Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
1) I was educated at Berkeley Carroll in Brooklyn, NY. One of the best high schools in the nation actually. Then I went on to a little place called Yale.
Well, care to tell me what your major is? Whatever the matter seems that your education is no more advanced then intro courses.
If you must know, even though it has nothing to do with this discussion, I began college as pre-med. Then when I realized I didn't want to spend the next 15 years of my life in school, I switched to my next favorite subject, i.e. History. Then in my first semester, sophomore year, I switched to what has become my vocation, i.e. computer science, and stuck with that.
Happy?
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
2) On the books today there are laws that say sodomy is illegal. And in most cases, it's only illegal for homosexuals to engage in sodomy, generally defined as not only anal sex, but oral sex as well.
Actually, any type of non-vaginal sex is deemed in quite a few states as sodomy.
So the laws on the books say that sodomy is illegal yet seems that practice is wide spread. So much for laws being the pivotal factor in social mores. On one hand you say laws create social morals and on the other you say that there are laws that are outdated? How is it that sodomy has become a less valid offence when clearly the law is still intact? You say that laws determine social morals but yet we can see this isn't the case.
Then I should clarify my prior statement. Laws *can* affect a society for the better. They can also be detrimental. One instance of laws affecting society for the better, even against the judgement of the society at large, are the laws that gave women the right to vote. Much of the public was against it at the time. The same goes for the emancipation proclamation. Sure there were millions in the south who did not like their slaves being set free, and I'm sure there were some in the north who didn't like the idea of freed black people running wild, it was still a very progressive law that enabled our society to move one step beyond our barbaric past.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
3) 100 years ago moral, decent people believed that keeping black people as second class citizens was the right thing to do. Some people used the bible to say that it was even endorsed by god! Actually what am I saying... There are *still* people today who will point out scriptures that say that african slavery was justified by god.
During that same time, moral decent people believed that denying women the right to vote and the right to work outside the home was the 'godly' thing to do. Man was to go out and work. Woman was to stay home and bear children. Anything else was ungodly and unseemly.
In the middle east, it's immoral for women to show anything more their ankles. And even then, in some spots, that is considered sinful.
Does that mean that middle eastern society should be allowed to subjugate women in the way they do, just because that's their moral values?
Please. Morality does not necessarily equate correctness. Hitler and his crew thought it was their moral duty to eliminate jews from the face of the earth because of what the jews did to christ.
I find it funny that you keep referring to 100 years into the past to look for your injustices. This suggest that indeed you see objective differences in society and that clearly it is better at this point in time. Lets look at this a little bit harder. 100 years ago the Irish were treated as low class people why is it you suppose that society changed its view of these people? It most certainly isn't a result of any action on behalf of the government so why is it now that they are treated as anyone else is? Do you look down on women that stay at home because they believe it is the right thing to do? Do you think less of men whom believe likewise? Are these women being patristic because they are not paying taxes? Do you think that such an arrangement ought to be incouraged for the sake of the well being of the children? Clearly you think there are other arrangements. While I would not argue that they are not viable I would argue that indeed children are fare better off in an environment where their biological parents are working together to look after their own children.
Clearly over 100 years ago there wasn't the great material wealth that the market economy has brought us today and these arrangements were more a matter of survival then anything else. The same arrangement has been predominant for the entire history of mankind. That is unless you want to go into the left wing theory that before society became market based we lived in some sort of suedo communal arrangement. Indeed hundreds of thousands of years ago the family where the mother is the primary caregiver and the father a more outside role of provider was the case. Which just lends more credence to the fact that society is patriarchal out of nature rather then nurture. Women have most always been subjugated. Even today men objectify the female. Women have always been more emotional on matters and this has always been a sign of weakness. Even in the feminist ruled Sweden they have a male as a figure head.
No one made the equation that morality equates correctness. You did however say that law equate morals and no one better then you ought to know that laws don't equate correctness. The UN has no right to begin to determine what a peoples moral values should be and that is the thrust of my argument here. The debate on the matter of homosexuality being a genetic affliction or not will only be finalized with the discovery of the genes that cause the affliction. Oh the search could go on forever particularly if there are none. We don't know do we? You say you were born the way you are but there is no proof of it. Further to suggest that nurturing will not effect the outcome of a childes mentality really does not go in line with the rest of your left wing bias. You could finally articulate your cognitive dissonance here and explain that somehow society is patriarchal out of nurturing but when it comes to homosexuality you make some exception with human nature and suggest that it is a genetic predetermined destiny. Well, that is something really because most of the left wing support the gay movement has says there is no human nature and it is simply a matter of socialization theories that we turn out the way we do. I have brought this argument to you before and you fail to recognize the legitimacy of the argument.
