't 2 genders, but infinite. This is from the latest advances in Queer Theory.

My parents still think there are only 2 genders. What can I do to educate them?

We are as little "all bisexual" as we are "all heterosexual."

Could bisexuals please stop denying the existence of other sexual orientations?No. I've never made that claim, nor would I.They ought to know, of all people, how it is when someone denies the existence of theirs, yet so many of them are ever so willing to do the same thing.I don't get it either. I don't even understand why it's important. It's sexuality. How can it possibly matter to the general public?

We are as little "all bisexual" as we are "all heterosexual."

Could bisexuals please stop denying the existence of other sexual orientations? They ought to know, of all people, how it is when someone denies the existence of theirs, yet so many of them are ever so willing to do the same thing.

There are degrees of bisexuality... Even those who consider themselves gay would have thought about sex with a member of the opposite sex

My public school teachers, unionized professionals who are only hired based on scientific qualifications, have unequivocally stated that there aren't 2 genders, but infinite. This is from the latest advances in Queer Theory.

My parents still think there are only 2 genders. What can I do to educate them?
Quit making this bullshit up … you aren’t even very good at it.

It's sexuality. How can it possibly matter to the general public?

...because the general public is the pool from which everyone who is sexual fishes out their sexual partners.

So this is what Fass was talking about...Seems familiar.

Actually he appears to be from Norway, of the infamously open-minded-sexually scandinavians.

It's the Nazi bit though...

Actually he appears to be from Norway, of the infamously open-minded-sexually scandinavians.

There was a time when Norway was a Christian nation. Their capital used to be Christiania. :(

There was a time when Norway was a Christian nation. Their capital used to be Christiania. :(
Then they got smart

Quit making this bullshit up … you aren’t even very good at it.

Have you been to an American public school recently? They teach Queer Theory as part of sex education.

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?
How'd you manage that connection? o.O

It's the Nazi bit though...

His actual account name is "Ny Nordland," not "Nazi Nordland."

There was a time when Norway was a Christian nation. Their capital used to be Christiania.

Well, there was a time when it was a Viking nation too.

Times change.

Have you been to an American public school recently? They teach Queer Theory as part of sex education.

Yes, I have, and no, they don't.

Then they got smartNorway isn't nearly as relaxed about sex & such, as the other Scandinavian countries. Hell, there's black bars in their porn mags.

Have you been to an American public school recently? They teach Queer Theory as part of sex education.
I am a product of the American public school system (at least high school) I went to a private catholic elementary school before then.

Somehow the sex ed was infinitely more informative from a qualified sex ed teacher then the pedophile priest that they put in charge of my 4th grade sex ed class at the catholic school

Have you been to an American public school recently? They teach Queer Theory as part of sex education.

I am not sure that I accept the notion of more that two genders. I think the notions of a way that a man and a woman ought to behave are culturally defined rather than reality. So a man crossdressing is not evidence of third gender.... Just a man dressing as a woman and society saying that is unacceptable

Norway isn't nearly as relaxed about sex & such, as the other Scandinavian countries. Hell, there's black bars in their porn mags.
We could all use improvement in one way or another :)

I am a product of the American public school system (at least high school) I went to a private catholic elementary school before then.

Somehow the sex ed was infinitely more informative from a qualified sex ed teacher then the pedophile priest that they put in charge of my 4th grade sex ed class at the catholic schoolLook on the bright side mate. Making me recall that horror story of yours means I won't be making dinner tonight.

You just saved me a couple of €s ;)

Look on the bright side mate. Making me recall that horror story of yours means I won't be making dinner tonight.

You just saved me a couple of €s ;)
Lol I got graduation party food to eat tonight :) lol so it has saved me nothing lol.

Even those who consider themselves gay would have thought about sex with a member of the opposite sex

That doesn't make anyone bisexual, "thinking" of things. Please, stop denying the existence of other sexual orientations, lest you find your own one denied.

His actual account name is "Ny Nordland," not "Nazi Nordland." Neo-Nordland. Yea, I simply can't guess what that implies :rolleyes:

I think it implies "new".

I think it implies "new".Nevermind. It wasn't my intention to derail the topic or start a flame. Sorry.

I am not sure that I accept the notion of more that two genders. I think the notions of a way that a man and a woman ought to behave are culturally defined rather than reality. So a man crossdressing is not evidence of third gender.... Just a man dressing as a woman and society saying that is unacceptable

A 'bloke in a dress' is not a third gender option... :rolleyes:

Funny to see that folks always mix up the concepts of Sexuality and Gender. Sexuality is psychological, although it's effected by hormones which are produced by both your Pituitary Gland and your Testes/Ovaries. The latter is the only part of your sexuality effected by your biological gender, of which there are only three; Male, Female or Androgynous.

People who buy the "Queer Theory" should make it more clear that they mean "Social Gender" which is the role forced upon someone by society's standards, based on their appearance and biological gender.

Sexuality is something completely different; the Gay/Bi/Straight division is in reality more of a spectrum, and people who are 100% straight are just as rare as people who are 100% gay. (Psychological studies have shown that the median lies somewhere between 80-90% straight, where 60% of the participants placed their preference)

Also, bisexuality in nature is common, although few species regularly practice it. For one of our closest relatives, however, it's the norm. This is Pan Paniscus better known as the Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.
"Pure" homosexuality is a rare genetic disorder, which counteracts against human instinct.
But before i get eaten alive for saying this: 99% of the people who identify themselves as "Gay" are in fact Bisexuals with a "Strong Gay Preference" Think about it for a wee sec: Societies under constant hardship show a MUCH lower prevalence rate of homosexuality. (our instincts take over, and priorities are placed upon procreation instead of preferred method of orgasm)
In Western society over the last 60 years, this isn't a problem we have to deal with, and for the same reason folks in the 70/80/90/99.9 percentile ranges generally identify themselves as "Straight", people in the 0.1/10/20/30 range usually identify themselves as "Gay".

"Pure" homosexuality is a rare genetic disorder, which counteracts against human instinct.
But before i get eaten alive for saying this: 99% of the people who identify themselves as "Gay" are in fact Bisexuals with a "Strong Gay Preference".

BS. Utter, and complete BS. I am not the least bit "bisexual," nor am I in the least bit afflicted with a "genetic disorder."

Stop insulting, pathologising and denying me and my sexual orientation, please.

I've never heard of "Queer Theory", before, but, then, I never attended high school and got my own early sex education the hard way. Still, I'd like to throw out my two bits' worth.

