Gay Marriage
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: lightshow
I'm about to write a college essay about Gay Marriage. Before I start to write my paper, I wanted to do some research both sides of the topic. My problem is that my local library has all relevant books on it already checked out.
I've been looking through some websites, but a lot of them look very one sided. Does anyone know of a good reference that has a fair opinion on one or both sides of the issue (For or Against Gay Marriage)?
Thanks,
Drew
Posted by: hobbes
I'm about to write a college essay about Gay Marriage. Before I start to write my paper, I wanted to do some research both sides of the topic. My problem is that my local library has all relevant books on it already checked out.
I've been looking through some websites, but a lot of them look very one sided. Does anyone know of a good reference that has a fair opinion on one or both sides of the issue (For or Against Gay Marriage)?
Thanks,
Drew
One question you might address is why a gay marriage needs a vote to be approved.
Isn't that a basic human right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
We may vote that black men cannot marry white women and that would pass because the majority of people are prejudice. That completely violates the right of a black man and a white woman to marry whom they please.
There should never be a vote to "legalize" gay marriages, this is a persons civil right.
The sticky wicket is the term "marraige". Some think that this is defined as a union between a man and a woman, exclusively.
That is fine really.
Gay people want legally recognized unions that grant the same rights and portability as a standard "marraige", the actual word be damned.
You might research the differences between the available "civil unions" and " marraige" to see that the national and state rights granted are in no way equal.
The truth is that the religious want to make a big deal over a word- "marraige", whereas, the gays don't care what you label it, just that they get the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Posted by: scroff
Couldn't have put it better myself... imagine that... except (you would expect anything other?) that some LGBT want the word marriage because of the symbolism, if human beings have a right to marry, and they are denied that right but afforded the opportunity for "civil unions", what does that say about LGBT? That they are not as accepted as others because of their choice in partner?
You might try "Just Married: Gay Marriage and the Expansion of Human Rights (Living Out: Gay and Lesbian Autobiographies)" by Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell or "Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality" by George Chauncey.
Posted by: hobbes
I think that whatever your sexual preference, the instituition of marraige should be granted to you.
It is about a commitment of trust and love and not gender.
Some religions simply don't care about standard gender roles (unitarian church) and are more focused on the concept of commitment and are more than happy to give the term "marraige" away.
In our current society, getting politicians to vote for this way is akin to political suicide. I think the LBGT should accept the legal victory, as they know that their God sees them as married, regardless the Christian right.
Baby steps in a rather barbaric world.
Posted by: Busyman
I personally don't want to see gay marriage see the light of day.
However, it logically should not be denied for whatever reasons two men or women want to join, just like a man and woman. Seeing that I don't believe people are born gay, then I don't believe it is a deficiency or sickness. Their free will has led them to the same sex. It's their preference.
I believe that the more this is accepted the more influence it will have in the world, causing a rise in homosexuality. The same has happened with interracial relationships.
We may live in world where a huge percentage of the population is more versatile and there will be nothing considered wrong with it.
You go both ways and I'll go mine. :dry:
Posted by: hobbes
I personally don't want to see gay marriage see the light of day.
Seeing that I don't believe people are born gay, then I don't believe it is a deficiency or sickness. Their free will has led them to the same sex. It's their preference.
:
What if you are completely wrong.
Just consider that possibility.
Posted by: Busyman
What if you are completely wrong.
Just consider that possibility.
I've seen too much to know I'm right.
Some try to assign sexual preference to a "I like dick" brain matter.
If people would go out into the fucking world sometimes then they would get a better understanding of the human psyche.
I like phat ass. Where's the "I like phat ass and tities" brain matter located.
It doesn't exist. Maybe I just happen....to like it.
Some women after awhile just might be ok with a little cunnilingus from a woman. Did they all of sudden get "I like pussy" brain matter?
The one that kills me is "Well she might have just realized she was gay."
Hmm...it couldn't possibly be that she wanted to try something different.
Like the woman who all of a sudden wants to get ass-fucked.
Must be "Ass fucked" brain matter steering her that way.
Some
women want ass fucking
men don't mind being fingered in the ass by a woman but are straight :sick:
women would get their pussy ate by a woman but won't eat pussy
......the same for men :sick:
men find other men attractive but still love sexing women
......the same for women
The point is that to assign a "born with" variable to the gamut of love emotions and mere sexual preference and fetishes is pompous and agenda driven.
Imagine this being assigned for murderers. Not just mere murderers but murderers that commit certain types of murders.
Some murders can be attributed to a chemical imbalance. The type is purely free will.
Posted by: Barbarossa
There's no need to be vulgar.. :no:
The issue is intolerance. If being together makes two same-sex people happy, and they're not doing anything to harm anyone else, then what business is it of society to say that they should not be afforded the same legal rights and protections as a mixed-sex couple?
I believe that the more this is accepted the more influence it will have in the world, causing a rise in homosexuality. The same has happened with interracial relationships.
I don't see your point here, are you agains interracial relationships? Why are you against a rise in homosexuality? What sort of influences are you afraid of?
:blink:
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
Seeing that I don't believe people are born gay,
If you have never felt a sexual attraction to a man, or even an little curiosity, then you have no right to say that, as what you are saying is purely assumption with no backing from experience. If you have ever had a homosexual feeling then maybe you could make that comment, but what you are saying is no different to saying "You can't be born hetrosexual"
So by your reckoning, eveyone is born Bi - Sexual.
One question to you Busyman...... Are you better than a gay man?
On topic
Gay marriage as Hobbes said is a god given right for one human being to love another and show their love in the same way as many people want to.
To need a vote for it is to look down on anyone with a different seual preference and treat them like an animal.
It's 2004, the 21st century.
Time to forget the Victorian gospel and move upto the times.
We are not neaderthals, we are a civilised race (for the most part) who are constantly spouting about human rights and equality.
Yet when it comes to 2 human beings who have a different sexual preference to some, it's a whole different story, human rights and equality go out the window because they are
GAY!!
Gay people were the ones who brought disease to our shores and if a man is gay he automatically fancies you.
This is bollocks, the majority of STD's were introduced by hetrosexuals.
And a gay man is no different to any other man, he will be attracted to whom he wants, just like you.
There are no "Againsts" , it is simply the goverment (and many of the public, displayed earlier in this thread) treating human beings like animals.
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Rat Faced
Jonno, say what you mean, stop sitting on the fence :P
I agree however, in total.
Marriage is about the people in that relationship... no one else.
Plenty of kids are born and brought up outside of wedlock, so to say that its about that is merely to admit to having a wish to return to Victorian Values.
Many Hetro's dont want kids but still get married, or Adopt/Foster etc.
Society has adapted for the most part, it really just needs to go that final step to give equality on this issue.
Posted by: Busyman
There's no need to be vulgar.. :no:
The issue is intolerance. If being together makes two same-sex people happy, and they're not doing anything to harm anyone else, then what business is it of society to say that they should not be afforded the same legal rights and protections as a mixed-sex couple?
I don't see your point here, are you agains interracial relationships? Why are you against a rise in homosexuality? What sort of influences are you afraid of?
:blink:
Fuck.
Now that that's out of the way......
Regarding the issue of tolerance, I agree. I just personally don't agree with homosexuality. I don't personally treat gays differently whatsoever.
No I'm not against interacial relationships. I've been with a white woman on occasion. Skin color has no bearing.
I'm against a rise in homosexuality because of the influence it has on kids and their view of sexuality.
Since I believe you are not born gay then influence plays a big part with kids.
I already see it.
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
:lol: Oh dear, I feel sorry for you BM dude, you're gonna be left behind in a changing world :(
Don your Bearskin coat, grab your club and go bash an animal til it's dead, then you can have a feed :01:
And I did ask you a question :)
Are you better than a gay man?
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: hobbes
I've seen enough in my life to be 100% sure that gays are born that way. Children will not be corrupted into the "gay life".
BM, it is so easy using your style, it prevents the need for any sort of rational discussion.
It is common sense, case closed. Neat as a pin and no energy wasted.
Oh, I forgot, "Fuck"
Posted by: vidcc
IHowever, it logically should not be denied for whatever reasons two men or women want to join, just like a man and woman. Seeing that I don't believe people are born gay, then I don't believe it is a deficiency or sickness. Their free will has led them to the same sex. It's their preference.
:dry:
not going to rehash the born/ choice debate....i disagree with your "logic"..period... but one thing.... why would it be thought of as a deficiency or sickness anyway ?..... oh yes because you don't like it :rolleyes: ... i just see it as different
Posted by: manker
I'd be quite interested in Busyman's views on what makes a person gay.
Mom dressing their baby boy in pink? Girls playing with firetrucks, boys with Barbie? Panties too tight on lil Suzanna? Not enough porridge but too many Cheerios?
What?
Posted by: Busyman
:lol: Oh dear, I feel sorry for you BM dude, you're gonna be left behind in a changing world :(
Don your Bearskin coat, grab your club and go bash an animal til it's dead, then you can have a feed :01:
And I did ask you a question :)
Are you better than a gay man?
Jonno :cool:
Don't get it twisted. I don't walk down the street afraid or anything when I see a gay person. No need to get treehugging PETA on me.
I just realized you are putting me in with some bullshit gtoup.
Nice going. :lol: :lol:
This is not something I'm fighting against and protesting and what not. It's just my view.
Oh I forgot to answer your question...........Uh no.
Posted by: Busyman
not going to rehash the born/ choice debate....i disagree with your "logic"..period... but one thing.... why would it be thought of as a deficiency or sickness anyway ?..... oh yes because you don't like it :rolleyes: ... i just see it as different
I never said I saw it as a sickness. :blink: Just the opposite actually.
It has been batted around in certain circles that since gays have been pushing this "born with" belief that some gay groups don't like the connotation because it would be seen as a sickness that could be "fixed".
Posted by: Busyman
I'd be quite interested in Busyman's views on what makes a person gay.
Mom dressing their baby boy in pink? Girls playing with firetrucks, boys with Barbie? Panties too tight on lil Suzanna? Not enough porridge but too many Cheerios?
What?
What makes one's favorite color blue?
You could have blue around you all the time. Your family could like blue. Your friends could like blue.
But alas, you might like ORANGE.
:frusty:
I guess it's the "I like ORANGE" brain matter. :lol: :lol:
I might take my boy out for football, had two other sons in football, and played football myself...yet he doesn't like it. He wants to play cricket. :sick:
I understand where you all are coming from regarding gay marriage. I've already said that from a logical standpoint it shouldn't be denied.
Regarding what makes a person gay, all of your logic is pretty out the window.
I have given real life situations for my logic. All I get is, "They are born with it." :dry:
Great, we are at an impasse.
