Gay Marriage

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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"

[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

[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?

[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.

[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".

[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:

[Jon L. Obscene]

Why don't you just admit you're homophobic? :rolleyes:

Nice total avoidance of everything I've said btw ;)

Jonno :cool:

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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:

[Rat Faced]

http://www.spotonentertainment.co.uk/jean_l5.jpg

[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.

[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...?????

[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.

[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?

[peat moss]

I would n't need a piece of paper to tell me who I can love! But sadly some do.

[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

[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:

[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.

[clocker]

Why am I even talking to you. One wonders.

[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:
** "

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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:

[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:

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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:

[hobbes]

Ok boys, have a good night. Good chat.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[vidcc]

this non belief in science keeps reminding me of Bush's attitude to global warming...oh and evolution

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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:

[Cheese]

Busyman is an 8 pretending to be a 2. :ohmy:



j/k.

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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?

[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:

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[vidcc]

Ok Busy.

do you believe we are born hetrosexual?

[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

[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.

[Busyman]

Ok Busy.

do you believe we are born hetrosexual?
Our bodies are (besides hermaphrodites and other anomalies).

Otherwise, no.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Rat Faced]

Why dont you just say Hedonist? :P

[sArA]

Its in there Rat..... ;) I just wanted to elaborate... :lol:

[Rat Faced]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

My bad... I just skimmed it :P

[sArA]

tsk tsk :dry:



:lol: :lol:

[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:

[h121589]

what keeps happening to my post?

plz dont tell me that its against the board rules to post wut i posted cuz OMG

[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:

[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:

[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 ?

[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?

[vidcc]

you are arguing what's pleasing to the eye... we are talking sexuality.... different things

[Busyman]

you are arguing what's pleasing to the eye... we are talking sexuality.... different things
It's relative obviously.

[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".

[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:

[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:

[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.

[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......................

[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

[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.

[Busyman]

How? I have no control over that, it just happens. :devil:
Exactly......

[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

[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:

[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 category.

Aesthetics are part of human sexuality.

Lay down naked and tied up, a woman is coming in to give you a knobjob, you are blindfolded and she will not speak...................... (great fraternity...)

[vidcc]

i am not going to repeat myself, it's futile.


Lay down naked and tied up, a woman is coming in to give you a knobjob, you are blindfolded and she will not speak...................... i have no idea why you keep posting that

[Rat Faced]

'Coz you just hope it will be the girl, and not some bloke that gives you the bj ;)

[Busyman]

'Coz you just hope it will be the girl, and not some bloke that gives you the bj ;)
Rat, you are aight man. ;)

[Jon L. Obscene]

But if you enjoyed that blow job and it WAS a man, would that make you gay?
Would you be repulsed by the idea even tho you enjoyed it?

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

But if you enjoyed that blow job and it WAS a man, would that make you gay?
Would you be repulsed by the idea even tho you enjoyed it?

Jonno :cool:

Men give better blowjobs. Apparently. :unsure:

[Jon L. Obscene]

For the most part that is possibly true, same as they say a woman can please another woman better than a man. this would be due to each sex knowing how their own bodies work and passing that knowledge into technique. So in theory if you could put a mans knowledge into a woman (If you're hetrosexual) she would possibly perform better than she would with her own knowledge therefore making the technique of a man better than that of a woman. The difference being that if you are hetro you would not enjoy knowing a man is giving you oral sex.

Of course the only people I've ever actually heard say stuff like that are gays, but it kinda has a freaky realistic possibility theory to it don;t you think?

Of course having said that you can't catorgarise like that, you could say Brazilians are the best footballers, but not all of them. There are a few women who make it their business to make sure they know exactly what their doing :D

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

But if you enjoyed that blow job and it WAS a man, would that make you gay?
Would you be repulsed by the idea even tho you enjoyed it?

Jonno :cool:

Oh but of course any straight man would be repulsed. According to science, since they heterosexual, the chemicals or hormones disallow room for anything else.

And since aesthetics are not part of sexuality then well.... :unsure:

Thank you vid. Jonno's question was easy to answer.

:dry:

:shifty:

[bigboab]

And since aesthetics are not part of sexuality then well.... :unsure:

I know its an old joke, but are you saying that if I was an aesthetic sex would not be a gas?

[Jon L. Obscene]

O
Thank you vid. Jonno's question was easy to answer.

:dry:

:shifty:

:huh: huh?

As for the other bit about being repulsed, yes it's true most men would, but repulsed at the fact another man did it? Or the fact you enjoyed it?

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

For the most part that is possibly true, same as they say a woman can please another woman better than a man. this would be due to each sex knowing how their own bodies work and passing that knowledge into technique. So in theory if you could put a mans knowledge into a woman (If you're hetrosexual) she would possibly perform better than she would with her own knowledge therefore making the technique of a man better than that of a woman. The difference being that if you are hetro you would not enjoy knowing a man is giving you oral sex.

Of course the only people I've ever actually heard say stuff like that are gays, but it kinda has a freaky realistic possibility theory to it don;t you think?

Of course having said that you can't catorgarise like that, you could say Brazilians are the best footballers, but not all of them. There are a few women who make it their business to make sure they know exactly what their doing :D

Jonno :cool:


A Pepsi Challenge for blow-jobs would solve this question. I will, of course, act as quality control for the women's team. :shifty:

[bigboab]

A Pepsi Challenge for blow-jobs would solve this question. I will, of course, act as quality control for the women's team


A coke challenge would be more apt.:)

[Jon L. Obscene]

:ph34r: Careful of you get modededed :ermm:



every Off Topic post which has to be removed will earn the poster some negative reputation (yes, it is still there, you just can't see it, and yes it can go negative). When your reputation falls below a certain point you go on moderation. Automatic. No matter who you are.

You have been warned.


Jonno :cool:

[vidcc]

You can't grasp that all human feelings can't be "tracked" into a birthed category.

