Homosexuality is a choice

[johnny karate]

homosexuals cant evolve via the fact of no procreation.

homophobes are the created label of homosexuals just like an atheist is usually an evolved theist.


i do believe this type of conversation will bring out more insults from gay posters reflecting their only capability of defense, then ever seeking the truth of the matter.

Calling me deluted is as good as telling your mother/father that you hate them for living.

I don't think the argument is whether or not homosexuals are capable of evolution through procreation. The argument is: Who cares?

[Bishadi]

You believe that gays don't have children? Really?

these are the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality.

who claimed gays dont have children?

same sexual intercourse cannot procreate; fact

you are using your own suppositions and trying to invoke an insult but clearly just rendering a lack of reading comprehension


I just hope your issue is that English is not your first language. i know it is mine, but if you cant read and simply put a bunch of words together insinuating i said it, shares both ill regard or perhaps just blantant ignorance.

In whatever language it is, do they have capital letters? Where you come from do they teach you that evolution works the same for gay people and straight people?


Gays that are not hemorphridite are born from what they learned within their environment.

And every child you perhaps even heard of or read about was born by the normal methods of sexual intercourse.

[Mycroft]

He then says enviromental issues can be a cause, to which Bikerdruid states that overpopulation is an environmental cause of people being gay.

My question was, how does that influence children, as many gays say they knew they were gay at an early age?

I think your question is a good one, but I'm not sure science has an answer for it. One can speculate a lot of things, overcrowding producing some sort of hormonal trigger in some people, but it's just theoretical until someone figures out a study to provide evidence one way or another.

[bikerdruid]

case closed!

not bloody likely......



Calling me deluted is as good as telling your mother/father that you hate them for living.

huh???

bet you havent met one like me.


wrong...your type is a dime a dozen.
deluded pseudo-science bigots are nothing new.

[Bishadi]

Gay people often have children. But let's say you're right, if homosexuality is genetic then gay people are created by random mutations made happen by your beloved, perfect nature. if nature was so perfect, we would not be capable of building nuclear weapons not to mention lying to children to make them beleive gay sexual preferences is normal.


An idea that you won't like (because I'm guessing to you nature = god?) and that's why you're sticking to your tired old line about it being a choice.

you can choose to comprehend and maintain reality in a persepctive of what is real

or not.

i already comprehend the nasties go extinct eventually, irregardless to what i have to say.

[Red3]

same sexual intercourse cannot procreate; fact




Er, all it takes is for one gay person to have sex with a straight one and the possibility's there for inheritance. It doesn't have to be a gay couple.

[Bishadi]

not bloody likely......



huh???



wrong...your type is a dime a dozen.
deluded pseudo-science bigots are nothing new.

again, you share your character.

[bikerdruid]

again, you share your character.

:D:D:D:D
as do you....thanks for the belly laugh...

[Skeeve]

So it's my understanding, according to Bishadi, only heterosexual men donate to sperm banks...?

And he knows sexual orientation is decided by gender at birth, without one scientific study to back up his claim?

Fascinating.

[Red3]

I have a question Bishadi...Why would gay people lie?

[Pacal]

Have to totally agree. I can even use myself as an example. :)

I'm going to note here that this is something I have told very few people, so you could say it's a sort of coming out.

Because I am physically male and sexually orientated as male, it's easy to label me as "straight". However those aren't the sum total of what makes up our sexuality and gender.

What few people know about me is that when it comes to the other important parts, the Brain Sex and Gender Identity, I test as female. This means that my brain is more female in the way it thinks than it is male, and while physically male, I would prefer to be female physically. If I'd grown up in a different place and time, then becoming transgender would have been a very likely option for me to choose, though due to my body size and shape it's not one that I am likely to do now simply because even with a $1 million in surgery the results would be a very heavy, set 6' 3", ugly, and un-feminine woman. Nor do I plan to become a drag-queen because my body is well and truly male whether I like it or not.

But what does it all mean? Had I been in a position where I had understood the way I was as a kid and that there was a way to "fix" it which I could have done, I'd likely be a female now, not a male, but my sexual orientation would still be male meaning that as a transgender, I'd have been considered gay.

So which am I? I know a lot of guys joke about being lesbians trapped in a man's body, but for me it's really true. What it means to me is that sexuality and even gender identity can be very subjective and labelling it based on only what we see doesn't cover the entire gamut of possibilities out there.
What your saying is some real heavy duty stuff. Its one of the reasons i have a real hard time with simple-minded binary ideas of sex / gender. For example traditionally in gender reasignment surgery it was pushed on transexuals that they HAD to act like and dress like and be stereotypes of the opposite sex to their then physical bodies. The result was that male to female and female to male transexuals frequently were more "female" than biological females or more "male" than biological males. I.E., walking stereotypes. It as develped that many transexuals are prefectly happy going only part of the way. For example I now some she/males who are perfectly happy with their "male" gentelia of penis and testicles and some he/shes that are prefectly happy with intact vaginas annd a functioning ovaries. In fact some transexuals are perfectly happy being a sort of third gender between male and female.

A generation ago transexuals would have been expected to make a full transition to the opposite sex including a sexual attraction to the opposite sex of the sex you are going to be a member of. This was in keeping with a simple-minded binary view od human sexuality and gender. A generation or so ago your mentioning that you would still be attracted to women and that you were a Lesbian trapped in a man's body so to speak would have made it damn difficult to get the help you needed to begin the transition. Also if you showed "difficulty" in adopting the full pattern of stereotypic behavior (like liking to wear pants or using little or no make-up if your supposed to be a male to female trannsexual) patterns of the sex you aspired to be you would face serious difficulties in getting help to change your sex/gender.

Regarding your own situation. Your candour in outlining your predictiment is understood. I don't know if you have sought help or advice for this and you have indicated various reasons why the transition is virtually impossible for you right now. I would like to make a small suggestion that might help. Have you considered dressing / acting (if you don't already) in an andrgenous fashion?

[SezMe]

Bishadi, you ignored my #246. I'll pose it as a question: Do you think that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation?

[shandyjan]

Many people in the past lied about their sexuality and still do. Usually because they are gay and live in a bigotted world and pretend they are straight! I prefer a place where people can be whom they are, no lies or pretense. After all what they do in their own lives doesnt affect me and mine. It only affects anyone when lies are outed.
And please dont tell a member to hang themselves Bishadi. It tells more about you than the rest of your railings.

[bookitty]

sounds like the peeve i see is the lack of maintaining coherance to what you read and basically have a subjective approach to observing the nature of life.

i could care less how you view the lineage of mankind, but your line of life will dies off if you do not procreate. ie... the combination of your mother and father could be wasted by a the selfish choice of actions, by you!

kind of like same sexual intercourse dont do much for either as they are too busy taking resources for their own entertainment, or perhaps because they live the entertainment industry versus the good of others or even themselves.
i have accidently stepped on ants too, but when one attacks me, it aint no accident


better than the self-centered argument; i do because i can and dont care about anyone else but myself.


there is no right to lie, in itself.


but to know what life is, then procreation is not only for you. ie.. your parents and the whole lineage since the beginning of time, that makes you.

i never discount Love, but hell to liar

First off. Say what now?

If I understand you, you are saying that not procreating is selfish. How so?

For example, I have no children. However, both of my sisters do. Those children carry my DNA, so the future of my genes is secure. Some of my resources (time, money, attention) go towards my sisters' children. When my kid sister got divorced, she was flat broke for a while. I paid for my niece's private school. Now that she's in a terrific college, I can feel some pride in helping her succeed.

In pre-modern times, a spinster aunt might contribute food. She might take care of the children when the mother was ill. She might even adopt the children if the mother died in childbirth. The reasons for doing this are based more on family and tribe than contributing to the gene pool but it accomplishes the same thing.

Adults who do not have children contribute to the well-being of the community so that the children of the community can thrive.

[BobTheDonkey]

The "gays can't have babies, so the race will go extinct!!!" gambit just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. It's just so nonsensical. The "goal" of propagation is not to make babies, it's to make adults who will be able to do their part. If the infant animals die, the line dies out as well.

There are numerous examples of social animals who do not breed within their group but instead support the group in some fashion. This is the "natural order."

To say that all individual animals must breed is ridiculously over-simplified. It's a stoner argument. "But dude, like the animals and DNA and stuff, right?"

Next time you hear this, ask if they're also against homosexuals adopting ;)

If they say "yes", then you can inform them that they're full of **** wrt homosexuality being "against the natural order" - because if survival of the species is the concern, then raising orphaned/abandoned children is necessary by some member(s) of the community.

If they say "no", then you can inform them that they're full of **** wrt homosexuality being "against the natural order" - because if survival of the species is the concern, then raising orphaned/abandoned children is necessary by some member(s) of the community.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't think the argument is whether or not homosexuals are capable of evolution through procreation. The argument is: Who cares?

I believe the actual argument is "Get the **** over it!" :D

(Warning, NSFW)
0TMTrpugT0E&has_verified=1

[willhaven]

Who cares? What difference does it make one way or the other?This.

[BobTheDonkey]

First off. Say what now?

If I understand you, you are saying that not procreating is selfish. How so?

For example, I have no children. However, both of my sisters do. Those children carry my DNA, so the future of my genes is secure. Some of my resources (time, money, attention) go towards my sisters' children. When my kid sister got divorced, she was flat broke for a while. I paid for my niece's private school. Now that she's in a terrific college, I can feel some pride in helping her succeed.

In pre-modern times, a spinster aunt might contribute food. She might take care of the children when the mother was ill. She might even adopt the children if the mother died in childbirth. The reasons for doing this are based more on family and tribe than contributing to the gene pool but it accomplishes the same thing.

Adults who do not have children contribute to the well-being of the community so that the children of the community can thrive.

I hear that a lot from the guys at work - that choosing not to procreate is selfish. I generally don't want to get into it with those guys since it's at work...but when friends make comments like that, I usually respond by informing them that having children is as selfish as it can be.

Dads want their little boys to be just like them. Moms want to see little thems running around. Parents want their children to do well, and see it as a sign of their own success when the child shows him/herself to be well adjusted/successful. It's selfishness all the way around.

[johnny karate]

I believe the actual argument is "Get the **** over it!" :D

(Warning, NSFW)
0TMTrpugT0E&has_verified=1

Well, now I know what I'm getting Bishadi for Christmas.

[Piggy]

homosexuals cant evolve via the fact of no procreation.

In that case, fatal genetic childhood diseases like progeria do not exist. Nor do genetic conditions that leave people sterile.

[Jeff Corey]

Excuuuuse me, "hemorphridite"? Repeated 6 times? What a maroooon.

[Cobalt]

thread is TL;DR on a subject I don't bother talking about much, so if this has been said, sorry:

If homosexuality is a choice, so is heterosexuality. Remember when you chose to be hetero?

Yeah. Thought so.

[Thunder]

If God hates fags, why does he keep making them?

[Mr. Scott]

The odd thing is that when I choose to be heterosexual, I find myself fantasizing endlessly about having sex with men, even while I'm having sex with women. What kind of choice is this?

I have procreated, btw, and my son is straight. I have two brothers who had the same genetic endowment and environment as I, who are both straight.

There's an awesome hypothesis for the cause of homosexualty called "sexually antagonistic selection" which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject. It explains how homosexuality can have a genetic basis and remain stable in a gene pool even if homosexuals never reproduce. (Oddly, gay and bisexual teens have higher rates of unintended pregnancies than straight teens, I am told). When I explained sexually antagonistic selection to my straight brother, he said, "I've already decided what causes gays and nothing you can say will change my mind". LOL.

So, are we seeking truth, or only seeking confirmation for what we already believe is true?

[commandlinegamer]

And please dont tell a member to hang themselves Bishadi. It tells more about you than the rest of your railings.

I'm not sure whether he was actually issuing a command or merely stating an option.

[Red3]

Many people in the past lied about their sexuality and still do. Usually because they are gay and live in a bigotted world and pretend they are straight! I prefer a place where people can be whom they are, no lies or pretense. After all what they do in their own lives doesnt affect me and mine. It only affects anyone when lies are outed.
And please dont tell a member to hang themselves Bishadi. It tells more about you than the rest of your railings.

If that was a response to me I didn't mean lying about actual sexuality, I meant lying about the "why" and "when". Most gay people I know or know of, would say they have always felt that way to varying degrees and that it wasn't a "lifestyle choice". Maybe I'm wrong but I thought most gay people would agree with that. If I'm right in saying this, why is Bishadi convinced this isn't the case?

Should've explained myself further.

[Bishadi]

If God hates fags, why does he keep making them?

God dont unless you follow Gen 3:22.



But the issue is that few know what the life of matter/mass is.

If a cell divides and gives a portion of itself to live into the next generation, then the LIFE of that cell is a part of the next. (that energy; the fire (per se))

When a person procreates, their life and the life of all their previous generations, gets another chance.

But gay copulation dont make babies.

God didn't create the gay preference, it is a choice of the person, not the choice of the life.

Mankind can make a child while the women is still a virgin (untouched by a man) via test tube babies; god cant even do that (unless Gen 3:22 is correct).

The problem is exactly what i mentioned in i believe my first post on the thread; most have no clue what life is, their purpose and how to live longer.

[Marcus]

I just hope your issue is that English is not your first language.




i know it is mine

If you are serious about this, that English is your first language, it makes it hard to take what you say seriously. I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that an understanding of the language on this level doesn't inspire confidence in your understanding of other things.

[HansMustermann]

I hear that a lot from the guys at work - that choosing not to procreate is selfish. I generally don't want to get into it with those guys since it's at work...but when friends make comments like that, I usually respond by informing them that having children is as selfish as it can be.

Dads want their little boys to be just like them. Moms want to see little thems running around. Parents want their children to do well, and see it as a sign of their own success when the child shows him/herself to be well adjusted/successful. It's selfishness all the way around.

I think you don't really get their point.

I know anecdote isn't data, but I guess it's better than nothing at all: I've managed to corner a couple of relatives into "ok, so why IS it selfish?" Turns out that they don't actually give a flying f-word about anything else than someone to pay their pensions. It doesn't help that some paid PR by insurance companies also plays on the same fears to get people to switch their pension plans to them.

You know, in case you were wondering why so many conservative types are all for making lots of babies, but basically only care about you until you get born, after that, screw you, you're not getting any welfare, medical insurance or anything from them... well, that may well be why. You're supposed to make those new people to pay for their retirement, not to actually get any benefits themselves.

And it's of course selfish to choose to not make more of those little piggy banks for them.

[Bishadi]

Excuuuuse me, "hemorphridite"? Repeated 6 times? What a maroooon.


A hemorphidite is someone born with both male and female sex organs


these are the only genetic version of bisexual which can be homo or hetero and it be based on biology


the rest are of choice


sexual orientation is the psychologist definition that has ruined the nature of the whole issue; people are being lied to about the facts!

ie.... medical science is not governed by beliefs, it is based on physical applications; science!

[Bishadi]

The odd thing is that when I choose to be heterosexual, I find myself fantasizing endlessly about having sex with men, even while I'm having sex with women. What kind of choice is this?

I have procreated, btw, and my son is straight. I have two brothers who had the same genetic endowment and environment as I, who are both straight.

There's an awesome hypothesis for the cause of homosexualty called "sexually antagonistic selection" which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject. It explains how homosexuality can have a genetic basis and remain stable in a gene pool even if homosexuals never reproduce. (Oddly, gay and bisexual teens have higher rates of unintended pregnancies than straight teens, I am told). When I explained sexually antagonistic selection to my straight brother, he said, "I've already decided what causes gays and nothing you can say will change my mind". LOL.

So, are we seeking truth, or only seeking confirmation for what we already believe is true?

just like you fantasies, they are of mind

the physiological part of you procreated (a good was produced; life), the rest is your 'likes' (choice).

it is simple!

[commandlinegamer]

A hemorphidite is someone born with both male and female sex organs


these are the only genetic version of bisexual which can be homo or hetero and it be based on biology


the rest are of choice


sexual orientation is the psychologist definition that has ruined the nature of the whole issue; people are being lied to about the facts!

ie.... medical science is not governed by beliefs, it is based on physical applications; science!

Proof by assertion = argument fail.

[Bishadi]

So it's my understanding, according to Bishadi, only heterosexual men donate to sperm banks...? what is natural about the banks

And he knows sexual orientation is decided by gender at birth, without one scientific study to back up his claim? just the whole of nature versus the beliefs of people.

ie... i have more evidence than you do

isnt it Fascinating.?

[Bishadi]

Proof by assertion = argument fail.


how about my post is proof by reality/truth and you have no method of discounting reality.

[HansMustermann]

Unless you also prove the connection, just handwaving some irrelevant observation isn't "truth", it's a plain old case of Ignoratio Elenchi. Or "not understanding logic" in plain English.

[commandlinegamer]

how about my post is proof by reality/truth and you have no method of discounting reality.

Circular reasoning.

If I want to go round in a loop, I'll play Monopoly.

Provide some evidence, if you want to make those claims.

[Red3]

But gay copulation dont make babies.



Again, so what? When every human being that exists is dead - every animal, every tree, everything - the universe won't give a f&*K. Just because a few people "choose" (playing devil's advocate) to not have a heterosexual relationship which results in children, so what? What difference will it make? The universe will still be here, doing what it does. You, me ,all our individual bloodlines are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things to an unconscious entity. You talk about nature like it has a plan and a conscious knowing - it doesn't. If you think it does, then prove it. (my choice of the word scheme is bad - there is no scheme) And even if it did, who are you to say you know what that is? How do you know what's right or wrong?