I think it's generally agreed upon by most psychologists that "gender" is a malleable thing and that most people are somewhere between the endpoints on the range between "male" and "female". This isn't to say that the majority of people aren't close to those endpoints, because that does, indeed, seem to be the case. There are some of us who are very close to being smack in the middle (me, for instance), and I know some people of both sexes ("sex", here, meaning biological sex and not perceived gender) who would find the idea of any form of sexual contact with someone of the same sex to be disgusting. In short, there is a "gender range" and everyone occupies a point somewhere along that line.

There's a North American Indian tribe (I think it's the Lakota tribe, but I could be wrong about it) that recognizes a multiplicity of genders based upon biological sex (male, female), perceived sex (male, female), and perceived gender (heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual). They even have different words for them. A male who perceives himself as a heterosexual female in a male body is seen as distinctly different than a gay male who is completely comfortable with his biological sex, for instance -- and you thought people in this thread were having problems with the issue of two, or possibly, three "genders".

Anyway, another issue brought up in this thread is how things might change with the acceptance of same-sex marriages, and whether or not bisexuality might become the "norm". I think this is a slippery slope argument, and most such arguments are invalid. Making something legal or for it to become socially acceptable doesn't make it more prevalent. It's not going to create more bisexuals. You either are or you aren't. What it might do is to bring more of us out of the closet and give us a bit more equality in terms of our legal rights and privileges.

BS. Utter, and complete BS. I am not the least bit "bisexual," nor am I in the least bit afflicted with a "genetic disorder."

Stop insulting, pathologising and denying me and my sexual orientation, please.

You can't possibly say that unless you get placed in a situation where you would have to procreate to ensure survival of our species. This hasn't happened in the Western world for decades (Think Russia in the 1940s or Ireland in the 1850s) By saying this you're basically denying the Theory of Evolution.

I'm not denying anyones sexuality, because unless there is some cataclysmic event that would force our instincts to kick in, there is nothing pathological about your sexual orientation. It only becomes pathological to some extent when your instincts are overridden in case of a cataclysmic event. Both you and me probably wouldn't like to see that happen. And really, it does not matter for society if you're 99.7% gay or 100.0% gay. Bottomline in both cases is opposite sex can forget about you.

Legalising gay marrige is just the latest step in mainstream society Imposing their values upon those who go ouside the norm.

my theory is sexual orientation is a biological and social regualtory mechanism. throughout history, sex has been a farily reliable common ground. and often, a way of strenghening group loyalties.
everyone starts out bi. but as your grow up, and become more capable of acting on your urges, you tend to take a greater intrest in one gender or the other, often to the point you no longer consider the alternatives. in another sense, this explains Fetishes: the pruning process cuts out the more "normal" fixations in favor of other things.

You can't possibly say that unless you get placed in a situation where you would have to procreate to ensure survival of our species. This hasn't happened in the Western world for decades (Think Russia in the 1940s or Ireland in the 1850s) By saying this you're basically denying the Theory of Evolution.

You seem to know very little about it if you think sexual orientation has anything to do with ability to procreate.

I'm not denying anyones sexuality,

You just did. You just called me a bisexual, which I am not.

because unless there is some cataclysmic event that would force our instincts to kick in, there is nothing pathological about your sexual orientation.

Yet, you just called it that. A "genetic disorder."

It only becomes pathological to some extent when your instincts are overridden in case of a cataclysmic event. Both you and me probably wouldn't like to see that happen. And really, it does not matter for society if you're 99.7% gay or 100.0% gay. Bottomline in both cases is opposite sex can forget about you.

Again: Nothing about my willingness to have a baby or not makes me any less or more homosexual. I want to have a child in the future - that has nothing to do with me being 100% homosexual. Just because I know where babies come from, and I am capable of getting a woman pregnant, doesn't mean I am in the least bit bisexual.

What makes me 100% homosexual is that I exclusively fall in love with men, and that I am exclusively sexually attracted to men. I need be neither of those towards a woman to get her pregnant.

everyone starts out bi.

Nonsense.

It was in Ancient Greece. For men, at least.

No, it wasn't. Pederasty was the "norm," if you'd call it that, but it had more to do with the subservience of women and the exertion of power.

No, it wasn't. Pederasty was the "norm," if you'd call it that, but it had more to do with the subservience of women and the exertion of power.

But men used to massage eachother, etc. in the bath houses before they were married.

everyone starts out bi.

You don't start out bi. You start out not knowing what you are. Not being attracted sexually to boys or girls.

Bisexual, homosexual, it doesn't matter, they are all fags, and in the end they will perish along with all the other sinners.

But men used to massage eachother, etc. in the bath houses before they were married.

Because you know, a massage is the same thing as sex.

I don't find other guys attractive. I don't find kids attractive. I don't find old people attractive. I don't find animals attractive.

Don't try and convince me I secretly like guys any more than I like the other catorgories.

Because you know, a massage is the same thing as sex.

Well, it went a bit beyond massaging.

Because you know, a massage is the same thing as sex.
I dont think you caught the inuendo of "Massage"

I dont think you caught the inuendo of "Massage"

No I caught it, I'm just pointing out that they're an idiot and they can use big person words like sex.

This is like discussing the merits of religion..

"Well, I think it'd be nice if we were all bisexuals, so I've decided that we are" - What the hell?

Kids, there's no evidence to support your conclusions. Very few people are bisexual. Most are straight, a few a gay & fewer still are bi. Where's the evidence your conclusions are based on?

As far as I know, actual studies of physical responses to stimuli, shows that the vast majority of people are indeed absolutely straight or gay, and only a tiny minority are bisexuals.

Gays aren't gays because the world's overpopulated or because there's no poverty or similar ill-concieved ideas. If you look at the facts, you'll find people in really damn poor societies are every bit as gay as us rich twits. You'll also see that a lot of gays in our societies of over-abundance, are actually piss poor, living on the streets & offering sex for money.

Ironically, you'll also discover that lots & lots of gay couples go to extreme lengths to have children, and makes for loving, caring & responsible parents.

Random ideas pulled out of random assholes does not constitute fact.

Finally; it's got little or nothing to do with culture either. Actual estimates of the gay populations in societies where being gay is a death sentence, shows pretty much exactly the same amount of gays as in any & all other societies - that is, some 5-8%.

But men used to massage eachother, etc. in the bath houses before they were married.

No, they didn't - not sexually as adult men. The eromenos/erastes relationships, which were pedagogical in nature and while affectionate not necessarily sexual (hence why some states used words like parastathenes instead of eromenos), were to be between an older man and a teenage boy. The eromenos was expected to become erastes upon maturity - those who remained eromenos were ostracised.