Aesthetics are part of human sexuality.


I grasp it...i just don't agree with it.


Oh but of course any straight man would be repulsed. According to science, since they heterosexual, the chemicals or hormones disallow room for anything else.

again you go there with the science bit...do you ignore anything that doesn't suit on everyones posts and just cherry pick what suits you?

BTW. it was hobbes that raised science...i just made a quip about it.

And where did i say every case is absolute ? there are variations that's why i told you "nature isn't logical"

If you took 10000 fresh born girls and 10000 fresh born boys and isolated them on an island free from sexual presets and gave them no sex education at all, just basic life needs such as food etc. i guarentee in 16 or so years there would be new borns on that island, and probably some homosexual relationships.

[Jon L. Obscene]

If you took 10000 fresh born girls and 10000 fresh born boys and isolated them on an island free from sexual presets and gave them no sex education at all, just basic life needs such as food etc. i guarentee in 16 or so years there would be new borns on that island, and probably some homosexual relationships.

:w00t: Where's this island??? :w00t:

Ok sorry :ph34r:

On topic: This is possibly the best line in this whole thread


"nature isn't logical"

Thats exactly it, all this talk of science is irrelevent, science does'nt make babies (Yes I know about the clone thing, I mean generally) naturally born babies will be born from and into nature, the way they grow up and what they grow into is pre programmed thru genes to some extent which are made by nature. It's obvious that a gay person has too many of the wrong gene for their sexual group.
Therefore you're born gay ;)

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

:w00t: Where's this island??? :w00t:

Ok sorry :ph34r:

On topic: This is possibly the best line in this whole thread



Thats exactly it, all this talk of science is irrelevent, science does'nt make babies (Yes I know about the clone thing, I mean generally) naturally born babies will be born from and into nature, the way they grow up and what they grow into is pre programmed thru genes to some extent which are made by nature. It's obvious that a gay person has too many of the wrong gene for their sexual group.
Therefore you're born gay ;)

Jonno :cool:

WRONG gene? :huh:

Then gays are deficient and sick.

[Busyman]

:ph34r: Careful of you get modededed :ermm:





Jonno :cool:
That refers to posts in Everything About the Board. :dry:

[Jon L. Obscene]

WRONG gene? :huh:

Then gays are deficient and sick.

No, don't half quote me


wrong gene for their sexual group

Meaning a man would have too many female genes so to speak.

Jonno :cool:

[Cheese]

:ph34r: Careful of you get modededed :ermm:





Jonno :cool:

As the Busyman says that refers to the EATB section of the board.

[Busyman]

No, don't half quote me



Meaning a man would have too many female genes so to speak.

Jonno :cool:
So these genes affected what type of person turned someone on but not their appearance?

[Jon L. Obscene]

So these genes affected what type of person turned someone on but not their appearance?

Those genes affect our entire personality.
The looks thing I think you're trying to twist what I'm saying.
There's a balance of male/female genes in everyone, obviously everyone has a different balance.
I'm sorry,I can't explain it any simpler than that :)

@Cheese ..... It was a joke :rolleyes: and it's not a direct quote :P

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

No, don't half quote me



Meaning a man would have too many female genes so to speak.

Jonno :cool:
So there are 3 genes for this?

HET, HOMO, and BI genes?

or maybe it's a chemical build-up...too much (or not enough) is HET, not enough (or too little) is HOMO, and just the right amount is BI?

[vidcc]

So these genes affected what type of person turned someone on but not their appearance?
all depends on which genes and/or hormones. There are many and each has a different "task"
But then if you want to discuss biological developement i am afraid we have to enter the realms of....... i almost hate to say it .....................................................................................................

science :whistling

[Busyman]

Those genes affect our entire personality.
The looks thing I think you're trying to twist what I'm saying.
There's a balance of male/female genes in everyone, obviously everyone has a different balance.
I'm sorry,I can't explain it any simpler than that :)

@Cheese ..... It was a joke :rolleyes: and it's not a direct quote :P

Jonno :cool:
Yet this imbalance is not shown to cause homosexuality.

[Jon L. Obscene]

I don't understand what you are dribbling about,

Male gene
Female Gene

Say man to be 100% hetrosexual has to have 75% male genes.
A man with 50% would be bi
A man with 30% would be gay
A man with 20% would be a transexual

And don't be quoting me on this saying it's crap, I made it up it's not scientific, it's a loose example of what I'm talking about :)

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

all depends on which genes and/or hormones. There are many and each has a different "task"
But then if you want to discuss biological developement i am afraid we have to enter the realms of....... i almost hate to say it .....................................................................................................

science :whistling
and that can't explain all realms of........................i almost hate to say it ..................................................................................

psychology :whistling

[Busyman]

I grasp it...i just don't agree with it.


again you go there with the science bit...do you ignore anything that doesn't suit on everyones posts and just cherry pick what suits you?

BTW. it was hobbes that raised science...i just made a quip about it.

blahblah..and born with mantra isn't science related...riiiight. :lol:
"Science, I didn't say no word science."

And where did i say every case is absolute ? there are variations that's why i told you "nature isn't logical"

There are variations to the human psyche.

If you took 10000 fresh born girls and 10000 fresh born boys and isolated them on an island free from sexual presets and gave them no sex education at all, just basic life needs such as food etc. i guarentee in 16 or so years there would be new borns on that island, and probably some homosexual relationships.

Thayat manes a janeyus!!!

There will probably be some murders too.

[Jon L. Obscene]

No, the psycological part is the decider, most gay people will struggle in some form with confusion etc, but what causes that confusion is caused at birth, it's in them right from the start.
Many people will live a lie, pretending to be straight when they are actually gay.
People who thought or were convinced by someone they were gay and living that life who have since discovered they are not.

Your sexual preference is set at birth.

Jonno :cool:

[vidcc]

and that can't explain all realms of........................i almost hate to say it ..................................................................................

psychology :whistling
but you asked about the human body and the genes that create physical attributes not the mind.


you seem confused, should i type slower for you?