But saying all that, at this moment in time and certainly in the future the choice to not have children will help the human race rather than hinder it, people who choose not to have kids will be helping the survival of our race and home planet. Maybe nature does have a plan and your idea of what it is, is completely wrong - maybe nature/the universe designed gay people to save the planet and us from ourselves :D

So,playing D.A again, why does it matter if "gay copulation don't make babies"?


what is natural about the banks


Everything is natural about them. They're here and part of the universe. If they aren't natural, then what are they? Supernatural?! They're made with the same building blocks as the rest of the known universe (as are t.v's, action figures and wellington boots). Just because they're man made doesn't make the unnatural. And what's more, they're a way of ensuring reproduction, which you keep harping on about and blaming gays for impeding. Gays donate sperm. You shot yourself in the foot again.

[Bishadi]

Again, so what? When every human being that exists is dead - every animal, every tree, everything

no it aint.

if i pour water on a tree, then energy i gave, lives in that life; reality.

if i procreate today and my body dies tomorrow, i live in that 'gift' (of my choice)

Darwin, lives in the gift of knowledge, still.

the unevolved mind, does not comprehend life



- the universe won't give a f&*K. no one is asking the universe to care. 'we the people' are of the life, within the universe and capable of compassion, love and capability; it is 'us' that are to care.

but read some of the posts from the queer minds; many dont give a f&*K.



Just because a few people "choose" (playing devil's advocate) to not have a heterosexual relationship which results in children, so what?

ie... the selfish dont give a hoot for the lives that gave for them to even be here.

What difference will it make? The universe will still be here, doing what it does. and naturally, the unevolved go extinct.


You, me ,all our individual bloodlines are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things to an unconscious entity. that is why, i am not concerned with what the 'universe' thinks (or even any 'created' gods), 'we the people' NOW, alive and in the flesh, are what matters in these short periods that we have 'choice'.

'we' give for the lives of existence; the children

but some are so concerned about making themselves happy, that they believe they are irrelevant to anything within the universe, except themselves.




You talk about nature like it has a plan and a conscious knowing - it doesn't. If you think it does, then prove it. (my choice of the word scheme is bad - there is no scheme) And even if it did, who are you to say you know what that is? How do you know what's right or wrong?


good (actions we can choose); support life to continue

bad: loss to the common

proof; anything not created by the garden is man-made and much is divergent from nature.



But saying all that, at this moment in time and certainly in the future the choice to not have children will help the human race rather than hinder it, people who choose not to have kids will be helping the survival of our race and home planet.

then go jump and do us all a favor

but lying to the children, to any, is wrong (loss to the common)


Maybe nature does have a plan and your idea of what it is, is completely wrong - maybe nature/the universe designed gay people to save the planet and us from ourselves :D


and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

So,playing D.A again, why does it matter if "gay copulation don't make babies"?

as the parts for sex are evolved for procreation, telling someone otherwise without the underlying FACT being comprehended is how BS continues to grow (like cancer; bad (self-centered) to the body)




Everything is natural about them. They're here and part of the universe. If they aren't natural, then what are they? Supernatural?! And what's more, they're a way of ensuring reproduction, which you keep harping on about and blaming gays for impeding. Gays donate sperm. You shot yourself in the foot again.

while you lie to yourself.

all i did was state unequivocally, that to comprehend the life of what we are, within this universe, then comprehending 'good and bad' (right and wrong) is not so tough


but to believe donating sperm is the best method and just continuing the deception is ok too, then no one can change what the self, intends to do (i know, you can be responsible for you).

[Red3]

no it aint.




Er, what?


no one is asking the universe to care. 'we the people' are of the life, within the universe and capable of compassion, love and capability; it is 'us' that are to care.

but read some of the posts from the queer minds; many dont give a f&*K.

Well some of us are...:rolleyes:



ie... the selfish dont give a hoot for the lives that gave for them to even be here. and naturally, the unevolved go extinct.

Also, the selfish also have children for their own benefit.


that is why, i am not concerned with what the 'universe' thinks (or even any 'created' gods), 'we the people' NOW, alive and in the flesh, are what matters in these short periods that we have 'choice'.

So it's all just your opinion about what's right? Surprise, surprise...



'we' give for the lives of existence; the children


Yes, "we" - as a species. It's not as black and white as you make it. All this gays don't have kids = bad stuff is simplistic and wrong on so many levels. Human beings have "community based" genetic traits that go far deeper than just being able to reproduce and keep the numbers up. We have altruistic tendencies that are arguably just as important.

but some are so concerned about making themselves happy, that they believe they are irrelevant to anything within the universe, except themselves.


I've not met one person like this. Your anti capitalist slant is maybe tainting your reason a little?





good (actions we can choose); support life to continue

bad: loss to the common

Again, this is just so simplistic it's laughable.

proof; anything not created by the garden is man-made and much is divergent from nature.


Hippy nonsense.


then go jump and do us all a favor

I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.

but lying to the children, to any, is wrong (loss to the common)



I agree,that's why we should stop filling their heads with religion.


as the parts for sex are evolved for procreation, telling someone otherwise without the underlying FACT being comprehended is how BS continues to grow (like cancer; bad (self-centered) to the body)


Just because someone has certain body parts and they're meant to work in a certain way doesn't mean they will...Sexuality and physical gender are quite easily genetically separated/altered in the brain. For example it's been found that gay man have some similar brain make up (neurons in the Hypothalamus) to heterosexual women. But I won't bore you with science, you clearly have no interest in it.


all i did was state unequivocally, that to comprehend the life of what we are, within this universe, then comprehending 'good and bad' (right and wrong) is not so tough


No, comprehending right and wrong is easy, that's why philosophers, and some of the greatest thinkers of our species have struggled with it since our ability to think. :rolleyes:

but to believe donating sperm is the best method and just continuing the deception is ok too,

It works, who cares? And a child from a sperm donation could be a lot more wanted/loved than one created by a quick drunken teenage fumble in a shop doorway. "Natural" doesn't always mean best.

Anyway, this is all moot. Do you have anything to back up your ideas on homosexuality being a lifestyle choice?

[Craig4]

take a genetics test or purely look between the babies legs when born.

if there is no genetic difference in which the science can provide EVIDENCE that the child is born hemorphradite, then that child is sexually orientated to the gender it was born as.

any diffference is learned. ie... there is no genetically material evidence that renders a make genetically wants a male part put in them. And anyone who tells you that is a liar.

Same with the female side, there is no gene that makes a women REQUIRE that she has sex with another women.

desires are not genetically driven to contradict the life otherwise they are called genetic mutations and them folks can be assisted.

kind of like the cleft palet, we can assist them versus having to cut everyone elses lip to make them feel better.
most everything i do is about life and the comperhension of living organisms to the molecular level.




if the person was born hemorphridite, then gay can apply to the biology if not it is all psychological.

case closed!

How about you go ahead and crack open a seventh grade science text book and familiarize yourself with the scientific method. You need some very basic grounding in scientific principals before you try to tackle some of the more complicated topics you seem to be interested in.

[Mr. Scott]

just like you fantasies, they are of mind

the physiological part of you procreated (a good was produced; life), the rest is your 'likes' (choice).

it is simple!

You don't seem to hear what I'm saying, as if you are only skimming my postings to come up with expedient refutations without true comprehension.

Have you read about and fully comprehended the principle of sexually antagonistic selection?

Maybe you can explain how one chooses, rather than discovers, what one likes.

I assume you are straight. Did you CHOOSE to be straight?

I assume you are male and are attracted to women. Did you choose to be attracted to women?

If you like big breasted women, did you choose to be attracted to big breasted women, or did you discover it?

Do you see where I'm going here? Does one typically choose to like something? Does one EVER choose to like something? Let's start at the beginning. Does a baby choose to like mother's milk, or discover the liking? Think of something simple that you like -- a kind of food or music -- and tell us if you really think you chose to like it or if you discovered you liked it.

Gay people DISCOVER they like gay sex. They don't choose to like it. In a free society, people may do what they want as long as no one is harmed. Gay sex harms no one. Its persistence in nature suggests it may have benefit. So BUG OFF and let gays enjoy what comes naturally to them and doesn't harm you.

[Thunder]

I am of the impression that evolutionary biology has some purpose for homosexuality. That is why a good 10% of the human population is gay.

[brenn]

I am of the impression that evolutionary biology has some purpose for homosexuality. That is why a good 10% of the human population is gay.

Could be, but as far as this thread has proven, it could just be that evolutionary biology has a purpose for a sex drive and humans can then decide how to satisfy that drive (or not).

[Bishadi]

E
Also, the selfish also have children for their own benefit. the nature of life (the purpose) is 'to continue'




So it's all just your opinion about what's right? Surprise, surprise...
grounded to nature (reality) not belief




Yes, "we" - as a species. It's not as black and white as you make it. sure it is.

reality only works ONE way and all branches of knowledge will evolve to comprehend that.

religions call it a 'revealing'

to science it is the quest (to understand) which is the innert quest of philosophy too

to the physicist, the last word is the 'correct' theorem, which to me, is the last word (the name of the boss, (existence itself) is the math to describe the nature of existence (the process))

so as you ground to what you want and believe, i like nature to render what is true

ie... sex is for what in nature? (the life to live) (black and white as it gets)

All this gays don't have kids = bad stuff is simplistic and wrong

those are the words coming from YOUR keyboard as my words NEVER once render that. So to clarify what i said, then same sex intercourse does not make babies.

Lots of gays have children but to lie to them and tell them that same sex pleasure is normal, is a bonafide LIE.

see the difference of your ranting and me just 'telling it like it is'. As YOU know the truth is what it is and simply DONT like the implications (personal responsibility)


now if i said i have the 'name upon the head' then who would have the last word in this argument?


But then if you maintained what you are reading and allowed the comprehension to set in, yu would be just as capable of judging right and wrong on this matter all by yourself.

ie.... procreation is the REASON for the parts and each are born with the parts representing their LIVING SEXUAL ORIENTATION

anyone can choose otherwise but that dont make it natural


as well each can do good and bad as they choose but i believe each will do far better overall, if just given the chance to comprehend reality.

i did not say anything wrong about your preference, i just dont see you having a right to lie, false witness or even try to insult me as remotely good

if i am wrong, then i will be left extinct and likewise if you are wrong


enjoy the ride

[TragicMonkey]

I am of the impression that evolutionary biology has some purpose for homosexuality. That is why a good 10% of the human population is gay.

I've always found interesting that experiment someone did with rats once, where they created a confined environment and let them breed as much as they wanted, and observed the behavior. The more rats that occupied the space, the more same-sex relations that were observed. It was suggested that perhaps homosexuality shows up when the population reaches a certain density, as a sort of growth-control method. The more gays, the smaller the next generation, the less shared the resources will have to be.

[Bishadi]

I am of the impression that evolutionary biology has some purpose for homosexuality. That is why a good 10% of the human population is gay.

less than a fraction are born hemorphridite (both sexes genetically)

the rest are gay by choice!

kind of like, most know the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"............ but there is that percentage that are whacked with selfish pursuits over the virtues of empathy

gay in the sense of identification is self imposed!

kind of like a jew thinking israel is their home when they never have even known the land labeld israel.


what "is real" is bound to truth and we all live here when comprehended!

[bookitty]

the nature of life (the purpose) is 'to continue' grounded to nature (reality) not belief sure it is.

reality only works ONE way and all branches of knowledge will evolve to comprehend that.

religions call it a 'revealing'

to science it is the quest (to understand) which is the innert quest of philosophy too

to the physicist, the last word is the 'correct' theorem, which to me, is the last word (the name of the boss, (existence itself) is the math to describe the nature of existence (the process))

so as you ground to what you want and believe, i like nature to render what is true

ie... sex is for what in nature? (the life to live) (black and white as it gets)


those are the words coming from YOUR keyboard as my words NEVER once render that. So to clarify what i said, then same sex intercourse does not make babies.

Lots of gays have children but to lie to them and tell them that same sex pleasure is normal, is a bonafide LIE.

see the difference of your ranting and me just 'telling it like it is'. As YOU know the truth is what it is and simply DONT like the implications (personal responsibility)


now if i said i have the 'name upon the head' then who would have the last word in this argument?


But then if you maintained what you are reading and allowed the comprehension to set in, yu would be just as capable of judging right and wrong on this matter all by yourself.

ie.... procreation is the REASON for the parts and each are born with the parts representing their LIVING SEXUAL ORIENTATION

anyone can choose otherwise but that dont make it natural


as well each can do good and bad as they choose but i believe each will do far better overall, if just given the chance to comprehend reality.

i did not say anything wrong about your preference, i just dont see you having a right to lie, false witness or even try to insult me as remotely good

if i am wrong, then i will be left extinct and likewise if you are wrong


enjoy the ride

Here's hint, free form poetry doesn't work very well as an intellectual argument. Two different disciplines, dontcha know.

I already explained how my DNA is safe through my nieces and nephew. There is no need for me to procreate, so I can use my resources to add to those of my sisters' to ensure that my DNA gets the best possible chance for the future.

But even if none of the kids decide to procreate, it doesn't matter. Individuals can't go "extinct," my line can not die off because I am loosely related to about a billion other people on the planet. There is always the chance that the entire human race will go extinct but there's no possible way for homosexuality to cause that.

[Bishadi]

Here's hint, free form poetry doesn't work very well as an intellectual argument. Two different disciplines, dontcha know. i know; right and wrong are different disciplines.



I already explained how my DNA is safe through my nieces and nephew. not your DNA. You are exclusively YOU. You choose how YOU represent YOUR mother and father, directly!

ie... with honor? or perhaps without? (Which is your discipline?)


There is no need for me to procreate, so I can use my resources to add to those of my sisters' to ensure that my DNA gets the best possible chance for the future. thanks for giving. ie... elton will be here forever too.

but dont fib. Best take the pain, than fib.

But even if none of the kids decide to procreate, it doesn't matter. Individuals can't go "extinct," my line can not die off because I am loosely related to about a billion other people on the planet.
i know life will conitinue and i am glad you know it too.

but you are unique in that you are 'right here, right now' with a capability of comprehending, as you sit. now watcha gonna do with it?

There is always the chance that the entire human race will go extinct but there's no possible way for homosexuality to cause that.

never said it would

i am more interested in you and what YOU are capable of,

personally! (ie.. i know what you can do and how important each are but many dont know it, themselves and to have the old eyes opened, then anyone of us can live forever, in what we do and know it)


no one is judging you except by what you do

do good, live long time

iif not, wrong team!

[johnny karate]

A hemorphidite is someone born with both male and female sex organs

Spell check and the dictionary seem to be in disagreement with you.

[alfaniner]

And every child you perhaps even heard of or read about was born by the normal methods of sexual intercourse.

Just. Plain. Wrong.

[Thunder]

the rest are gay by choice!


no one chooses to be gay.

last night, I chose captain crunch over rice chex cereal.

gays don't choose the same sex over the opposite sex.

learn about science sometime.

[johnny karate]

If homosexuals "choose" to be gay, that would then imply that heterosexuals "choose" to be straight.

Since this is the theory Bishadi is championing, I'd be curious to know how long he/she considered being gay before finally deciding on heterosexuality.

[Bishadi]

no one chooses to be gay. wrong and proven by reality (science)

last night, I chose captain crunch over rice chex cereal.

gays don't choose the same sex over the opposite sex. sure, it is a preference.

taste

likes and wants

ie... you could survive on what you have in the garbage longer than a bad choice of life

learn about science sometime.

science is of biology which supercedes psychology when descibing 'life'.

your chosen preference to define "sexual orientation" is defined by what a psychologist may have pubslished but of biology, the gender exhibits the sexual orientation of the life (the living organism)



Did that perform a better set of comprehensible FACTS for you?


biology and how life exists within nature succumbs to the personal preferences of a self centered cause. By science, homosexuality is based on many factors within an environment but the life itself, has a direct purpose (to continue living).


homosexuality in the sense of causing your body to function in the fun abnormal bs, is the choice of the person or of the animal world often of non reproductive frustrations


If you cannot prove mother nature as showing the biology of life, then you are simply living in the world of personal preferences and misleading information.

"it's not nice to fool with mother nature"

[Craig4]

Bishadi, Can you or can you not provide empirical evidence for your statements about sexual orientation. Your statements have trespassed into science and are therefore subject to scientific scrutiny. If you want to say that acting on a homosexual impulse is a sin or violates some religious morality that's fine. It's unsophisticated and betrays a certain insecurity but it's not a scientific question. Saying that someone is not born a homosexual is a falsifiable statement. Can you support it with verifiable, repeatable results?

[Bishadi]

If homosexuals "choose" to be gay, that would then imply that heterosexuals "choose" to be straight. sure....

you can look between your legs and say 'hey i was born this way'

or you can lie to yourself

straight and narrow are true and false

Since this is the theory Bishadi is championing, I'd be curious to know how long he/she considered being gay before finally deciding on heterosexuality.


i didnt decide, i comprehended what the parts were for.

Some do some funny stuff with them parts and then try to call it love!


Weirdest thing you even could realize!

[Thunder]

wrong and proven by reality (science) sure, it is a preference.

homosexuality is a choice?

prove it.

the rest of us made a consciouce "choice" to be straight?

prove it.