By the way manker, how a person dresses and talks is cultural and environmental. A gay male wanting to wear a baby boy blue dress wasn't born wanting that dress. He simply preferred it. It's emulation.
There are some men that
want a sex change
want to dress in women's clothes but not change sexes
want to dress like a straight man
but alas, the fact he likes dick trumps all of that.
Puh-leaze. :dry:
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
Why don't you just admit you're homophobic? :rolleyes:
Nice total avoidance of everything I've said btw ;)
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: manker
What makes one's favorite color blue?
You could have blue around you all the time. Your family could like blue. Your friends could like blue.
But alas, you might like ORANGE.
:frusty:
I guess it's the "I like ORANGE" brain matter. :lol: :lol:
I might take my boy out for football, had two other sons in football, and played football myself...yet he doesn't like it. He wants to play cricket. :sick:
I understand where you all are coming from regarding gay marriage. I've already said that from a logical standpoint it shouldn't be denied.
Regarding what makes a person gay, all of your logic is pretty out the window.
I have given real life situations for my logic. All I get is, "They are born with it." :dry:
Great, we are at an impasse.
By the way manker, how a person dresses and talks is cultural and environmental. A gay male wanting to wear a baby boy blue dress wasn't born wanting that dress. He simply preferred it. It's emulation.
There are some men that
want a sex change
want to dress in women's clothes but not change sexes
want to dress like a straight man
but alas, the fact he likes dick trumps all of that.
Puh-leaze. :dry:
That's a long winded way of saying 'I've no idea what makes a person gay'
Yet my logic is 'out of the window' and your 'I've no idea, mank' statement is based on real life situation logic. Quality.
I know this is a rehash of an old argument, I've no real desire to go back down that road but I did wonder if your logic had improved since the last time.
Nope :D
Posted by: vidcc
Regarding what makes a person gay, all of your logic is pretty out the window.
I have given real life situations for my logic. All I get is, "They are born with it." :dry:
we have given reason after reason why we base our opinion on it..using "life logic" ...not just "they are born with it"... Just because we find it futile to repeat the same things over and over which you disagree with doesn't mean we have no basis for why we hold to this theory.
it's all just opinion on both sides...no proof. So why not just accept that people are different and work to stop discrimination based on that difference. how they became different in irrelevent.
Posted by: Busyman
Why don't you just admit you're homophobic? :rolleyes:
Nice total avoidance of everything I've said btw ;)
Jonno :cool:
Why cause I don't agree with you?
I wear a mink coat?
I cut down trees and never replant?
Who avoided anything you said?
Did read the ..............uh no?
Posted by: Busyman
That's a long winded way of saying 'I've no idea what makes a person gay'
Yet my logic is 'out of the window' and your 'I've no idea, mank' statement is based on real life situation logic. Quality.
I know this is a rehash of an old argument, I've no real desire to go back down that road but I did wonder if your logic had improved since the last time.
Nope :D
Let me clarify then.
I believe how one feels about the same sex or the opposite sex is matter of preference just like your preference of color. The commision of the sexual act is choice.
I do not believe there is a chemical or corpus colossumwhateverthefuck that regulates your preference.
I don't believe every decision is uh....scientificalized. :dry:
You like who you like.
Posted by: Busyman
we have given reason after reason why we base our opinion on it..using "life logic" ...not just "they are born with it"... Just because we find it futile to repeat the same things over and over which you disagree with doesn't mean we have no basis for why we hold to this theory.
it's all just opinion on both sides...no proof. So why not just accept that people are different and work to stop discrimination based on that difference. how they became different in irrelevent.
Agreed, I can't prove why someone likes blue either or why I like phat ass and tits. I just do.
No one has "given reason after reason" ever that hasn't easily been refuted.
I've heard the:
-he grew up in heterosexual household
-why would they do it knowing they would go through this shit
-he tried to go straight because of his religion but just couldn't (in instances committed suicide)
-2 dads raised a child and they didn't grow up gay
I got it, I got it.
All of it easily refuted.
Posted by: manker
Let me clarify then.
I believe how one feels about the same sex or the opposite sex is matter of preference just like your preference of color. The commision of the sexual act is choice.
I do not believe there is a chemical or corpus colossumwhateverthefuck that regulates your preference.
I don't believe every decision is uh....scientificalized. :dry:
You like who you like.
Well, I agree. We like who we like.
A person looks at another and instantly thinks 'that is aesthetically pleasing.'
A person looks at a colour and instantly thinks 'that is aesthetically pleasing.'
Same kinda thing.
I don't know where the choice comes into it tho' - My g/f has a lemon coloured car, I really do not like it. Nothing will make me like it. She also has a bit of a thing for this bloke in Eastenders. Nothing will make me like him, either.
They are different in that the sexual response is a lot more complex but for me having a choice about how I feel has never happened, I either feel something - or I don't. I can't prefer to feel a particular emotion, I just feel it.
It's all down to chemicals.
I expect the next round will come down to real life examples, since I'm here I'll get it out of the way :rolleyes:
Homosexuality used to be punishable by death or imprisonment up until fairly recently. With this being the case why did those folk who lived in yesteryear decide to become gay and risk death by poker impaling.
Answer: They couldn't help it, they were just born that way. They did not choose to become gay.
Case closed.
Posted by: Busyman
Well, I agree. We like who we like.
A person looks at another and instantly thinks 'that it is aesthetically pleasing.'
A person looks at a colour and instantly thinks 'that it is aesthetically pleasing.'
Same kinda thing.
I don't know where the choice comes into it tho' - My g/f has a lemon coloured car, I really do not like it. Nothing will make me like it. She also has a bit of a thing for this bloke in Eastenders. Nothing will make me like him, either.
They are different in that the sexual response is a lot more complex but for me having a choice about how I feel has never happened, I either feel something - or I don't. I can't prefer to feel a particular emotion, I just feel it.
It's all down to chemicals.
I expect the next round will come down to real life examples, since I'm here I'll get it out of the way :rolleyes:
Homosexuality used to be punishable by death or inprisonment up until fairly recently. With this being the case why did those folk who lived in yesteryear decide to become gay and risk death by poker impaling.
Answer: They couldn't help it, they were just born that way. They did not choose to become gay.
Case closed.
Already explained the "choice" part. Maybe you read it, maybe you didn't.
The sexual act itself is a choice the way one feels is not.
Glad we agree.
I guess because men wanted to slam other men even with a death penalty they then were born gay? Hey great explanation thanks for sharing.
Posted by: manker
Great post, JP.
I think along similar lines, I guess, but while rebuking BM's concious choice theory I did push the genetic slant, a lot. It is a predisposition to be attracted to one or both sexes that we're born with, I think.
That can either be encouraged or muted but it is there and it is innate. The person cannot change his or her sexuality on a whim.
Posted by: manker
Already explained the "choice" part. Maybe you read it, maybe you didn't.
The sexual act itself is a choice the way one feels is not.
Glad we agree.
I guess because men wanted to slam other men even with a death penalty they then were born gay? Hey great explanation thanks for sharing.Jusrt because you explained it, doesn't make it so.
The fact that the men knew the death penalty was hanging over them if they commited acts of homosexuality, yet they still did it proves there isn't any kind of concious choice involved in being attracted to someone.
Ye Olde guy: 'Hmm what a choice I have before me, a man and a poker up my arse til I die, or a woman and social acceptance'
If one could choose one's sexual preference then no-one would have got executed for homosexuality.
Do you understand now?
Posted by: Busyman
I genuinely don't think it's a yes / no thing. I think we are all born somewhere on a sliding scale. Environmental factors will then have an influence on how we end up.
In short, I believe it is a mixture of both. We are a product of both our genes and our environment.
The same goes for things like apparent intelligence. Someone may be born with a great potential for learning. However if it is not nurtured and encouraged then it will come to naught. Someone else may have less in the way of raw ability, however it may be developed to it's fullest. Which will be perceived as being the cleverer. I would venture the one who demonstrates it, even if that is not the case.
The same is true for physical strength. Someone may be genetically predisposed to being physically strong. However if they are not fed properly, or do not train then they will not reach that potential.
I believe that much of the human condition can be viewed in this way. Our potential allied to our environment. In my view sexuality falls within that category.
I agree with you as well except that with sexuality it involves sentient emotive responses. Likes and dislikes
Physical strength does not involve this.
Learning disability can be directly attributed to brain dysfunction. However, the way one learns is forever changing. There are those that are considered disabled yet they just learn differently.
There too many instances of the sexuality scale to lump it into two categories. Or should I say 3.
Gay, Bisexual, Straight. That's it case closed................bullshit.
The reason real life examples are cited is because they all don't fit in just the 3 categories.
To attribute "I like females", there's this a preponderance of this chemical, but when switching over to "I like males", there's a preponderance of this different chemical, is utterly unproven and untrue.
There's a rise of the same chemical when pussy gets wet for woman or a man.
Posted by: Busyman
Jusrt because you explained it, doesn't make it so.
The fact that the men knew the death penalty was hanging over them if they commited acts of homosexuality, yet they still did it proves there isn't any kind of concious choice involved in being attracted to someone.
Ye Olde guy: 'Hmm what a choice I have before me, a man and a poker up my arse til I die, or a woman and social acceptance'
If one could choose one's sexual preference then no-one would have got executed for homosexuality.
Do you understand now?
No it's you who doesn't understand.
Me explaining it has nothing to do with "making it so".
Again you have not read squat.
I never said one could choose there sexuality on a whim so there goes your argument.
I really don't know why you keep pushing this.
That's like saying I can stop loving one woman and love another "on a whim".
I don't want to.
To be clear on something......
Why couldn't those who risked homosexual acts with a death consequence could have been also been horny as well as gay. The act is a choice. The feeling is not.
What about those heteros who risked death to be with a certain woman that was forbidden.
What about the white woman who was so in love with this black man and risked family relationships to be with him.
I guess it was black man chemical. :dry:
Posted by: Rat Faced
http://www.spotonentertainment.co.uk/jean_l5.jpg
Posted by: manker
I really don't know why you keep pushing this.
OK. I keep on about this as I cannot understand why you think that being gay, or any sexuality, is a sentient choice.
sexuality it involves sentient emotive responses. Likes and dislikes
I disagree with the above. It is clearly wrong. However, you later contradict yourself:
The act is a choice. The feeling is not.
Correct, we can all decide whether to have sex or not have sex.
What we can't control is our desire (feeling) to have sex and our desire (feeling) to have a sexually attractive partner.
We have reached agreement.
Posted by: vidcc
Originally Posted by Busyman
The act is a choice. The feeling is not.
just for my clarification of your view on this.
do you consider someone that has these feelings but chose not to act on them as being "gay"
I ask this because to me someone is "gay" because of their feelings/emotions/sexual turn ons....... not just because they have sex with the same sex.
if this is the case then people are born gay, but choose not to act on it...?????