Homosexual relationships between adult men were discouraged and ridiculed.

So, to say "bisexuality" was the norm is plain old wrong. Pederasty was, and was a very complex phenomenon that had little to do with sexual orientation.

This is like discussing the merits of religion..
--snip--

Thank you, and hear, hear!

Kids, there's no evidence to support your conclusions. Very few people are bisexual. Most are straight, a few a gay & fewer still are bi. Where's the evidence your conclusions are based on?

Where's your evidence to support that? Of all the people I know, about 40% are bi, about 50% are straight, and about 10% are fully gay.


Random ideas pulled out of random assholes does not constitute fact.

Unless it's your asshole right?

Where's your evidence to support that? Of all the people I know, about 40% are bi, about 50% are straight, and about 10% are fully gay.

Of all the people I know, 80% are gay. So? Any more anecdotes you want us to dismiss?

Where's your evidence to support that? Of all the people I know, about 40% are bi, about 50% are straight, and about 10% are fully gay.


Because you know everyone, of course.

Because you know everyone, of course.

No but I know a wide range of people.

No I caught it, I'm just pointing out that they're an idiot and they can use big person words like sex.

At least I know the difference between a plural pronoun and a singular one.

At least I know the difference between a plural pronoun and a singular one.

What are you talking about? I see nothing wrong with that sentence?

What are you talking about? I see nothing wrong with that sentence?

When you said "they," were you referring to multiple people?

No but I know a wide range of people.

So, do I. And 80% of them are gay. So? That makes my anecdote better than yours?

When you said "they," were you referring to multiple people?

In case someone hasn't told you, you can use they to refer to one person. It's done all the time. I used the word "they" to show that I did not know the gender of the person I was referring to.


they pron.
1.Used to refer to the ones previously mentioned or implied.

2. Used to refer to the one previously mentioned or implied, especially as a substitute for generic he: Every person has rights under the law, but they don't always know them. .

Where's your evidence to support that? Of all the people I know, about 40% are bi, about 50% are straight, and about 10% are fully gay.Anecdotal evidence at best, and not something you can use to support claims covering the entire species.

I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia's articles on hetero, homo & bisexuality. If you still need sources after that, just ask.Unless it's your asshole right?That's right. My asshole, unlike yours, don't come up with ideas on its own. It highlights information from actual sources, such as scientific & medical studies.

In case someone hasn't told you, you can use they to refer to one person. It's done all the time. I used the word "they" to show that I did not know the gender of the person I was referring to.

It's not actually grammatically correct in written English.

You seem to know very little about it if you think sexual orientation has anything to do with ability to procreate.



You just did. You just called me a bisexual, which I am not.



Yet, you just called it that. A "genetic disorder."



Again: Nothing about my willingness to have a baby or not makes me any less or more homosexual. I want to have a child in the future - that has nothing to do with me being 100% homosexual. Just because I know where babies come from, and I am capable of getting a woman pregnant, doesn't mean I am in the least bit bisexual.

What makes me 100% homosexual is that I exclusively fall in love with men, and that I am exclusively sexually attracted to men. I need be neither of those towards a woman to get her pregnant.

And that's where misunderstandings come from.... ;)
You're looking at it from a purely psychological point of view, which is fine because sexuality is mainly perceived psycholgical, and i'm looking at it (at least in above post) from a strictly biological/genetical point of view. Psychologically speaking you're 100% gay, meaning you exclusively fall in love with the same sex.
But biologically/genetically speaking you're not, because of your ability to have sex with a member of the opposite sex (It's usually only possible to impregnate a female with a hard penis). Which means there's nothing pathological about your orientation, and you just proved my point.



Look, i'm sorry for causing any misunderstandings from my side, and i thought i'd done my best to prevent those from happening. I also understand this is a very controversial topic, at least in the United States it is, but it's not my intent to stir up shite. I'm in no way affiliated with the Religious Right, as a matter of fact, i despise them as much as i despise the followers of certain Austrian who gained power in Germany back in the 30s.

I'm a polyamorous male with a straight preference myself, and one of my best friends is a Genetics professor at the university of Nijmegen, and a girlfriend is working on her PhD in Biology. The University of Nijmegen is renowned in Europe for their Gender Studies, so i can get a lot of feedback on this subject.

I'm just asking you to not see everything as black and white as most other people do. There are 65534 shades of grey inbetween which are equally as important.

Cheers.

In case someone hasn't told you, you can use they to refer to one person. It's done all the time. I used the word "they" to show that I did not know the gender of the person I was referring to.

If thats what you wanted, use 'it'. What's "done all the time" isn't what's correct.

No I caught it, I'm just pointing out that they're an idiot and they can use big person words like sex.
Sense when is "Massage" not a big person word? I mean I can see exclusive words used by children (Such as "we we" and so on and so forth) but I have heard plenty of adults using the word massage before.

Thats a good question ..

I hope not, i hope im not bisexual .. i am 100% gay !

But according to some studes homosexuality and bisexuality are at almost the same level of population since more than 2000 years i just gess that there is just more publicity about it actually.

If thats what you wanted, use 'it'. What's "done all the time" isn't what's correct.

Use it in reference to a person? That's very degrading.

And that's where misunderstandings come from.... ;)
You're looking at it from a purely psychological point of view, which is fine because sexuality is mainly perceived psycholgical, and i'm looking at it (at least in above post) from a strictly biological/genetical point of view.

Which is a ridiculous attempt at separating and trying to put into conflict that which is not.

Psychologically speaking you're 100% gay, meaning you exclusively fall in love with the same sex.
But biologically/genetically speaking you're not, because of your ability to have sex with a member of the opposite sex (It's usually only possible to impregnate a female with a hard penis). Which means there's nothing pathological about your orientation, and you just proved my point.

Again, utter BS. There is no difference between the two. I can get my dick hard by thinking of a man, and stick it inside a woman. It's not the woman that makes it hard - it is the thought of a man. I don't need one iota of bisexuality, in any flavour, to manage that.

Not that I need to put my penis inside a woman at all to get her pregnant.

Look, i'm sorry for causing any misunderstandings from my side, and i thought i'd done my best to prevent those from happening. I also understand this is a very controversial topic, at least in the United States it is, but it's not my intent to stir up shite. I'm in no way affiliated with the Religious Right, as a matter of fact, i despise them as much as i despise the followers of certain Austrian who gained power in Germany back in the 30s.

None of this changes that you are spouting nonsense with your little "division" of "psychological" and "biological." There is no dichotomy.