[hobbes]

In 1992, Bailey and Pillard followed-up their experiment on homosexual men by studying identical twin, fraternal twin, and nongenetically related adopted sisters. As expected, their results mirrored those found in their gay brother study. Whereas only six percent of adopted sisters were both lesbian, sixteen percent of fraternal twin sisters and forty-eight percent of identical twin sisters were both lesbian (Burr, Separate 35). Clearly, the basis for a similar argument for predetermined homosexuality in women has been laid.

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html

So we find that the stronger the genetic relationship between twins, the higher the likelihood, that if one is gay, the other will be as well.

If the twins are not related (adoption) the presence of a gay twin means nothing above society's baseline incidence.

This proves that there is a genetic basis. And it also proves that it is not "environmental" as the non-genetic twins would have an equal incidence of homosexuality as the genetic twins.

But if the twins are identical, why aren't they always of the same sexual orientation.

I think that this can be explained by saying that they have the genetic potential to become gay, but a some time during gestation this potential needs to be activated. This, I think boils down to percentages/random chance.

There are many conditions which exhibit this phenomenon. It is called "penetrance". Huntingtons chorea is a neurological disorder with 100% penetrance. That means if you have the gene you WILL ALWAYS get the disease. A disease with less penetrance is Neurofibromatosis. If you have the gene, sometimes you get the disease, sometimes you don't.

This is offered just to clearly state that a genetic basis for homosexuality is there. The data is right there. They have figured out that you get it from your Mother on her "x" chromosome. The exact mechanism can be worked out by beaker boys who care about that kind of stuff.

Whether people want to call it a disease or not is up to them.

[Busyman]

but you asked about the human body and the genes that create physical attributes not the mind.


you seem confused, should i type slower for you?
Unfortunately you typing slower still renders the same number of letters and the same number of words positioned in the same places.

It's the same bullshit....just ten minutes later. :dry:

The mind and body have both been mentioned. Are you confused?

Currently this whole debate is mainly about nature vs. nurture. I don't even entirely believe in the nurture aspect.

I believe people's minds can be influenced but not entirely "mapped".

It is why in a room full folks that seem alike you can get numerous variations.
It is why like thinkers are still different.
It is why identical twins may act differently and have different sexual desires.

Science cannot fully explain sentience. Religious folk call it the soul.

[dwightfry]

What does any of this matter?

If you are right...everyone decides to be gay for whatever reason, they get the right to marry, It becomes this huge fad, half of america becomes gay over the next 20 years......so what...what does that change?

I'll tell you...

You have to witness 2 people that YOU are not in the least bit attracted too, giving each other a little affection. They also happen to have a few more legal rights. (No more than you or I) Nothing more, nothing less. You will only be affected how you want to be affected. Be grossed out if you like...It doesn't matter. It's not hurting you, or your kid, or any of your family. If your kid were to 'decide' to be gay, it's really his/her choice, now isn't it? They can choose their own partners and you have no right to take that choice away. You have no reason to want to take it away other than "I don't like it." That's just not enough to get in the way of personal freedoms.

(of course, if you don't have kids, that is a hypothetical)

And BTW, if you are straight, that doesn't mean that a gay relationship between two men is going to gross you out. I have kissed, with tongue and without, 4 of my friends that are in fact guys. I am not in the least bit gay though. I have never, and will never look at guy and want to bone him. Nor do I see it as a big deal of someone does.

[Busyman]

What does any of this matter?

If you are right...everyone decides to be gay for whatever reason, they get the right to marry, It becomes this huge fad, half of america becomes gay over the next 20 years......so what...what does that change?

I'll tell you...

You have to witness 2 people that YOU are not in the least bit attracted too, giving each other a little affection. They also happen to have a few more legal rights. (No more than you or I) Nothing more, nothing less. You will only be affected how you want to be affected. Be grossed out if you like...It doesn't matter. It's not hurting you, or your kid, or any of your family. If your kid were to 'decide' to be gay, it's really his/her choice, now isn't it? They can choose their own partners and you have no right to take that choice away. You have no reason to want to take it away other than "I don't like it." That's just not enough to get in the way of personal freedoms.

(of course, if you don't have kids, that is a hypothetical)

And BTW, if you are straight, that doesn't mean that a gay relationship between two men is going to gross you out. I have kissed, with tongue and without, 4 of my friends that are in fact guys. I am not in the least bit gay though. I have never, and will never look at guy and want to bone him. Nor do I see it as a big deal of someone does.
:ohmy: :crying: :sick: :frusty: :wacko: :no: :helpsmili :( :blink:

[Busyman]

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html

So we find that the stronger the genetic relationship between twins, the higher the likelihood, that if one is gay, the other will be as well.

If the twins are not related (adoption) the presence of a gay twin means nothing above society's baseline incidence.

This proves that there is a genetic basis. And it also proves that it is not "environmental" as the non-genetic twins would have an equal incidence of homosexuality as the genetic twins.

But if the twins are identical, why aren't they always of the same sexual orientation.

I think that this can be explained by saying that they have the genetic potential to become gay, but a some time during gestation this potential needs to be activated. This, I think boils down to percentages/random chance.

There are many conditions which exhibit this phenomenon. It is called "penetrance". Huntingtons chorea is a neurological disorder with 100% penetrance. That means if you have the gene you WILL ALWAYS get the disease. A disease with less penetrance is Neurofibromatosis. If you have the gene, sometimes you get the disease, sometimes you don't.

This is offered just to clearly state that a genetic basis for homosexuality is there. The data is right there. They have figured out that you get it from your Mother on her "x" chromosome. The exact mechanism can be worked out by beaker boys who care about that kind of stuff.

Whether people want to call it a disease or not is up to them.
I was waiting for some Googling. :lol: :lol:

Do some more.

They have been debunked.