Posted by: dwightfry
Okay, there will definitly be people choosing to be gay. No doubt about it. But to say that no one is born with it is just absurd. It seems to me that to love the opposite sex is a basic instinct. In the end, we are just animals. Are we not? You can talk to any farmer with cattle or sheep, or any zookeeper with monkeys or penguins....homosexual relationships occur. Animals have nothing to prove. It doesn't make sense that we lost that same instinct for homosexuality. So...some are born gay, but it is their choice to act on it. Why would the act be wrong? It's based on basic instinct...and you can't change basic instinct, you can only cover it up.
If it isn't basic instinct then it's the corpus collosum or some shit. They are still born with it. And once again, it doesn't make sense that we would be protected from that brain defect. So...some could be born gay for this reason as well, or a mixture of both. It comes down to their choice to act on it. Why would the act be wrong? What makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have homosexual marriages. The act is completely natural, I.E. occurs in nature. Well, Murder occurs in nature, and stealing, and poop flinging...these are all bad things that we outlaw as well. What seperates homosexuality from those or any other example you give is the fact that everyone is consenting, and causes no harm to any participants. Any example of harm you could give would just be a technicality that occurs in heterosexual relationships as well. Aids fall in this catagory. You can get aids from the oppisite sex just as easily. You know what kind of situations that match this same description? Interracial relationships, couples of differing religion...etc. So the only reason to discriminate is your own preference. Well, your preference cannot be the reason for discrimination. What that leads to is slavery, hitler, lower wages for women...etc.
Posted by: Mr.Joshua
Humans are not the only homosexual animal.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html#main
It's a matter of genetics.
There's nothing unnatural abaount it.
But are we all predisposed, that is the real question.
Why would anyone want to prevent gay marriage?
Posted by: peat moss
I would n't need a piece of paper to tell me who I can love! But sadly some do.
Posted by: vidcc
I would n't need a piece of paper to tell me who I can love! But sadly some do.
It's not the piece of paper...it's the rights that go with that paper
Posted by: Arm
I had always wondered what it would be like to read a post made by someone who had recently taken acid.
Now I know.
:lol:
Posted by: Spam-King
imagine if every one was gay, humans would be extinced.
nough said
also why do gays want to marry, it dont make sense.
Its not like marriage is the ultimate contract.
Posted by: clocker
Why am I even talking to you. One wonders.
Posted by: Arm
also why do gays want to marry, it dont make sense.
Its not like marriage is the ultimate contract.
*It's because of legal reasons. The conservative assholes** cant stop gay people from being together but they can stop them from getting the same legal rights of a straight couple. Mostly a game of controlling peoples lives. They can claim to be protecting family values all they want but we all know they arent.
* entirely the opinion of Armus Aran and does not reflect the view of everyone :01:
** "
Posted by: Everose
*It's because of legal reasons. The conservative assholes** cant stop gay people from being together but they can stop them from getting the same legal rights of a straight couple. Mostly a game of controlling peoples lives. They can claim to be protecting family values all they want but we all know they arent.
* entirely the opinion of Armus Aran and does not reflect the view of everyone :01:
** "
I can understand your views. I know just as many Republicans that are gay as I do Democrats. I know just as many Republicans that support gay marriage as Democrats. The far right conservatives I ignore, just as I do the far left as neither are very indicative of what America thinks. imho and many other Americans.
Posted by: dwightfry
imagine if every one was gay, humans would be extinced.
nough said
also why do gays want to marry, it dont make sense.
Its not like marriage is the ultimate contract.
that's a whole lotta gay right there.
imagine if everyone was going through menopause...humans would be extincted.
nough said
imagine if everyone was on birth control...humans would be extincted.
nough said
Posted by: manker
The point is moot.
As JP pointed out, even if everyone was gay there are other ways of procreating than sexually.
The human race would not become extinct
Posted by: lightshow
Okay, off topic from how people become/are born gay, I have this question:
I'm supporting Gay Marriage. Thus not supporting them passing a law saying Gays can not marry.
In my essay I'm trying to work on my thesis and main points. So far I have this::
In the ever changing country that we call the United States of America, politics change with a drop of a hat. Today, the issue of gay marriage has been thrust into the spotlight. The question is whether or not marriage between two of the same sex people should be allowed. Marriage has both symbolic meaning and legal benefits for those involved. Symbolically, one interpretation is that it represents two heterosexual people being connected in a society and forming a family unit. Legally, the government provides numerous tax breaks and incentives for two heterosexual people to be involved in marriage. The history of marriage in the United States of America shows that limitations have always been enacted and the law has changed over time for the meaning of marriage. Today, it is being decided on whether or not to extend the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. [Need A Strong Thesis Here]
Throughout our history as a growing country, the laws about marriage have changed. In the early part of the nineteenth century, marriage was defined as legally sanctified contract of mutual support between a man and one or more women, all being non-African-American consenting adults. At that time, African Americans were not allowed to be married. They were not, at the time, looked upon as equals.
I want to get more points on why they should not pass the law. My first point is that marriage has continually been widened to include more and more people/races etc. I'm going to continue on to when they allowed inter-racial marriage.
From there I'm trying to think of some more points. What are some other good points to include.
I want my paper to be based on facutal information, and this is not a persuasive paper. I'm trying to write without using any fallicies/wrong statements.
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
Life finds a way :01:
What a stupid arguement anyway, not everyone is gay so it's irrelavent :rolleyes:
It's simple, gay straight, black, white, whatever walk of life you're in, unless you stick to the "Live, marry, have 2.4 kids get a mortgae, have a family car etc you will never be accepted in our society, people just wont allow it.
Trouble is, not everyone gets that chance, why would anyone want to stop 2 people exchanging vows and being legally joined by marriage, I still don't see any argument at all against it apart from prejudice coments and ideas.
Human Rights. Only apply's to those who follow the norm.
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Busyman
Life finds a way :01:
What a stupid arguement anyway, not everyone is gay so it's irrelavent :rolleyes:
It's rising in number.
It's simple, gay straight, black, white, whatever walk of life you're in, unless you stick to the "Live, marry, have 2.4 kids get a mortgae, have a family car etc you will never be accepted in our society, people just wont allow it.
Trouble is, not everyone gets that chance, why would anyone want to stop 2 people exchanging vows and being legally joined by marriage, I still don't see any argument at all against it apart from prejudice coments and ideas.
If I really believed that people were born gay I'd be okay with it. I don't, so my acceptance level doesn't go that far to say that I'm for gay marriage. From a pure logical and legal standpoint though I believe gay marriage can't be denied whether they were born that way or not. They love who they want to love.
Human Rights. Only apply's to those who follow the norm.
Jonno :cool:
sidenote:
Until folks find proof that gays are born that way then in my mind it is some made up shit since no one has a shred of even real life examples to say otherwise. Again since neither side has proof, I look to real examples that don't point to "well she was born that way."
Ever heard the saying "women are halfway gay already"?
Did you know women are more prone to homosexual behavior then men?
I think they born that way. It's more accepted in this man's world. Most pornographic material has man-on-woman and woman-on-woman action. I guess they were born that way.
Sounds to me someone turned them on to it and they liked it. (or at least enough to make money from it)
I think gay marriage would make homosexual behavior more mainstream. We will have a more versatile nation. Imagine a time when two women get divorced and one remarries to a man. Divorce court with two dudes. When Johnny says that's my two dads then squinches up their face. It's considered normal. When the birds and bees are explained it gets a little bit more lengthy in explanation. :)
Many psychiatrists say that children have had some homosexual feelings at some point in life. Most choose their path at that time for whatever reason. In our more accepting world it would be more likely for them to go along with those feelings and in essence choose that path.
Some will stick anything with a hole. It's that simple. Kinky yes. Born that way, no. :dry:
Posted by: hobbes
The entire scientific community fully considers that gays are born that way, exceptions do occur.
Don't confuse sexual gratification with sexual orientation.
If you are aroused by a man, you are gay. If you are aroused by a woman you are straight.
People don't consider masturbation an indication that one is attracted to self (which would mean you are gay) just a means to an end.
Case closed.
As far as number rising.
Well so is the population on the Earth. Also, where do we get these numbers? Oh, right, people have to admit to it. We are probably now learning how many have always been gay, as they no longer fear for their lives by speaking out.
Posted by: Busyman
The entire scientific community fully considers that gays are born that way.
Case closed.
I've also seen "the scientific community" prove that gays are born that way and have it later refuted. Rather easily also.
I also recall after this instance of proof, many jumping on the bandwagon.
It seems after the bandwagon broke those same folk are still trying to keep it going.
Are fellas in jail gay because they fuck men?
Oh I just saw you edit...Those fellas must be gratifying themselves in another guy but er...uh..weren't aroused. :blink:
Posted by: hobbes
I've also seen "the scientific community" prove that gays are born that way and have it later refuted. Rather easily also.
I also recall after this instance of proof, many jumping on the bandwagon.
It seems after the bandwagon broke those same folk are still trying to keep it going.
Are fellas in jail gay because they fuck men?
Nope. Not gay at all.
Rape is about power, not sexuality.
Edit in prior post.
Posted by: Busyman
Nope. Not gay at all.
Rape is about power, not sexuality.
Edit in prior post.
Oh I gotcha. In all those instances the fellas aren't trying get their rocks off. They are just showing whose boss.
You know nothing of jail my man...which is a good thing.
Keeping reading those books and stuff and what not.
There are fellas released that feel they can't even please a woman when they get out but they want to.
Posted by: hobbes
Oh I gotcha. In all those instances the fellas aren't trying get their rocks off. They are just showing whose boss.
You know nothing of jail my man...which is a good thing.
Keeping reading those books and stuff and what not.
There are fellas released that feel they can't even please a woman when they get out but they want to.
I don't need to know jail. I'm sure people come out all messed up, no doubt.
Reading books, I am more likely to be writing them ;)
I know that the gender that arouses you determines your sexual orientation.
If guys and girls turn you on, you might be bisexual.
I am aroused by women and I never voted on that. Men would be a lot more convenient, but since they repulse me, that is not an option.
I've been attracted to women since before I even knew what sex was.
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
No BM, what is happening here is we all know you have a problem with this, you're the one denying it, so it's upto YOU to prove us wrong :)
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Busyman
I don't need to know jail. I'm sure people come out all messed up, no doubt.
Reading books, I am more likely to be writing them ;)
Uh yea, great. I'm impressed as I think we all are. :ohmy:
I know that the gender that arouses you determines your sexual orientation.
If guys and girls turn you on, you might be bisexual.