Please explain just what human nature is to us all as it seems you have some inside track on it.
1) The reason why I "keep referring to" 100 years in the past is because that is a time that is relatively close to today, and it is easy to illustrate the black and white barbarism that the human race possessed then. There were no shades of gray.
Back then blacks were abused day in and day out, just for being black. In fact the law sanctioned it. Today blacks are pulled over more often than whites in what is called racial profiling. One is definitively evil while another is closer to a shade of gray, thus harder to debate because you can find so many "well this and that and what about something other" situations that don't exist for the abuses under Jim Crow.
2) Historically the argument can be made that the Irish were treated like shit for a *very* long time in this country. You are correct. However, the Irish were not abused daily on the same level as blacks were. The Irish were generally hated early on, like every other group that came to this country, because they were *immigrants* and no other reason. As they were "absorbed" by this society, the animosity against them began to decrease.
Witness the animosity that many people have toward mexican immigrants today as an example. There has always been a sense of "You're not welcome here!" toward immigrants, simply because they are outsiders trying to fit in.
However, I was born in this country, as were most of the other gay men and women in this country. We're citizens already. We've grown up in this culture. We *are* this culture. And yet we're ostracized because of the circumstances of our birth, our being. You can't compare us to the immigrant situation. But you can certainly compare us to other groups who grow up in this country and were historically treated as second class citizens, i.e. blacks and women.
3) I don't look down on women who stay home and are caretakers of their family. Frankly I'm pleased when anyone can be involved in the vocation of their choice. I know I am involved in my job of choice, and certainly, work doesn't feel like work when you love your job. I would wish that on anyone. It's a fantastic feeling to have.
However, the sheer fact that a woman has the *choice* to work at home, or outside the home today, is what is key to me. For centuries, women were not allowed anything *but* tending to the home and the children. That is the key difference between the situation that women find themselves in today. Frankly I get upset with some feminists, and especially men (some husbands), who look down on homemakers, or say that homemaking isn't a real job, because certainly it is.
Now, I agree that children are better off when they have two parents as opposed to one. Hell, children are better off when they are raised by their entire family. I was raised by my mother and a man who was as close to my father as anyone could get even though he wasn't my biological father, my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, my cousins, my pastor, etc etc etc. I had an *enormous* support system growing up. Biology has nothing to do with the efficacy of raising children. There are foster parents out there who simply destroy their biological counterparts in terms of raising children. If someone is loving and capable, it shouldn't matter if they are the child's biological parents or not.
Now I will grant you that in the past, human societies were very patriarchal. In almost every society we know of, women were subjugated and kept indoors to basically be baby factories and raise children. Now, some societies respected the female more than others, but in almost every society, women were kept as the "lesser" gender.
However, this can be attributed more to the hunter/gatherer aspect of our species that was pretty prevalant up until the advent of the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution, only the strongest could go out and hunt for food, wage war, kill animals for clothing, etc etc etc. And who, biologically, tended to be the strongest? Males. So I agree with you that the structure of our societies indeed grew *moreso*, not entirely, because of the demands of nature, rather than nurture. However, because of the fact that our society today is no longer hunter/gatherer, it negates the biological advantage in terms of strength, that men have over women, on average. A woman is just as capable of going off into battle today. A woman is just as capable of working a fork lift. A woman is just as capable of sitting in a board meeting and leading.
We have been moving from a physical labor society to an information society for a few centuries now, but especially in the past 100 years with the advent of the industrial revolution when physical labor was replaced by machinery, the assembly line, and today, computers. *That* is one of the main reasons why it is no longer required for us to be a patriarchal society. We have advanced to the point where we no longer have to be dominated by the needs of our biology as much as in the past. Obviously we are still very much influenced by our biology because of the fact that on an evolutionary timescale, the past few centuries have been a blip. But we are rapidly moving past the limitations of the past. It's one of the main reasons why we, as a society, have much more material wealth today than in the past. It's because 50% of the population is now allowed to work, obviously.
4) I never said that laws equate morals. I said that one of the first steps to changing a society is through its laws.