I'm a polyamorous male with a straight preference myself, and one of my best friends is a Genetics professor at the university of Nijmegen, and a girlfriend is working on her PhD in Biology. The University of Nijmegen is renowned in Europe for their Gender Studies, so i can get a lot of feedback on this subject.

And I happen to know a member of the royal family. Big whoop.

I'm just asking you to not see everything as black and white as most other people do. There are 65534 shades of grey inbetween which are equally as important.

Seeing things "black and white" is exactly what you were doing.

Sense when is "Massage" not a big person word? I mean I can see exclusive words used by children (Such as "we we" and so on and so forth) but I have heard plenty of adults using the word massage before.

Besides, I wasn't actually speaking exclusively about sex. They did massage (in a sexual manner), and occasionally it escalated.

To appease all the people who will complain and suggest that that never happened, I'm just describing what was shown on a television program I watched last year.

I have a "Don't ask, Don't tell" Policy in my bedroom.

Times change.

...but first principles reign eternal.

...but first principles reign eternal.

Which is why black people are still inferior. Which is why we can't marry blacks and we still hold them as slaves. Which is why torture is still an acceptable manner of warfare. Which is why we views those not of our religion as inferior and we kill them. Which is why we still hold witch hunts.

I am a product of the American public school system (at least high school) I went to a private catholic elementary school before then.

Somehow the sex ed was infinitely more informative from a qualified sex ed teacher then the pedophile priest that they put in charge of my 4th grade sex ed class at the catholic school

There is a significant gay culture in the priesthood that church officials have not addressed adequately, however pointing to one evil as the justification to abandon the moral law and the virtue of chastity is nonsense.

We are called on to elevate ourselves to a higher level, not to associate in with the beasts in the wild.

Yuck?! :eek:

How can you not like the female body? Think of those curves...

For once I completely agree with British Stereotypes. YUM! not Yuck!
:fluffle: For saying this.

Which is why black people are still inferior. Which is why we can't marry blacks and we still hold them as slaves. Which is why torture is still an acceptable manner of warfare. Which is why we views those not of our religion as inferior and we kill them. Which is why we still hold witch hunts.

No one ever claimed those evils as first principles.

For example, that life is a holy gift from the Most High endures for ever.

There is a significant gay culture in the priesthood that church officials have not addressed adequately, however pointing to one evil as the justification to abandon the moral law and the virtue of chastity is nonsense.

We are called on to elevate ourselves to a higher level, not to associate in with the beasts in the wild.

It's your fault they're there in the first place. They know that if they're gay they'll go to hell, so they become celibate and become a priest.

BS. Utter, and complete BS. I am not the least bit "bisexual," nor am I in the least bit afflicted with a "genetic disorder."

Stop insulting, pathologising and denying me and my sexual orientation, please.

*Applauds*

It's your fault they're there in the first place. They know that if they're gay they'll go to hell, so they become celibate and become a priest.

That isn't a valid excuse for the evil they committed. What is right and wrong does not change because you claim "someone else made me do it."

You are accountable for your actions.

There is a significant gay culture in the priesthood that church officials have not addressed adequately

Query: do you know if those priests actually specifically favour young boys, or are they truly pedophile; as in liking to abuse young girls too ?
I sometimes get the impression the churches like to emphasise the boy part to create the association gay = pedophile in peoples minds.

That isn't a valid excuse for the evil they committed. What is right and wrong does not change because you claim "someone else made me do it."

You are accountable for your actions.

All I'm saying is, you are to blaim for the gay priests you have. You're right, they are accountable for whatever they do, but you (as a religion) are accountable for putting them there. If they hadn't thought they were going to hell, the never would've became priests to begin with.

Thats a good question ..

I hope not, i hope im not bisexual .. i am 100% gay !

But according to some studes homosexuality and bisexuality are at almost the same level of population since more than 2000 years i just gess that there is just more publicity about it actually.

I'm only responding because someone else "applauded."

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?

I'm only responding because someone else "applauded."

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?

He probably hasn't. And if he has, it's probably people like you that make him decide not to. I know that's the case for me anyways.

Dude i'm not really such a serious guy so i couldn't say anything here withouth saying anything sstupid
btw isn't this the bio-rifle from Unreal tournament?-->:gundge:
you know, that game?

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?

Eeeeuw.

I'm only responding because someone else "applauded."

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?
Moral law has nothing to do with orientation.
"Moral law,the law of duty as regards what is right and
wrong in the sight of God; specifically, the ten
commandments given by Moses."
Unless there is an eleventh commandment?

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?

Which of the 375 million gods or morals specifically ? There are quite a few religions, sects, sects within religions , personal belief systems and so on on this planet. Would not want to choose the wrong religion or flavour - like picking christian calvinist version x while Sikhism version Y is the true Faith.

Imagine God being the jealous type and disliking the worship of false Gods... *shudders*

and don't you people ever put colours in your [COLOR="Gray"]posts??

awesome squaky rat you've just wrote 999 posts!!

All I'm saying is, you are to blaim for the gay priests you have. You're right, they are accountable for whatever they do, but you (as a religion) are accountable for putting them there. If they hadn't thought they were going to hell, the never would've became priests to begin with.

It is their own struggle with right and wrong, but if they had perservered and decided that God is more important than human desire, they would have been vindicated in the end.

Anyhow, one of God's properties is His infinite mercy. If a priest puts true faith in Christ, obliges himself to sin no more, and forevermore follows in Christ's holy ways, he will still find a path to redemption.

This applies to anyone who has fallen astray in the past.

Which is a ridiculous attempt at separating and trying to put into conflict that which is not.



Again, utter BS. There is no difference between the two. I can get my dick hard by thinking of a man, and stick it inside a woman. It's not the woman that makes it hard - it is the thought of a man. I don't need one iota of bisexuality, in any flavour, to manage that.

Not that I need to put my penis inside a woman at all to get her pregnant.



None of this changes that you are spouting nonsense with your little "division" of "psychological" and "biological." There is no dichotomy.



And I happen to know a member of the royal family. Big whoop.



Seeing things "black and white" is exactly what you were doing.

Jeez, I just love watching sexual deviants get all defensive and hissy as they desperately try to justify themselves.

B, you are a walking promotion for eugenics. Eventually the psychological, developmental and biological DEFECTS that give rise to same-sex lifestyle choices will be identified. Parents will then be empowered to make sure that any such defects are corrected and removed, and thus to ensure that they do not beget sexually deviant offspring. Soon thereafter, homosexuals will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture" :)

It is their own struggle with right and wrong, but if they had perservered and decided that God is more important than human desire, they would have been vindicated in the end.