[/COLOR]And yes, if them sexual chemical is all the way on left of the scale it's homosexual, to the right is straight, and in the middle, bisexual. [/COLOR]
I am aroused by women and I never voted on that. Men would be a lot more convenient, but since they repulse me, that is not an option.
You like what you like.
I've been attracted to women since before I even knew what sex was.
There was a time when you weren't though. ;)
You edit alot.
Posted by: hobbes
Sorry to be anecdotal, but there is this very public lady named Phyllis Schlafly who argued that women should be in the home and the men should work.
She is deeply Christian and opposes homosexuality as much as a human can.
Her son is gay, go figure, despite growing up in an environment which taught that homosexuality was wrong and sinful.
Posted by: hobbes
You edit alot.
"You enjoy what you enjoy"
You're right BM, that is because that is how you were born.
The time that I was not attracted to females was the time before I knew what the word meant.
You might notice that you have not addressed the subject in the least, just distracted us with quips.
Posted by: Busyman
No BM, what is happening here is we all know you have a problem with this, you're the one denying it, so it's upto YOU to prove us wrong :)
Jonno :cool:
Sorry, no can do.
You are asking me to prove mere sexual preferences and fetishes are preordained.
You are asking me to prove that that female that I finally get to eat another's twat was not born gay...oh my bad bisexual since she still fucks me (and eats twat). How convenient.
In all those instances the female had the preponderance of bisexual chemical.
Guess what I'm more likely to be right than you so..
You win..I guess.
Posted by: Busyman
"You enjoy what you enjoy"
You're right BM, that is because that is how you were born.
The time that I was not attracted to females was the time before I knew what the word meant.
You might notice that you have not addressed the subject in the least, just distracted us with quips.
Not quite. I have adressed the "marriage" subject more than once.
Maybe you could try that readin' stuff that goes on.
What you enjoy was up for grabs and always has been.
"You enjoy what you enjoy" is a rather broad statement to apply to your point. It doesn't even fit your point actually since it is easily refuted as you apply it.
Posted by: Busyman
Sorry to be anecdotal, but there is this very public lady named Phyllis Schlafly who argued that women should be in the home and the men should work.
She is deeply Christian and opposes homosexuality as much as a human can.
Her son is gay, go figure, despite growing up in an environment which taught that homosexuality was wrong and sinful.
Point please...
Let me know when you have it, then....relay it to me.
Posted by: hobbes
Not quite. I have adressed the "marriage" subject more than once.
Maybe you could try that readin' stuff that goes on.
What you enjoy was up for grabs and always has been.
"You enjoy what you enjoy" is a rather broad statement to apply to your point. It doesn't even fit your point actually since it easily refuted as you apply it.
You haven't refuted anything, you have just offered your opinion, which stands in stark contrast to the opinion of the scientific community.
Why?
Obvious, you are a bisexual that keeps expecting the rest of us to admit that we will take what is available.
Sorry, not the case.
Posted by: hobbes
Point please...
Let me know when you have it, then....relay it to me.
He has become what he has been told never to become.
Why?
He cannot defy his genetics.
You needed me to explain that?
Posted by: hobbes
The bottom line is that you will cling to your opinion, no matter what is offered.
Busyman logic trumps the world, discussion is pointless.
Posted by: Busyman
You haven't refuted anything, you have just offered your opinion, which stands in stark contrast to the opinion of the scientific community.
Why?
Obvious, you are a bisexual that keeps expecting the rest of us to admit that we will take what is available.
Sorry, not the case.
"You enjoy what you enjoy" is refuted easily as you try to apply it to "you enjoy what enjoy because you were born that way."
Not need to go further. It was an idiotic inference.
The scientific community has been wrong already. When are they going to come up with this dangblasted gay chemical? :blink:
Oh and eat shit, cock bastard. :D
Posted by: manker
Obvious, you are a bisexual that keeps expecting the rest of us to admit that we will take what is available.
I think this has become glaringly obvious the more that the topic is discussed.
Posted by: Busyman
He has become what he has been told never to become.
Why?
He cannot defy his genetics.
You needed me to explain that?
I told my boy to like football and we are a football family. Well......he doesn't like it.
Too easy.
I've heard it all before.
Scienticalize the non-football chemical.
Posted by: Busyman
I think this has become glaringly obvious the more that the topic is discussed.
Your a bitch, wanker.
I think that's obvious. :D
Posted by: Busyman
The bottom line is that you will cling to your opinion, no matter what is offered.
Busyman logic trumps the world, discussion is pointless.
What's funny is nothing else has been offered except
"they are born gay, case closed"
You are a riot. :dry:
Posted by: hobbes
Ok boys, have a good night. Good chat.
Posted by: manker
Your a bitch, wanker.
I think that's obvious. :DYeah, yeah.
I'm half serious. What other explanation is there for you refusing to see what everyone else in the scientific world takes as a given.
At some points in this thread I've actually laughed out loud - the bit where you say that because there is a lot of lesbian porn means that women can be 'turned' easier than men. NO!! It means men pay for porn and they like looking at pussy X 2.
Aaaaanyway, I won't push this point. :blush:
Posted by: Busyman
Yeah, yeah.
I'm half serious. What other explanation is there for you refusing to see what everyone else in the scientific world takes as a given.
At some points in this thread I've actually laughed out loud - the bit where you say that because there is a lot of lesbian porn means that women can be 'turned' easier than men. NO!! It means men pay for porn and they like looking at pussy X 2.
Aaaaanyway, I won't push this point. :blush:
What has the scientific community given?
I tend to look farther than what scientists say that hasn't been proven.
Btw I've addressed the the pay for porn bit already.
I don't even call these women being turned. I call it trying something different that they probably grew up being against....like them being ass-fucked, or sucking dick. Also you can cut the shit...female on female action is more widely accepted than male on male. It is what it is.
The reason for me not believing gays are not born that way is through what I see.
There are too may instances of it not fitting the "born with" mantra.
It sounds reeeeaallly nice to believe it but it doesn't jibe with real world situations. It also pigeon holes any homosexual behavior.
A woman decides to eat another's twat....oh man I didn't know you had the gay gene? We are pigeon holing mere behavior.
Regarding the gay marriage issue, I admittedly would vote against it if it was a referendum.
If I was a judge, I would vote for it. I really don't see how a judge could vote against it or do a cop out like "leave it up to the states."
Yet they have.
Posted by: manker
I don't know where you're coming from, you keep referring to this gay gene but there isn't one. At least not like how you describe.
JP made an excellent post where he mentioned a kind of sliding scale of how predisposed one was to homosexual behaviour. If it was from zero to ten then you could have a '3' who acted like a '5' or an '8' that was in denial that acted like a '2'.
That incorporates your entire spectrum of points. You don't have to act out your desires, but you do have to experience them as a feeling.
If a person is born with a propensity to fancy guys then he or she can deny it or train themselves to like the opposite sex but the inherent desire for men will always be there, latent or not.
You have mentioned how sexuality is a sentient choice, this is not the case.
You also mentioned how the feeling is not a sentient choice.
Sexuality is a feeling, that is the point here. You've already posted what I am trying to get across to you.
Posted by: vidcc
this non belief in science keeps reminding me of Bush's attitude to global warming...oh and evolution
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
If a person is born with a propensity to fancy guys then he or she can deny it or train themselves to like the opposite sex but the inherent desire for men will always be there, latent or not.
one could blame it on the environment: children grow up to be gay because they're raised in the presence of homosexuals, or because they're exposed to all of those gay movies, gay rock bands, gay rappers, etc.
that'd be a slippery slope, however, because it undermines the "personal responsibility judged in a circumstantial vacuum" idea which is pretty dominant in social conservative politics. extending that doctrine, gays would have only themselves --not their genes or the influence of other gays-- to blame. each gay is a spontaneous combustion of flaming homosexuality, so to speak.
Posted by: Busyman
I don't know where you're coming from, you keep referring to this gay gene but there isn't one. At least not like how you describe.
JP made an excellent post where he mentioned a kind of sliding scale of how predisposed one was to homosexual behaviour. If it was from zero to ten then you could have a '3' who acted like a '5' or an '8' that was in denial that acted like a '2'.
That incorporates your entire spectrum of points. You don't have to act out your desires, but you do have to experience them as a feeling.
If a person is born with a propensity to fancy guys then he or she can deny it or train themselves to like the opposite sex but the inherent desire for men will always be there, latent or not.
You have mentioned how sexuality is a sentient choice, this is not the case.
You also mentioned how the feeling is not a sentient choice.
Sexuality is a feeling, that is the point here. You've already posted what I am trying to get across to you.
Agreed.
Anything that you prefer is your own feeling. That doesn't just involve sex.
The "gay gene", "gay chemical", or corpuschristicollosalwhateverthefuck is just my description of whatever it you say makes a person gay.
So ok, now you believe it's a sliding scale referring to Fugley's "excellent post".
If this sliding exists then it could measured, right?
Also this supposed sliding scale only applies to attraction? :huh:
If the sight of dick elicits a warm reaction from gay male 1, the you are saying then that on this sliding scale, which can be measured, then may be on a 3.....
Sorry bud that sounds like....made up bullshit. Read this again....
JP made an excellent post where he mentioned a kind of sliding scale of how predisposed one was to homosexual behaviour. If it was from zero to ten then you could have a '3' who acted like a '5' or an '8' that was in denial that acted like a '2'.
:blink:
What the hell does this scale refer to, a dominance of a certain chemical?
And you laugh at my posts. :lol:
I'd like to know why I like to grip phat ass. Why does one of my boys like skinny women.
I think it's a sliding scale of 1 for skinny ass and 10 for phat ass.
What about the black guy who's turned on by white women?
What about getting toes licked?
The woman who had gay sex in college only?
I guess allllll those women in porn only sex other women for money?
...and so do the guys.
Keep trying to scientificalize every feeling. I won't.
Posted by: Busyman
this non belief in science keeps reminding me of Bush's attitude to global warming...oh and evolution
I believe in science but apparently you attribute a scalable attribute to sexual preference.
You have pigeon holed this particular feeling to science. Why not others? Sexuality must trump everything huh?
If a woman makes a decision to lick twat then her sliding scale must have been at an 8? :blink: Or has too much gay chemical?
You guys sure know alot from saying the scientific community believes the "born with" mantra and not going outside of your family atmosphere.
I guess they must correct about the Big Bang too. They said so, so of course they absolutely correct about the beginning of life.
Posted by: Busyman
one could blame it on the environment: children grow up to be gay because they're raised in the presence of homosexuals, or because they're exposed to all of those gay movies, gay rock bands, gay rappers, etc.
that'd be a slippery slope, however, because it undermines the "personal responsibility judged in a circumstantial vacuum" idea which is pretty dominant in social conservative politics. extending that doctrine, gays would have only themselves --not their genes or the influence of other gays-- to blame. each gay is a spontaneous combustion of flaming homosexuality, so to speak.