5) The fact that you equate homosexuality with an affliction already shows that no matter what comes out you're still going to be the same bigoted person you are today. You've already made up your mind.
6) I know that I was born gay the same way I know you were born straight. Actually who knows. You might be a repressed homosexual in real life. there are certainly enough examples of the worst gay bashers and homophobes actually being gay themselves and doing whatever they can to repress it, which sometimes comes out in vehemently anti-social ways such as the attitude you display sabastian.
7) Here's some food for thought sabastian. Let's say that you do indeed choose to be gay. Let's say I grant you that. That must mean that the entire world is bisexual, and that *everyone* has homosexual attractions, desires, and leanings, as well as heterosexual attractions, desires, and leanings. The difference is that most people choose to follow their heterosexual attractions and a minority choose to follow their homosexual attractions.
You cannot argue that homosexuality is something you choose and on the flip side of the coin state that heterosexuality is natural. A choice involves two options at the least. The two arguments are completely diametrical. Either homosexuals and heterosexuals choose their sexuality, which means that we're all bisexual and we made the choice to be with the opposite or the same sex, or we're born that way.
Are you really ready to admit that you're equally attracted to guys as you are to girls sabastian? I mean, I know how I feel, and I know that I'm not attracted to women, so I guess I must be a freak for not fitting into your "Choice" scenario of equal attraction to both males and females. Right?
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
4) Abortion will always have its foes. Frankly I agree with only certain kinds of abortion, such as first trimester abortion, or abortion in the second or third term only if the mother's life is in danger. I am vehemently opposed to partial-birth abortion because it is supremely barbaric, especially since it is only performed in the third trimester, when babies are most certainly capable of living outside their mother's womb, and are most certainly more than just a non-descript ball of cells.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country are against *partial-birth* abortions Sabastian. Not abortions in the first trimester.
Well finally we agree on something for the most part. But even though partial birth abortions were legal we still find them a discusting aberration don't we? I disagree with the idea that women should have total control over the pregnancy. But one always has to make some sort of concessions on these sorts of matters. I personally lost a child to abortion, a child that I wanted and the abortion happened after the first trimester. I simply did not have a say in the matter and this is wrong. The pro abortion mentality is that a woman should have a choice. I say they already have made a choice before they got pregnant to have sex with someone they would not have a child with. Personally I don't see how the child is at fault. Current laws are that a baby is not human until it is out of the womb, what kind of sick mentality makes such a claim. Abortion after the first trimester ought to be banned outright.
I believe that a baby is "human" once it is capable of living outside the womb. As far as I know, fetuses are capable of living outside the womb, albeit with the help of prenatal womb-like machinery, late in the 2nd trimester. Btw, I'm sorry that you lost a child to abortion and were not notified, given the chance, to have input on the decision. I believe you were robbed of your right to fatherhood by that act, and you have a right to be upset.
Personally, my mother told me that she contemplated abortion, and was even pressured by some family and friends to have an abortion because they felt she was too young at the time to raise a child. She was 23. Thankfully she chose to keep and raise me, but I do not begrudge her or feel in any way shape or form less loved because she contemplated it. Quite the contrary, I feel even more loved because she decided that she wanted to have and raise me. And frankly she did a damn good job of it. I have no fault with her parenting.
So I believe I have a more personal track on what I'm talking about when it comes to being on the *receiving* end of abortion sabastian. I'm not degrading the pain you feel or saying that it's any less, but considering I could have been one of the aborted, I think my stance on this matter maybe carries a little more weight. I generally don't share things such as that because they are indeed so personal, but in this case I felt that you needed to know where I'm coming from with regard to my stance. I'm not some oblivious "nose stuck in the air" high minded idealist who doesn't see the reality of what is going on.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
2) Actually, I explained the differences between pedophilia (heterosexual and homosexual) and normal homosexuality and heterosexuality. But you snipped the definition out later on in the post you made. You also linked to a site (worldnetdaily) that is a fundamentalist christian website. Please you might as well link to the christian coalition website with their sponsored surveys and studies. I'm sorry, but I would not call them particularly unbiased.
The Journal of Pediatrics most certainly is unbiased, and definitely scientific. So believe what you will. I'll stick with scientific evidence regarding pedophilia.
Again I don't think that worldnetdaily is a Christian Fundamentalist website but your bias comes shining through there doesn't it. Actually the link you provided for this thread is from some radical social gay activist web page. lol. There are all sorts of evidence regarding pedophilia. I provided a link from a doctor.
http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf Please read this and tell me what you think of it.(everyone.) I included that link in the same response but you ignore that as well.