Anyhow, one of God's properties is His infinite mercy. If a priest puts true faith in Christ, obliges himself to sin no more, and forevermore follows in Christ's holy ways, he will still find a path to redemption.

This applies to anyone who has fallen astray in the past.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Jesus was nothing more than a Jim Jones of his day, who tricked the people to believe he was something more than human. He is dead, and has been dead for nearly 2000 years. And nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conscience and Truth
I'm only responding because someone else "applauded."

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?

Quote:
Haradwaich
He probably hasn't. And if he has, it's probably people like you that make him decide not to. I know that's the case for me anyways.

A) Not what I was applauding as you could see from the quote if you read it.

B) Its She not He

C) I often deny myself gratification. When its in my best interest, such as getting up early to go to work rather than sleeping late. I'll even sacrifice my own wants in order to help others that I think need me or whom I care about.

D) I'll refrain from commenting on your assumptions about God and what he wants because thats an argument for another thread entirely and its one I try to avoid in general as it tends to just get everyone involved angry.

Anyhow, one of God's properties is His infinite mercy.

Again, eeeeuw.

Jeez, I just love watching sexual deviants get all defensive and hissy as they desperately try to justify themselves.

B, you are a walking promotion for eugenics. Eventually the psychological, developmental and biological DEFECTS that give rise to same-sex lifestyle choices will be identified. Parents will then be empowered to make sure that any such defects are corrected and removed, and thus to ensure that they do not beget sexually deviant offspring. Soon thereafter, homosexuals will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture" :)


I have to disagree, even if they do find it, most parents, or future parents, will have accepted homosexuality by that point and choose not to change it.

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?

Hahahahaha!

I'm bisexual. I hold credence in the belief that there is a sliding scale of sexuality, with pure heteros on one side, and pure gays on the other, most people are on the extreme 10 percentiles, but I'm just closer to the middle.

However, I believe more people are in the centre than would care to admit, I'm sure there are millions of bisexuals who, feeling guilted by their desires, chose to suppress the homosexual elements of their sexuality. Eventually, we will have a situation where there is sexual liberation and we will find that bisexuality does become the (/a) norm.

Have you considered denying your own self-desires and renouncing your past behavior, in favor of a more permenant relationship with God and the moral law?

Oh, also, God is a douchebag and there is no such thing as Moral Law other that what we govern ourselves by - if it did exist I would, however, hasten to call it moral if it outlaws acts of Love.

Which of the 375 million gods or morals specifically ? There are quite a few religions, sects, sects within religions , personal belief systems and so on on this planet. Would not want to choose the wrong religion or flavour - like picking christian calvinist version x while Sikhism version Y is the true Faith.

Imagine God being the jealous type and disliking the worship of false Gods... *shudders*

There is a higher moral law, and everyone knows it. It's a question of whether they let their own personal desires and sinfulness induce them to pretend that it doesn't exist. In the end, this remains on their conscience.

The question becomes, if we truly believe in the reign of all that is good, it becomes infinitely more important to act in the ways of righteousness and justice, then to accomadate our own failings.

We all have failings, but it is our job individually to renounce evil and sin and strive to live in ways of virtue.

I have to disagree, even if they do find it, most parents, or future parents, will have accepted homosexuality by that point and choose not to change it.

Wishful thinking. Few if any parents, now or ever, will react favorably to learning that their children will become sexual deviants. One can imagine the conversations that would have to ensue: "Honey, test results are in. Little Willy is going to grow up to suck d***s. Isn't that splendid? Now we don't have to worry about those bothersome grandchildren!" "Dear, I just found out that Little Frieda is destined to be a carpet-muncher.--Wonderful news, love! Why, she could be a porn star some day, maybe like Jenna Jameson!"

In any event, individual parents will have the option to have normal children and thus help safeguard their genetic legacy. Speed the day.

There is a higher moral law, and everyone knows it. It's a question of whether they let their own personal desires and sinfulness induce them to pretend that it doesn't exist. In the end, this remains on their conscience.

The question becomes, if we truly believe in the reign of all that is good, it becomes infinitely more important to act in the ways of righteousness and justice, then to accomadate our own failings.

We all have failings, but it is our job individually to renounce evil and sin and strive to live in ways of virtue.

There is no higher moral law. For fuck's sake, get off your high horse and quit acting better than everyone else. Because to tell you the truth, you're not.

Oh, also, God is a douchebag and there is no such thing as Moral Law other that what we govern ourselves by - if it did exist I would, however, hasten to call it moral if it outlaws acts of Love.

Have you ever made an argument based on whether some action was fair or not?

Jeez, I just love watching sexual deviants get all defensive and hissy as they desperately try to justify themselves.

B, you are a walking promotion for eugenics. Eventually the psychological, developmental and biological DEFECTS that give rise to same-sex lifestyle choices will be identified. Parents will then be empowered to make sure that any such defects are corrected and removed, and thus to ensure that they do not beget sexually deviant offspring. Soon thereafter, homosexuals will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture" :)

you are a twat. (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=you+are+a+twat&btnG=Search)

There is a higher moral law, and everyone knows it. It's a question of whether they let their own personal desires and sinfulness induce them to pretend that it doesn't exist. In the end, this remains on their conscience.

The simple fact that different religions, or even different flavours like Catholicism and protestantism cannot agree on what those higher laws are seems to indicate that claim is complete and utter male cow manure. In fact, most people consider several Bible passages (like the ones stating a woman should marry her rapist or that slavery is fine or.. hell.. you know the list by now) to be foul, evil and against their conscience.

Do you have an explanation that gets rid of these problems ?

Have you ever made an argument based on whether some action was fair or not?

Yes... but it was based on my own judgement, not the hateful judgment of a series of false prophets.

I have to disagree, even if they do find it, most parents, or future parents, will have accepted homosexuality by that point and choose not to change it.

Funniest thing I've heard all day.

America has a VERY large christian population, and several significant religious (religous=99% moral) populations.

The only people I foresee accepting sin are well...sinners.

But that's no suprise.

There is no higher moral law. For fuck's sake, get off your high horse and quit acting better than everyone else. Because to tell you the truth, you're not.

I never said claimed I was an example of virtue for others to follow. Christ is an example of perfect virtue that everyone is called upon to follow. If you reject Christ, you still know what we all know: There is an inherent right and wrong embedded in the very fabric of the universe. Just as gravity pulls objects together, there is a moral law guiding humanity that forms the basis of righteousness on one hand and rebellion on the other.