I believe it is unmeasurable.
There too many environmental variables.
You have this phenomenon in other things as well. Child grows up in a family of criminals and poverty but yet doesn't turn to crime.
A white woman risks everything to be with a black man in the wrong time period.
No matter what, a son hates basketball in a basketball family with friends that play basketball.
The entire sixth grade class likes blue, he likes yellow.
I guess it is measurable. :dry:
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
Sorry bud that sounds like....made up bullshit. Read this again....
JP made an excellent post where he mentioned a kind of sliding scale of how predisposed one was to homosexual behaviour. If it was from zero to ten then you could have a '3' who acted like a '5' or an '8' that was in denial that acted like a '2'
It's not bullshit, it makes perfect sense,think of it this way, you could have a person who finds themself mildly atracted to the same sex (3) who likes the idea and will overplay it, being Camp maybe (5)
Or the other end of the scale you could have someone who is having strong homosexual feelings (8) but refuses to accept them maybe for fear of persicution etc, so will act all homophobic to create the illusion they are straight (2) in actucal fact.....they are bent as a nine bob bit :01:
Is that a little clearer?
In my experience a man who hates gays with a passion is only doing so thru fear because he has had some form of homosexual thought or feeling.
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Cheese
Busyman is an 8 pretending to be a 2. :ohmy:
j/k.
Posted by: bigboab
I tend to agree with Busyman in some of the thing that he says. Homosexuality has gone from 50's 'Dont talk about it' to the 21'st century 'In your face'.
I agree that everbody should be treated equal. But the word should be EQUAL, not 'more equal' as in the case of what has happened in racial equality.
I do tend to get a wee bit worried about the treatment of homosexuality in the UK.
60's Legalised (21 consenting age)
90's Consenting age reduced to 18
0's Consenting age reduced to 16.
I may have the years wrong, but you get the idea. All of these measures have been introduced by Labour Governments. Will the next Labour Government make it compulsary?:ph34r:
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
I agree that everbody should be treated equal. But the word should be EQUAL, not 'more equal' as in the case of what has happened in racial equality.
That is true Bob, there are a lot of Gay men and women who really push it in people's faces, but I think this has derived from so much opression for so long.
You tell someone for long enough they can't do something then suddenly they can, then so many years of being silent will suddenly explode and people will let loose.
Same as the Black comunity thru the 80's and 90's as the prjudice subsided and they were finally treated as humans they pushed it in people's faces and began taking the piss out of those who opressed them, now we have white people trying to be black :rolleyes:
I have never understood why people can't just let people be people.
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Busyman
It's not bullshit, it makes perfect sense,think of it this way, you could have a person who finds themself mildly atracted to the same sex (3) who likes the idea and will overplay it, being Camp maybe (5)
Or the other end of the scale you could have someone who is having strong homosexual feelings (8) but refuses to accept them maybe for fear of persicution etc, so will act all homophobic to create the illusion they are straight (2) in actucal fact.....they are bent as a nine bob bit :01:
Is that a little clearer?
Ahhh...now it makes perfect sense. Btw what does this scale measure?
In my experience a man who hates gays with a passion is only doing so thru fear because he has had some form of homosexual thought or feeling.
Who hates gays? I personally don't hate them. Male-on-male is nasty to me but that's about it. I really like the female action tbh. :cool:
Jonno :cool:
That scale bit is a hypothesis with no basis whatsoever. :dry:
Posted by: Busyman
Busyman is an 8 pretending to be a 2. :ohmy:
j/k.
Well you're a 13, have this look :ohmy: permanently, and not pretending.
j/k
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
Why do you quote like that? It's really annoying :frusty:
That scale bit is a hypothesis with no basis whatsoever. :dry:
Yes it was just an example, no science behind it, simply making a point of something in simple terms :)
Ahhh...now it makes perfect sense. Btw what does this scale measure?
I explained this already :frusty:
It measures how gay a person is to how gay they act.
The theory is that someone who is totally homophobic and nasty about it is usually had homosexual thoughts and/or feelings and is trying to cover them up.
Who hates gays? I personally don't hate them. Male-on-male is nasty to me but that's about it. I really like the female action tbh.
It's nasty because it does'nt turn you on?
So by your logic if I find a well formed large girl extremly atrractive but you like skinny little model types, does that mean I have a nasty atraction?
You'll find many women feel the same but reversed, I know quite a few straight girls who have a thing for 2 men together but are repulsed at 2 women.
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Busyman
That is true Bob, there are a lot of Gay men and women who really push it in people's faces, but I think this has derived from so much opression for so long.
You tell someone for long enough they can't do something then suddenly they can, then so many years of being silent will suddenly explode and people will let loose.
Same as the Black comunity thru the 80's and 90's as the prjudice subsided and they were finally treated as humans they pushed it in people's faces and began taking the piss out of those who opressed them, now we have white people trying to be black :rolleyes:
I have never understood why people can't just let people be people.
Jonno :cool:
Does this mean there will be straight people trying to be gay?
What can't gays do now besides get married? The sodomy law here was bullshit but didn't actually stop anyone. It went to our Supreme Court because some asshole (pun intended) cop burst through a door a saw it happening.
Now that I think of it I guess if gays were allowed to get married, they may "push it in everyone's faces."
:dry: It will have no influence on children. :dry:
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
Does this mean there will be straight people trying to be gay?
Yes many do, look around at celebrities, so many do drag acts yet are not gay, they are happily married with children (yes I realise that does'nt make you straight, but the being happy part does)
What can't gays do now besides get married? .
All the time people like you are around?
Live life happily without fear.
:dry: It will have no influence on children. :dry:
Thats it then, all drag acts and gay portrade characters ontv must cease, it has too much influence on children, unlike Violent films and games, cos they have no effect whatsoever :frusty:
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Busyman
Why do you quote like that? It's really annoying :frusty:
It's nothing new.
Yes it was just an example, no science behind it, simply making a point of something in simple terms :)
I explained this already :frusty:
It measures how gay a person is to how gay they act.
Oh really? So in essence a bullshit explanation that tries to explain a feeling. Why doesn't this apply to all sexual fetishes?
The theory is that someone who is totally homophobic and nasty about it is usually had homosexual thoughts and/or feelings and is trying to cover them up.
This is probably true in some instances. They fight loudly against it due to social status but secretly want it. This point was brought up out of the blue by you btw.
It's nasty because it does'nt turn you on?
So by your logic if I find a well formed large girl extremly atrractive but you like skinny little model types, does that mean I have a nasty atraction?
I don't know what you're getting at here. Some men find fat women attractive. I think that's nasty too. I like women with nice hips, phat ass, nice boobies, nice face, and preferably taller than me (at least my height). Call them Amazons if you will. They drive me crazy and will pull all-nighters on them :w00t: . Skinny women or short women are like little girls, not very womanly at all, and I don't like them at all. :sick:
You'll find many women feel the same but reversed, I know quite a few straight girls who have a thing for 2 men together but are repulsed at 2 women.
Never personally heard that one before but I believe it. Sexual desires and attraction run the gamut of human emotion. When me and my ex went by a video store after a basketball game, she tried to get a gay male movie :sick: . I wasn't havin' it. She used to have sex with women btw...and may be back to doin' it. Who knows?
Jonno :cool:
How can anyone scientificalize who you love?
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
I don't know what you're getting at here. Some men find fat women attractive. I think that's nasty too. I like women with nice hips, phat ass, nice boobies, nice face, and preferably taller than me (at least my height). Call them Amazons if you will. They drive me crazy and will pull all-nighters on them . Skinny women or short women are like little girls, not very womanly at all, and I don't like them at all.
Ah I see, this statement says it all really, you're just simply prejudice against everything you don't like :rolleyes:
How can you say a short woman is'nt womanly? , I'm afraid my man that women are naturally shorter than men and smaller, there are more women shorter than there are equal hieghts or taller than an average man.
As for skinny women, in most cases that is how they naturally are.
I'll put it this way, if you find someone atractive, then you find them atractive, if you don't, thenyou don't. But you can't say that one particular type of person group is "Nasty".
You realise how many womens feelings you hurt with that statement?
Never personally heard that one before but I believe it. Sexual desires and attraction run the gamut of human emotion. When me and my ex went by a video store after a basketball game, she tried to get a gay male movie . I wasn't havin' it. She used to have sex with women btw...and may be back to doin' it. Who knows?
You conradicted yourself there.
And to deny your partner something they will find arousing just cos you don't like it is wrong. Thats the whole point of a "Partenership" (unless one of you is being hurt) try new things, explore eachothers desires.
This is probably true in some instances. They fight loudly against it due to social status but secretly want it. This point was brought up out of the blue by you btw.
Well it was actually raised by JP if you read back, it's the scale thing :)
But I have no shame, ask people round here what I am like.
I profess to be niether straight or gay or bi-sexual.
I am Jon, what will turn me on will turn me on. Simple as that, I am not a catergory, I am a human being like everyone else :)
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Busyman
Yes many do, look around at celebrities, so many do drag acts yet are not gay, they are happily married with children (yes I realise that does'nt make you straight, but the being happy part does)
All the time people like you are around?
Huh. :blink:
Live life happily without fear.
I'm not making light of it but gays are not persecuted like let's say, blackswere. We couldn't even use the same bathrooms, water fountains, were spat on just for walking down the street. We were immediately seen as crap; we couldn't hide it
Thats it then, all drag acts and gay portrade characters ontv must cease, it has too much influence on children, unlike Violent films and games, cos they have no effect whatsoever :frusty:
Why would it cease? I love when folks say this is already bad so let's add this. First off, violence on tv is a whole other matter. I'd like to see network tv more sanitized as well. You can call someone a bitch on network television for ffs. :angry:
Jonno :cool:
The same goes for free radio.
Posted by: Jon L. Obscene
I'm not making light of it but gays are not persecuted like let's say black were. We couldn't even use the same bathrooms, water fountains, were spat on just walking down the street. We were immediately seen as crap; we couldn't hide it
Erm excuse me, it may not have gone on as long, but many gays have bean beaten, bombed, spat on, murdered etc just the same, the only reason it has'nt gone on as long is because for the most part no one knew what a gay man was, it was very hush hush.
Why would it cease? I love when folks say this is bad so let's add this. First off, violence on tv is whole other matter. I'd like to see network tv more sanitized as well. You can someone a bitch on network television for ffs
So you want all tv violence and games banned too?