The link that you have provided includes commentary from the US National Gay and Lesbian Task force. Ironic this is the same organization that lead the intimidation campian that actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association to declare that homosexuality was not a deviant condition but rather a normal condition. But there were all sorts of accusations doctors were compared to racists and the like in this intimidation campaign, funny how this still occurs Natoma. A small but well organized political lobby had actually succeeded in the first changing, then totally eradicating a medical diagnosis. Funny though only 58% of the American Psychiatric Association actually agreed with the charge.
The thing is the whole arrangement was a sham. Even four years later a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69% actually still believed that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation. About 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. In 1989 Dr.Joseph Nicolosi said "many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue-it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation". After the ruling all that remained to be done was change the publics discourse of the behavior of homosexual activities. There are plenty of scientific conclusions that suggest that homosexuality is not a normal condition and something that needs worked on. But todays Politically correct world does not alow for such perspectives. So much for science remaining objective as now it seems that homosexuality is some sort of untouchable absolute.
1) Worldnetdaily is most certainly a christian fundamentalist website. Ann Coulter, for example, is one of the most right wing christian fundamentalists in the world. She's the "Rush Limbaugh" of fundies on the web. Besides, if you don't think they're christian fundamentalists, you must not think Al-Jazeera has an overly islamic, anti-american slant.
2) The link for this thread was merely reporting the *news* of the United States and the UN vote, *not* trying to form some scientific study with "gay funded" participants. Big difference. If the news of the United States abstaining from this vote was on the worldnetdaily website, I wouldn't have an issue with it. That's the news.
There's a big difference between scientific studies that are commissioned by a bigoted group explicitly looking to find proof for their bigotry, and a renouned scientific journal commissioning the same study for the explicit furthering of science. One tries to be impartial. The other does not.
Frankly, I would be skeptical if I were you if I had given a link to the studies regarding homosexuality and pedophilia if it had come from the National Gay and Lesbian organization as well, because it would be in their best interests for the events of the study to come out in a certain manner.
The Journal of Pediatrics has no such interest, which is why I trust their judgement more than worldnetdaily and the doctors associated with them.
3) I agree that homosexuality can produce abnormal behavior. The incidence of suicide is more than 5 times higher among homosexual children and teens than their heterosexual counterparts. Depression, anti-social behavior, substance abuse. They are all higher among gay teens. Then again, it's not surprising considering the amount of self-loathing and resentment and hatred gay teens develop because of the society they grow up in.
Considering I grew up in a *heavily* christian family and surrounding, not to mention the society I grew up in (black community, very macho, anti-gay), I spent the better part of my teens and early 20s going through constant depression. When I was 16 I contemplated suicide and was *this* close to going through with it because I couldn't take the mental and emotional abuse anymore.
And I wasn't even out of the closet!
So you're definitely correct there, as those psychiatrists were. Homosexuality, due to societal pressures, biases, and hatreds, can most certainly induce abnormal behavior.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
3) You're right. Muslims believe it's poor behavior, unseemly even, to walk around in short skirts. It is certainly part of their religion.
Question though. Do you believe it's *right* for a country to legislate that women cannot walk around without looking like a bed sheet? Do you believe those muslim countries are *right* to force their female populations into subjugation, just because it's their religious beliefs?
Would you be for the Iraqis democratically voting in an anti-US theocratic regime in their first election? You do realize that the vast majority of Iraqis are shiite muslims who want the country to look like Iran.
So as I said earlier, just because the mob wants something doesn't mean that it's *right*.
Listen if you have a serious problem with the way Muslims treat their women you should speak out and criticize them a little harder. Instead all you do is speak out against what the US government does even though it seems you find this country considerably more just. Shame on you your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I suggest that you start rallies imiadiately to protest Muslim treatment of women today. Start picking at the subjugating Islamic religion. I don't know that these Islamic people need to be converted to our Judo Christian heritage, is that what you are suggesting? Funny that.
I'm trying to clean my own country first before I go to any others. What's the use of fighting for the rights of others in other countries when I don't even have my own rights here at home? I find no use for it, and that is why I concentrate on the home front first and foremost. Simple.