[sArA]

:ohmy: :crying: :sick: :frusty: :wacko: :no: :helpsmili :( :blink:

Not like your usual response BM...

I wonder...was Dwightfry's response too reasonable and well thought out as an opinion that it left you speechless?



:lol: :lol:

[dwightfry]

:ohmy: :crying: :sick: :frusty: :wacko: :no: :helpsmili :( :blink:


Oh, come on. That is your only replay. More personal discriptions on how a homosexual relationship makes you feel? Give me a break!

Somewhere in this thread you said 'imagine if homosexual relationships became a thing of the norm.' (or something like that).... I'll put it all into a nice neat package for ya.

Some straight people like you will be angered, grossed out, or whatever you would feel, while other straight people like myself, would be pleased at the decision. The next generation will come, some will still be against it, but many more will be used to it and will not be bothered. The next generation will come and most of the nation won't give a damn.... life will continue... the end

[Busyman]

Not like your usual response BM...

I wonder...was Dwightfry's response too reasonable and well thought out as an opinion that it left you speechless?



:lol: :lol:
Actually no Sara. I should have edited the quote....it was the last paragraph that got me.

Everything else was pretty much agreeable and I believe it is inevitable. But I've said that earlier. ;)

[Busyman]

Oh, come on. That is your only replay. More personal discriptions on how a homosexual relationship makes you feel? Give me a break!

Somewhere in this thread you said 'imagine if homosexual relationships became a thing of the norm.' (or something like that).... I'll put it all into a nice neat package for ya.

Some straight people like you will be angered, grossed out, or whatever you would feel, while other straight people like myself, would be pleased at the decision. The next generation will come, some will still be against it, but many more will be used to it and will not be bothered. The next generation will come and most of the nation won't give a damn.... life will continue... the end
Agreed.

I was merely joking about you kissing 4 guys, some with tongue and not being gay.

It could have been for a number of reasons (besides it being homosexual), however.

[dwightfry]

Actually no Sara. I should have edited the quote....it was the last paragraph that got me.

Everything else was pretty much agreeable and I believe it is inevitable. But I've said that earlier. ;)

if it's agreeable...than whats the argument? what's the point of all this? You admit that there is nothing wrong.

[hobbes]

I was waiting for some Googling. :lol: :lol:

Do some more.

They have been debunked.

Post link.

BTW Busyman, who supports your theory. No one, actually.

Genetics is what people are studying in regard to advances in understanding homosexuality. Just because they can't pull a single gene out and show it to you doesn't mean that it is not genetic. It could be the interaction of several genes making it much more difficult to pin down.

As I said, the evidence is there, the details can be ironed out by those who care.

Edit: I looked into the link and found that his "x" chromosome theory is failing and that he the quality of his data may be suspect.

However, additional research has lead to many articles on the genetics of homosexuality.


Is there such a thing as a gay gene? Scientists at UCLA have discovered 54 genes in mice which suggest that homosexuality may not be a choice as sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth.

Last week, British psychologists from the University of East London and from King's College also said they have found strong evidence to support the theory that a person's sexuality is "hard-wired" into the brain before birth.


http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=582&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all

It just make sense. And it is the ONLY avenue researchers are looking into, the psychosocial mumbo jumbo has been bebunked by the American Psychiatric Association and this is clearly in their postion statement on homosexuality.

[vidcc]

actually after busy's google suggestion, I did..... seems that all the "pro birth" opinions are from academics, doctors, and psychologists.

all the "it's choice" opinions are from religious sites... mostly using the bible to prove their theories.

For busy I will state that this is not an absolute, it is general before he comes up with one "difference"

No doubt all the "scientific" research is bulshit...but i shall go with that

[Busyman]

actually after busy's google suggestion, I did..... seems that all the "pro birth" opinions are from academics, doctors, and psychologists.

all the "it's choice" opinions are from religious sites... mostly using the bible to prove their theories.

For busy I will state that this is not an absolute, it is general before he comes up with one "difference"

No doubt all the "scientific" research is bulshit...but i shall go with that
I used to think as you do years ago but at that time never considered it an issue.

I read the Levay study and said oh, hmmm there's seems to be proof but then again what was his scientific method?

It was later debunked and then I thought about it....

What's the difference between me liking a women with a phat ass and a man liking women with a petite one . :huh:

Then I realized I couldn't explain exactly why I like phat ass. I just do, yet I don't like petite ass but they are both women. I walk right by a petite lady without a second thought.
Then to explore further what if I like it because of a gene but hell, is there a "I like phat ass" gene. No.

Then I realized both sides are trying to explain paticular desire.
One put's it in lights saying..but,butbut it's sexuality. That's it case closed....

Both main sides are wrong.

One says you are born that way.

Were you born to like men or women...and if that's the case..what else? Bisexuals are left out of many "studies". Why?

The other says it's a choice.

How do you choose your feelings?

Men have risked their lives to be with that forbidden women.
Could they have chosen not to feel for them? Risk their lives yes. Feel no.
Do I love my mother because I'm her son? No.

I can't remember exactly what they say but I never thought that the APA's stance disagreed with mine. I remember reading a journal or something when I was there and it seemed rather logical.

[dwightfry]

and here we go again. I can't believe that people won't decide to be gay. I can't believe that all decide to be gay. The point of this topic was marriage.

you said...


I personally don't want to see gay marriage see the light of day.


What you are saying is that you don't want them to have the right because you think it's icky. So, admit that you have no right to try to stop them. If you were argueing religion, then all I could say is that religion has no place in government. If you argued aids, or some other type of harm, I could have more arguments, but you are not. You simply don't like it. So, right here, right now, I want you to admit that you have no legal, ethical ground to protest their right. Nothing else has been proven one way or another, so there is no point of argueing it.

[Jon L. Obscene]

From what I understand, BM does'nt want to see gay Marriage because he fears the "Effects" it will have on children and seems to have it in his mind that gay marriage will incure a sharpe rise in the gay population because kids will see it's allowed and instantly want to be gay.
Eventually turning the entire human race gay which will stop procreation and the human race will be extinct.