I do not recall the moment when I decided I was sexually attracted to women and not men. I simply felt it. No choice was involved. No debate on the matter took place.

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, Can you or can you not provide empirical evidence for your statements about sexual orientation.
sure i can.

what is between your legs? Now go look into a book what genitilia are for.

I am sure you will find out what the life of your mass is sexually orientated too, by fact.


It is easy, most birth certificates have a doctor write it down for each child born.

Then some crazy folks ar trying to redefine biology and make up stuff, like; 'well because he got a chumby from looking at a boy, he must have some gene called happy jeans'.............. and so fools are created by believing that dark matter is why the math is wrong; just create a new defining set of principles.

the sexual orientation of a biological life, is biological not the choice.

sexual preferences can only really be found applicable to a life, making a choice.





Your statements have trespassed into science and are therefore subject to scientific scrutiny.

i trespass against and over any wall that is build maintaining misleading logic, fact and especially science.

i like to dance


If you want to say that acting on a homosexual impulse is a sin or violates some religious morality that's fine. i dont do religious adherance, i know science a weee bit more than you may comprehend just yet

as for religious morality, well heck that is like a red light district

It's unsophisticated and betrays a certain insecurity but it's not a scientific question. Saying that someone is not born a homosexual is a falsifiable statement. i post up the biological rendition; hemorphridite

that life can be identified genetically and thereby has that back-n-forth capability.

but if any one else claims, they were born 'gay' (actually biology of same sex needs (procreate)), then they will be genetically hemorphridite or simply a liar.

there is no other benchmark to define that same sex people have sex but choice (personal preference).

i could care less what doctor, professor, paper, god or president claims otherwise.

biology renders the sexual orientation; going against the biological life, is of personal choice

deal with it!



Can you support it with verifiable, repeatable results?[/QUOTE]

[bikerdruid]

homosexuality is a choice?

prove it.

the rest of us made a consciouce "choice" to be straight?

prove it.

I do not recall the moment when I decided I was sexually attracted to women and not men. I simply felt it. No choice was involved. No debate on the matter took place.

bishadi is a lost cause.
he will not even attempt to prove that which he thinks is the truth.
there is no science involved.

[Bishadi]

homosexuality is a choice?

prove it.

the rest of us made a consciouce "choice" to be straight?

prove it.


proof is found in nature

if you cant see it, then it aint my duty to force you

biology renders everything you live on, breath of, eat, sleep and survive within its grasp; you can choose anything you want, but you cant win against reality.

I do not recall the moment when I decided I was sexually attracted to women and not men. I simply felt it. No choice was involved. No debate on the matter took place.

some people have dogs that hate cops too (is it the uniform, the mannerism, the sounds, what makes a dog react such ways)

[Bishadi]

bishadi is a lost cause.
he will not even attempt to prove that which he thinks is the truth.
there is no science involved.

that is a bold faced lie.

nature provides the evidence and some people like to believe the papers

[Craig4]

sure i can.

what is between your legs? Now go look into a book what genitilia are for.

I am sure you will find out what the life of your mass is sexually orientated too, by fact.


It is easy, most birth certificates have a doctor write it down for each child born.

Then some crazy folks ar trying to redefine biology and make up stuff, like; 'well because he got a chumby from looking at a boy, he must have some gene called happy jeans'.............. and so fools are created by believing that dark matter is why the math is wrong; just create a new defining set of principles.

the sexual orientation of a biological life, is biological not the choice.

sexual preferences can only really be found applicable to a life, making a choice.



i trespass against and over any wall that is build maintaining misleading logic, fact and especially science.

i like to dance
i dont do religious adherance, i know science a weee bit more than you may comprehend just yet

as for religious morality, well heck that is like a red light district

i post up the biological rendition; hemorphridite

that life can be identified genetically and thereby has that back-n-forth capability.

but if any one else claims, they were born 'gay' (actually biology of same sex needs (procreate)), then they will be genetically hemorphridite or simply a liar.

there is no other benchmark to define that same sex people have sex but choice (personal preference).

i could care less what doctor, professor, paper, god or president claims otherwise.

biology renders the sexual orientation; going against the biological life, is of personal choice

deal with it!



Can you support it with verifiable, repeatable results?[/QUOTE]

I'm not making a statement about how someone arrives at their orientation, you are. Your question at the end makes it perfectly obvious you don't understand the scientific method. You made the statement, now support it. You have failed to do so thus far.

Now, what well designed studies are you basing your statements on? Are there any? Who did them? Where were they published? Prove biology renders sexual orientation.

[SezMe]

Bishadi, you ignored my #246. I'll pose it as a question: Do you think that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation?
Bishadi, why are you ignoring this simple question?

[Dr. Keith]

bishadi is a lost cause.
he will not even attempt to prove that which he thinks is the truth.
there is no science involved.

This is the first time I've used an ignore function in any internet forum. But bishadi earned it fair and square.

Let me know if we ever have a best troll award . . .

[Bishadi]

I'm not making a statement about how someone arrives at their orientation, you are. as i comprehend from both points of view

I use empathy. (you can too)

Your question at the end makes it perfectly obvious you don't understand the scientific method. i could care less about being accepted. I did not post here to make the scientific community happy, nor you.

If the METHOD within the system was as credible as you believe, then ww3 will not occur with the use of nuclear weapons.

like wise, each child born would be able to comprehend what is the live of their mass is, versus believing they can choose to change, their very sexual orientation simply by choice.

just because artists can look like another and doctors can create a women from a man, does not mean their physiological existence changed from being a man. It means mankind can do far more with science than just 'good'.







You made the statement, now support it. You have failed to do so thus far.

Now, what well designed studies are you basing your statements on? Honesty!

Are there any? Yes

Who did them? we all can

Where were they published? Dont need to be published, each can learn themselves versus trying to be accepted in a scientific journal.

You like the approach that 'if they accept it, then i will'

which is like most religious adherants too.

you may have confidence is the 'systems', i dont after watching the hydrogen technology, not to mention what thomas edison himself did to styme knowledge for the purpose of business.

Heck the gay marriage issue in itself is rude as the homo asect of gay directly contradicts the intent of term "marriage" (lineage protection by male and female for copulation; historically speaking of course (no religion involved)).

that whole issue is an oxymoron based on terms itself (homosexual marriage).

i will bet that is going to bug you too?



Prove biology renders sexual orientation.

it is the gender

So from weeee little birds to the weeee little bees, each are born with their gender/sexual orientation upon conception unless hemorphridite (and some are)


ALLLLLLLLL the rest do it by choice.

ie... there is no biology within mammels to prove anything other than what nature shares unless you choose the psychological approach and since the sickman freud beginnings, when he said "its' moms fault" he meant the environment affects many 'preferences'


So from science (biology) to psychology, the majority of facts and truth can be ascertained with HONESTY.

screw the 'system' or being accepted...................If i cared about that, i would just publish the last word.

ie..... if i said i finished the math of newton thru einstein, feynman, and hawkings himself, would you believe me? NO i dont believe you would unless someone else told you it was true.

[commandlinegamer]

proof is found in nature

...that homosexuality is widespread amongst the animal kingdom (i.e. humans and other fauna).

Here's just one newspaper report on a study of 1,000 species:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

See what I did there: I cited a source. That's what helps to reinforce an argument.

[bookitty]

i know; right and wrong are different disciplines.

not your DNA. You are exclusively YOU. You choose how YOU represent YOUR mother and father, directly!

ie... with honor? or perhaps without? (Which is your discipline?)


Wait, so now you are saying that reproduction is necessary narcissism? While that does explain nearly all of your posts, it is utterly ridiculous. My specific self would not be replicated even if I did have a child. That child would be a unique individual, (as per your own argument, btw.) So the parents of ANY child are not important.

And with that, I am out. Anyone who tries to mix new age garbage with blind bigotry is incapable of reason.

[Bishadi]

Wait, so now you are saying that reproduction is necessary narcissism?

what ever ism you are trying to include is your own doing.



While that does explain nearly all of your posts, it is utterly ridiculous.

What does EXPLAIN all of my post is the adherance to truth over belief.

you like isms, apparently i like integrityism not the rants of the self-centered


My specific self would not be replicated even if I did have a child. but the contribution of self (cell; sperm/egg) would in fact have a portion of your life, upon that cell that will combine with another life to make a new shade.

(reality, not magic or the selfish identity of an 'i' thinking they are so great)

the life is the importance, not the self.

That child would be a unique individual, (as per your own argument, btw.)

and i know a child is far more perfect in capability than a selfish old timer who cares nothing for any but themselves (loss to the common)
b]
So the parents of ANY child are not important.[/b] them are words, rendering a complete lack of appreciating for even being alive

And with that, I am out.

thanks as no one needs selfishness to be the approach to observe anything of truth.


Anyone who tries to mix new age garbage with blind bigotry is incapable of reason.

Or anyone that maintains bigotry for their own needs, desires and selfish pursuits are a 'loss to the common' (bad) by choice.


i am honest enough to represent my sexual orientation is based on the gender of my birth (biology) as it is easy to provide the evidence; by looking between my legs.

the selfish will try to hide what they are because it has been accepted that acting a part is just OK (false witness).

[ThermionicScott]

And every child you perhaps even heard of or read about was born by the normal methods of sexual intercourse.

Apparently you've never heard of Louise Brown. She was kind of a big deal.

Also, the correct spelling is "hermaphrodite".

Also, thanks for the sig material. It's truer than you realize.

- Scott

"these are the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality." -- Bishadi

[Bishadi]

...that homosexuality is widespread amongst the animal kingdom (i.e. humans and other fauna).

Here's just one newspaper report on a study of 1,000 species:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

have you ever read up on how the strong survive, while the weak dont? Something about the fittest of the species?

I would bet the honest are far more capable as human beings than liars!

See what I did there: I cited a source. That's what helps to reinforce an argument.

OJ simpson was not convicted of murder because the defense offered doubt too, but anyone with any common sense, knows the police did not place goldmans blood in OJ's vehicle.


ie.... just because you post an exception does not mean it overules what is normal.


i know reality may hurt but try and find you wil like yourself a bunch more.

[Bishadi]

Apparently you've never heard of Louise Brown. She was kind of a big deal. just as PERHAPS you didnt read the clip you grabbed



Originally Posted by Bishadi


And every child you perhaps even heard of or read about was born by the normal methods of sexual intercourse.

i always leave and opening. (its called objective science, as it is kind of a philosophy to me)

ie... you have ONE example.................... how many others?

can anyone show me a butt baby (born by 2 men)?

i am leaving it open to a maybe, to the extent, of maybe 'a god' did it



Also, the correct spelling is "hermaphrodite".

Also, thanks for the sig material. It's truer than you realize.

- Scott

these are the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality. -- Bishadi



any post that people claim that sexual orientation is divergent from the gender of the biological life is what i call the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality.




although to be scientific i am open that hermaphradite (i r smaught and learning) is/are the exception(s)


but all others that do the same sexual things, are of choice!!!!!! (ooops, unless forced........... (another disclosure).

[IMST]

Wow. Sure got stupid in here since I last visited the thread. Nice to see another gay JREFer out there, though. Hey bikerdruid.

[Marcus]

This is the first time I've used an ignore function in any internet forum. But bishadi earned it fair and square.

Let me know if we ever have a best troll award . . .
I agree that any further reading of his posts is a waste of time. However, if he does reveal when he chose to become heterosexual, perhaps someone who does read his posts could give us the heads up.

[SezMe]

i am honest enough to represent my sexual orientation is based on the gender of my birth (biology) as it is easy to provide the evidence; by looking between my legs.
There you go again.

Bishadi, you ignored my #246. I'll pose it as a question: Do you think that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation?

Bishadi, why are you ignoring this simple question?

It's a simple yes or no question, Bishadi. Why won't you answer it?

[Bishadi]

This is the first time I've used an ignore function in any internet forum. But bishadi earned it fair and square.

Let me know if we ever have a best troll award . . .

I will assume that be a psyche major. As a biology major don't need to be on this thread; they already know the truth of the matter

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, why are you ignoring this simple question?

That a gender is identified of a mammal by the genitals?

A kid can tell the difference on a dog, so why answer.

If you want to ask if the genital parts assist in making a determination as to what sexual orientation a life has by observing the genitals, then a no brained once again.

But some are not trying to understand. As they don't even comprehend the plus and negative signs of a battery let alone the Pauli

[katy_did]

Also, thanks for the sig material. It's truer than you realize.

- Scott

"these are the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality." -- Bishadi

So true. I had a bunch of things to say as I read through the thread, then I got to the end and found it had become...this...

[shandyjan]

deleted due to hashing up the edit

[shandyjan]

I went to Greta Christinas blog to see what she had to say on the matter as I know she commented on it long ago. She links to this, which is interesting in that it links to the studies here and there. It also shows there is no answer yet.
Of course the idea people are making choices to be gay has no science behind it at all.

http://pithingcontest.blogspot.com/2006/06/organic-behavior-no-fault-identities.html

ETA.. you can't change the opinion of someone so stuck in their ways, it is just giving them the chance to write their bigotted views for all to see.... and probably get off on it.

[BobTheDonkey]

I think you don't really get their point.

I know anecdote isn't data, but I guess it's better than nothing at all: I've managed to corner a couple of relatives into "ok, so why IS it selfish?" Turns out that they don't actually give a flying f-word about anything else than someone to pay their pensions. It doesn't help that some paid PR by insurance companies also plays on the same fears to get people to switch their pension plans to them.

You know, in case you were wondering why so many conservative types are all for making lots of babies, but basically only care about you until you get born, after that, screw you, you're not getting any welfare, medical insurance or anything from them... well, that may well be why. You're supposed to make those new people to pay for their retirement, not to actually get any benefits themselves.

And it's of course selfish to choose to not make more of those little piggy banks for them.

:D

No, no. I completely understand where they're coming from. I just prefer to give most of them (my coworkers) the benefit of the doubt (and didn't want to offend the many parents posting here).

But we're definitely on the same page wrt the selfishness of having a child (or telling others to do so).

[SezMe]

That a gender is identified of a mammal by the genitals?
No, that's not the question I asked and you damn well know it.

If you want to ask if the genital parts assist in making a determination as to what sexual orientation a life has by observing the genitals, then a no brained once again.

No, that's not the question I asked and you damn well know it. Even if it was, you still didn't answer. I'll try again:

Do you think that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation?

[Emet]

No, that's not the question I asked and you damn well know it.



No, that's not the question I asked and you damn well know it. Even if it was, you still didn't answer. I'll try again:

Do you think that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation?

Have you been to the SMM&T subforum recently? Your question will not be answered--at least in any intelligible way...

Respectfully,
Emet

[Piggy]

Wow. Sure got stupid in here since I last visited the thread. Nice to see another gay JREFer out there, though. Hey bikerdruid.

Speaking of which, what happened to Complexity? Has he gone on another Lost Weekend?

[ThermionicScott]

And every child you perhaps even heard of or read about was born by the normal methods of sexual intercourse.
Apparently you've never heard of Louise Brown. She was kind of a big deal.
just as PERHAPS you didnt read the clip you grabbed

So you would say that Louise Brown was conceived and born through normal sexual intercourse?

any post that people claim that sexual orientation is divergent from the gender of the biological life is what i call the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality.

If it makes so much sense, surely you can rustle up some peer-reviewed research to convince us. I mean, such a divergence from reality ought to have all kinds of holes that smart people can illuminate, right?

although to be scientific i am open that hermaphradite (i r smaught and learning) is/are the exception(s)

You still spelled it wrong, but it's not like I had high expectations for you or anything.

- Scott

[Bishadi]

No, that's not the question I asked and you damn well know it.



No, that's not the question I asked and you damn well know it. Even if it was, you still didn't answer. I'll try again:

Do you think that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation?


i could give of hoot what you want.

You are not interested in reality, you are a fool playing with fire and have no idea what the hell you are doing.

This is not a subject to play with people. There are lives and human beings who live and breath that are directly affected by the right and wrong of what this isssue is about.

I know dam well what the hell kind of monsters selfish people are, and i could care less what you think of me!

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Bishadi
i am honest enough to represent my sexual orientation is based on the gender of my birth (biology) as it is easy to provide the evidence; by looking between my legs.

Wait a minute.... dude, are you inviting me to look at your crotch? Whoa...

[Bishadi]

So you would say that Louise Brown was conceived and born through normal sexual intercourse?

You can witness what you feel but i didnt say anything of the sort.




But i will agree, this thread is kind of like the many others on homosexual choice; many of the folks who finally taste the truth of the matter just can't handle it.



the self centered mind is a tough one to even care about!

[Bishadi]

Wait a minute.... dude, are you inviting me to look at your crotch? Whoa...


does it turn you on?

[Mr. Scott]

sure....

you can look between your legs and say 'hey i was born this way'

or you can lie to yourself

straight and narrow are true and false

i didnt decide, i comprehended what the parts were for.

Some do some funny stuff with them parts and then try to call it love!

Weirdest thing you even could realize!

Bishadi, the list of questions I've asked that you've ignored is very long now, but I will add one anyway.

A typical experience for a young homosexual male is to discover their "parts" become engorged with blood, erect, and prepare for ejaculation when they see or think about a hot guy, (but never about a hot girl), accompanied by a huge oxytocin rush and its intense feelings of both love and sexual arousal. Is this a "choice?" Or, a discovered part of their nature that they have not chosen? If a choice, exactly how do young men choose this?

[ThermionicScott]

You can witness what you feel but i didnt say anything of the sort.