I know that those countries are not in the best of shape, but ours is certainly far from perfect. Since I live *here*, this is the place that I'm trying to change first and foremost.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
3) You know what's sad Sabastian, while you're telling your kid that "those queers" are sick in the head, you could be insulting him/her. There are gay children Sabastian! It's not like we become adults and then all of a sudden we pop out into being gay. I grew up in a deeply rooted christian family, and was heavily influenced by christianity as a child, from the age of 2.
And *still*, even with all the negativity that surrounded me from my family and church goers, I still knew when I was 12 years old that I was gay. I had never been molested, never seen any gay imagery. I had never even seen two guys kissing, or heard about it. But I knew I was sexually attracted to the other boys in my class. I didn't know what it was until I looked it up in a dictionary, and read about it in the bible. *Then* I realized what I was feeling.
So guess what. You're telling your son/daughter that "those queers" are sick in the head, and you could be doing more psychological damage to them than anyone else could, because they look up to you, love you, and trust you more than anyone else in their life.
You heard me?
I don't know if there is such a thing as "gay children" at all. Seems you have resolved the age old nature nurture debate in one foul swoop with your homosexuality is genetic argument. I don't know what else to call people in chaps on a float of a giant erect penis. They are sick in the head. There are no homosexuals in my family we all come from heterosexuals. You keep your political agenda away from my children and stop trying to high jack societal values with your junk social science.
1) So I guess my childhood and everything I went through didn't exist eh? I guess all the gay children out there growing up in the closet or out of the closet don't exist either.
2) You rail against gay people as "chaps on a float of a giant erect penis." Jesus Sabastian. Not every gay person does that! There are straight people out there who go on Jerry Springer and tell the world about how they f*cked their brother, killed their boss, aborted their child, and on top of that, they're currently sleeping with another man and they want to tell their husband about it indignantly, with the "Roooh Roooh Roooh" and "Woof Woof Woof" of the audience behind them.
Also, you *think* that there aren't any gay people in your family. With your attitude it's any wonder that they wouldn't want to come out, especially if your attitude is the prevailing attitude in your family. It's attitudes like yours that kept me in the closet to my family for so long. The funny thing is, quite a few of the homophobic people in my family turned around once they realized "one of their own" is gay. You might be surprised.
3) Gay people are biologically capable of having kids you know
. There are many gay people who have come out in their later years after raising families.
4) I pray for your children if they are gay sabastian. If you treat them and think of them the way you treat and think of other gay people, you're going to scar them more than anyone else could. And if you honestly think there's no way they could be gay, and they do turn out to be gay, you'll be in for a rude awakening. I know my mother was. We almost lost our relationship together because of it. She was smart enough in the end to realize that she'd rather have me in her life than not at all. I wasn't going to change, and I certainly wasn't going to accept any abuse from her, mentally or emotionally.
I hope you realize that as well sabastian, if they turn out to be gay. Or all you'll end up doing is push them away, and that would be truly sad. Trust me on this. I came face to face with that possibility, and it hurts.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
4) There are religious people in this world that would cut off your penis for merely *looking* at their wife. There are religious people in this world that would stone you to death for having sex outside of marriage.
They can believe whatever it is they want to believe, just as long as it does not impinge on my ability to live my life in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, as every other american has the right to.
p.s.: There are gay and lesbian christians Sabastian. Just as there are gay and lesbian muslims. Hell, there are probably gays and lesbians out there who have a stronger and deeper faith than *you* do, if you believe in god that is, and whatever god it may be.
Listen I am not a Christian. Don't even pretend to be. Your suggesting that possibly one has to be a Christian or some other religious affiliation to be opposed to the proliferation of the idea that homosexuality is normal. Your wrong.
Natoma said:
Your use of "ugly people" is idiotic. "Ugly people" don't have laws on the books saying that if they have sex with one another they are committing illegal acts. "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being killed just because they're "ugly." "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being fired because some idiot in their job suddenly finds out that they're "ugly."
Sheesh. And why did I put ugly into quotes? Because imo "ugliness," is in the eye of the beholder, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's hideousness is another person's beauty contest winner.
If you're going to make an argument, at least make one that is plausible.