The only people I foresee accepting sin are well...sinners.

Or people who interpret the holy texts differently. Or follow a different faith. Or are not so vain to think they can pass judgement in Gods name.

Funniest thing I've heard all day.

America has a VERY large christian population, and several significant religious (religous=99% moral) populations.

The only people I foresee accepting sin are well...sinners.

But that's no suprise.


Ok, but in case you haven't noticed, acceptance of homosexuality is a lot greater than it was, say 30 years ago. So, whenever these things that make us gay are discovered, it will be a while, and acceptance of homosexuality will be even greater.

Whether you choose to admit it or not, Christianity is on the decline.

There is an inherent right and wrong embedded in the very fabric of the universe. Just as gravity pulls objects together, there is a moral law guiding humanity that forms the basis of righteousness on one hand and rebellion on the other.

Show me the molecules of mercy and atoms of righteousness please.

The simple fact that different religions, or even different flavours like Catholicism and protestantism cannot agree on what those higher laws are seems to indicate that claim is complete and utter male cow manure. In fact, most people consider several Bible passages (like the ones stating a woman should marry her rapist or that slavery is fine or.. hell.. you know the list by now) to be foul, evil and against their conscience.

Do you have an explanation that gets rid of these problems ?

Well, you invoke Old Testament passages, which referred to living in the context of an older time, and retroactively apply our standards to them. (Curiously, by the very standards that Christianity itself produced.) The Old Testament is the history of the God's Chosen People, the ancient Israelites. The New Testament reveals God's broader direction for all mankind, as made manifest in the words of Christ. You will be hard-pressed to find Christ sanctioning what you quote above.

Catholics and Protestants might disagree on various bits of Church doctrine, but they share basic principles about the moral law, as do many legitimate faiths.

Yes... but it was based on my own judgement, not the hateful judgment of a series of false prophets.

If your argument is simply based on your own judgment, then why would you expect your argument to be effective on the person you are arguing with, presumably because in their judgment you are not correct.

The only purpose of making an argument based on fairness is that you are calling the other person into account with the higher moral law.

If your argument is simply based on your own judgment, then why would you expect your argument to be effective on the person you are arguing with, presumably because in their judgment you are not correct.

The only purpose of making an argument based on fairness is that you are calling the other person into account with the higher moral law.

Simple. I don't expect my argument to be effective on everyone I use it on, I have come to my conclusions, others have come to theirs, our conclusions are similar due to divergent social norms, such as the Golden Rule, which exists in most cultures not due to divine precedence, but because it makes sense.

I think I have worked out the difference between you and I. You believe that your belief is ultimate, that it is the only starting point from which truth can be made. Whereas I deplore such rationale as being a hop, skip and jump away from theocratic tyranny.

Neo-Nordland. Yea, I simply can't guess what that implies :rolleyes:

Ny Nordland = New Northland. :rolleyes:
It is really amusing...this nazism accusations coming from you, considering you are the violent one who was banned for 10 days for threatining with violence.

Ny Nordland = New Northland. :rolleyes:
It is really amusing...this nazism accusations coming from you, considering you are the violent one who was banned for 10 days for threatining with violence.

You should know that ban gloating is not only petty, it is also not allowed, so you should cut it out.

You should know that ban gloating is also not allowed, so cut it out.

god, what is allowed?

god, what is allowed?

Read the fine stickies.

Read the fine stickies.

they take too long. not worth my time.

they take too long. not worth my time.

Stop asking about the rules if you're willingly ignorant of them, then, please.

Stop asking about the rules if you're willingly ignorant of them, then, please.

Is that not why I would ask about them? Because I don't know them, thereby making me ignorant of them? Especially considering I sarcastically asked what was allowed?

Is that not why I would ask about them? Because I don't know them, thereby making me ignorant of them?

If you're unwilling to read them, don't expect anyone else to recount them for you. The mods most certainly won't, as they don't see ignorance of the rules as an excuse. So, it is in your best interests to have a look, or, you know, not interrupt threads with off-topic questions about the rules.

If you're unwilling to read them, don't expect anyone else to recount them for you. The mods most certainly won't, as they don't see ignorance of the rules as an excuse. So, it is in your best interests to have a look, or, you know, not interrupt threads with off-topic questions about the rules.

when I said "god what is allowed" that was sarcasm, me trying to not that they're are a lot of rules, many I think are rather ridiculous. I'm sorry you didn't pick up that sarcasm.

There'll just be more sexual freedoms I spose.

You should know that ban gloating is not only petty, it is also not allowed, so you should cut it out.

What is more petty is accusing other people in irrevelant threads. You should have shown the same "sensibility" in page 3.

Or maybe bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality are just terms created to arbitrarily categorize certain groups of people, like any stereotype?

And there's a difference between what you think and what you do.

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?

Yes. Next question.

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?
It is entirely possible, even likely, that human beings could be "innately" bisexual critters, in that we may not be born with any particular sexual orientation. It is theoretically possible that humans could develop a society in which there's no pressure to "pick a side," and bisexuality is allowed to become the norm.

However, I do not think it is likely that this will happen any time in the remotely near future. For one thing, such a social structure would require that people get over their boys-versus-girls idiocy, and our artificial gender roles would have to be dismantled. That's gonna take quite a while.

So.... there's infinite genders/sexualities/whatever.....
Or.... there's being Gay/Straight/Bi.....
Or.... there's Straight and deviant.

OK, so what is anyone hoping to prove here? Sexuality is evidently a highly personal thing. However much research is plumbed into the area of sexuality, I don't truely believe that everyone will subscribe to the results. It appears to be largely Gay and Bi people (or basically, non straight) who feel that they are denied their sexuality by others and who are more open to the idea of this specrum of sexuality. That is a system that works for them because it more-neatly describes their position. But what about those who are staunchly Gay? would/do they still subscribe to these ideas? Or a totally free-frolicing Bi with no sway one way or the other but just a desire to get intimate with anything they would describe as 'hot'. Would/do such people subscribe the the idea of a spectrum, or is it equally as absurd to them as it is to a straight person?

I would stress as with all my posts, that I am not positioning myself to a belief that all my statements and examples are absolute, but simply trying to take the extremes and suppose the positions held.

As I say, sexuality makes sense to individuals in different ways. I would cautiously forward the notion that the reason that non-straights are more lead by arguments that the natural human position on sexuality is not pinned firmly in the straight camp, might be because they are not only separating themselves from heterosexuality on social terms, but also trying to find justification for their desires within themselves. That perhaps part of them knows it to be....for wants of a more suitible description.....wrong and a system needs to be built around that to make it right.