You said that every child was born of normal sexual intercourse. I offered a counterexample, which you clumsily tried to dodge. It's not about what I "witness" or "feel", you're just plain wrong. :)

- Scott

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, the list of questions I've asked that you've ignored is very long now, but I will add one anyway.

A typical experience for a young homosexual male is to discover their "parts" become engorged with blood, erect, and prepare for ejaculation when they see or think about a hot guy, (but never about a hot girl), accompanied by a huge oxytocin rush and its intense feelings of both love and sexual arousal. Is this a "choice?" Or, a discovered part of their nature that they have not chosen? If a choice, exactly how do young men choose this?



i dont do weird science!

now this part of what people can evidence is why the BS continues to pile up.

[Bishadi]

You said that every child was born of normal sexual intercourse. and you are a bonafide LIAR for making such an ignorant claim.

- Scott

[Piggy]

Fwiw, Bishadi has also dodged my observation that, by his logic, genetic conditions which leave people sterile or kill them before they reach puberty are impossible, because evolution cannot produce them.

[bikerdruid]

that is a bold faced lie.

nature provides the evidence and some people like to believe the papers



nonsense.
the real science has shown that queerness is not a choice. fact.
plus, i value my own experience, and can firmly state that i did not choose to be queer, any more than you chose to be straight, if in fact, you are straight.
(the jury is out on that. frankly, the lady doth protest [way] too much, methinks.)

[bikerdruid]

Wow. Sure got stupid in here since I last visited the thread. Nice to see another gay JREFer out there, though. Hey bikerdruid.
:)

[Ron_Tomkins]

does it turn you on?

Oh yeah, baby. Your trolling is making me so hawt.

[Mr. Scott]

i dont do weird science!

now this part of what people can evidence is why the BS continues to pile up.

Refusal to answer question noted.

Exactly how does one choose what causes them to be sexually aroused?

[ThermionicScott]

and you are a bonafide LIAR for making such an ignorant claim.

So what does this sentence mean, then?

And every child you perhaps even heard of or read about was born by the normal methods of sexual intercourse.

- Scott

[SezMe]

i could give of hoot what you want.

You are not interested in reality, you are a fool playing with fire and have no idea what the hell you are doing.

This is not a subject to play with people. There are lives and human beings who live and breath that are directly affected by the right and wrong of what this isssue is about.

I know dam well what the hell kind of monsters selfish people are, and i could care less what you think of me!
Wow, I'm impressed. All of that out of a simple yes or no question.

I'll deduce from your avoidance of my question, Piggy's observation, Mr. Scott's questions, and others that you are a closeted homosexual who is deathly afraid to face that fact and, as a result, populate forums such as this one to divert your attention.

Am I right or wrong? It's a yes or no question.

[Alan]

Bishadi said that the "perhaps" in that claim saves the claim from criticism, Scott.

[Lyrandar]

If I'm understanding this properly, bishadi seems to be arguing that homosexual intercourse is wrong, for some reason related to people being selfish and taking up resources for activities which cannot propagate the species.

Aside from the fact that homosexuals can and do participate in activities which benefit humanity as a species, what does this say about just about any leisure activity in existence? How many of them are connected closely enough to this purpose of life, its own continuation, to justify their own existence? When I think about how many resources of various types have been expended to produce the hundreds of books and dozens of computer or computer related devices which provide me entertainment... Is all that justified, or is it a waste only related to me selfishly wanting avoid boredom?

And as long as we're sharing personal examples, I certainly didn't choose anything regarding what incites sexual arousal in myself. If I knew why I liked some of the things I did, or liked more "normal" things, then I'd have fewer moments where I wonder just what is wrong with me.

[ThermionicScott]

Bishadi said that the "perhaps" in that claim saves the claim from criticism, Scott.

I think our man just has a kink for being wrong.

The way the sentence is written, the "perhaps" casts doubt on which children Alt+f4 has heard of, not to soften the implicit assertion that all such children much have been conceived by conventional heterosexual sex.

But I'm sure it made sense in biashadi's head. :wink:

- Scott

[Craig4]

as i comprehend from both points of view

I use empathy. (you can too)

i could care less about being accepted. I did not post here to make the scientific community happy, nor you.

If the METHOD within the system was as credible as you believe, then ww3 will not occur with the use of nuclear weapons.

like wise, each child born would be able to comprehend what is the live of their mass is, versus believing they can choose to change, their very sexual orientation simply by choice.

just because artists can look like another and doctors can create a women from a man, does not mean their physiological existence changed from being a man. It means mankind can do far more with science than just 'good'.





Honesty!

Yes

we all can

Dont need to be published, each can learn themselves versus trying to be accepted in a scientific journal.

You like the approach that 'if they accept it, then i will'

which is like most religious adherants too.

you may have confidence is the 'systems', i dont after watching the hydrogen technology, not to mention what thomas edison himself did to styme knowledge for the purpose of business.

Heck the gay marriage issue in itself is rude as the homo asect of gay directly contradicts the intent of term "marriage" (lineage protection by male and female for copulation; historically speaking of course (no religion involved)).

that whole issue is an oxymoron based on terms itself (homosexual marriage).

i will bet that is going to bug you too?





it is the gender

So from weeee little birds to the weeee little bees, each are born with their gender/sexual orientation upon conception unless hemorphridite (and some are)


ALLLLLLLLL the rest do it by choice.

ie... there is no biology within mammels to prove anything other than what nature shares unless you choose the psychological approach and since the sickman freud beginnings, when he said "its' moms fault" he meant the environment affects many 'preferences'


So from science (biology) to psychology, the majority of facts and truth can be ascertained with HONESTY.

screw the 'system' or being accepted...................If i cared about that, i would just publish the last word.

ie..... if i said i finished the math of newton thru einstein, feynman, and hawkings himself, would you believe me? NO i dont believe you would unless someone else told you it was true.

So that would be a no on evidence then?

[HansMustermann]

i could give of hoot what you want.

You are not interested in reality, you are a fool playing with fire and have no idea what the hell you are doing.

This is not a subject to play with people. There are lives and human beings who live and breath that are directly affected by the right and wrong of what this isssue is about.

I know dam well what the hell kind of monsters selfish people are, and i could care less what you think of me!

Well, now that's a bunch of bare assertions, and with quite the hyperbole thrown in to boot. Care to support any of them? You know, starting with exactly who is affected, exactly what fire are we playing with, by what criteria do you classify him as selfish or a monster, etc.

Or, wait, this was just your daily dose of ego masturbation, wasn't it? I guess some people make themselves feel better by trying to be better than others, others by trying to drag others down to their level, and yet others by just postulating that the others are down. Kinda says something.

[HansMustermann]

i am honest enough to represent my sexual orientation is based on the gender of my birth (biology) as it is easy to provide the evidence; by looking between my legs.

Last I learned some basic biology -- although I realize that anything requiring paying attention is school is above your level, but bear with me -- such decisions happened in the brain, not in the dick. You know, neurons, synapses, and all that.

Are you trying to tell us that you have such decisions taken autonomously by your dick, and generally you think with your dick?

Edited to remove personal remark.

[Bishadi]

Wow. Sure got stupid in here since I last visited the thread. Nice to see another gay JREFer out there, though. Hey bikerdruid.



it is a common problem with folks that cannot face themselves and prefer abusing others versus being responsible for their own actions


Which in itself is kind of ironic, as that is what this thread shares in itself.

The abusers blame their choice of actions on something that is not true versus being responsible for their actions

[Bishadi]

ETA.. you can't change the opinion of someone so stuck in their ways, it is just giving them the chance to write their bigotted views for all to see.... and probably get off on it.

hence the selfish often share themselves as being big its (self centered over any).

[Bishadi]

Fwiw, Bishadi has also dodged my observation that, by his logic, genetic conditions which leave people sterile or kill them before they reach puberty are impossible, because evolution cannot produce them.

if you read up on evolution, you would find that there are lots of mutations in within biological life

[Bishadi]

Wow, I'm impressed. All of that out of a simple yes or no question.

I'll deduce from your avoidance of my question, Piggy's observation, Mr. Scott's questions, and others that you are a closeted homosexual who is deathly afraid to face that fact and, as a result, populate forums such as this one to divert your attention.

Am I right or wrong? It's a yes or no question.



to deduce an insult from such reasoning, renders a lack of integrity.


you trying to call me something based on your own beliefs is like an theist labeling an atheist for not being like them.


I call you post bigotry!

[Bishadi]

Bishadi said that the "perhaps" in that claim saves the claim from criticism, Scott.

how many people have you MET personally that were born from anything other than male and female copulation?



but i will bet a my life on it, you haven't met a person born from same sex copulation.

[Bishadi]

I think our man just has a kink for being wrong. i am often wrong

but on a subject like this, a kid could comprehend the truth of the matter, while many of the practitioners could care less as they have learned to lie about it from professionals.

The way the sentence is written, the "perhaps" casts doubt on which children Alt+f4 has heard of, not to soften the implicit assertion that all such children much have been conceived by conventional heterosexual sex.

the majority of life on this earth that has opposite sex for copulation are from opposite gender sexual encounters.

sure there are lots of NEW technologies to the extent of fulfilling an old prophecy;

'child born of a virgin' (untouched by a man)


has nothing to do with the thread as any human being that is capable of responsibility already knows that their actions are by their choice.


it is the irresponsible that make stupid comments like; 'well the devil made me do it' or 'i was born queer'

the majority of rendered ignorance can be found in the comments of personal denial

[JFrankA]

how many people have you MET personally that were born from anything other than male and female copulation?



but i will bet a my life on it, you haven't met a person born from same sex copulation.

And this proves....what?

All I know is that if I saw my girlfriend having sex with another woman, you bet your bottom it would make me want to have sex with her right then and there. :)

Now if that happens, and my girlfriend got pregnant because of that, isn't that a homosexual act that eventually leads to a birth?

[Bishadi]

Last I learned some basic biology -- although I realize that anything requiring paying attention is school is above your level, but bear with me --

why......... you bare no intent of good but prefer to insult?




such decisions happened in the brain, not in the dick. and why the preference is learned. As the brain is what caused the action, not instinct, not genetics, not because a person is born happy.


homosexual actions, are a choice (of the brain)

when you get one, you may comprehend how it works



You know, neurons, synapses, and all that. you forgot glial as that is where memories are stored.



Are you trying to tell us that you have such decisions taken autonomously by your dick, and generally you think with your dick?

that is what a happy person may believe

but a normal person already comprehends a human being has the ability to be responsible and capable of empathy over selfish PREFERENCES as being the measure before acting.


nothing i say is to harm anyone but to enable the truth of the matter to be known by each individual personally.


Some think that psychology can describe a sexual orientation of a living form while anyone with any sense for reality already knows, that the gender is the best method of identifying a biological life's sexual orientation.

many who decieve or deny reality are simply trying to hold onto something that is not true. It would be like tiger wood telling people he aint black because he has white in his lineage.

[Bishadi]

And this proves....what?

All I know is that if I saw my girlfriend having sex with another woman, you bet your bottom it would make me want to have sex with her right then and there. :)

Now if that happens, and my girlfriend got pregnant because of that, isn't that a homosexual act that eventually leads to a birth?


you would make a fine attorney

[HansMustermann]

why......... you bare no intent of good but prefer to insult?

No, it's just a statement of fact. Anyone whose support of brain wiring is to look between the legs, has failed basic biology majorly.

and why the preference is learned. As the brain is what caused the action, not instinct, not genetics, not because a person is born happy.


homosexual actions, are a choice (of the brain)

when you get one, you may comprehend how it works

That's more postulates. As I was saying, actual MRI studies show that there is wiring in a homosexual brain that is (A) like that of the opposite gender, (B) in the part of the wiring formed in the womb, (C) not the kind of wiring that's ever known to change afterwards, (D) not the kind formed by learning anything.

Basically, as I was saying before, if you want to claim a different model of brain development than the doctors use, then the burden of proof is on you.

And, no, something as stonking stupid as looking between your legs to determine brain wiring isn't really proof.

you forgot glial as that is where memories are stored.

LOL. WUT? No really, that's priceless.

that is what a happy person may believe

but a normal person already comprehends a human being has the ability to be responsible and capable of empathy over selfish PREFERENCES as being the measure before acting.


nothing i say is to harm anyone but to enable the truth of the matter to be known by each individual personally.


Some think that psychology can describe a sexual orientation of a living form while anyone with any sense for reality already knows, that the gender is the best method of identifying a biological life's sexual orientation.

many who decieve or deny reality are simply trying to hold onto something that is not true. It would be like tiger wood telling people he aint black because he has white in his lineage.

So basically more of your own unsupported BS postulates? I asked for evidence not for more made up BS.

[Accidental Martyr]

i am often wrong

Yes.

[Bishadi]

No, it's just a statement of fact. Anyone whose support of brain wiring is to look between the legs, has failed basic biology majorly.

no wires in the brain

just a statement of fact



That's more postulates.

just a statement of fact

As I was saying, actual MRI studies show that there is wiring

no wiring in brains.....just a statement of fact


and an MRI proves that the brain is not running like a computer (electrical binary operations via "wiring"

The comprehension is easy; anything of electrical currents would be damaged by a 1.8 tesla magnetic field.

just a statement of fact



in a homosexual brain that is (A) like that of the opposite gender, (B) in the part of the wiring formed in the womb, (C) not the kind of wiring that's ever known to change afterwards, (D) not the kind formed by learning anything.

so when you can provide evidence, that via an MRI test on 10,000 babies (infants), and you can predict with a greater than even 51%, that your ascertion is true, then you can use that analogy as evidence.

otherwise you are ranting

just a statement of fact

Basically, as I was saying before, if you want to claim a different model of brain development than the doctors use, then the burden of proof is on you. in the early 80's i did write a paper rendering the brain is not operating on electrical exchanges at the synaptic junctions.

ie... i was into the physics, biology and molecular make up of the brain before i was 16 yrs old.

wrong subject

not to mention that pursuing causal understanding of life is what i do for a living

And, no, something as stonking stupid as looking between your legs to determine brain wiring isn't really proof.

heck many believe they are superman and jump of a building because of the same kind of wiring you are leaning on (ignorance). Are we to suppose you have an answer for that too?

So basically more of your own unsupported BS postulates? I asked for evidence not for more made up BS.


mankind is capable of choice just a statement of fact


and to comprehend that desires are not what rules, is somethng many teach their own kids at a very young age

but then again, if all kids believed that same sex fun is just 'normal', then with more of the unsupervised (uneducated) children running around, slumber parties for children would never be the same.

[SezMe]

I call you post bigotry!
Fine. You can call it a cheese soufflé for all I care. Now, could you answer the question.

[Craig4]

Fine. You can call it a cheese soufflé for all I care. Now, could you answer the question.

I wouldn't get my hopes up. Given his failures in understanding how science works and the need to provide proof it seems unlikely that an answer from him would have much value.

Hot tip, the words STATEMENT OF FACT in bold and all caps don't qualify as evidence.

[Bishadi]

Fine. You can call it a cheese soufflé for all I care. Now, could you answer the question.



i aint playing your game, says me!

[HansMustermann]

Seconded. Just calling your BS postulates and gross misunderstandings "statement of fact" doesn't make it evidence. Support your claims or take a hike, really.

[Bishadi]

Seconded. Just calling your BS postulates and gross misunderstandings "statement of fact" doesn't make it evidence. Support your claims or take a hike, really.



did you come from the copulation between a man and women?

when you asnwer that, you have evidence!

when i claim a human mind is not based on electricity and wires; to put your head into an MRI and still live, you have evidence!


When i show homosexuals that what they have been led to believe is a lie, then to look at the post of people making their choice over being honest, you can witness evidence of denial.


When reality slaps people in the face, many are not happy; YOU are evidence!

[JFrankA]

you would make a fine attorney

Let me put it this way:

There are some species of animals on this planet that do use homosexuality to aid or even procreate. Now I've given an example of how one species (humans) might use it as an option, I've also given another example (a few pages back) of how another species has to uses homosexuality in order to procreate.

Since it's your claim that homosexuality is not a part of the natural order to procreate, I have shown two examples where you are clearly wrong: one by choice, one by instinct.

Both times I've pointed it out (and a few times when others have show you were incorrect), you've side stepped the question.

you would make a fine attorney politician....

[Bishadi]

Let me put it this way:

There are some species of animals on this planet that do use homosexuality to aid or even procreate. There are always exceptions

Now I've given an example of how one species (humans) might use it as an option, because a human can create all kinds of options

and even exceptions


I've also given another example (a few pages back) of how another species has to uses homosexuality in order to procreate.

but YOU didnt come from that did you?

heck i could show examples of people doing donkeys or dogs, even dead people in the morgue.

How about pedophilia in the religious sectors?

Lots of example of exceptions.

Since it's your claim that homosexuality is not a part of the natural order to procreate, I have shown two examples where you are clearly wrong: one by choice, one by instinct.


'clearly'?


funny

Both times I've pointed it out (and a few times when others have show you were incorrect), you've side stepped the question.


there is no question

Homosexual acts by human beings are of choice

otherwise if the person is not capable of choice, then they are not conscious (capable of their own choice)!

get over it!



this thread is about as rude as i have seen on this subject all because some will just whine and cry and tell the whole world, "it aint my fault"


the selfish do not believe, comprehend or maintain personal responsibility

no need, as it seems to many within the medical field, that if they cant cut out the cancer, then chemotherapy may be required!