All because they let a couple of lads/lass's get married :frusty:

Shees, last gay wedding I went to was great :01: More friendly and much more fun than a normal wedding :01:

AND there were kids there and I did'nt here any of them say they now wanna be gay :ermm:

And some bird grabed my nuts :ph34r:

Jonno :cool:

[dwightfry]

Eventually turning the entire human race gay which will stop procreation and the human race will be extinct.

Has he even said that? It seems all he has said is that they choose to be gay and I don't like it.

[Busyman]

Stay with me here...
and here we go again. I can't believe that people won't decide to be gay. I can't believe that all decide to be gay.

I don't think anyone decides to feel gay. I think they decide to act on those feelings.

The point of this topic was marriage.

Agreed. Way back near the beginning I recall something about a paper on gay marriage.....

you said...


I personally don't want to see gay marriage see the light of day.


What you are saying is that you don't want them to have the right because you think it's icky.

No, I think male-on-male sex is icky. :sick: As far as my reason, go back and read. :dry:

So, admit that you have no right to try to stop them.

Of course I do. Some of rights include referendums, protests, lobbying.....

If you were argueing religion, then all I could say is that religion has no place in government.

But I'm not.

If you argued aids, or some other type of harm, I could have more arguments, but you are not.

But I'm not, oh er...you said I'm not. :unsure:

You simply don't like it.

Agreed, yow aura janeyus. :ohmy:

So, right here, right now, I want you to admit that you have no legal, ethical ground to protest their right.

No and of course I have the right.

Nothing else has been proven one way or another, so there is no point of argueing it.

Ok, go for it!!! :clap:

[Busyman]

Has he even said that? It seems all he has said is that they choose to be gay and I don't like it.
RIF. Pay attention, words are right in front of you. They don't skid off the page if you take awhile.

:dry:

[dwightfry]

No, I think male-on-male sex is icky. As far as my reason, go back and read.

That's what I meant. Sorry if you misunderstood.

What shocks me is that you think that you are in the right when protesting something that has next to no effect on you, with the exception of being uncomfortable. I guess you do have the right though....it's just stupid, that's all. You be sure to have a good time with your referendums, protests, lobbying...etc.

C Ya, I'm done

[Busyman]

From what I understand, BM does'nt want to see gay Marriage because he fears the "Effects" it will have on children

Agreed but more like influence

and seems to have it in his mind that gay marriage will incure a sharpe rise in the gay population because kids will see it's allowed and instantly want to be gay.

Load of crap. You made it up

Eventually turning the entire human race gay which will stop procreation and the human race will be extinct.

More made up crap

All because they let a couple of lads/lass's get married :frusty:

Shees, last gay wedding I went to was great :01: More friendly and much more fun than a normal wedding :01:

OHTHAT'S GREAT OH MAN JEEZ!! LOL!!111!1OMG :clap:

AND there were kids there and I did'nt here any of them say they now wanna be gay :ermm:

And finally we come to ...more made up crap. Just kidding....but really I'm shocked. :ohmy:

And some bird grabed my nuts :ph34r:

Jonno :cool:

Water, chest, wal, Brazil, pea....wanna be more Pacific er...I mean Atlantic. :dry:

[vidcc]

Busy

Right at the begining of this (it was a diferent thread but same subject) my statement was "you can't prove people aren't born gay". I also made a point that we can't prove they are and that it's all opinion.
It's my opinion that people are born that way, i thought this without the "scientific research".
right away when i said there is no proof that people are not born gay you said well yes there is...just look at logic...well you still haven't given any proof.

I have not posted one googled report, because it's still just scientific opinion, not solid fact, although it's an educated opinion with far stronger evedence than the opposing theory.

Your opinion doesn't have any solid ground to stand on either....yet you happily call our thoughts "bullshit" as if you had the absolute undisbutable knowledge that all accadamia seems to be unable to grasp.

You have cherry picked and half quoted posts, you have misread then accused us of contradicting ourselves.

As i have said more than once...it's all just opinion, not one shred of actual proof.
case closed

[dwightfry]

it's just stupid

actually, I take that back...although stupid, there is a much better term...selfish

[Busyman]

That's what I meant. Sorry if you misunderstood.

What shocks me is that you think that you are in the right when protesting something

Of course I have the right

that has next to no effect on you, with the exception of being uncomfortable.

Go and read for reasons

I guess you do have the right though....it's just stupid, that's all. You be sure to have a good time with your referendums, protests, lobbying...etc

C Ya, I'm done

Go back and read again. The only thing I'd probably partake in is a referendum.

[Busyman]

actually, I take that back...although stupid, there is a much better term...selfish
Agreed.

[Busyman]

Busy

Right at the begining of this (it was a diferent thread but same subject) my statement was "you can't prove people aren't born gay". I also made a point that we can't prove they are and that it's all opinion.
It's my opinion that people are born that way, i thought this without the "scientific research".
right away when i said there is no proof that people are not born gay you said well yes there is...just look at logic...well you still haven't given any proof.

I have not posted one googled report, because it's still just scientific opinion, not solid fact, although it's an educated opinion with far stronger evedence than the opposing theory.

Your opinion doesn't have any solid ground to stand on either....yet you happily call our thoughts "bullshit" as if you had the absolute undisbutable knowledge that all accadamia seems to be unable to grasp.

Both sides are trying prove something that I think can't be proven.

One is trying to say that we choose our feelings.

The other is saying we are born an affection for a person on based their chromosome base and that trumps everything

You have cherry picked and half quoted posts, you have misread then accused us of contradicting ourselves.

Actually I think I have fully quoted posts and mostly addressed line-by-line (for the most part). I misread maybe twice. One I know was on your "you ain't say no science thingie".