Jonno :cool:
Posted by: Busyman
Ah I see, this statement says it all really, you're just simply prejudice against everything you don't like :rolleyes:
How can you say a short woman is'nt womanly? , I'm afraid my man that women are naturally shorter than men and smaller, there are more women shorter than there are equal hieghts or taller than an average man.
As for skinny women, in most cases that is how they naturally are.
How the hell can you tell me what I can't and can find nasty? Many men find the sight blubbery fat women nasty. Many men find the sight of male-on-male sex nasty. Cut the shit. :dry:
I'll put it this way, if you find someone atractive, then you find them atractive, if you don't, thenyou don't. But you can't say that one particular type of person group is "Nasty".
Of course I can.
You realise how many womens feelings you hurt with that statement?
No, and I'm not here to paint rosy pictures of green pastures and lovely chrysanthemums. This is my preference nothing more or less. I didn't say they are bad people or...ok I tell you what..I find certain groups terribly unattractive.
You conradicted yourself there.
I did not "conradict" myself whatsoever. Your instance was a woman turned on by 2 men together and repulsed by 2 women. My instance was not the same. Go back and read again. RIF. :dry:
And to deny your partner something they will find arousing just cos you don't like it is wrong. Thats the whole point of a "Partenership" (unless one of you is being hurt) try new things, explore eachothers desires.
Hey, she could watch it...just not with me and I certainly wasn't paying for it. If I'm repulsed by it then it can't pushed on me regardless of the partnership.
Well it was actually raised by JP if you read back, it's the scale thing :)
Oh, ok then. I missed the obvious referrence.
But I have no shame, ask people round here what I am like.
I profess to be niether straight or gay or bi-sexual.
I am Jon, what will turn me on will turn me on. Simple as that, I am not a catergory, I am a human being like everyone else :)
Jonno :cool:
In essence you are Jonnosexual. :lol:
What turns you on turn you on. ;)
I have nothing against you personally.
Posted by: Busyman
Erm excuse me, it may not have gone on as long, but many gays have bean beaten, bombed, spat on, murdered etc just the same, the only reason it has'nt gone on as long is because for the most part no one knew what a gay man was, it was very hush hush.
Agreed, but all a black had to do was show themselves and persecution followed. A big difference. A gay person had to worry about who and where they loved and could be done secretly.
So you want all tv violence and games banned too?
Read man read....network tv more sanitized. I never offered actual solutions. Bill Clinton's V-Chip springs to mind or some iteration of it. Cable already has parental control.
Jonno :cool:
No one said a thing about games. The age requirements need to be enforced although I'm sure age-worthy folks will sell to minors. I still would make it harder to obtain.
Posted by: vidcc
I believe in science but apparently you attribute a scalable attribute to sexual preference.
You have pigeon holed this particular feeling to science. Why not others? Sexuality must trump everything huh?
If a woman makes a decision to lick twat then her sliding scale must have been at an 8? :blink: Or has too much gay chemical?
You guys sure know alot from saying the scientific community believes the "born with" mantra and not going outside of your family atmosphere.
I guess they must correct about the Big Bang too. They said so, so of course they absolutely correct about the beginning of life.
i didn't say anything about sliding scales... i believe one is gay, hetro or bi.
Posted by: Busyman
i didn't say anything about sliding scales... i believe one is gay, hetro or bi.
You are right. My bad. RIF.
So there is some chemical, gene, etc that determines one's sexual feelings.
Posted by: bigboab
This is not meant to be a pun. When I was younger I can remember an old fellow saying:
'A standing cock has no conscience'
There is a lot of truth in that statement.:cool:
Posted by: vidcc
ok...my opinion.
i believe in the born theory. i think that the choice theory has more to do with a fear that if it's natural then it isn't a sin and therefore has to be accepted.
there is no evedence that children raised by same sex couples will be gay... there is strong evidence that some children raised by hetro couples will be gay...deny it...
acceptance breeds tolerance... it doesn't change sexuality.. i didn't get an answer to this,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
The act is a choice. The feeling is not.
just for my clarification of your view on this.
do you consider someone that has these feelings but chose not to act on them as being "gay"
I ask this because to me someone is "gay" because of their feelings/emotions/sexual turn ons....... not just because they have sex with the same sex.
if this is the case then people are born gay, but choose not to act on it...?????
perhaps i missed it.
Posted by: vidcc
This is not meant to be a pun. When I was younger I can remember an old fellow saying:
'A standing cock has no conscience'
There is a lot of truth in that statement.:cool:
I heard in days of old,
when knights were bold,
and women wern't invented.
men stuck their cocks,
into the rocks,
And then they were contented :blink:
Posted by: Busyman
ok...my opinion.
i believe in the born theory. i think that the choice theory has more to do with a fear that if it's natural then it isn't a sin and therefore has to be accepted.
there is no evedence that children raised by same sex couples will be gay... there is strong evidence that some children raised by hetro couples will be gay...deny it...
acceptance breeds tolerance... it doesn't change sexuality.. i didn't get an answer to this,
perhaps i missed it.
Acceptance also breeds influence and that's undeniable.
just for my clarification of your view on this.
do you consider someone that has these feelings but chose not to act on them as being "gay"
I guess so if you want to label it that way. Keep in mind your scientific community pretty much agrees that just about everyone has had those feelings at one time or another.
I ask this because to me someone is "gay" because of their feelings/emotions/sexual turn ons....... not just because they have sex with the same sex.
if this is the case then people are born gay, but choose not to act on it...?????
How did you jump to that? Someone feels a certain way, so they were born with that feeling? :lol: Feelings are just that, feelings. You are trying to pigeon hole the way one feels sexually with a "born with" mantra but nothing else.
Was I born to like blue?
It seems you can't get past scientificalizing preferences.
Posted by: vidcc
Acceptance also breeds influence and that's undeniable.
How did you jump to that? Someone feels a certain way, so they were born with that feeling? :lol: Feelings are just that, feelings. You are trying to pigeon hole the way one feels sexually with a "born with" mantra but nothing else.
Was I born to like blue?
It seems you can't get past scientificalizing preferences.
I am not using scientific theory in this...i am using some of that "life logic" you seem so keen on.
as to the "feelings"...sexual urge is not a feeling...it's an instinct... we have sex out of instinct to breed...this would happen even without "birds and bees" education.... so why would the urge to be gay not be an instinct?
please feel free to repeat the same "logic" again...you have only done so about a squillion times.
Posted by: hobbes
Acceptance also breeds influence and that's undeniable.
How did you jump to that? Someone feels a certain way, so they were born with that feeling? :lol: Feelings are just that, feelings. You are trying to pigeon hole the way one feels sexually with a "born with" mantra but nothing else.
Was I born to like blue?
Actually Busyman, your analogy is not valid.
Ones choice in color preference is not at all related to survivability.
As animals our purpose is to reproduce. In order to do this animals
It seems you can't get past scientificalizing preferences.
Actually Busyman, your analogy is not valid.
Ones choice in color preference is not at all related to survivability.
As animals, our purpose is to reproduce. In order to do this we must have some "sense" that directs us to how to do this.
"Arousal" is a chemical process that is instinctive and unbidden. It directs the males to the females for reproduction.
The concious thought that females smell nice, feel nice, look nice is biologically driven.
Just like most people think bacon smells good. Why does it smell so good? It is the burning of the fat. Fat has the highest energy content of any food source out there.
Our primitive brains detect the fat smell and tell the unconcious mind that high quality food is available. Conciously, we perceive this as "I like bacon", but really it is our brain that is telling us to think that. Even when we cook steaks, it is the fat around the edges and not the meat which smells so alluring.
Also explains why butter makes things taste so much better, all that milk fat.
If I cook tree bark your brain will ignore the scent as there are no nutrients in it worth salvaging. Is it possible for you to think that tree bark smells as delicious as bacon, no, you are not wired that way.
On the other hand, a termite might drool at the scent of cooking tree bark.
Same scent, completely different reaction. You cannot choose to make tree bark smell good.
Nothing is "real", it is all perception. There is no such thing as "pain" or "cold" or "sexy". These are just ways in which our senses and body communicate with the mind to either encourage or penalize behavior.
It is our innate programming which draws us to food to eat and ladies to have sex with, we just seem to think that we are making some objective choice.
Posted by: Busyman
I am not using scientific theory in this...i am using some of that "life logic" you seem so keen on.
as to the "feelings"...sexual urge is not a feeling...it's an instinct... we have sex out of instinct to breed...this would happen even without "birds and bees" education.... so why would the urge to be gay not be an instinct?
I ask this because to me someone is "gay" because of their feelings/emotions/sexual turn ons....... not just because they have sex with the same sex.
Huh.. :blink: Why use feelings/emotions/sexual turn ons together but then separate them when it suits you?
Gays are not breeding though. Also this is about sexual preference.
please feel free to repeat the same "logic" again...you have only done so about a squillion times.
Well yours is flawed. Mine is not.
Posted by: Busyman
Actually Busyman, your analogy is not valid.
Ones choice in color preference is not at all related to survivability.
As animals, our purpose is to reproduce. In order to do this we must have some "sense" that directs us to how to do this.
"Arousal" is a chemical process that is instinctive and unbidden. It directs the males to the females for reproduction.
The concious thought that females smell nice, feel nice, look nice is biologically driven.
Just like most people think bacon smells good. Why does it smell so good? It is the burning of the fat. Fat has the highest energy content of any food source out there.
Our primitive brains detect the fat smell and tell the unconcious mind that high quality food is available. Conciously, we perceive this as "I like bacon", but really it is our brain that is telling us to think that. Even when we cook steaks, it is the fat around the edges and not the meat which smells so alluring.
Also explains why butter makes things taste so much better, all that milk fat.
If I cook tree bark your brain will ignore the scent as there are no nutrients in it worth salvaging. Is it possible for you to think that tree bark smells as delicious as bacon, no, you are not wired that way.
On the other hand, a termite might drool at the scent of cooking tree bark.
Same scent, completely different reaction. You cannot choose to make tree bark smell good.
Nothing is "real", it is all perception. There is no such thing as "pain" or "cold" or "sexy". These are just ways in which our senses and body communicate with the mind to either encourage or penalize behavior.
It is our innate programming which draws us to food to eat and ladies to have sex with, we just seem to think that we are making some objective choice.
What if I don't like bacon? :blink: I think it stinks. It must be my subconscious telling me to ignore bacon fat because it's good for me. :blink:
By the way as a sentient being, I am making a choice of whom I have sex with.
Tree bark has the same scent as bacon?
I want bacon because I...... subconsciously associate the smellwithfatandhighqualitycontentwhichisgoodwholesomenutritiousformybody?
Why can't it be.....it smells like food and I'm hungry. I'm detecting fat?
Theory
This is getting ridiculous.