So tell me, is chemo an option? (be fair; if the life is of who is so dear to you was going to die, would you vote for chemo as a last resort?)

[Craig4]

did you come from the copulation between a man and women?

when you asnwer that, you have evidence!

when i claim a human mind is not based on electricity and wires; to put your head into an MRI and still live, you have evidence!


When i show homosexuals that what they have been led to believe is a lie, then to look at the post of people making their choice over being honest, you can witness evidence of denial.


When reality slaps people in the face, many are not happy; YOU are evidence!

In fairness, "brain wiring" is an idiomatic expression. It's a bit unreasonable to expect a non native English speaker to understand the full meaning of that phrase. Things like humor and speaking figuratively are very hard to understand even for people who have spent years learning a language.

Of course you still haven't shown anyone that what they believe is a lie because you can produce no evidence for that.

[bikerdruid]

we are still waiting for some scientific evidence to back up your assertions, bishadi.
got some?

[JFrankA]

There are always exceptions

So if the "exceptions" occur in nature, and further used in a process to procreate, how is homosexuality not natural?

because a human can create all kinds of options

and even exceptions

So exceptions in nature (which you are siting as your stance) doesn't count?

but YOU didnt come from that did you?

Were you there? Did you see my parents procreate??????

....I didn't realize how kinky you are! :)

heck i could show examples of people doing donkeys or dogs, even dead people in the morgue.

How about pedophilia in the religious sectors?

What is your point here? That people have different kinks? Do you honestly think that people CHOOSE their kink? And couldn't a pedophilia sexual encounter produce a pregnancy?

By your own "definition" pedophilia is a natural, normal, honest thing as well. More honest, in fact, according to your definition than homosexuality.

...interesting...

Lots of example of exceptions.

If the truth has exemptions, that means it's not 100% the truth is it?


there is no question

Homosexual acts by human beings are of choice

otherwise if the person is not capable of choice, then they are not conscious (capable of their own choice)!

get over it!


this thread is about as rude as i have seen on this subject all because some will just whine and cry and tell the whole world, "it aint my fault"


the selfish do not believe, comprehend or maintain personal responsibility

Not so black and white. It's a choice to not to act upon a sexual attraction, not to have one happen. That's the major difference that you are missing.

Just because a person is aroused by the same sex does not mean they CHOSE to be aroused by the same sex, they just happen to be so. Some people are aroused by the same sex depending on the situation or the person involved (as is the case with my girlfriend).

Your judgement of people being selfish for enjoying sex tells me that you believe that sex is ONLY for procreation, period. If that is what you believe, then that explains a lot to me.

Further, what is wrong with sex for pleasure? Do people eat EXACTLY what they need to in order to function or do they eat some food for pleasure? Sex between people is more than procreation, it's also used as communication, affection, apology, gift, creative outlet, etc.

Why are you so against sex for pleasure?

Now if I am wrong in your beliefs, then explain it some more because, I'm sorry, you are coming off as very judgmental and superior.

no need, as it seems to many within the medical field, that if they cant cut out the cancer, then chemotherapy may be required!

So tell me, is chemo an option? (be fair; if the life is of who is so dear to you was going to die, would you vote for chemo as a last resort?)

I'm sorry, WTF is your point here?

[Pacal]

As a Gay male I'm trying to understand how anyone could possibly think that I would one day wake up and chose to find a guy sexually attractive!? Yep it is so believable that that I would chose to get an erection over some great looking guy, not!

So just a question to those clueless enough to think I choose to be turned on by guys, just when did you chose to be turned on by gals? And please why don't you right now chose to be turned on by guys; if only for an hour.

[SezMe]

As a Gay male I'm trying to understand how anyone could possibly think ...
See, with Bishardi, there's your mistake. I'm not sure what's upstairs but thinking tain't part of the furniture. :)

[Marcus]

As a straight male, I'm finding the idea that I could choose to be gay beyond silly. Still waiting to find out how old Bishardi was when he made the decision to become straight.

[SezMe]

as a straight male, i'm finding the idea that i could choose to be gay beyond silly. Still waiting to find out how old bishardi was when he made the decision whether to become straight.
ftfy :)

[bikerdruid]

bishadi is conspicuous in his absence.

[alfaniner]

bishadi is conspicuous in his absence.

Possibly because he was suspended. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189041)

I can honestly say I smiled when I saw that.

[Modified]

As a straight male, I'm finding the idea that I could choose to be gay beyond silly. Still waiting to find out how old Bishardi was when he made the decision to become straight.

I was attracted to women in way that I was not to men when I was four years old (maybe earlier, buy I don't remember), and I had what amounted to sexual fantasies about women at that age. So if I "decided" to be straight, I must have done so before I even understood the concept or the consequences of that choice.

[Mr. Scott]

Possibly because he was suspended. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189041)

I can honestly say I smiled when I saw that.

Sigh, he wasn't the worst chew toy I've enjoyed here, but it is annoying how he dodges questions and ignores arguments that he's mistaken (evidence of his cognitive dissonance).

When you come back, Bishadi, it would be terrific of you to answer my question. It's an interesting one and you may enjoy contemplating it more than you enjoy ignoring it:

How does one choose what they find sexually arousing?

[Mycroft]

I have a question Bishadi...Why would gay people lie?

To further the gay agenda, of course.

[kuroyume0161]

To further the gay agenda, of course.

Well, of course. Do we have enough toasters in the storehouse? ;)

[Marcus]

To further the gay agenda, of course.
They're just so busy recruiting, don't you know. If we dare let one become a scoutmaster, in no time we'd have merit badges for kissing boys.:rolleyes:

[HansMustermann]

did you come from the copulation between a man and women?

when you asnwer that, you have evidence!

... of something else than you claimed. Sorry, you claimed that you can know someone's sexual preferences by looking between their legs. Support that.

Now turning it into being about procreation is at best an appeal to consequences fallacy, but still doesn't address the original claim.

when i claim a human mind is not based on electricity and wires; to put your head into an MRI and still live, you have evidence!

Well, I'm glad you can at least demolish your own oversimplified strawmen. Let me assure you that everyone else understood just fine what "wiring" means there. Plus, since the study was already linked to, if you had bothered to read it, you'd know what it means.

But nah, it's more fun to demolish your own strawmen, right?

When i show homosexuals that what they have been led to believe is a lie, then to look at the post of people making their choice over being honest, you can witness evidence of denial.

So, when are you going to actually show that? So far I've only seen BS postulates, fallacies, and misunderstandings.

Before talking about what will happen when you actually show that, let's first see you actually show that. So far it ain't happened.

When reality slaps people in the face, many are not happy; YOU are evidence!

And more BS postulates, with an ad hominem to boot. Are you going to actually support your claims any time soon, or is that the best you can do.

[JFrankA]

Well, of course. Do we have enough toasters in the storehouse? ;)

Wait.... the gay agenda is simply to make toasty buns???????

Hell, I'm all for that. Anyone got any butter?


:D

[Emet]

Wait.... the gay agenda is simply to make toasty buns???????

Hell, I'm all for that. Anyone got any butter?


:D

I think it was a reference to The Puppy Episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode).
(You may have known that, eh?)

[Jono]

Homosexual acts by human beings are of choice


So are heterosexual acts.

Furthermore, I'm heterosexual by nature, not nurture. Why would it be any different for homosexuals?

[JFrankA]

I think it was a reference to The Puppy Episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode).
(You may have known that, eh?)

Uhm...err... no I didn't....sorry.... :blush:

ETA:
I have to watch that episode now. Especially because of this part:

She runs into Susan in the hall and returns with her to her room. They continue to enjoy each other's company until Susan tells Ellen that she's gay and that she thought Ellen might be too. Ellen denies it and suggests that Susan is trying to "recruit" her. Susan sarcastically says that she'll have to call "national headquarters" and let them know Ellen got away. "Damn, just one more and I would have gotten that toaster oven."

So it is true!!!! The agenda IS toasty buns!!!!! :D

[thaiboxerken]

I think Bishadi is under the impression that a person is only homosexual if, and only if, they've done homosexual activity.

[TragicMonkey]

I think Bishadi is under the impression that a person is only homosexual if, and only if, they've done homosexual activity.

It's not just doing homosexual activity, you have to pass with a score of 60% or better to get the diploma.

[Accidental Martyr]

in the early 80's i did write a paper rendering the brain is not operating on electrical exchanges at the synaptic junctions.

ie... i was into the physics, biology and molecular make up of the brain before i was 16 yrs old.

wrong subject

not to mention that pursuing causal understanding of life is what i do for a living

What is this supposed to mean?

[AlBell]

I've always found interesting that experiment someone did with rats once, where they created a confined environment and let them breed as much as they wanted, and observed the behavior. The more rats that occupied the space, the more same-sex relations that were observed. It was suggested that perhaps homosexuality shows up when the population reaches a certain density, as a sort of growth-control method. The more gays, the smaller the next generation, the less shared the resources will have to be.
Do you have a citation for that study?

[Emet]

Uhm...err... no I didn't....sorry.... :blush:


I used to watch Ellen, and The Puppy Episode (2 parter) was hilarious. Here's the ending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKfEdjlRxSk&feature=related

[Piggy]

if you read up on evolution, you would find that there are lots of mutations in within biological life

If?

In any case, your assertion that evolution cannot support homosexuality because homosexuals do not reproduce is false, for the same reason that it is obviously false that evolution cannot support any genetic conditions -- which can be described in terms of their regular occurrence per capita -- that preclude reproduction.

[Piggy]

I call you post bigotry!

A widow from Montgomery went on vacation in Savannah. When she got back, her bridge group asked her how it was. "I hear", said one of them, "that all sorts of things go on in Savannah."

"Well," said the widow, "it turns out they have men down there who go to bed with other men. They call them 'gays'."

"Oh, really?!" said the bridge players.

"Yes," she said, "and they have women down there who go to bed with other women. They call them 'lesbians'."

"Oh, really?!" gasped the bridge players.

"Yes," said the widow, "and they have boys down there who put their mouths on women's private parts."

"Oh, really?!" said the bridge players.

"And what do they call them?", one of them asked.

"Well," said the widow, "when I could catch my breath, I called him darling!"

[SezMe]

"Well," said the widow, "when I could catch my breath, I called him darling!"
This forum needs a whole new thread devoted exclusively to possible alternative endings to that story. :) :) I have several in mind but the mods frown on derails. :(

[Craig4]

"Well," said the widow, "when I could catch my breath, I called him darling!"

The ending, "well I don't know what they called them but I just called them precious" is also acceptable.

[Mr. Scott]

i dont do weird science!

I was thinking of this remark and realized that Bishadi's "evidence" may have come from his own personal experience and perhaps experiments with himself. It was quite a non-sequitur considering my statement that provoked it. I wasn't asking him to perform an experiment. I was asking him to think about the homosexual's typical discovery revelations.

So it seems Bishadi doesn't do much reading, studying, examining evidence -- even anecdotal. His "evidence" I suspect comes from study of his navel. You can also see this pattern in his discussion of quantum physics.

He's mentioned he wrote about the biology of the brain when he was 16 years old. I can remember thinking the same way when I was 16 years old -- just making stuff up that made sense to my 16 year old mind.

Since he is so rigidly closed-minded there isn't much hope of him learning anything here. He's only here to exhibit his unique personal wisdom.

[JFrankA]

I used to watch Ellen, and The Puppy Episode (2 parter) was hilarious. Here's the ending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKfEdjlRxSk&feature=related

Sheesh! When I decided that I'm heterosexual I had to give a sample of blood, have the papers notarized and pay a $100 fee!!!

And the woman who signed me up only got a $10 gift certificate to Bed, Bath and Beyond......

...makes me wonder for the people who decide to be bi, what do they get for signing people up...?

:D

(That episode was hilarious, though. Thanks.) :)

[Accidental Martyr]

i dont do weird science!

Why not?
CMofqnB0GTo

[Mycroft]

They're just so busy recruiting, don't you know. If we dare let one become a scoutmaster, in no time we'd have merit badges for kissing boys.:rolleyes:

They have merit badges for everything except premature ejaculation, and I hear that's coming soon.

:duck:

[kuroyume0161]

They have merit badges for everything except premature ejaculation, and I hear that's coming soon.

:duck:

LOL. I heard that it was coming early...

[Mr. Scott]

Important new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of "gay genes" has emerged from the work of Camperio-Ciani.[23] They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. This indicates that females carrying a putative "gay genes" complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes. This is a well known phenomenon in evolution known as "sexual antagonism", and has been widely documented for many traits that are advantageous in one sex but not in the other. This provides solid experimental evidence of how "gay genes" could not only survive but thrive over the course of evolution

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/?tool=pmcentrez)

The above quote is from wiki "Biology and sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_ and_evolution)"

[SnakeTongue]

Brain dimorphism and asymmetry (one factor mentioned in the gay vs hetero study) being already present at birth (although, interestingly enough, the asymmetry in males was actually the opposite at birth than what it will grow into):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886661/

Would you care to explain where in the study about Sexual Dimorphism and brain asymmetry (e.g. physiology) is any evidence of cause and effect of homosexual behaviour (e.g. psychology) in human beings?

Sexual dimorphism is the existence of physical differences between the sexes, other than differences in the sex organs. Darwin contended that sexual dimorphism evolved by means of sexual selection.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Sexual_dimorphism.asp

sexual dimorphism, the differences in appearance between males and females of the same species, as in colour, shape, size, and structure, that are caused by the inheritance of one or the other sexual pattern in the genetic material. These differences may be extreme, as in the adaptations for sexual selection seen in the exotic plumes and colours of the male birds-of-paradise, or for protection, exemplified by the great size and huge canine teeth of the male baboon.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/537133/sexual-dimorphism

[SnakeTongue]

There's an awesome hypothesis for the cause of homosexualty called "sexually antagonistic selection" which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject. It explains how homosexuality can have a genetic basis and remain stable in a gene pool even if homosexuals never reproduce.

No, do not explain how homosexuality (psychological behaviour) can have a genetic basis (biological behaviour), because is no such thing as "homosexual gene".

To prove any cause and effect of genetic nature, is necessary conclusive evidence, not a misguided study using hypothetical data:

A number of genetic or familial studies have even attempted the identification of the loci related to the trait, with not yet conclusive results [1], [4], [5], [9], [14], [15]. While clarifying various aspects of the phenomenon, the evidence-based assumption of a genetic loading for homosexuality in males also generates a number of questions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427196/

I am surprised how a study can be made on "assumptions" and "not conclusive results".

[Mirrorglass]

No, do not explain how homosexuality (psychological behaviour) can have a genetic basis (biological behaviour), because is no such thing as "homosexual gene".

How do you know that? Do you know every gene in the human genome? If not, how can you be sure not one of them is the homosexual gene?

To prove any cause and effect of genetic nature, is necessary conclusive evidence, not a misguided study using hypothetical data:

But just because something hasn't been proven doesn't automatically mean that the reverse is true.

I am surprised how a study can be made on "assumptions" and "not conclusive results".

Then you know very little about how scientific study works.

[SnakeTongue]

I've always found interesting that experiment someone did with rats once, where they created a confined environment and let them breed as much as they wanted, and observed the behavior. The more rats that occupied the space, the more same-sex relations that were observed. It was suggested that perhaps homosexuality shows up when the population reaches a certain density, as a sort of growth-control method. The more gays, the smaller the next generation, the less shared the resources will have to be.

Could you provide a link for such study or explain the methodology used to observe "same-sex relations"?

[bikerdruid]

snake tongue....
if sexual preference is a choice, please tell us when you chose to be straight?

[SnakeTongue]

...that homosexuality is widespread amongst the animal kingdom (i.e. humans and other fauna).

Here's just one newspaper report on a study of 1,000 species:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

See what I did there: I cited a source. That's what helps to reinforce an argument.

Would you explain why a misguided and biased article in the news is comparing "two pair of females" to the term "lesbians"?

Would you explain where is any evidence that prove that two females raising a child consist in "lesbianism"?

I would also ask you to put the definition of "lesbian" in scientific terms, so we can objectively find conclusions.

They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

[SnakeTongue]

snake tongue....
if sexual preference is a choice, please tell us when you chose to be straight?

Define "be straight".

[bikerdruid]

Define "be straight".
evasion duly noted.
smaketongue:rolleyes:...... indeed.

[SnakeTongue]

How do you know that? Do you know every gene in the human genome? If not, how can you be sure not one of them is the homosexual gene?

I took the "genome" word from you answer and put in the DuckDuckGo web search box. I clicked over the "lupe" icon. I clicked over the link to the National Human Genome Institute (NHGI). In the NHGI web page I typed the word "homosexuality" in the search box. I clicked over the next link:


http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=436&year=2009

Q: Geoffrey Toyes and Jefry Cohen in NJ (Higher Education grade other): Hi, My friend and I are gay. With all the current controversy about homosexuality, has there been any research linking sexual orientation to genes?

A: Barry H. Thompson, M.D., M.S.:
In a very general sense, some studies indicate that there may be a considerable genetic component to sexual orientation. However, there is no known gene for "homosexuality." Sexual orientation, no matter the genetic make-up of an individual, likely is a very complex matter.

But just because something hasn't been proven doesn't automatically mean that the reverse is true.

What is the reverse of something that was not been proven true?

[SnakeTongue]

evasion duly noted.
smaketongue:rolleyes:...... indeed.