Well.. this is coming from the person whom continuously make correlations between racism and homosexuality. But for the sake of argument people whom are ugly do face discrimination on a regular bases while not for the same reasons they are no less discriminated against. Oh I see it is only when you are discriminated against for what you do in bed that counts. The hypocrisy stinks here. People whom are ugly don't have the same chances of success in becoming gainfully employed. They face discrimination by members of the opposite sex. They do despite what you say get beat up and so on. But don't get me wrong here I am not out to get the government to change peoples preception of ugly people, fat people gays and lesbians etc... but you are. I am afraid that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" only solidifies my argument. Why is it that we can come to a conclusion that one woman is considerably more attractive then another? Oh it must be a socialized phenomena. Something to do with advertising and the like. That couldn't be true in the US and Canada where obesity is rampid.
Sabastian, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. One person's beauty is another person's hag. There is no room for interpretation with racism and homophobia. I'll leave the distinction at that and move on to the next.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
1) Actually quite a few differences have been found. One such difference is the size of a gland in the hypothalamus which just so happens to develop completely during pregnancy, and regulates sexuality in the human brain. Apparently it is roughly half the size in homosexual males than in heterosexual males, closer to the size of a heterosexual females. And apparently this same organ in lesbians is almost double the size of heterosexual females, closer to the size of heterosexual males. Scientists attribute this difference to a possible lack of testosterone during critical stages of development of the fetus, as well as other factors.
That is just one difference off the top of my head.
Yeah could you provide an objective link? Please no pro gay site. Also I would love to see where they have found a gene and not a "possible" reasoning. Lets find legitimate science not speculation.
Here's a site:
PBS.org
They speak of quite a few studies done on this matter. I'd consider PBS to be quite objective.
p.s.: Science is *built* upon theory sabastian. You take an assumption and then, through scientific method, qualitatively prove it, or at least get enough proof to say "yes, we believe this is correct."
Think about it. That means that Galileo's belief that the earth revolved around the sun was not legitimate science, it was speculation. Einstein's theories must not have been legitimate science, only speculation. Speculation does not automatically negate legitimacy. That's a basic truism of science.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
2) You are heterosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the opposite sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be heterosexual. You are homosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the same sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be homosexual.
My sakes man. If your heterosexual your attracted to the opposite sex .... exclusively not "predominantly". If you are "homosexual" you are attracted to the same sex exclusively not "predominantly" to suggest otherwise makes arguments that you are bisexual not homosexual or heterosexual. Besides I never made the conclusion that you must engage in sex to be anything. Rather I made a clear reference to the behavior of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
You obviously don't understand human sexuality sabastian. Many studies have been completed by scientifically objective bodies such as The Journal of Sex Research, The Journal of Clinincal Psychology, The Journal of Human Sexuality, etc etc etc, that show that human beings are for the most part not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual.
This does *not* mean that human beings are perfect bisexuals, capable of engaging with either sex in romantic/sexual manner. It simply means that the attractions are there, be they conscious or subconscious. For example, have you ever looked at a guy and said, "Hey, he's good looking," without being sexually aroused by that person or romantically aroused? I know I can look at Jennifer Lopez and appreciate her beauty even though I have no predilection to jump her bones, or even want to go out with her.
That innate human ability to appreciate attractiveness in both sexes is because of our sexuality. Current scientific numbers place exclusive homosexuality and heterosexuality as only 2% to 10% of the human population. Everyone else is somewhere in between. Our current definitions of sexuality are merely that way because they are convenient descriptors, but they are certainly flawed.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
Heterosexuals can engage in homosexual activities and *still* be heterosexual. You see it all the time in prison. Homosexuals can engage in heterosexual activities and *still* be homosexual. You see it all the time in men and women who are trying to "make" themselves straight.
The difference is quite easy to see Sabastian. Open your mind a little and stop being so goddamned bigoted. .
No this defies the biological explanation you give and you betray yourself here. No these people would clearly fall in the bisexual arena. The difference is clear. You fail to recognize that the possibility of homosexual behavior can be induced from nurturing but rather it must be a biological affliction in your case. But with others it is clear that they can be made to act differently. Yeah I would agree there are very few cases of exclusive homosexuals and this only lends credence to the possibility that indeed it is a matter of choice that you choose to be exclusively homosexual and choose to be in a group that is discriminated against. I didn't say that BTW you did. I just helped you put your foot in your mouth. While you are not free to be heterosexual it is others that are.
It doesn't defy the biological explanation I gave earlier because you can be born gay or straight and still have sex with someone of the same sex or opposite sex. If you close your eyes and receive a blow job sabastian, and you never open them, you can get off and not even realize it's a guy's mouth rather than a girls. It's the psychological/mental orientation that defines us overall.