I forward that suggestion because my own beliefs are that 'sexual deviance' is indeed wrong. I come from the Christian perspective here. I don't harbour hatred toward homosexuals, bis, or any others on that spectrum, but I cannot reconcile 'sexual deviance' within my faith. I tihnk that Churches that facilitate gay marriages have lost their way and that gay marriage should be undertaken entirely within a civil context and away from Church.

As explanation for my own position on the matter, I suppose all I'm saying is that I personally don't have an answer as to what makes a person anything other than heterosexual. I think the issue has been over complicated by scholars, and feel that answers have been sought that fit a desired model. I would guess there might not even really be an answer - and certainly not one that would satisfy everybody. To me, a person is a person is a person regardless of differences in their sexuality or other parts of themselves that differ from me. But that does not mean that I have to be accepting of those choices/activities/lifestyles that might be classed as sexually deviant (sorry to anyone who is offended by that term - I don't intend it as an insult but merely a descriptive from my position). From where I stand, it is far more black and white than rainbow coloured. No, I don't think we are all bisexual on any level. I do believe that choices and influences in our lives can lead us into deviance.

I'm sorry if these thoughts offend anyone and I wouldn't blame anyone if they wanted to call me.... well.... anything really. Let's face it, it is personal and it's hard not to take comments like these personally. Again, sorry if I cause offence, but I don't apologise for my opinions.



Kin Wicked

Jeez, I just love watching sexual deviants get all defensive and hissy as they desperately try to justify themselves.

B, you are a walking promotion for eugenics. Eventually the psychological, developmental and biological DEFECTS that give rise to same-sex lifestyle choices will be identified. Parents will then be empowered to make sure that any such defects are corrected and removed, and thus to ensure that they do not beget sexually deviant offspring. Soon thereafter, homosexuals will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture" :)
Please refrain from making personal attacks on players.

My public school teachers, unionized professionals who are only hired based on scientific qualifications, have unequivocally stated that there aren't 2 genders, but infinite. This is from the latest advances in Queer Theory.

My parents still think there are only 2 genders. What can I do to educate them?

Well, you can start by explaining the difference between "sex", as in whether one is male or female, and "gender", in its modern usage of "how one percieves his or her sexual orientation". If they don't get that, they won't get anything. It's a fairly simple concept.

(NB: I personally think that the modern concept of "gender", as stated above, with all such "genders" being natural and acceptable, is catering to perversion, but as a concept, it definitely makes sense.)

Just thought I'd let everyone that what little anthropology I had to take for my Soc degree did include the topic of gender studies, and there are other genders than male and female.


Gender is a societally defined institution, and there are some cultures where gender roles incude an "other" where the person is neither male nor female. This is usually attached to societies with a kind of caste system whereby members of a special caste cease to engage in role specific behavior akin to male or female. Members of this "other" gender can freely engage in activities which would otherwise be considered gender specific (to either male or female) without stigma, and this IS evidence of a third gender.


In short there more than 2 genders; they just aren't a very common occurrence.

NT

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?
No.


Well, that was easy.

Please refrain from making personal attacks on players.

Acknowledged. I trust that your admonition extends to imputations of National Socialist sympathies and the like as well?

Simple. I don't expect my argument to be effective on everyone I use it on, I have come to my conclusions, others have come to theirs, our conclusions are similar due to divergent social norms, such as the Golden Rule, which exists in most cultures not due to divine precedence, but because it makes sense.

Why does it make sense? How can you determine if something makes sense to everyone? You assume that if you remove the notion of objective truth, that somehow everyone will arrive at the same conclusions, but that is hardly the case. Without any notion of truth, people will make decisions based on what suits them.

Anyhow, I don't want to wrangle with a child. Just listen to your parents more often, they know a lot about the world that high school sophomores don't know yet.

Ny Nordland = New Northland. :rolleyes:
It is really amusing...this nazism accusations coming from you, considering you are the violent one who was banned for 10 days for threatining with violence.
Savages, are they not? :(

Anyhow, I don't want to wrangle with a child. Just listen to your parents more often, they know a lot about the world that high school sophomores don't know yet.

It's amazing how much more intelligent our parents become as we mature, no?

It's amazing how much more intelligent our parents become as we mature, no?

It's true. The teenage mind is also very susecptible to external pressures and influences, that only through time can be sorted out.

Why does it make sense? How can you determine if something makes sense to everyone? You assume that if you remove the notion of objective truth, that somehow everyone will arrive at the same conclusions, but that is hardly the case. Without any notion of truth, people will make decisions based on what suits them.

Anyhow, I don't want to wrangle with a child. Just listen to your parents more often, they know a lot about the world that high school sophomores don't know yet.

Similar things make similar sense to similar people because 1) we can all observe cause and effect (i.e. murderers usually get what's coming to them) and 2) because as members of the same species our brains operate in similar fashions.

Secondly, you make a couple of unfounded assumptions here, about my age and, more importantly, about my parents, namely, that their views will somehow be in concordance with your own. I take that as an insult and I demand an apology.

I have learned a great deal from my parents: how to not be a smug asshole for one thing. But also about morality, and how we can not expect it to be found from any source other than our own consciences, and that any source that claims to judge morality for us is unlikely to be anything other than a tyrannical busy-body.

No that's ridiculous.
Accepting and becoming are two different things.

It's amazing how much more intelligent our parents become as we mature, no?
And at times how much more naive as well.

I have learned a great deal from my parents: how to not be a smug asshole for one thing. But also about morality, and how we can not expect it to be found from any source other than our own consciences, and that any source that claims to judge morality for us is unlikely to be anything other than a tyrannical busy-body.

Oh, lol. Christ, the great Busy-body of the world.

Well, you invoke Old Testament passages, which referred to living in the context of an older time, and retroactively apply our standards to them. (Curiously, by the very standards that Christianity itself produced.) The Old Testament is the history of the God's Chosen People, the ancient Israelites. The New Testament reveals God's broader direction for all mankind, as made manifest in the words of Christ. You will be hard-pressed to find Christ sanctioning what you quote above.

Catholics and Protestants might disagree on various bits of Church doctrine, but they share basic principles about the moral law, as do many legitimate faiths.
God did a major re-write? He should really get an editor next time and work out the kinks before he takes his next project to market.

God did a major re-write? He should really get an editor next time and work out the kinks before he takes his next project to market.
No kidding even those stupid teen books (like the babysitters club or some such nonsense) manages to keep a consistency of character better then the bible.