I am not trying to evade. I am trying to be objective. I still cannot understand what exactly you mean with "straight", since this word bear many meanings.

If you can provide me a definition to me understand what you mean, I will be glad to give you an accurate and objective answer.

[Mirrorglass]

I took the "genome" word from you answer and put in the DuckDuckGo web search box. I clicked over the "lupe" icon. I clicked over the link to the National Human Genome Institute (NHGI). In the NHGI web page I typed the word "homosexuality" in the search box. I clicked over the next link:


Yes, that's right. We do not know whether there is a gene for homosexuality. That means there may be, or there may not be. It isn't difficult.




What is the reverse of something that was not been proven true?

That would depend on the something, wouldn't it?

[Emet]

Define "be straight".

I am not trying to evade. I am trying to be objective. I still cannot understand what exactly you mean with "straight", since this word bear many meanings.

If you can provide me a definition to me understand what you mean, I will be glad to give you an accurate and objective answer.

Are you heterosexual? When did you choose to be so, if that is the case?

[SnakeTongue]

Yes, that's right. We do not know whether there is a gene for homosexuality. That means there may be, or there may not be. It isn't difficult.

Why is so difficult to be? The sexual genes are just to letters:

X and Y.

Maybe is not to be...

[Blue Mountain]

Define "be straight".

Heterosexual, in that a person seeks out intimate emotional and sexual relationships with a person of the opposite sex.

Since you are arguing that homosexuals chose their homosexuality, it follows that all people at some point in their lives (probably at puberty) weigh the pros and cons of opposite-sex versus same-sex relationships and choose which one they prefer, much as a person decides upon a career path or a college.

So can you recall having to sit down and think it through for an hour, a day, or a week, and then actively choose to become a heterosexual?

[bikerdruid]

I am not trying to evade. I am trying to be objective. I still cannot understand what exactly you mean with "straight", since this word bear many meanings.

If you can provide me a definition to me understand what you mean, I will be glad to give you an accurate and objective answer.

straight.....heterosexual.
in the context of the thread, i thought it was obvious.

[Emet]

Why is so difficult to be? The sexual genes are just to letters:

X and Y.

Maybe is not to be...

Huh? :confused:

[keale]

straight.....heterosexual.
in the context of the thread, i thought it was obvious.


Oh its obvious that everyone reading knows what was being implied when you used the term "straight" but when your dancing around the subject you can miss that.

[SnakeTongue]

Heterosexual, in that a person seeks out intimate emotional and sexual relationships with a person of the opposite sex.

With a person of the opposite sex... Which sex? What you define by "sex"?

Since you are arguing that homosexuals chose their homosexuality (...)

Since when or where?

[bikerdruid]

With a person of the opposite sex... Which sex? What you define by "sex"?



Since when or where?

further evasion noted.
...dude...poop, or get off the pot...:rolleyes:

[Emet]

further evasion noted.
...dude...poop, or get off the pot...:rolleyes:

Perhaps he's confused about a lot of things...;)

[Blue Mountain]

With a person of the opposite sex... Which sex? What you define by "sex"?
You mentioned elsewhere that English is not your native language. If you don't mind me asking, what is your native language?

In English, the word "sex" as used in my question to you means gender. Thus, a person of the opposite sex means:

If a person is a male (that is, a man), a person of the opposite sex is female (that is, a woman)
If a person is a female (a woman), a person of the opposite sex is male (a man)



Since when or where?

From the How Far Have We Come With Homosexuality? thread:

being queer is not a choice; it is not an illness; it is just the way we are.

How do you know that it's just the way someone is born and not a choice?

science has proved that conclusively in the last 30 years.

No, science did not produced in the last 30 year any conclusive evidence which support your claim.

If I am wrong, feel free to provide some evidence.

The "your claim" part of that statement is in relation to this post from earlier in that thread:

don't need to.
being queer is not a choice; it is not an illness; it is just the way we are.
science has proved that conclusively in the last 30 years.

btw....science has also proved that the earth is not flat, and is not the centre of the universe.

Based on this exchange, I believe it is safe to conclude you support the position that homosexuality is a choice and not something a person is born with.

[keale]

With a person of the opposite sex... Which sex? What you define by "sex"?



Since when or where?


Hmmm im going to give that a 7 your hip hop dance was incredible but the break dancing portion left something to be desired and was crude to say the least.

[JFrankA]

You know, when people claim "homosexuality is a choice", I burst out laughing. They never ever ever, tell us at what point did they choose to be heterosexual.

So, c'mon, Snaketongue, get a backbone and tell us. What point did you say to yourself "I've weighed the choices, and I've decided that I am heterosexual."

To me, though, sexual attraction is so complex in humans that personally, (and I haven't seen any evidence of this, so it's just my own hypothesis), that all people are bi but more or less heterosexual or homosexual. Kind of like a scale. And even that scale can change for an individual depending on the people and the circumstances involved.

Circumstances completely change "homosexual" to "heterosexual". For example, let's take the "money shot" in porn. To be aroused by watching a man ejaculate sounds incredibly homoerotic. Now stick a woman in the scene, and BOOM - it's considered heterosexual. It the man was alone, (or with other men) it's considered homoerotic. But take the same circumstance, change the situation by one factor, and it's not homoerotic at all.

[Shrike]

You know, when people claim "homosexuality is a choice", I burst out laughing. They never ever ever, tell us at what point did they choose to be heterosexual.


Hang on a sec.
Above is mentioned by Mirrorglass: But just because something hasn't been proven doesn't automatically mean that the reverse is true.

Is it necessarily so that "choosing homosexuality" also means "choosing heterosexuality"? It could be that people who claim that "homosexuality is a choice" think that heterosexuality is the default position, so that homosexuals choose to diverge from the default.

[Mirrorglass]

Hang on a sec.
Above is mentioned by Mirrorglass: But just because something hasn't been proven doesn't automatically mean that the reverse is true.

Is it necessarily so that "choosing homosexuality" also means "choosing heterosexuality"? It could be that people who claim that "homosexuality is a choice" think that heterosexuality is the default position, so that homosexuals choose to diverge from the default.

Well, logically, if I can choose to either be homosexual or not be homosexual, with heterosexuality being the default position, then I must also make a choice if I am to stay heterosexual.

But I suppose it could be argued that if you never know you have a choice, then you won't have chosen to stay heterosexual. That could be what those people mean, although it's still pretty flimsy logic.

[Shrike]

Well, logically, if I can choose to either be homosexual or not be homosexual, with heterosexuality being the default position, then I must also make a choice if I am to stay heterosexual.

But I suppose it could be argued that if you never know you have a choice, then you won't have chosen to stay heterosexual. That could be what those people mean, although it's still pretty flimsy logic.

True.
Pretty flimsy logic is correct though.

[EGarrett]

why do some folks still think that being gay or lesbian is a choice?

most science shows that gays and lesbians realize they are this way early on in life, sometimes even before puberty.

and yet, lots of folks like to talk about it...as if its a choice.

a choice, that can be changed. ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!

now I get it. :DIf it were a choice, then we wouldn't see all these pastors preaching against homosexuality get caught with gay prostitutes, but if it were genetic, we wouldn't see straight men having gay sex in prison. The truth, as best as I can tell, is that it's not a choice, it's not genetic, it's a conditioned preference. Like the way a farm boy would grow up to be a man who is comfortable working outdoors. Is working outdoors in his genes? No. It's the way he was brought up. Did he CHOOSE to prefer working outdoors? No. It just happens to be the way he was brought up.

Now, the relevant issue, changing this conditioned preference. Could you do it? Maybe, but since you're usually trying to change something that was formed during years and years of the impressionable time of life, it sure as hell won't be easy. And the real question, SHOULD you do it, and should you try to make people miserable for their preference? Since we have the right to the pursuit of happiness in this country, the answer is no.

The problem that a "closeted" gay preacher that Ted Haggard had is not that he was gay or bisexual, he enjoyed being with other men. It was something that was pleasurable. The problem was his religious programming and a segment of society that was saying that his private behavior, which wasn't harming anyone, was wrong. That is the source of his and many other gay people's misery.

Oh, and last thing: you don't have to be gay to support gay rights. There are many people who I would not want to watch have sex, most people actually, but I sure as heck support their right to do so. Just like there are many sexual interests people have that I wouldn't care to see in practice, but I support as long as they aren't harming others. That means that being put off by gay sex does not make you a bigot if you're a straight man. It just means you have a different personal preference but can still support their rights. Likewise, that means that the gay guys who go around with penis lollipops or in pants with the ass-missing should stop. It's tasteless and off-putting, and it's not helping anything.

[SnakeTongue]

In English, the word "sex" as used in my question to you means gender. Thus, a person of the opposite sex means:

If a person is a male (that is, a man), a person of the opposite sex is female (that is, a woman)
If a person is a female (a woman), a person of the opposite sex is male (a man)


So we can agree that heterosexuality is defined as oposite-gender sexual conduct. By extension, an heterosexual is defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct:

- A biological male who desire to engage in sexual conduct with a biological female is heterosexual.

- A biological male who desire to engage in sexual conduct with a biological male is homosexual.

From this, we can define:

1. To recognize the sexual conduct of two individuals, it is necessary identify the biological gender of such individuals.

2. To observe the sexual conduct between two or more individuals, it is necessary that two or more individuals of any gender engage in a sexual intercourse.

Note: The gender of a person is unchangedable (1), but the sexual conduct is changedable (2).

e.g. I born male (1) and I engange in a sexual conduct with a person who show off the traits of the female gender (2).

e.g. I born male (1) and I engange in a sexual conduct with a person who show off the traits of the male gender (2).

3. Definition of choose:

transitive verb
1.a : to select freely and after consideration <choose a career>
1.b : to decide on especially by vote : elect <chose her as captain>
2.a : to have a preference for <choose one car over another>
2.b : decide <chose to go by train>

Hypothetical situation:

A adult male (1) decide (3) have sexual conduct (2) with another adult female.

The adult male (1) after consideration decide (3) to visit the local pub during the evening.

Once inside the pub, the adult male (1) observe that are few adult females (1) seating in different tables.

After consideration, the adult male (1) freely select one table and approach the selected table (3).

Close to the table, the adult male (1) introduce himself (3) to the adult female (1).

The adult male (1) is welcome in the table (3) by the adult female (1).

After consideration, the adult male (1) and one of the adult females (1) decide (3) engage in a sexual conduct (2) with each other.

Either adult male and female (1) decide walk out the pub (3) to the adult male (1) house.

Once in the adult male (1) house, after consideration, the adult female (1) freely decide to offer (3) the adult male (1) touch her clitoris with his tongue (2).

The adult male (1), after consideration, freely deny the female offer (3) and ask her permission to insert his penis in her vagina (2).

The adult female (1), after consideration, freely allow (3) the adult male (1) penetrate her vagina with his penis (2).

Conclusions:

False assumption:

Are you heterosexual? When did you choose to be so, if that is the case?

being

1. the quality or state of having existence
2. the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3. a living thing; especially : person

Sexual conduct is an action (heterosexual intercourse) and not a being (biologic gender).

Hence, sexual conduct do not change the biological male or female being, but the biological being change the sexual conduct.

So I did not choose to be a male or a female, but I did choose how, when and where to engage in a sexual intercourse.

True assumption:

Are you a adult male which enjoy engage in sexual intercourse with an adult female? When did you choose to do so, if that is the case?

Yes, I am an adult male which enjoy engage in sexual intercourse with a adult female. After consideration, I freely decide to do with an adult female who freely decide to do with me.

From the How Far Have We Come With Homosexuality? thread:

Please, let's keep the subject of the another thread in the another thread.

You mentioned elsewhere that English is not your native language. If you don't mind me asking, what is your native language?

It is Brazilian Portuguese with regional influences from the south and central-west Brazilian states.

[SnakeTongue]

(...) The truth, as best as I can tell, is that it's not a choice, it's not genetic, it's a conditioned preference. (...)

Would you explain how a "conditioned preference" do not relate to "choice"?

Definition of PREFERENCE
1
a : the act of preferring : the state of being preferred
b : the power or opportunity of choosing
2
: one that is preferred
3
: the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others
4
: priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation
5
: orientation <sexual preference>

[bikerdruid]

Would you explain how a "conditioned preference" do not relate to "choice"?

...enough dancing around, snaketongue....answer the damn question...
When did you decide to be heterosexual?

[Cainkane1]

The biggest gay basher I ever knew in my life was a male prostitute as a teenage boy. He was and is to this day a doper and alcoholic who has destroyed every relationship he's ever been in. Theres not a single person who he has had a relationship with that didn't eventually regret it.

I think he's a bi man in denial. I hope I never run into him again.

[keale]

With a person of the opposite sex... Which sex? What you define by "sex"?



Since when or where?


Hmmm im going to give that a 7 your hip hop dance was incredible but the break dancing portion left something to be desired and was crude to say the least.

[I Am The Scum]

Snaketongue, nobody is arguing that engaging in sexual behavior is never a choice. They are arguing, however, that most adults have within them a certain desire for one gender and not the other, and that these desires are not chosen.

I'm going to phrase this as clearly as I possibly can: You have described yourself as "an adult male which enjoy engage in sexual intercourse with a adult female." Why do you enjoy intercourse with females? Is this something you have chosen to desire, or is it not? If it is, then at what age did you choose to desire this? Is it possible for you to desire sex with men?

Do you believe that homosexual men have chosen to desire relations with other men? If you believe they have chosen this, what makes you believe that is the case?

[SnakeTongue]

To me, though, sexual attraction is so complex in humans that personally, (and I haven't seen any evidence of this, so it's just my own hypothesis), that all people are bi but more or less heterosexual or homosexual. Kind of like a scale. And even that scale can change for an individual depending on the people and the circumstances involved.

In this hypothetical model, what you define as "bisexual" and how you measure such scale. If people can change the sexual conduct from the social circumstances, this imply power of choice?

Circumstances completely change "homosexual" to "heterosexual". For example, let's take the "money shot" in porn. To be aroused by watching a man ejaculate sounds incredibly homoerotic. Now stick a woman in the scene, and BOOM - it's considered heterosexual. It the man was alone, (or with other men) it's considered homoerotic. But take the same circumstance, change the situation by one factor, and it's not homoerotic at all.

If the male "customers were willing to pay a higher price for actual than simulated sex.", the male customers, after consideration, freely decide to have "External male ejaculation in a pornographic film onto his parnter's body".

This imply the customers had power of choice and engaged in a sexual conduct of same-gender intercourse.

If the circumstance change the "homoerotic" behaviour of the male, how the female gender affect the change of such behaviour? How you relate the female affection with your "bisexual scale"?

money shot
External male ejaculation in a pornographic film onto his parnter's body. The term comes from earlier days of pornography in which sex acts were often simulated, and this showed that it was not. It was referred to as the money shot, because customers were willing to pay a higher price for actual than simulated sex.

It's a good thing we got the money shot unedited. Otherwise it looked simulated.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=money+shot

homoerotic [ˌhəʊməʊɪˈrɒtɪk]
adj
(Psychology) of, concerning, or arousing sexual desire for persons of one's own sex

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homoerotic

[SnakeTongue]

...enough dancing around, snaketongue....answer the damn question...
When did you decide to be heterosexual?



:brk: = "Queer" chill out?

queer
adj. queer·er, queer·est
1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.

:big:

Look posts above.

By the way, I decide to be "heterosexual" five days ago...

[SnakeTongue]

The biggest gay basher I ever knew in my life was a male prostitute as a teenage boy. He was and is to this day a doper and alcoholic who has destroyed every relationship he's ever been in. Theres not a single person who he has had a relationship with that didn't eventually regret it.

I think he's a bi man in denial. I hope I never run into him again.

If you come across him, offer him directions, not misdirections. Everyone deserve to choose the right path, for life or for death:

http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html

Tell him the Hermes god sing from the Olympus with his lyre:

"Follow straight, keep ahead".

[Thunder]

By the way, I decide to be "heterosexual" five days ago...

how was your life as a homosexual before that?

[SnakeTongue]

Snaketongue, nobody is arguing that engaging in sexual behavior is never a choice. They are arguing, however, that most adults have within them a certain desire for one gender and not the other, and that these desires are not chosen.

That most adults have within? Of what?

Them a certain desire for one gender (male or female) and not the other (female or male).

So you affirm that most adults have a "sexual appetite" for gender (X) and not for gender (Y), and such "sexual appetite" cannot be chosen.

So the "sexual appetite" is not a variable.

How "bisexuality" fit in your equation if "sexual appetite" cannot change from gender X to gender Y?

de·sire (d-zr)
tr.v. de·sired, de·sir·ing, de·sires
1. To wish or long for; want.
2. To express a wish for; request.
n.
1. A wish or longing.
2. A request or petition.
3. The object of longing: My greatest desire is to go back home.
4. Sexual appetite; passion.

li·bi·do (l-bd, -b-)
n. pl. li·bi·dos
1. The psychic and emotional energy associated with instinctual biological drives.
2. Sexual desire.
3. Manifestation of the sexual drive.

I'm going to phrase this as clearly as I possibly can: You have described yourself as "an adult male which enjoy engage in sexual intercourse with a adult female." (1) Why do you enjoy intercourse with females? (2) Is this something you have chosen to desire, or is it not? (3) If it is, then at what age did you choose to desire this? Is it possible for you to desire sex with men?