Nuff said. :dry:
Posted by: vidcc
Huh.. :blink: Why use feelings/emotions/sexual turn ons together but then separate them when it suits you?
Gays are not breeding though. Also this is about sexual preference.
.i didn't seperate them...i don't have to use them all in evey post...i would get repeatative strain syndrom
Well yours is flawed. Mine is not :lol: :lol: we have just discovered busy's true identity.
http://straightwords.typepad.com/straightwords_ezine/Bush.jpg :whistling
BTW i asked the question because you said one can't help feelings
Posted by: Busyman
i didn't seperate them...i don't have to use them all in evey post...i would get repeatative strain syndrom
:lol: :lol: we have just discovered busy's true identity.
http://straightwords.typepad.com/straightwords_ezine/Bush.jpg :whistling
BTW i asked the question because you said one can't help feelings
You said sexual urge is not a feeling, it's instinct. You then inferred that being gay is instinct.
But before you said someone is gay because of their feelings. :blink:
Get it straight vid...
Now you call me Bush because I don't believe gays are born. Suck ball hair vid. :dry: Suck ball hair.
Posted by: hobbes
What if I don't like bacon? :blink: I think it stinks. It must be my subconscious telling me to ignore bacon fat because it's good for me. :blink:
By the way as a sentient being, I am making a choice of whom I have sex with.
Tree bark has the same scent as bacon?
I want bacon because I...... subconsciously associate the smellwithfatandhighqualitycontentwhichisgoodwholesomenutritiousformybody?
Why can't it be.....it smells like food and I'm hungry. I'm detecting fat?
Theory
This is getting ridiculous.
Nuff said. :dry:
Yes, when you start dismissing fact after scientific fact because they don't fit your conclusion.
Yes, bacon smell is perceived as "yummy" because the body recognizes it as an energy source. Other food sources have different levels of "yummy" associated with them.
How delicious is plain dry chicken, tastes ok, not exciting. Fry it up, cover it in butter, now it becomes mouth-watering.
I said the exact same scent can be interpreted as "delicious" or "putrid", based on the energy source an organism uses.
Why do you think feces smells bad, it has been stripped of all that we can use. What do dung beetles do with feces, that make a house out it. They can't get enough of the stuff. What about a rotting carcass, we think it smells horrible, meanwhile the flies are having a field day. Same smell, different reaction. Do you think these smell perceptions are just choices?
It is all perception, a perception driven by biological need.
Hair color is a preference, male vs female is innate programming.
As to you not liking the smell of bacon, that is possible. Just like it is possible that you are not attracted to women. Your definitely in the minority, but you have really made no choice, that is just how you are.
Posted by: Busyman
Yes, when you start dismissing fact after scientific fact because they don't fit your conclusion.
Yes, bacon smell is perceived as "yummy" because the body recognizes it as an energy source. Other food sources have different levels of "yummy" associated with them.
How delicious is plain dry chicken, tastes ok, not exciting. Fry it up, cover it in butter, now it becomes mouth-watering.
I said the exact same scent can be interpreted as "delicious" or "putrid", based on the energy source an organism uses.
Why do you think feces smells bad, it has been stripped of all that we can use. What do dung beetles do with feces, that make a house out it. They can't get enough of the stuff. What about a rotting carcass, we think it smells horrible, meanwhile the flies are having a field day. Same smell, different reaction. Do you think these smell perceptions are just choices?
It is all perception, a perception driven by biological need.
Hair color is a preference, male vs female is innate programming.
As to you not liking the smell of bacon, that is possible. Just like it is possible that you are not attracted to women. Your definitely in the minority, but you have really made no choice, that is just how you are.
I never said I dismiss it but you lump everything together when it's theory. Keep in mind that some human cultures use dung...even though it smells putrid. What you say doesn't work for everything.
THEORY
If I don't like bacon, I don't like bacon.
Hair color is a preference but so is who I'm attracted to.
Why is one preference but not the other in your book?
It's possible you like banging fellas but were you programmed to do so?
According to you, you can't help yourself. :dry:
Posted by: hobbes
I never said I dismiss it but you lump everything together when it's theory. Keep in mind that some human cultures use dung...even though it smells putrid. What you say doesn't work for everything.
THEORY
If I don't like bacon, I don't like bacon.
Hair color is a preference but so is who I'm attracted to.
Why is one preference but not the other in your book?
It's possible you like banging fellas but were you programmed to do so?
According to you, you can't help yourself. :dry:
Yes, you are correct, wierd things do occur.
But I am trying to define the "norm", not the exceptions to it.
The vast majority of those that are gay were born that way. The arousal is unconcious, but the act is voluntary.
I consider a person gay if they are attracted to the same sex, whether they actually ever have sex at all.
Posted by: vidcc
You said sexual urge is not a feeling, it's instinct. You then inferred that being gay is instinct.
But before you said someone is gay because of their feelings. :blink:
Get it straight vid...
Now you call me Bush because I don't believe gays are born. Suck ball hair vid. :dry: Suck ball hair.i said people are gay because of sexual urge feelings emotions..et.c etc. excuse me if some words were left out of the thersaurus not because of the act....the question was raised because YOU said this
The act is a choice. The feeling is not. You said it...not I
Now you call me Bush because I don't believe gays are born.
no i called you bush because you said this
Well yours is flawed. Mine is not.
Posted by: Busyman
i said people are gay because of sexual urge feelings emotions..et.c etc. excuse me if some words were left out of the thersaurus not because of the act....the question was raised because YOU said this
You said it...not I
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with you contradicting yourself. So what if I said the act is choice, the feeling is not. I stand behind what I said
no i called you bush because you said this
Oh, ok then. When you contradict yourself what choice do I have but to call your logic flawed?
Let's break it down from what you said.
sexual urge not feeling
sexual urge = instinct
gay = instinct
gay because of feelings
Do the math.
Posted by: vidcc
to clear it up for you.... sexual urge is an instinct, we act on insticts, feelings are emotions controlled by our urges, you can't have the "feeling" of being gay without the urge.
My view is that people are born gay, that means it must be instinct..which follows with control of feelings......get it?
i don't see the contradiction
Posted by: Busyman
to clear it up for you.... sexual urge is an instinct, we act on insticts, feelings are emotions controlled by our urges, you can't have the "feeling" of being gay without the urge.
My view is that people are born gay, that means it must be instinct..which follows with control of feelings......get it?
i don't see the contradiction
Well now you don't when you "clean it up", of course. :unsure:
:lol: :lol:
What is a woman that has one gay experience?
I have the urge to have my dick sucked by my woman. Is that instinct?
Posted by: vidcc
Ok Busy.
do you believe we are born hetrosexual?
Posted by: Busyman
Ok Busy.
do you believe we are born hetrosexual?
I haven't asked many questions (or least got answers), yet this question is answered with a question.
Answer the question.....Clarice.
-----said Hannibal Lector
Posted by: vidcc
your wish to have your woman blow you isn't sexual instinct. It's just part of hetrosexuality and has nothing to do with sexual gender preferance. it's a sexual act, not sexuality. you want a woman to blow you..not a man...now answer my question
edit to make sure you don't throw accusations.
What is a woman that has one gay experience? Perhaps curious perhaps bi, perhaps gay, perhaps confused and in denial/acceptance.
she may have had one experience, but the act alone doesn't make one gay.
Posted by: Busyman
Ok Busy.
do you believe we are born hetrosexual?
Our bodies are (besides hermaphrodites and other anomalies).
Otherwise, no.
Posted by: Busyman
your wish to have your woman blow you isn't sexual instinct. It's just part of hetrosexuality and has nothing to do with sexual gender preferance. it's a sexual act, not sexuality. you want a woman to blow you..not a man...now answer my question
edit to make sure you don't throw accusations.
Perhaps curious perhaps bi, perhaps gay, perhaps confused and in denial/acceptance.
she may have had one experience, but the act alone doesn't make one gay.
So do you also believe that children that are straight never go through a homosexual feelings?
This goes against your "scientific community" if so.
I love this one....
Perhaps curious perhaps bi, perhaps gay, perhaps confused and in denial/acceptance.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Posted by: hobbes
So do you also believe that children that are straight never go through a homosexual feelings?
This goes against your "scientific community" if so.
I love this one....
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes, heterosexual children NEVER go through homosexual feelings.
That is as absurd as asking people if they ate rocks before they understood what food was.
Women who have a single lesbian experience are called "drunk".
Women tend to exhibit more same sex experience because they are more into affection not sex.
Girls will be with girls, not for a quick fuck, but just for a little affection and intimacy.
Posted by: vidcc
So do you also believe that children that are straight never go through a homosexual feelings?
This goes against your "scientific community" if so.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Hobbes answered this before i could because i was listening to my daughter reading for her homework...but i agree with what hobbes said. With an addition, "young adults" can be confused but i feel this is probably slight bi-sexual confusion, as this would allow for hetrosexuality or homosexuality, either way to be "right".
Confusion is caused because they are brought up to believe that hetrosexuality is the only normal thing...so they are confused wondering why they are attracted to the same sex.
I didn't go through this because i am hetrosexual and have never been or could ever be made to be attracted to the same sex.
I love this one....
what did you expect? perhaps you felt i would have knowledge of the circumstances upon which this occured..... is a porn actress a lesbian because she did a lesbian scene for pay, if she wouldn't do it for fun outside of work?
It was a silly question, and that's why along with the blowjob question i didn't bother answering until you insisted.
Posted by: sArA
I think there is a strong argument for the 'curious' open minded type...
Those who do not have strong feelings of taboo or disgust, who have never particularly been attracted to the same sex, but who if they found themselves in a 'certain' situation 'may' give it a go or not as they felt at the time.
What I am trying to say, (cos I am just off to bed and am stoned again... :lol: )
Is that there are people who are sexually curious, and who are sexually open minded from the perspective of pure hedonism. They may be the gay guy who occasionally goes with a woman, or a straight person occasionally having a homosexual encounter, or a 3 or more-some of either 'type'....In these cases it is purely for the sensations, experience, difference even.
These people surely cannot be pigeonholed as being straight, gay or bi..the misnomer in the nature/nurture equation...
Posted by: Rat Faced
Why dont you just say Hedonist? :P
Posted by: sArA
Its in there Rat..... ;) I just wanted to elaborate... :lol:
Posted by: Rat Faced
:lol: :lol: :lol:
My bad... I just skimmed it :P
Posted by: sArA
tsk tsk :dry:
:lol: :lol:
Posted by: Busyman
Hobbes answered this before i could because i was listening to my daughter reading for her homework...but i agree with what hobbes said. With an addition, "young adults" can be confused but i feel this is probably slight bi-sexual confusion, as this would allow for hetrosexuality or homosexuality, either way to be "right".