As i have said more than once...it's all just opinion, not one shred of actual proof.
case closed

My logic says it is proof enough for me. That's all that's needed. I am obviously in the minority on both sides.

I cannot scientifically prove why I like phat ass either. I won't attribute this to a "I like phat ass" gene so I don't attribute me liking only women to a gene.

Got it. Oh I know butbutbut it's sexuality.. :no:

I'm glad you've closed the case. :)

[hobbes]

All I can say is that I have no recollection of chosing to be straight. I have had "crushes" on females since the age of 5, even before I knew what reproduction was.

Why is it that everyone is saying that "they never made a concious choice", but you are insisting they did.

Why are people chosing a lifestyle that alienates them from family, friends and co-workers.

Why are some gay despite being threatened with death if caught.

How come people consider killing themselves because they are gay, why not go straight.

How come people go to doctors and ask to be "made normal", as they are miserable with their hiding secret.

Even when given intensive therapy, most cannot be changed?

A conscious choice, I think not. Particularly when there are gays pleading to be straight, if for no reason other than to considered "normal", not because they think they are bad people.

Explain to me, why this makes sense to you, I really don't get it.



Sexual preference is a basic genetic survival instinct. As animals, we are born to eat, reproduce and die. Our interest in females is programmed and we respond to their physical appearance and the phermones they secrete.

We don't eat treebark do we, we eat meat. We eat what we were made to digest. Our bodies direct us to these food sources by telling us they smell "good". Not just, that but I cannot choose to find treebark "yummy", there are no neural setup to support this. Our neural circuitry tells us what to think, not the other way around.

Just the same way as we are directed towards females because they make us horny. "Horny" is just natures way of telling us that women are what we need to make babies.

So we pick women over men, like we pick steak over tree bark.

Within women, we have preferences. Some preferences are more instinctual than we are aware. We are most attracted to those women that appear "healthy" to us. This is natures way of telling us that this mate will be fertile and bear children. Do you find old ladies "hot" or cancer ridden patients "sexy"? No, they don't look like they can bear children. You may not think of in these terms, but that is how your body sees it.

On the converse, how do women pick us to father their babies. Birds use mating calls. If the man does not do the right dance or sing the right tune, he is considered a "damaged goods". Female women do much the same with us. They make us jump through hoops to try and ensure that we will make the appropriate commitment to them. They need help with a baby, they want a father for their child, and dating and romance is how they screen us.

You don't see women going to the bathhouses for random sex do you? Unlike the gay male who can have 100's of annoymous partners a year, women have different biologic goals, that is not how they are programmed.

Bottom line though, women like men, men like women, that is default programming. But like any program, errors can occur. Preferences are not as arbitrary as they appear.

[Busyman]

All I can say is that I have no recollection of chosing to be straight. I have had "crushes" on females since the age of 5, even before I knew what reproduction was.

Good, you can't choose a feeling.

Why is it that everyone is saying that "they never made a concious choice", but you are insisting they did.

Where did I do that?

Why are people chosing a lifestyle that alienates them from family, friends and co-workers.

Why did some white women choose to be with a black men that alienated them from family, friends, and co-workers?

Why are some gay despite being threatened with death if caught.

Can you not feel sad if I tell you not to while holding a gun to your head? Could you be celibate if you had AIDS?

How come people consider killing themselves because they are gay, why not go straight.

You can't choose feelings. Also suicide may due to a mental problem or just extremely sad. Some have inner turmoil due to religion, job, etc. Would you kill yourself if you had AIDS?

How come people go to doctors and ask to be "made normal", as they are miserable with their hiding secret.

That's a societal issue clashing with how they feel?

Even when given intensive therapy, most cannot be changed?

Go to therapy and change the type of woman you like.

A conscious choice, I think not. Particularly when there are gays pleading to be straight, if for no reason other than to considered "normal", not because they think they are bad people.

Explain to me, why this makes sense to you, I really don't get it.

Ok now to sum it up, I don't think it's a conscious choice for one to like the same, both, or opposite sex. You've even quoted me as saying....the act is choice the feeling is not. WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT? or better yet WHAT ARE YOU ON? :huh:

Sexual preference is a basic genetic survival instinct. As animals, we are born to eat, reproduce and die. Our interest in females is programmed and we respond to their physical appearance and the phermones they secrete.

I think I'm programmed to fuck. Most have discovered masturbation by brushing across their own genitals by accident and it feels good. The nerves of the penis in one's pants start to stir up trouble.

We don't eat treebark do we, we eat meat. We eat what we were made to digest. Our bodies direct us to these food sources by telling us they smell "good". Not just, that but I cannot choose to find treebark "yummy", there are no neural setup to support this.

Again I don't why you are harping on this choosystuffwhatchamacallit. Also not all of us find that the same food sources smell "good" or taste "good". :dry:

Our neural circuitry tells us what to think, not the other way around.

Like a robot?

Just the same way as we are directed towards females because they make us horny. "Horny" is just natures way of telling us that women are what we need to make babies.

Good assumption...it is an assumption. Why do we need to make babies? If what you say is true about what nature is "telling" us then homosexuals are unnatural. I don't buy it.

So we pick women over men, like we pick steak over tree bark.

So I pick women over men, like I pick steak over chitterlings. I agree. chitterlings are nasty, just nasty!!! :sick:

Within women, we have preferences. Some preferences are more instinctual than we are aware. We are most attracted to those women that appear "healthy" to us. This is natures way of telling us that this mate will be fertile and bear children. Do you find old ladies "hot" or cancer ridden patients "sexy"? No, they don't look like they can bear children. You may not think of in these terms, but that is how your body sees it.

Good assumption...it is an assumption. I am most attracted to women with a phat ass, now I sometimes call that a "healthy ass", but you are mapping everyone the same way. If my body sees a woman as healthy why won't I sleep with her if she ain't on the pill. :blink: I don't want kids. Wow, that doesn't jell with "my body chose her because she had them child bearin' hips." :dry:

On the converse, how do women pick us to father their babies. Birds use mating calls. If the man does not do the right dance or sing the right tune, he is considered a "damaged goods". Female women do much the same with us. They make us jump through hoops to try and ensure that we will make the appropriate commitment to them. They need help with a baby, they want a father for their child, and dating and romance is how they screen us.