They should have a gold edition re-release with all the bad editing redone

No kidding even those stupid teen books (like the babysitters club or some such nonsense) manages to keep a consistency of character better then the bible.

They should have a gold edition re-release with all the bad editing redone
Or God could have just wiped the board clean and started over. I mean, we wouldn't know the difference.

Or God could have just wiped the board clean and started over. I mean, we wouldn't know the difference.

No, God had a specific intention for the Old Testament, and that was to show us that we cannot merit salvation, but may only receive it through God's grace.

No, God had a specific intention for the Old Testament, and that was to show us that we cannot merit salvation, but may only receive it through God's grace.
I can see how you assume such … if it were me making such assumptions I would worry if I was not just reading what I wanted to see.

No, God had a specific intention for the Old Testament, and that was to show us that we cannot merit salvation, but may only receive it through God's grace.
Sounds like a scurry to fill in the holes in the plot.

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?

I'm not sure, because I'm not sure what a bisexual in this context is. Generally speaking, a bisexual is a person who, by nature, is attracted to members of either gender. If that's the case, then there aren't going to be any more, because to date bisexuals haven't been having a problem putting the genetic precursors for bisexuality in the next generation; neither have heterosexuals with latent recessive or dominant genes as the case may be.

It may be the case that bisexual behavior might increase, but that's very different from bisexuality.

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?

No.

you are a twat. (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=you+are+a+twat&btnG=Search)

Such a profound, thoughtful response.

Just remember: eugenics ;)

Acknowledged. I trust that your admonition extends to imputations of National Socialist sympathies and the like as well?

You think so?

Does it extent to your assertations against "Euro-wimps" and "socialists" (i.e, anyone who disagrees with you)?

Or is saying you appear to sympathize with nazis more than civilized people kind of like suggesting that the sky might be blue?

Sounds like a scurry to fill in the holes in the plot.

There are too many holes in the "plot" of the Bible to scurry and fill them all.
A person must either have faith and try to understand the deeper important meaning of the Bible, or reject it all together.
Either way, we ought to respect each others decisions in regards to faith or lack thereof.

Not all the peaple are straight,... not all the peaple have a good Q.I., not all the peaple are onest.... not all the peaple are gentle... and many more.... that's a normal situation. But it dont mean that that is nice... I can respect the dignity of all that peaple not straight and other.. but I believe that we must live serching to change what we dont feel right. The normality often is not what we believe is a good situaton for to live better, so we must be not surrendered at this "normality" regarding like legal everything is only socially co-use.

I'm not sure, because I'm not sure what a bisexual in this context is. Generally speaking, a bisexual is a person who, by nature, is attracted to members of either gender. If that's the case, then there aren't going to be any more, because to date bisexuals haven't been having a problem putting the genetic precursors for bisexuality in the next generation; neither have heterosexuals with latent recessive or dominant genes as the case may be.

It may be the case that bisexual behavior might increase, but that's very different from bisexuality.
Try taking a look at Kinsey; pure heterosexuality is the minority, bisexuality is already the norm!

I believe Kinsey said it best.

Human Sexuality is a strange thing. There is a scale of sexuality, from 0-6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Kinsey said that very rarely is anyone a 0 or 6. Most of us, whether we admit or not, fall somewhere in between. Now sure, some of us are closer to 0 or 6, but we are rarely ever completely and totally homo or hetero.

I agree with this, but this does not mean that people dont have exclusively one kind of sex. Feelings and action are different things, and everyone doesn't act on their feelings. But I'm willing to bet sometimes you have that feeling. We're just human anyway.

Try taking a look at Kinsey; pure heterosexuality is the minority, bisexuality is already the norm!
Well, again, depends on what you consider the norm to be.

Keep in mind Kinsey classified as "bisexual" any straight person who ever had fantasies or experiences with another person of the same gender. (The reverse is also so for gays having fantasies/experiences with a person of opposite gender).

A lot of human beings explore their sexuality, and sometimes figure out they're not into that kind of thing. So there are a lot of straights who explored their sexuality and are classified as "bisexual", even though they might have experimented only once and figured gay sex wasn't for them. Likewise, a lot of gays and lesbians end up having sexual experiences with the opposite gender during their teens, if only because of peer pressure and societal norms. That doesn't mean they really were attracted to the opposite gender to begin with.

Personally, I think the only one who can accurately label one's sexuality is the person in question. Labeling others is pointless. So, right now, the majority of people clearly label themselves heterosexuals, so it's not accurate to say that bisexuality is the norm.

I don't know about any of you people, but I sure as hell ain't bisexual! I'm proudly queer as a $3! A woman just doesn't do anything beyond aesthetics for me.

I don't know about any of you people, but I sure as hell ain't bisexual! I'm proudly queer as a $3! A woman just doesn't do anything beyond aesthetics for me.
*Hi-fives*

Welcome to the club. I don't buy this "we're all bisexual" notion. I'll never screw women. I'll never even think about screwing women. Sure, women are nice. They make great friends. Some are even beautiful. Aesthetically beautiful, like a forest in autumn, a cascade, a rainbow, a work of art... Not something you wanna get naked with.

You guys need to go outside and stop looking at porn.

You guys need to go outside and stop looking at porn.
Dude, don't diss my porn.

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?

Of course not. black people are accepted in society, that doesnt mean we will all become black. youre either born that way or youre not.

Not at all. I find nothing sexualy attractive about a male body. But i fine everything about the femal body attractive.....:D

Not at all. I find nothing sexualy attractive about a male body. But i fine everything about the femal body attractive.....:D

I think you protest too much. Seriously. I mean you find EVERYTHING about the female body attractive? What about the spleen?

Seems to me, what with the state of modern advertising, that we're more buy-sexual than anything else ;)

I think you protest too much. Seriously. I mean you find EVERYTHING about the female body attractive? What about the spleen?

Are you kidding? The spleen's the most edible part!

. . .I mean. . .

As same sex relationships are tolerated/accepted in the our current society. Will bisexuality become the norm?
Let me speak as a bisexual person to say that bisexuality is, in my opinion, Not something everyone has. A lot of people have a bit of it, but the grand majority of people are turned on by one thing and not the other. Bisexuality is confusing enough already without trying to tell the populace at large that they might have it.

I think you protest too much. Seriously. I mean you find EVERYTHING about the female body attractive? What about the spleen?
Don't you oppress us spleen-fetishists!

Don't you oppress us spleen-fetishists!
The spleen stores and destroys red blood cells, baby.

No, we aren't all bisexual.
Although I am.

[/end thread]