1. Because it is like solve a long equation where the results are endless. It is feel that you are part of a dual system of self-duplication over a three dimensional sphere. If reproduction do not happens, energy remains stored in a dual system for the next cycle of self-duplication.
2. Yes, it is.
3. Observing the real circumstances of my social environment over a three dimension sphere, I think... Never.

By the way, I hope Atlas keep holding well the sphere! Sometimes he shake and the system over the sphere enters in emergency mode. In such mode, the system will not grant priority for what cannot help the self-duplication system.

(1) Do you believe that homosexual men have chosen to desire relations with other men? (2) If you believe they have chosen this, what makes you believe that is the case?

1. Yes, I accept as true.
2. "Sexual appetite": You are what you eat and what you do.

Q: If hormone problems can lower a woman's libido, would they also increase it significantly? My Dr. thinks that I may have a hormonal imbalance. Recently I have been experiencing an overwhelming sexual appetite. I am constantly excited and can thinking of nothing other than sex.

A: It used to be thought that elevated testosterone levels could cause increased sex drive in women. In my experience, this is most unusual -- over the past 20 years I have seen hundreds of women with high testosterone and very few complain of increased sex drive and some complain of a decrease -- though the decrease is not caused by testosterone.

An increase in libido is not necessarily something wrong. However if it is uncomfortable or leads to inappropriate choice of partners or other behavior which might be harmful, then treatment should be considered. This can be counseling from a psychologist or psychiatrist specializing in sexual problems or antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil and others which often decrease desire.

As to which is right for you, it is best to consult a knowledgeable health professional.

Hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Redmond, MD

be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

[SnakeTongue]

Q: If hormone problems can lower a woman's libido, would they also increase it significantly? My Dr. thinks that I may have a hormonal imbalance. Recently I have been experiencing an overwhelming sexual appetite. I am constantly excited and can thinking of nothing other than sex.

A: It used to be thought that elevated testosterone levels could cause increased sex drive in women. In my experience, this is most unusual -- over the past 20 years I have seen hundreds of women with high testosterone and very few complain of increased sex drive and some complain of a decrease -- though the decrease is not caused by testosterone.
An increase in libido is not necessarily something wrong. However if it is uncomfortable or leads to inappropriate choice of partners or other behavior which might be harmful, then treatment should be considered. This can be counseling from a psychologist or psychiatrist specializing in sexual problems or antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil and others which often decrease desire.

As to which is right for you, it is best to consult a knowledgeable health professional.

Hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Redmond, MD

Oh no! I post a reference with a "female gender"! I hope everyone in the JREF forum believe that the woman in the article is "lesbian"!

:gayflag: = Happy "lesbian" woman in the above quote.

[JFrankA]

Hang on a sec.
Above is mentioned by Mirrorglass: But just because something hasn't been proven doesn't automatically mean that the reverse is true.

Is it necessarily so that "choosing homosexuality" also means "choosing heterosexuality"? It could be that people who claim that "homosexuality is a choice" think that heterosexuality is the default position, so that homosexuals choose to diverge from the default.

It's possible, but I don't think there is a "default" position. Sorry, I was merely expressing my viewpoint, not stating something as fact.

In this hypothetical model, what you define as "bisexual" and how you measure such scale. If people can change the sexual conduct from the social circumstances, this imply power of choice?

Bisexual - attracted to both genders. And it's not a scale you can measure, just more attracted to one gender basically, which can change depending on the circumstances, the people and the mood one is in.

My apologies. I'm trying to give examples of how I see this, and I am failing miserably. I still say one doesn't "choose" their sexual preference just as one doesn't choose what their sexual fetish is or whether they like bananas or if the color red is ugly or not. But under certain circumstances one may not enjoy their sexual fetish, or will eat a banana and like it, or paint some room red.

Now there also maybe some people who is heterosexual and likes to have a man involved in sex, such as a threesome, but not alone, just like someone might like bananas only with ice cream, or even maybe not liking the color red, but loving the color burgundy.

We are talking about basic likes and dislikes. To me, arguing if chooses homosexuality is like arguing if someone dislike celery.

...I hope I didn't make it more confusing...

[I Am The Scum]

So you affirm that most adults have a "sexual appetite" for gender (X) and not for gender (Y), and such "sexual appetite" cannot be chosen.

So the "sexual appetite" is not a variable. How badly did you fail logic class?

Are you saying that because something is not chosen, it is not variable? How does that follow? I didn't choose the temperature outside, and yet it's different from what it was last night.

How "bisexuality" fit in your equation if "sexual appetite" cannot change from gender X to gender Y? Again I must reiterate that I never stated that a person's sexual desires (or any desires, for that matter) cannot be changed.

Whereas most people strongly favor one gender over another romantically or sexually, bisexuals prefer both genders more or less equally. I can't imagine why you need someone else to explain this for you.

Then we have this interesting section. I asked you if your heterosexuality - your desire to be with a female - is a choice. You say, "Yes, it is." I then ask when you chose to have this desire. Your response: "Never." So you chose it, but you never chose it. That makes tons of sense! :rolleyes:

This is a blatant contradiction. If you have to resort to irrationality to prove your case, then don't be upset when nobody agrees with you.

1. Yes, I accept as true.
2. "Sexual appetite": You are what you eat and what you do.

You're not explaining yourself. You believe that homosexuals choose to desire their own gender over the opposite gender. Please explain to me why you think this is true. Explain to me how you have drawn this conclusion.

[I Am The Scum]

how was your life as a homosexual before that?

Thunder, he's trying to equivocate. To him, "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are strictly practices, not desires. This is, of course, an absurd notion. Whereas you would consider yourself a heterosexual right now, you are (presumably) not having sex at the moment, so according to SnakeTongue, that cannot possibly be true. You're just kinda neutral, for the time being.

This is why I have taken great lengths to define the "straight" and "gay" terms as desires, because then his errors in reasoning become much more obvious.

[SnakeTongue]

how was your life as a homosexual before that?

What make you think that "homosexual" lifestyle is the reverse of "heterosexual" lifestyle?

It is "bisexuality" something between your definition?

By the way, my sexual choices related to same gender was like from a priest in celibacy.

Definition of CELIBACY

1
: the state of not being married
2
a : abstention from sexual intercourse
b : abstention by vow from marriage

[SnakeTongue]

Then we have this interesting section. I asked you if your heterosexuality - your desire to be with a female - is a choice. You say, "Yes, it is." I then ask when you chose to have this desire. Your response: "Never." So you chose it, but you never chose it. That makes tons of sense! :rolleyes:

This is a blatant contradiction. If you have to resort to irrationality to prove your case, then don't be upset when nobody agrees with you.

I am sorry, I made a mistake with the numbers. I will reproduce again:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum
I'm going to phrase this as clearly as I possibly can: You have described yourself as "an adult male which enjoy engage in sexual intercourse with a adult female." (1) Why do you enjoy intercourse with females? (2) Is this something you have chosen to desire, or is it not? (3) If it is, then at what age did you choose to desire this? (4) Is it possible for you to desire sex with men?

1. Because it is like solve a long equation where the results are endless. It is feel that you are part of a dual system of self-duplication over a three dimensional sphere. If reproduction do not happens, energy remains stored in a dual system for the next cycle of self-duplication.
2. Yes, it is.
3. All ages.
4. Observing the real circumstances of my social environment over a three dimension sphere, I think... Never.

[SnakeTongue]

Whereas you would consider yourself a heterosexual right now, you are (presumably) not having sex at the moment, so according to SnakeTongue, that cannot possibly be true. You're just kinda neutral, for the time being.

Would you provide the evidence that prove that I stated that: if you consider yourself a "heterosexual" in this moment, this cannot be possible true?

Neutral in reference to which point?

This is why I have taken great lengths to define the "straight" and "gay" terms as desires, because then his errors in reasoning become much more obvious.

Where did you even defined such terms? I read this whole thread and I cannot remember. Could you help me find where you made such "great lengths to define the "straight" and "gay" terms as desires"?

[EGarrett]

Would you explain how a "conditioned preference" do not relate to "choice"?Look at 1a of your own definition.

[SnakeTongue]

Are you saying that because something is not chosen, it is not variable? How does that follow? I didn't choose the temperature outside, and yet it's different from what it was last night.

No, I am not.

I will try again:

(...) most adults have within them a certain desire for one gender and not the other, and that these desires are not chosen.

From this I understand:

1. An adult male have "sexual appetite" for a adult male: heterosexuality

2. An adult male have "sexual appetite" for an adult female: homosexuality

3. An adult male have "sexual appetite" for an adult female and/or male: bisexuality.

If this is possible, why is necessary the definition of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality in the definition 1 and 2, if the definition 3 contain both?

It is possible to have absence of "sexual appetite"? If yes, how this apply to the definition 3?

If a adult male choose to have sexual intercourse with adult males during a period of time (period A) and choose to have sexual intercourse with adult females in another period of time (period B), to which group of the definitions above this adult male belong?

[SnakeTongue]

Look at 1a of your own definition.

In which post?

[Shrike]

It's possible, but I don't think there is a "default" position. Sorry, I was merely expressing my viewpoint, not stating something as fact.

Sorry if I came across rude or terse. That was not my intention. I was merely playing devil's advocate of a sort. As in, saying homosexuality is a choice does not automatically make people like ST think that heterosexuality is also a choice.
I also do not think that there is a "default" position (hur, hur, position :)), but maybe people like ST do. I have to say that he is getting harder to follow in his last posts. His evasions are getting very elaborate.

[I Am The Scum]

3. All ages.
All ages? Really? So when you were an infant, you were consciously choosing (not merely feeling) that sexual intercourse with a female was an excellent idea. How did you arrive at this conclusion, and at such a young age?
Would you provide the evidence that prove that I stated that: if you consider yourself a "heterosexual" in this moment, this cannot be possible true?
You do so quite blatantly in this post later on:
If a adult male choose to have sexual intercourse with adult males during a period of time (period A) and choose to have sexual intercourse with adult females in another period of time (period B), to which group of the definitions above this adult male belong? If sexual orientation is about the desire and not the act, then why do you keep framing it in terms of whether or not the act is occurring?

Where did you even defined such terms? I read this whole thread and I cannot remember. Could you help me find where you made such "great lengths to define the "straight" and "gay" terms as desires"?
Snaketongue, nobody is arguing that engaging in sexual behavior is never a choice. They are arguing, however, that most adults have within them a certain desire for one gender and not the other, and that these desires are not chosen.
In the above section, I make it very clear that the conversation is not about the act of sex and/or romance, but the desire for it.

From this I understand:

1. An adult male have "sexual appetite" for a adult male: heterosexuality

2. An adult male have "sexual appetite" for an adult female: homosexuality

3. An adult male have "sexual appetite" for an adult female and/or male: bisexuality.

If this is possible, why is necessary the definition of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality in the definition 1 and 2, if the definition 3 contain both?

It is possible to have absence of "sexual appetite"? If yes, how this apply to the definition 3?
You really don't understand. First of all, #1 and #2 are backwards. #3 is fine. Your criticism of #3 makes absolutely no sense. Finally, your last paragraph is fine. Some people desire neither men nor women. They would be defined as celibate.

When I get home, I'll draw you a Venn diagram with crayons, so you will understand better. I can't imagine how someone can be so horribly confused by such a simple concept.

[JFrankA]

Sorry if I came across rude or terse. That was not my intention. I was merely playing devil's advocate of a sort. As in, saying homosexuality is a choice does not automatically make people like ST think that heterosexuality is also a choice.
I also do not think that there is a "default" position (hur, hur, position :)), but maybe people like ST do. I have to say that he is getting harder to follow in his last posts. His evasions are getting very elaborate.

Shrike, you have nothing to apologize for. :) I understood the position you were coming from. And I do appreciate the approach, keeps me thinking and questioning myself.

I do feel, though, I am not explaining my thoughts on the matter correctly. I will keep trying though. :)

[JFrankA]

What make you think that "homosexual" lifestyle is the reverse of "heterosexual" lifestyle?

It is "bisexuality" something between your definition?

By the way, my sexual choices related to same gender was like from a priest in celibacy.

Celibacy has nothing to do with being attracted to a gender or not. Celibacy is a choice not to have sex. That does not mean that the celibate person is not attracted to someone. Quite a difference.

That's like saying someone who is fasting (for whatever reason) doesn't eat because they don't desire food. It's not that they have an appetite, nor that they don't want food, it's just a conscious choice not eat. The desire is still there.

It's the same thing with sexual attraction. A person may be attracted to the same gender but resists the urge for social reasons. That doesn't mean that person has chosen to be attracted to the opposite gender, it means that person is denying what she/he basically desires.

[SnakeTongue]

All ages? Really? So when you were an infant, you were consciously choosing (not merely feeling) that sexual intercourse with a female was an excellent idea. How did you arrive at this conclusion, and at such a young age?

I cannot remember.

If sexual orientation is about the desire and not the act, then why do you keep framing it in terms of whether or not the act is occurring?

In the above section, I make it very clear that the conversation is not about the act of sex and/or romance, but the desire for it.

So where does sex desire come in? If sexual orientation has nothing to do with the action, what stops paedophiles from claiming equality with homosexuals? If they never get physical, what does it matter if they fall in love with a child?

Your criticism of #3 makes absolutely no sense.

I will try again:

Can you help me understand B and C?

Heterosexual desire = XT
Homosexual desire = XY
Bisexual desire = XZ

A. female gender (X) desire to female gender during his first 20 years of a person's life: homosexual (Y).
B. female gender (X) desire to male gender during his 21-25 years of a person's life: bisexual or reversion to heterosexual (Z or T)?
C. female gender (X) desire to female gender during his 25-45 years of a person's life: bisexual or reversion to homosexual (Y or Z)?

A. XY
B. XZ or XT?
C. XY or XZ?

:boggled:


Finally, your last paragraph is fine. Some people desire neither men nor women. They would be defined as celibate.

Yes, indeed, some people prefer (power of choice for) sexual abstinence (sexual behaviour).

:boggled:

When I get home, I'll draw you a Venn diagram with crayons, so you will understand better. I can't imagine how someone can be so horribly confused by such a simple concept.

Interesting...

[JFrankA]

I will try again:

Can you help me understand B and C?

Heterosexual desire = XT
Homosexual desire = XY
Bisexual desire = XZ

A. female gender (X) desire to female gender during his first 20 years of a person's life: homosexual (Y).
B. female gender (X) desire to male gender during his 21-25 years of a person's life: bisexual or reversion to heterosexual (Z or T)?
C. female gender (X) desire to female gender during his 25-45 years of a person's life: bisexual or reversion to homosexual (Y or Z)?

A. XY
B. XZ or XT?
C. XY or XZ?

:boggled:

I'll make it a little easier for you:

We are dealing with human emotions and reactions. There is no equation.

[JFrankA]

So where does sex desire come in? If sexual orientation has nothing to do with the action, what stops paedophiles from claiming equality with homosexuals? If they never get physical, what does it matter if they fall in love with a child?

None. A pedophile who never acts on her/his desires is still a pedophile, just denying her/his desires.

To be clear: a pedophile is as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." It doesn't matter if they act on it or not, the desire is still there.

The act of actually having sex with a child is not called pedophilia.

So, once again, the desire is there. One can choose not to act on the desire, but the desire doesn't go away: one cannot choose to not have a desire for something.

[SnakeTongue]

Celibacy has nothing to do with being attracted to a gender or not. Celibacy is a choice not to have sex. That does not mean that the celibate person is not attracted to someone. Quite a difference.


If celibacy have nothing to do with gender attraction, why the need of "choice to not have sex"?

If it is a choice to have sex, it is NOT a need to have keep a "vow", to practise "sexual abstinence".

The definition of celibacy become useless if the element of "control over of sexual urge" is not part of it.

If it is not sexual "abstinence", it is not a sexual "urge".

To be abstinent, must be a urge.

That's like saying someone who is fasting (for whatever reason) doesn't eat because they don't desire food. It's not that they have an appetite, nor that they don't want food, it's just a conscious choice not eat. The desire is still there.

Your analogy is precise, I just cannot identify the analogue sides...

It's the same thing with sexual attraction. A person may be attracted to the same gender but resists the urge for social reasons. That doesn't mean that person has chosen to be attracted to the opposite gender, it means that person is denying what she/he basically desires.

If the persons that is denying her/him "sexual attraction" do not chose the "sexual attraction", how his person identify the "sexual attraction" to be denied?

[SnakeTongue]

None. A pedophile who never acts on her/his desires is still a pedophile, just denying her/his desires.

So, once again, the desire is there. One can choose not to act on the desire, but the desire doesn't go away: one cannot choose to not have a desire for something.

That is a interesting excellent analogy.

A homosexual who never acts on her/his desires is still a homosexual, just denying her/his desires.

A heterosexual who never acts on her/his desires is still a heterosexual, just denying her/his desires?

:confused:

"I wonder when was the last time I was denying my desires... Next time that such desires come back I will gladly accept its"

:D

[I Am The Scum]

So are you attracted to the same gender, the other gender, or both?

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z279/iamthescum13/Image1.png

If you're in the blue area, you like the same gender, but not the other. You're gay/homosexual.
If you're in the green area, you like the other gender, but not your own. You're straight/heterosexual.
If you're in the purple area, you like both genders. You're bisexual.
If you're in the red area, you just don't have sexual desire for anyone in particular. None of the above definitions apply.

I previously described the red area as celibacy, but that doesn't really apply.

[Alan]

The red area would be best described as representing asexuality.

[SnakeTongue]

So are you attracted to the same gender, the other gender, or both?