Frankly the idea of having sex with a woman turns my stomach, but that doesn't mean that all gay men have that reaction. I'm sure the idea of having sex with a man turns your stomach sabastian, but that doesn't mean that all straight men have that reaction. You'd be surprised by the responses people would give if this society weren't so repressive of sexuality.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
Gays men and women aren't hurting anyone. They are engaging in normal sexual activity with their partner(s) in the privacy of their home, just as heterosexual couples do.
They are only hurting each other in my opinion. What I am opposed to is the assumption that what they do is as normal as what heterosexuals do. Intercourse is based on the predisposition to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot ever reproduce.
Then I guess you are opposed to old couples and young infertile couples since they have no ability to reproduce. I guess couples such as those should not engage in intercouse either.
You telling me that the only reason you have sex with your wife or girlfriend is when you want a kid? Damn. No wonder you're so pent up and frustrated and angry with the world.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
*However*, the sodomy laws on the books in most states *only* say that sodomy is illegal between *two males*, *not* between a man and a woman. That is most certainly discriminatory against gays because it applies *only* to gay men and women when heterosexual men and women most certainly engage in anal and oral sex.
lol, here we go on the sodomy laws again. Personally I think sodomy is disgusting, dangerous and damaging and don't engage in it at all. It is the proliferation of pornography that has popularized the use of sodomy. BTW have you ever been charged with sodomy? Anyhow it sounds as though you blame the law for the moral. I think it is the connection with the idea that feces is yucky and the lower intestine is not for sex but rather digestion that many think it is disgusting. But with the proliferation of the idea via porn it seems that we can see how the act can indeed be sexualized and nurtured into being a thing to do. Same goes with homosexuality eh?
1) Sodomy is defined as anal *and* oral sex in most states Sabastian. Let's get that part straight.
2) Anal sex most certainly does not occur while there is feces present anymore than vaginal sex occurs when a woman is menstruating *shudder*. It's called cleansing. Unless of course you happen to be into the uterine-tissue-and-blood-on-the-penis fetish
*puke*.
3) The mouth is also used only for speaking, eating/drinking, and breathing. What's the use of kissing then? I mean, kissing is pretty disgusting when you think about it. Our mouths are *full* of bacteria. When you swap saliva with someone else, you're also swapping old food they missed when they brushed their teeth, plaque, and a hell of a lot of germs.
Definitely disgusting when you think about it eh?
4) People that seek out particular porn generally do so because they already *have* those inner feelings. However, as you've stated, people also start off not knowing things sexually. In some cases when they see something new, it turns them on and they incorporate it in their sex life. In other cases they see something new and know they don't like it, and discard it as a sexual option.
I've watched movies with sadomasochism. I definitely am not turned on by it. I'm sure if you watched gay porn, unless you're a closet case, you wouldn't be turned on it. I don't get turned on my heterosexual porn either. Well that's not true. When the guy is hot. But seriously, straight porn is all about the women. 9 times out of 10 they have some 60yr old fat tub of lard screwing some 20 year old and it works cause all the straight men looking at the porn are looking at the women.
. But I digress.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
Who gives a shit what you think Sabastian. You could have thoughts of murder, death, and mayhem against anyone you like for all I care. You can be disgusted all you want to. But as soon as you take those hateful bigoted thoughts into action, *then* you have broken the law. This isn't Minority Report.
As I said before, I don't deal with sites that are fundamentalist christian. Just as I would not expect you to take the word of a gay site that came out with their own "statistics" and "beliefs" based on those "statistics."
Well well.. I take my thoughts into action as we speak. I never gave a link to any Christian Fundamentalist site. You however did give us a link to some radical gay activist site that is somehow more legitimate then
http://www.worldnetdaily.com . give me a break.
As I've stated before, the link that I began this thread with was merely a *news* report. It was not some scientific study or attempt to prove or disprove some scientific study. It was merely a news report.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
I'll stick with the scientific body of evidence available in the Journal of Pediatrics, a very well respected journal that almost all pediatric doctors in this country reference when dealing with pediatric care.
Drive through Sabastian. Drive through.
Heh, and the evidence I provided must be invalid? I am afraid that I will not "drive through" and I will always voice my opinions despite the law and political correctness.
As I said before, I'll stick with the scientific body of evidence available at the unbiased Journal of Pediatrics.