You just described environmental factors which many times don't apply. You are comparing humans to birds when I don't consider birds near any level of intelligence. I may look good and have a nice body but my woman likes me because I'm funny and like to think on an even keel (her weird words). We're jellin' like a felon.
Some women pick the father of their babies because they have "good hair". For some, the sex was good. For some it's money and a protector. For some it's..........no point made.

You don't see women going to the bathhouses for random sex do you? Unlike the gay male who can have 100's of annoymous partners a year, women have different biologic goals, that is not how they are programmed.

Men are dominant. You don't think in this male dominated world that we don't want it that way? So you are saying what? That women were not programmed to go to bathhouses. Sadly I haven't had a threesome but I have seen women have an orgy twice. :w00t:

Bottom line though, women like men, men like women, that is default programming. But like any program, errors can occur.

So you are saying homosexuality is an error? I disagree about the default programming. We are human beings with different wants and desires. Some are outlandish to some and normals to others.

Preferences are not as arbitrary as they appear.

We went from gay marriage to genetically gay to why I like to fuck.....

Btw do you agree with this...
Male with a transexual female is a homosexual.

Just curious.

[vidcc]

There are so many flaws in that post that I don't know where to begin....
So let's start, shall we?
but you can't prove the're flaws :whistling :lol:

[Busyman]

Could you please try to do it intelligibly, I am genuinely interested in what you see as the flaws.
No and I'm going to edit the previous post. I didn't have time before leaving work.

[hobbes]

There are so many flaws in that post that I don't know where to begin....
So let's start, shall we?

I found a few typos.

Just remember that a rebuttal either explains how a particular statement is incorrect and attempts to correct it, perhaps using an example.

Or it attempts to correct what you think is a misunderstanding of what you have been saying.

It does not contain, "this is bullshit, that is more bullshit", as your opinions really are hardly the final word on the subject, they are merely your perspective.

[Busyman]

I found a few typos.

Just remember that a rebuttal either explains how a particular statement is incorrect and attempts to correct it, perhaps using an example.

Or it attempts to correct what you think is a misunderstanding of what you have been saying.

It does not contain, "this is bullshit, that is more bullshit", as your opinions really are hardly the final word on the subject, they are merely your perspective.
Sorry I wrote a typical Busyman post like I said to Fugley.

You'll see according my post that yours is actually flawless. Especially the part about choice.

It's unintelliglesble. Sorry, no rebutt lett. I can only mark Some College on my resume.

If I have time I'll get back to it intelligfferbly.

[vidcc]

the act is choice the feeling is not.

why can you help the feeling?

[Busyman]

why can you help the feeling?
Expound please...

[Rat Faced]

No one can control their Feelings or Emotions, if they are a fully functioning Human Being.

Psychopaths may be different :unsure:

[vidcc]

Expound please...it should have been why CAN'T you control feelings..... mistype.
you stated that the act is choice the feeling is not...why isn't the feeling a choice? what makes it not a choice?

what is it in us that causes us to feel?

[Busyman]

it should have been why CAN'T you control feelings..... mistype.
you stated that the act is choice the feeling is not...why isn't the feeling a choice? what makes it not a choice?

what is it in us that causes us to feel?

I can't tell you why I can't choose to feel a certain way. It may be environmental factors.

I couldn't choose to get jealous of person A but I may get jealous of person B because they are closer to me. Who knows?

[vidcc]

Well i was trying to get a bit more basic than that.

Animals...humans included because we are animals are really just biological machines.
Everything the human body does, physically and mentally is controlled by chemicals the brain controls this via "electrical" signals...it controls senses, this is why we smell, touch, and our organs produce what we need to exist and genes tell the body how to grow and what to grow..etc.

So the question is what tells the brain to convert electronic signals into emotions...such as "feeling gay" if that feeling can't be helped?

I am using your "feelings" arguement of sexuality when asking this... i am asking a question about your logic and how you explain it with basic human make up.


It may be environmental factors
What enviromental factors?

[Rat Faced]

No one can control their Feelings or Emotions, if they are a fully functioning Human Being.

Psychopaths may be different :unsure:

Am i missing something...

Or have you both just agreed with my above statement in different ways?

[Busyman]

Well i was trying to get a bit more basic than that.

Animals...humans included because we are animals are really just biological machines.
Everything the human body does, physically and mentally is controlled by chemicals the brain controls this via "electrical" signals...it controls senses, this is why we smell, touch, and our organs produce what we need to exist and genes tell the body how to grow and what to grow..etc.

So the question is what tells the brain to convert electronic signals into emotions...such as "feeling gay" if that feeling can't be helped?

I am using your "feelings" arguement of sexuality when asking this... i am asking a question about your logic and how you explain it with basic human make up.


What enviromental factors?

Any environmental factor can influence how we feel....

....from what you might consider the most mundane to the most profound.

Some men consider how a woman's feet look when I consider it inconsequential. To those men she's a turn off.

I don't think he was hard-wired to reject corn-chip feet. :lol: :lol:

[vidcc]

Am i missing something...

Or have you both just agreed with my above statement in different ways?I think you answered my mistype, my "life logic" theory all along was that if we can't control the "gay feeling/emotion" why is it so unbelievable that homosexuals are born that way.....what is stopping us controlling them.

i made a hypothetical scenario about 20,000 babies with no outside influence and no sexual education suggesting that some would become gay...well how would that be down to influence?.

Busy answered...i bet some will be murderers :blink: he didn't answer how or why some would be gay.

[vidcc]

Any environmental factor can influence how we feel....

....from what you might consider the most mundane to the most profound.