If you're in the blue area, you like the same gender, but not the other. You're gay/homosexual.
If you're in the green area, you like the other gender, but not your own. You're straight/heterosexual.
If you're in the purple area, you like both genders. You're bisexual.
If you're in the red area, you just don't have sexual desire for anyone in particular. None of the above definitions apply.

I previously described the red area as celibacy, but that doesn't really apply.

You forgot this "colours":

http://neprimer.com/ePress/SexOrientationList.htm
Now you will have a chance to draw a rainbow!
Though this is not really descriptions of "explicit sexual acts", I know I wouldn't want my boss to see it on my screen.

[I Am The Scum]

You forgot this "colours":

I have covered the relevant portions. Let's try to stay on topic.

When you were six years old, by what means did you conclude that you should desire sexual relations with women?

[Alan]

The image was about target sexes, not about things to do with them or gender identities or so on. That is not a failing when the discussion is about homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. And that site has misinformation, such as that "advocates of Sexual Orientation would legalize these crimes on minors".

[SnakeTongue]

The image was about target sexes, not about things to do with them or gender identities or so on.

Are you sure that diagram have nothing to do with "gender identities"?

So are you attracted to the same gender, the other gender, or both?

That is not a failing when the discussion is about homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. And that site has misinformation, such as that "advocates of Sexual Orientation would legalize these crimes on minors".

The site I linked in the post above was just to give a list of Sexual Orientations....

[SnakeTongue]

I have covered the relevant portions. Let's try to stay on topic.

No, you had not. Your Microsoft Paint picture left important details outside.

It is not just the lack of other sexual orientations in the colours, but also the lack of a variable which represent time period.

[Alan]

Are you sure that diagram have nothing to do with "gender identities"?


The site I linked in the post above was just to give a list of Sexual Orientations....
A gender identity is not a sexual orientation, and specific sexual acts are not relevant when discussing the sexes that people are attracted to. Masturbation, for example, is not a "sexual orientation".

Do you distance yourself from the part of the list about gay rights activists being pro-paedophilia?

Change over time is, however, an important factor.

[SnakeTongue]

A gender identity is not a sexual orientation, and specific sexual acts are not relevant when discussing the sexes that people are attracted to.

Yes, indeed, gender is not sexual orientation. It is just gender: male or female.

It is no such thing of "gender identity". The word "gender" itself represent an identity.

Masturbation, for example, is not a "sexual orientation".

It is a sexual conduct influenced by the sexual orientation of the individual performing in such conduct.

[JFrankA]

It is a sexual conduct influenced by the sexual orientation of the individual performing in such conduct.

This you MUST explain. What you just said makes absolutely no sense, sorry.

[SnakeTongue]

This you MUST explain. What you just said makes absolutely no sense, sorry.

Masturbation, for example, is not a "sexual orientation".

It is a sexual conduct influenced by the sexual orientation of the individual performing in such conduct.

Masturbation is the sexual "way of acting".

Indeed, it is not the sexual orientation.

But a question remain: action on what?

Definition of Masturbation:

Masturbation refers to sexual arousal (and often orgasm as well) by manual stimulation of the genitals.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/masturbation.htm

It is the "way of acting" with "sexual arousal defined by manual stimulation of the genitals."

I presume if it is a "sexual arousal", the sexual orientation of the person would shape the thoughts to an arousal take place. Consider your own quote:

For example, let's take the "money shot" in porn. To be aroused by watching a man ejaculate sounds incredibly homoerotic. Now stick a woman in the scene, and BOOM - it's considered heterosexual. It the man was alone, (or with other men) it's considered homoerotic. But take the same circumstance, change the situation by one factor, and it's not homoerotic at all.

If a adult male is paid to masturbate in front of another adult male, how would you identify the sexual orientation of the adult male performing the act? Would this affect the adult male performing? Would this affect the adult male observing the performance?

If sexual conduct is not related to sexual orientation at all, why such questions arise?


con·duct   
[n. kon-duhkt; v. kuhn-duhkt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
personal behavior; way of acting; bearing or deportment.
2.
direction or management; execution: the conduct of a business.
3.
the act of conducting; guidance; escort: The curator's conduct through the museum was informative.
4.
Obsolete . a guide; an escort.

[Marcus]

...enough dancing around, snaketongue....answer the damn question...
When did you decide to be heterosexual?


By the way, I decide to be "heterosexual" five days ago...
Fail. A refusal to honestly answer this question means that you aren't able to accept the consequences of the true answer, which is that you never made a concious decision to be a heterosexual.

[SnakeTongue]

The Divine Nature of the Genders

The Rebis (from the Latin 'res bina', meaning dual or double matter)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/InvertedRedPentagram/ancient_symbolism2.jpg

The double meaning of the Androgyne

In the “Symposium” of Plato, Aristophanes builds up his speech about love on a myth. In bygone days, only androgynes used to exist. They were composed of two beings of opposite sex, placed side by side. Boosted by their double nature, they wanted to challenge the Gods and therefore Zeus decided to punish the androgynes by splitting them in two. They gave birth to human beings looking just like us. According to Aristophanes, love would be nothing else but a feeling of nostalgia towards our ancient nature and a desperate quest for our lost unity. The union of beings or opposites would portray an attempt to re-find the missing link through the search for soul mate.

http://users.skynet.be/lotus/andro/andro0-en.htm

[Thunder]

Snake- why is it soooo very important for you to believe that homosexuality is a choice?

how does this effect your life...one way or the other?

If scientists say its not a choice, but a product of genetics and early nurturing, why is that not good enough for you?

[SnakeTongue]

Snake- why is it soooo very important for you to believe that homosexuality is a choice?

how does this effect your life...one way or the other?

If scientists say its not a choice, but a product of genetics and early nurturing, why is that not good enough for you?

Get it straight, Thunder.

Would you provide me the statement of such scientists and references to the respective essays?

[Thunder]

Would you provide me the statement of such scientists and references to the respective essays?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jun/17/are-we-born-gay-science-suggests-yes/

read

[Shrike]

Snake- why is it soooo very important for you to believe that homosexuality is a choice?

how does this effect your life...one way or the other?


I was almost planning of creating a new thread with these questions for ST. And: If homosexuality IS a choice, then what?
Maybe you or I should create a new thread.

[Thunder]

I was almost planning of creating a new thread with these questions for ST. And: If homosexuality IS a choice, then what?
Maybe you or I should create a new thread.

not a bad idea, as this subject seems to be very important to him.

[bikerdruid]

No, you had not. Your Microsoft Paint picture left important details outside.

It is not just the lack of other sexual orientations in the colours, but also the lack of a variable which represent time period.

please explain how time period has anything to do with gender, sexual preference or sexuality.

[bikerdruid]

Get it straight, Thunder.

Would you provide me the statement of such scientists and references to the respective essays?

you refusal to answer any direct questions, to discuss honestly and to deal with the issues shows that this thread is , for you, merely mental masturbation.

[Thunder]

SnakeTongue- just out of curiosity, are you gay?

were you ever gay?

its just a question, not meant to offend.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Okay, SnakeTongue, so lets start on the base that you are right and homosexuality is a choice. That means anyone can choose to be a homosexual by their own free will. Fine.

Scenario: I've kidnapped you and I'm pointing a gun at you. I say "Become a homosexual now or I shoot you in the head"

What do you do?

Do you concede my demand and become a homosexual or do you have me shoot you?

(Please notice this is not the same as forcing you to have homosexual sex, which does not require you to actually like it. You can have sex forced and in fact, that's what rape is all about. What I'm asking you is if you can decide to feel attracted to a gender you didn't originally feel attracted to, out of pure willful choice on your part)

[Titanic Explorer]

Homosexual behavior is found throughout the animal kingdom, so this notion it's found 'nowhere in nature' are the rantings of dumb as crazy religious crackpots

[Titanic Explorer]

I know someone who denounced homosexuality & 'sodomy' as being unnatural- yet he admitted he likes to do anal and be fellatiated when with his girlfriend...Is there a contradication ion there somewhere?

[Alan]

Yes, indeed, gender is not sexual orientation. It is just gender: male or female.

It is no such thing of "gender identity". The word "gender" itself represent an identity.



It is a sexual conduct influenced by the sexual orientation of the individual performing in such conduct.
Therefore masturbation is not a sexual orientation itself. Neither are other sexual acts (including sex with men and/or women). The sexual orientation is the desire that sexual conduct is influenced by.

I stand by the phrase "gender identity" but I think it would be easier for you to understand the ideas in this thread if we stay concentrated on the matter only of sexual orientation.

[GrouchoMarxist]

I know someone who denounced homosexuality & 'sodomy' as being unnatural- yet he admitted he likes to do anal and be fellatiated when with his girlfriend...Is there a contradication ion there somewhere?

What is your point?

[Alan]

please explain how time period has anything to do with gender, sexual preference or sexuality.
I'll take a shot.

Sexuality and gender can be fluid.

If somebody over a lifetime exclusively likes members of a single sex, that fluidity might be seen in the practices they want to take part in, and the properties of the people the person is attracted to OTHER than their sex or gender (such as body shape, race, accent, clothes...).

If somebody is not exclusively attracted to members of a single sex, that fluidity has just one more factor to vary on.

As for gender and gender identity, there are people who experience change over time with those as well. Some people who are genderfluid, for example. http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/03/word-of-gay-genderfluid.html

[Titanic Explorer]

What is your point?


The point is that right wing gaybashers are unabashed hippocrites.
They denounce gays in part because they insist that sex can only be for reproduction and not for pleasure- and insist since penis/vagina sex can't happen in gay sex, it's somehow perverted. They've used 'anti sodomy laws' in years past to incarcerate gay people. Yet some gay bashing straight people engage in certain sexual acts (oral, anal) , yet condemn gay people who do the same thing with their partners, and further call such acts unnatural.
So in the gay bashers mind, it's okay for a woman to perform oral on a man, yet wrong for a gay man to do the same on his male partner. Gaybashers denounce oral sex as unnatural, yet often have no problem recieving it.

[SnakeTongue]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jun/17/are-we-born-gay-science-suggests-yes/

read

News media do not represent science at all! I also required you a link to verify the results which proves an irrefutable link between genetic traits and "homosexual" behavior. You did not provided such reference, which shows your strong tendency to confuse objective science with subjective politics.

From your links:

Born Gay?
By WILLIAM A. HENRY III;Ellen Germain/Washington and Alice Park/New York Monday, Jul. 26, 1993

Are we born gay? Science suggests yes
Tom Bestor, June 17, 2008 at midnight

The first article was already scrutinized.

The second article, begins with the word "suggests", which contradict the objectivity of the whole article.

Science do not suggests, science affirms.

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

How I contest your statement and both articles with verifiable evidence:

Born or Bred?
Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
Robert Knight

The X Chromosome

Another fact that casts doubt on Hamer's conclusions is that other researchers tried to replicate his study but failed. In 1999, Drs. George Rice, Neil Risch and George Ebers published their findings in Science after attempting to replicate Hamer's Xq28 study. Their conclusion: "We were not able to confirm evidence for an Xq28-linked locus underlying male homosexuality." Moreover, they added that when another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer's study, they too failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality.

The Twins Study

In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.

Bailey conducted another study in 1999, published in the March 2000 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which actually showed less possible genetic influence on homosexuality than the first twins study. He sent a questionnaire to the entire Australian Twin Registry. Only three pairs of identical male twins were both homosexual out of a total of 27 in which at least one was homosexual. Of the 16 fraternal male twins, none of the pairs was both homosexual. Bailey found similar results for lesbians.

http://lifeissues.net/writers/kni/kni_01homosexuality1.html

If a research cannot be replicate in laboratory to obtain the same results of a previous research, the research do not represent any evidence at all.

I dare you to read the whole article above and verify all the references noted in the article.

Snake- why is it soooo very important for you to believe that homosexuality is a choice?

how does this effect your life...one way or the other?

It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of objectivity.

not a bad idea, as this subject seems to be very important to him.

It is a bad idea and the subject is important to all us.

SnakeTongue- just out of curiosity, are you gay?

were you ever gay?

its just a question, not meant to offend.

If am "bright and lively"?

Not at all the time.

Yes, I was "bright and lively" many times in different contexts.

It is not offensive to ask someone's qualities.

Definition of GAY
1
a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2
a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
3
: given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4
a : homosexual <gay men> b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>
— gay adverb
— gay·ness noun

[JFrankA]

If am "bright and lively"?

Not at all the time.

Yes, I was "bright and lively" many times in different contexts.

It is not offensive to ask someone's qualities.

Why are you afraid of a simple, straightforward question? Why the song and dance?

[JFrankA]

Masturbation is the sexual "way of acting".

Indeed, it is not the sexual orientation.

But a question remain: action on what?

Definition of Masturbation:



It is the "way of acting" with "sexual arousal defined by manual stimulation of the genitals."

That was an attempt at a spin on a point you were trying to make that I didn't understand that spin made no sense whatsoever. I'm sorry, I don't meant to be disrespectful, but I have no clue what you are getting at. Masturbation is a way to get a sexual release when there is no partner.

To quote your own article:
But between these relationships we (men) will find ourselves returning to single status. During these single periods, we'll most probably continue to have normal sex drives – and the most obvious form of sexual relief and satisfaction available to us at those times will be masturbation.

Further down the article:

Masturbation comes pretty naturally to most men. Let's face it: a male child discovers that his penis feels good before he can talk!

So, it's not surprising that boys fondle this area of their bodies a lot, and then, at the age of around 14, discover that masturbation can lead to orgasm and ejaculation – all of which they find exciting and pleasurable.

It's simply a way of self-satisfaction when there is no one else around. Also, men and women have masturbated before they've decided what their sexual preferences are, even before they know that it's a sexual thing to do.

I'm sorry, I don't get your point when you say
It is a sexual conduct influenced by the sexual orientation of the individual performing in such conduct.

I presume if it is a "sexual arousal", the sexual orientation of the person would shape the thoughts to an arousal take place. Consider your own quote:

If a adult male is paid to masturbate in front of another adult male, how would you identify the sexual orientation of the adult male performing the act?[/quote]

That would be up to him, not me. I don't know what's running through his mind as he performs.

Would this affect the adult male performing?

Again, that would be up to him, not me.

Would this affect the adult male observing the performance?

Once again, that would be up him, not me.

If sexual conduct is not related to sexual orientation at all, why such questions arise?

Sounds like people are trying to read the mind of another person and making decisions for that person in an attempt to label that person, instead of letting that person decide for her/himself!

[SnakeTongue]

It's simply a way of self-satisfaction when there is no one else around. Also, men and women have masturbated before they've decided what their sexual preferences are, even before they know that it's a sexual thing to do.

I am glad you had agreed that males and females indeed decide their sexual preference.

I'm sorry, I don't get your point when you say:

I presume if it is a "sexual arousal", the sexual orientation of the person would shape the thoughts to an arousal take place.

What I am saying is: if a male or female have a sexual preference for object X, the male or female will focus his or her thoughts on object X to help him or her reach an orgasm while masturbating

That would be up to him, not me. I don't know what's running through his mind as he performs.

Again, that would be up to him, not me.
Once again, that would be up him, not me.

Of course, that would be up to his choices, not yours.

Sounds like people are trying to read the mind of another person and making decisions for that person in an attempt to label that person, instead of letting that person decide for her/himself!

Yes, "making decisions" is a power of choice.

[SnakeTongue]

Why are you afraid of a simple, straightforward question? Why the song and dance?

Afraid? No, I am not.

Straightforward? No, it is a very subjective question which do not address anything objective at all.

Song and dance? Cannot you hear the Hermes god playing his lyre in the Olympus?

:g1:

[SnakeTongue]

Fail. A refusal to honestly answer this question means that you aren't able to accept the consequences of the true answer, which is that you never made a concious decision to be a heterosexual.

you refusal to answer any direct questions, to discuss honestly and to deal with the issues shows that this thread is , for you, merely mental masturbation.

Your insistence to ask such subjective question and do not address objectively the issues of this thread, is for you merely "mental voyeurism".

Do you like to observe "mental masturbation"?

[Marcus]

Afraid? No, I am not.
:g1:

Since you won't answer the question, it seems appropriate to speculate on the reasons.

It's like the elephant in the room, really, If you admit that you didn't choose your own sexual preference, your claim that gays choose theirs will look rather silly.

As the name of the thread is "homosexuality is a choice" it just doesn't get any more on topic than this.

[JFrankA]

I am glad you had agreed that males and females indeed decide their sexual preference.

I'll admit to that being a poor choice of words, on my part.

"Decide" was a poor choice of words, I admit. Maybe "realized" is better.

"Gotcha moments" on semantics will get you nowhere.


What I am saying is: if a male or female have a sexual preference for object X, the male or female will focus his or her thoughts on object X to help him or her reach an orgasm while masturbating.

Couldn't you have just said that without all the open wording?



Of course, that would be up to his choices, not yours.

Yes, "making decisions" is a power of choice.

Yes, it's his choice as to what to think. However, his DESIRES do not change.

If a heterosexual man achieves orgasm by masturbation with another man, did that man make a conscious decision to change his basic desires? Or was he thinking about his basic desires to begin with? Or, as I feel it is, the basic desires do not change but what is going on both physically and psychologically is much more complex than labeling the man "He's gay now and made the conscious decision to be so"?

This isn't a decision to become homosexual, it's a decision to perform the act, but the basic desires do not change.