Sabastian said:
Stvn said:
But that same right is shared by all those around you. And if the majority of people think that we need a law to protect someone's rights, then the government makes one (of course i am simplifying this ALOT).
What if the majority don't? Steam ahead with the political agenda until they do of course. Intimidate them with words like homophobic(not really a scientific term at all.), bigot, racist and so on of course.
I'm sure the majority didn't want equal rights for blacks in the 60's, or equal rights for women in the 70's. Certainly doesn't mean the decision to give address those rights was wrong.
Sabastian said:
Stvn said:
You are also not required by law to allow your children to watch cable TV, or to view any other form of media you deem offensive.
Of course these rights of yours to seek out a different life for you and your children from the one offered by current society are guaranteed by the constitution. But that same guarentee means that you cannot tell me how to raise my children.
Well you are wrong I do have to make sure my children are educated and sense I don't have the qualifications for it I must send them to the public schools where they will learn that homosexuality is normal etc. They won't learn the down side of it they will only learn the politically correct notion.
The major downside to homosexuality is society's reaction, particularly people like you. But gay children and teens don't need schools to teach them that.
Sabastian said:
Stvn said:
So how is this different for homosexuality? Is homosexuality simply about the act? I seriously disagree with that. That is the same as saying that your marrige (or my marrige, or any other hetrosexual marrige) is just about "the act". And i would guess that you might disagree with that minimizing description of your married life.
Sex is the act. Love is something altogether different.
I don't disagree. Marriage is not about sex nor is it necessarily about love. What marriage is about traditionally is a family and the married couple looking after their own children. Today however after the onslaught of the "sexual revolution" we have a high divorce rate causing allot of deviance in the children of divorced families, impoverished single parents and the wider proliferation of simply horrible STDs that absolutely ruin peoples lives.
Uhm, people have been getting divorced for millennia. There have been impoverished single parents just as long, and there have been well off single parents too. And btw, my mom was basically a single parent in terms of my legal guardian, but I would hardly call the situation I grew up in impoverished. Way to generalize. And man, STDs have been around since the dawn of time and are not and have not been limited only to those who are single. Come on now, you can come up with something better than that can't you?
Sabastian said:
Stvn said:
I know Natoma pretty well, I have worked with him on and off for over 4 years now. I know that what i see between him and his partner is not "about the act" but a genuine affection and love for one another. Do not try to minimize that which you do not understand, you will almost always be wrong.
Some of my best frends are gay too.
I seriously doubt that Sabastian. Either you keep your opinions to yourself, you're deluding yourself, or you're outright lying. No gay person would put up with your closed minded bigotry for long anymore than any self respecting woman would put up with a male chauvinist or a black person would put up with a white supremacist.
Sabastian said:
Natoma said:
You're a sad sad man Sabastian. You really are.
What's terrible about people that go through these "orientation change" therapy sessions is that they usually end up with tremendous psychological damage that fucks them up even worse than they were before.
How do I know this to be true? Because there are studies that were done on these orientation change programs from the 60's and 70's. Back then they used electric shock among other things. Actually what am I saying. Some of these programs today use electric shock.
I can see your son or daughter now Sabastian.
"Gee dad. You think gays are disgusting, so you want to fuck me worse than society already tries to huh? Way to go. You really love me."
With the attitude you've got, you don't deserve children.
I am sad am I? More like extremely fed up with this left wing mentality that focuses on discrimination selectively. Again there are not any gay people in my family we all come from heterosexuals. Funny thing is now because of my political opposition to your political agenda I for some reason don't deserve to have children. But you deserve to have marriage in a Christian church with rights to adopt because you can't reproduce yourself. Am I right ? yeah that is what I thought..
PS: Sorry for the horribly long post.
1) As I stated before, you don't know if there are gay people in your family. If your attitude is the prevailing attitude in your family I wouldn't be surprised why no one would have come out.
2) It's not your opposition sabastian. It's the fact that you'd subject your children to psychologically damaging "therapy" in an attempt to "change" their natural sexuality. This is of course assuming that you can choose to be straight or gay, which as I stated before, means that you're willing to admit that you yourself have gay feelings but you just choose to "act" straight.
3) I couldn't be bothered to be married in a christian church or any church for that matter. I could just as easily go down to city hall. It's the *right* to marry that is deserved. The venue is of little circumstance, just as it is to heterosexual couples.
4) Infertile couples have the right to adopt. They can't reproduce. Your point?