Some men consider how a woman's feet look when I consider it inconsequential. To those men she's a turn off.

I don't think he was hard-wired to reject corn-chip feet. :lol: :lol:
you gave no answer to this
So the question is what tells the brain to convert electronic signals into emotions...such as "feeling gay" if that feeling can't be helped?

I am using your "feelings" arguement of sexuality when asking this... i am asking a question about your logic and how you explain it with basic human make up.

all you answered was
What enviromental factors?

[Busyman]

you gave no answer to this
all you answered was
I don't understand the question.

What "electronic signals"?

We are not robots.

We have higher brain functions than animals.

[vidcc]

I don't understand the question.

What "electronic signals"?

We are not robots.

We have higher brain functions than animals.
"electronic signals" is the discription of the way the brain sends "messages" to the body....it doesn't mean we need to be plugged in and charged...how do you think it should be described?

so what if we have a "higher brain function" i take it you mean "intelligence" we are still animals...perhaps you are a mineral or vegetable.

[vidcc]

I think he may be picking the nit. Asking you to say electrical impulses. Electrical being different to electronic.
perhaps i should have quoted the whole of my original question... but i see your point...

[j2k4]

The truth is that the religious want to make a big deal over a word-

Not quite true, old buddy.

This is a most common misperception; that the "religious" are the only ones arguing against a broadening of the definition of the word marriage, or that any objection to same is rooted in religion.

Why is it beyond your ken to accept there are other reasons, based on history, logic, or possibly nothing more than a keen observation of the human social/cultural condition?


...whereas, the gays don't care what you label it, just that they get the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

I must confess, I had not noticed this to be true, and I'm sure that the least reasonable among us would agree I have been paying a modicum of attention to the issue... :huh:

[hobbes]

The point is simple:

Should homosexuals be allowed to engage in a legal union that grants the same rights as it does to heterosexual couples.

That is the ONLY issue to me.

The quarrel over the word "marraige" is an attempt to obfuscate the real issue. People oppose gay couples because of their religious beliefs. This holds no weight Constitutionally and, therefore, in order to confuse matters, they start fussing about a word.

It is easy to see through the obstructionist straw horse to the true intent.

If gays are given an equal union, but still insist upon the term "marraige", I will review situation. But according to some religions, the gender of the participants is not relevant, but their commitment under their God concept is. Just because Christian religion has it's specific conditions, this should not be considered relevant legally in a country which allows religious freedom.

Do you agree that it should be the civil right of any two indivduals to be united under the law. Doesn't it seem a violation of civil rights to allow people to vote on such an issue?

And who are these "other people" that oppose? What is their logic? All the agnostics and atheists I know, are all for gay marriage.

In 1860, pants were: Clothing worn by men only spanning from the waist to ankles.
Now that women wear them, did we decide to call the same thing something different, or did we just expand the definition of the term.

Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.

[j2k4]

Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.

No, nothing going on; at least nothing so sinister as religion.

As I've said before: Take the union, we'll keep the word...and thanks for seeing it our way.

[Busyman]

And who are these "other people" that oppose? What is their logic? All the agnostics and atheists I know, are all for gay marriage.

Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.
I actually never thought of it that way.

[hobbes]

No, nothing going on; at least nothing so sinister as religion.

As I've said before: Take the union, we'll keep the word...and thanks for seeing it our way.

Union is fine with me, but it is in no way equal, as it stands today.

Make it equal and keep the word.

[hobbes]

I actually never thought of it that way.

Again, you are taking a concept, "That the religious are making this an issue" and finding an exception for the rule. They are the voice against "Gay Marraige" not the "society of agnostics and athiests".

Let's stick to the concepts and not quibble exceptions, but you go girl. :lol:

So, people are born gay, as the rule.
Religious people are the most vocal in opposing gay marraige, as a rule.

[Strangelove]

Ah, religion...

The English on the whole have never been spiritually minded people, thats why we invented Cricket.

To give us some notion of Eternity.

[ilw]

I disagree about letting christianity 'keep' the word, i have no recollection of christians complaining about other religions/people using the word marriage to describe the state of union that their religious/civil ceremonies provide. It seems to me that the word has slipped past the strict christian origins and has taken on a broader definition. Imo its a bit late in hte day to try and claim ownership of the word and as Hobbes pointed out, this is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters.

[Busyman]

Again, you are taking a concept, "That the religious are making this an issue" and finding an exception for the rule. They are the voice against "Gay Marraige" not the "society of agnostics and athiests".

Let's stick to the concepts and not quibble exceptions, but you go girl. :lol:

So, people are born gay, as the rule.
Religious people are the most vocal in opposing gay marraige, as a rule.
I'm taking a concept?

Who's quibbling? I was agreeing with the understanding that you posed ya bastard. :frusty:

People are born gay is not the rule. It's a far-fetched concept.
You are saying it's the rule and then say case closed.....bububut it's sexuaaaaality. :dry:

I guess agree with the religious folk concept though.

I disagree with gay marriage different reasons.

[Busyman]

I disagree about letting christianity 'keep' the word, i have no recollection of christians complaining about other religions/people using the word marriage to describe the state of union that their religious/civil ceremonies provide. It seems to me that the word has slipped past the strict christian origins and has taken on a broader definition. Imo its a bit late in hte day to try and claim ownership of the word and as Hobbes pointed out, this is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters.
That's because it's basically the same union....you know...the husband and wife. That's not so far-fetched. :dry:

[hobbes]

I'm taking a concept?

Who's quibbling? I was agreeing with the understanding that you posed ya bastard. :frusty:

People are born gay is not the rule. It's a far-fetched concept.
You are saying it's the rule and then say case closed.....bububut it's sexuaaaaality. :dry:

I guess agree with the religious folk concept though.

I disagree with gay marriage different reasons.

Ok BM. Sorry about that. Ya bar-stard :frusty: .

[vidcc]

perhaps the question is still misunderstood