Confusion is caused because they are brought up to believe that hetrosexuality is the only normal thing...so they are confused wondering why they are attracted to the same sex.
I didn't go through this because i am hetrosexual and have never been or could ever be made to be attracted to the same sex.
what did you expect? perhaps you felt i would have knowledge of the circumstances upon which this occured..... is a porn actress a lesbian because she did a lesbian scene for pay, if she wouldn't do it for fun outside of work?
It was a silly question, and that's why along with the blowjob question i didn't bother answering until you insisted.
Silly but yet it happens alot in the real world. Get out of the petri dish.
By your definition if a woman starts to find another woman attractive she was always gay or bi. I don't buy it. It ain't logical.
These are not small instances. This happens all the time.
Again get out of the petri dish.
I love this one too........
With an addition, "young adults" can be confused but i feel this is probably slight bi-sexual confusion, as this would allow for hetrosexuality or homosexuality, either way to be "right".
Is the chemical that regulates sexuality going haywire due to puberty? :lol:
I'm dying ova hare!! :lol: :lol:
Posted by: h121589
what keeps happening to my post?
plz dont tell me that its against the board rules to post wut i posted cuz OMG
Posted by: vidcc
Silly but yet it happens alot in the real world. Get out of the petri dish.
By your definition if a woman starts to find another woman attractive she was always gay or bi. I don't buy it. It ain't logical.
These are not small instances. This happens all the time.
so it happens a lot...you are the one making assumptions, have you ever thought that homosexuality or bisexuality may not be as unusual as you think?...why would i need to change my view because of this, not one of your "examples" (although it's just one rehashed with the odd word changed) could be proof that they weren't born gay/bi.
why always think i am using "science" for my opinion? i base it on what i see and science backs me up sometimes. we could contradict every "logic" you come up with without refering to scientific studies.
Nature is not logical by the way.
Is the chemical that regulates sexuality going haywire due to puberty? :lol:
puberty is when the sexual hormones that have been dormant in an immature body start to kick in... that's why most "confusion" happens at that stage...confusion because they are not feeling the way they are told they should be.
I'm dying ova hare!! :lol: :lol:
why do you want to change the color of a rabbit eggs?
Again get out of the petri dish.
as soon as you get your head out of your anus i shall comply :lol:
Posted by: Busyman
so it happens a lot...you are the one making assumptions, have you ever thought that homosexuality or bisexuality may not be as unusual as you think?...why would i need to change my view because of this, not one of your "examples" (although it's just one rehashed with the odd word changed) could be proof that they weren't born gay/bi.
I never said homosexuality is unusual. My "examples" offer way more than the matter you are trying to rationalize one's feelings.
why always think i am using "science" for my opinion? i base it on what i see and science backs me up sometimes. we could contradict every "logic" you come up with without refering to scientific studies.
Do it then.
Nature is not logical by the way.
Most of the time it is. That's why are still breathing with the rest of us. It's why many things are explainable.
puberty is when the sexual hormones that have been dormant in an immature body start to kick in... that's why most "confusion" happens at that stage...confusion because they are not feeling the way they are told they should be.
There are too many instances of this "confusion" after puberty and into adulthood. It also sounds like you back up and are not now refuting what I said about "childrens" feelings and homosexuality
why do you want to change the color of a rabbit eggs?
For easter, dumbass
as soon as you get your head out of your anus i shall comply :lol:
It smells better than the bullshit you spout off.
Oh and suck dick.
There are too many variables to sexual attraction.....body type, gender, race, eye color, hair color, smell, height, etc.... for you to pigeon hole just...gender........as the trump card. You haven't realized science cannot always explain......preference.
Ok we have pigeon holed sexual attraction, next up is jealousy. :dry:
Posted by: vidcc
i didn't pidgeon hole anything...you assumed i have....nor have i set a hard indisbutable fact for every case. Yes there are many variables in sexual attraction but we are talking sexuality...not prefering blondes.
Homosexuals have physical preferences just as hetrosexuals do...the difference is we are talking gender "preference"...But then i don't believe sexuality is a preference... for me to accept that i would have to admit it's a choice...and i don't believe it is.
your "logic" of liking the color blue is unconnected to what the debate is about. you could say you like blondes... but you like blonde WOMEN, not Blonde MEN.
You have chosen to not accept anyone elses "logic" and state that they haven't come up with a counter... What of the times people pointed out gays resulting from conservative hetrosexual upbringing ?
Posted by: Busyman
i didn't pidgeon hole anything...you assumed i have....nor have i set a hard indisbutable fact for every case. Yes there are many variables in sexual attraction but we are talking sexuality...not prefering blondes.
Homosexuals have physical preferences just as hetrosexuals do...the difference is we are talking gender "preference"...But then i don't believe sexuality is a preference... for me to accept that i would have to admit it's a choice...and i don't believe it is.
your "logic" of liking the color blue is unconnected to what the debate is about. you could say you like blondes... but you like blonde WOMEN, not Blonde MEN.
You have chosen to not accept anyone elses "logic" and state that they haven't come up with a counter... What of the times people pointed out gays resulting from conservative hetrosexual upbringing ?
Gender, body type, etc. relate to likes and dislikes, do they not?
For what reason is sexual gender different? A lesbian can explain what exactly they like about a woman. A bisexual woman can explain both.
Yet they are separated by your label due to science.
Do you think a straight TV executive knows how to pick an attractive man for the screen?
Could you?
Posted by: vidcc
you are arguing what's pleasing to the eye... we are talking sexuality.... different things
Posted by: Busyman
you are arguing what's pleasing to the eye... we are talking sexuality.... different things
It's relative obviously.
Posted by: hobbes
Gender, body type, etc. relate to likes and dislikes, do they not?
For what reason is sexual gender different? A lesbian can explain what exactly they like about a woman. A bisexual woman can explain both.
Yet they are separated by your label due to science.
Do you think a straight TV executive knows how to pick an attractive man for the screen?
Could you?
I think this is another relevant point.
Yes, I can look at men and determine whether they are handsome or not. That is aesthetics.
Guess what, no arousal, none.
Although I can appreciate physical beauty, regardless the gender, my mind is aroused by women and it views handsome men as "the competition".
Posted by: Busyman
I think this is another relevant point.
Yes, I can look at men and determine whether they are handsome or not. That is aesthetics.
Guess what, no arousal, none.
Although I can appreciate physical beauty, regardless the gender, my mind is aroused by women and it views handsome men as "the competition".
That's pretty good hobble.
However, you could also appreciate a beautiful woman and not get aroused. :no:
Posted by: hobbes
That's pretty good hobble.
You could also appreciate a beautiful woman and not get aroused. :no:
How? I have no control over that, it just happens. :devil:
Posted by: vidcc
It's relative obviously.
It relates in the same way as your blowjob question. You like getting blown...but only by women.... It is all part of preference that goes with sexuality, but it's not sexuality.
Many men have a thing for garters and stockings...as long as they are worn by women.... the same men wouldn't find the attire at all appealing if worn by a man.
your points have all been about attachments that go with sexual instincts.
All your "life logic" examples, such as the liking football or the color blue are irrelevent. Sexuality is an instinct, your examples are of man made activities or asthetics. It's not an instinct to like watching football because football doesn't exist in nature.
Posted by: Busyman
It relates in the same way as your blowjob question. You like getting blown...but only by women.... It is all part of preference that goes with sexuality, but it's not sexuality.
Many men have a thing for garters and stockings...as long as they are worn by women.... the same men wouldn't find the attire at all appealing if worn by a man.
your points have all been about attachments that go with sexual instincts.
All your "life logic" examples, such as the liking football or the color blue are irrelevent. Sexuality is an instinct, your examples are of man made activities or asthetics. It's not an instinct to like watching football because football doesn't exist in nature.
How a woman looks is part of sexuality. You conveniently call it aesthetics. Ok it is and it's part of sexuality. It's instinct to fuck and that's usually after one "discovers one's self"....you get that sensation.
Lay down naked and tied up, a woman is coming in to give you knobjob, you are blindfolded and she will not speak......................
Posted by: vidcc
hetrosexual men don't find every woman attractive....does that mean they are not hetrosexual?. of course not because it's asthetics, not sexuality
Posted by: Busyman
hetrosexual men don't find every woman attractive....does that mean they are not hetrosexual?. of course not because it's asthetics, not sexuality
Who said they weren't heterosexual?
You separate gender as if it's the only thing involved in sexuality when it is just part of it.
Bisexuals are perfect example. They are actually part of two groups yet are made one separate group. This convenient label bears no reference to time frame or age.
Posted by: Busyman
How? I have no control over that, it just happens. :devil:
Exactly......
Posted by: vidcc
Who said they weren't heterosexual?
You separate gender as if it's the only thing involved in sexuality when it is just part of it.
Bisexuals are perfect example. They are actually part of two groups yet are made one separate group. This convenient label bears no reference to time frame or age.I am not separating gender as if it's the only thing that counts...where the hell do you get that from. I made the point because you said sexuality is finding big breasts attractive for example.
Bisexuals run by the same theory as far as I'm concerned...they were born that way. How does bringing them up prove anything to the counter?
Your arguments are getting even more repetitive.
let's stick to the 3 main groups of human sexuality.
1. homosexual...... same sex.... not what the person of the same sex looks like...that's an aesthetic preference of that sex .....not sexuality
2. heterosexual..... opposite sex..... not what the person of the opposite sex looks like...that's an aesthetic preference of that sex..... not sexuality
3. bisexual..... not bothered...not what the person of either sex looks like...that's an aesthetic preference of those sexes..... not sexuality
now I know I repeated that 3 times but then you have repeated the same thing over and over
Posted by: bigboab
Why dont you two(Busyman&Hobbes) just get married and close this thread down? Though that would be off topic as I have suspicions as to the gender of Hobbes.:cool:
Posted by: Busyman
I am not separating gender as if it's the only thing that counts...where the hell do you get that from. I made the point because you said sexuality is finding big breasts attractive for example.
Bisexuals run by the same theory as far as I'm concerned...they were born that way. How does bringing them up prove anything to the counter?
Your arguments are getting even more repetitive.
let's stick to the 3 main groups of human sexuality.
1. homosexual...... same sex.... not what the person of the same sex looks like...that's an aesthetic preference of that sex .....not sexuality
2. heterosexual..... opposite sex..... not what the person of the opposite sex looks like...that's an aesthetic preference of that sex..... not sexuality
3. bisexual..... not bothered...not what the person of either sex looks like...that's an aesthetic preference of those sexes..... not sexuality
now I know I repeated that 3 times but then you have repeated the same thing over and over
You haven't deduced that the 3 groups are labels that are used to describe a behavior...and that is all.
You can't grasp that all human feelings can't be "tracked" into a birthed categor