Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

You know what? We can play that game too. Since YOU brought up infants and children less than six years old, I can assume that you feel that it's okay to have an adult penis rip the vagina of a ten year old or older girl.

By your silence, we can also assume that you feel it's natural for a thirteen year old or older boy have sex with an adult female.

Oh, I can go further: since you only mention "ripping vagina of infants", I guess it's "natural" for an adult female to yank on a penis an infant male.

You haven't said anything about that not being natural, so you must think that way!!!!!

--

See what I did there?

Stop playing those "I am assuming that you mean this and you should be ashamed" games. They do not support your cause and they get you in deep trouble.

Yes, I see what you did there: an interesting assumption of what I think without the endorsement of my consent or my agreement.

[SnakeTongue]

So would you agree that ones sexual orientation (including homosexuality) is not a choice?

Yes, it is not a matter of a single choice. It is a behaviour which can change during the time in accordance with the social environment, not only by a single choice.

[DC]

Yes, it is not a matter of a single choice. It is a behaviour which can change during the time in accordance with the social environment, not only by a single choice.

i think the only choices involved are actually if you have sex with the gender you feel attracted to or not and if you tell it the people around you. But most probably you will not choose to feel attracted to a gender. So saying it is not a single choice is kinda misleading, it is also not something you become because of several choices.

[SnakeTongue]

i think the only choices involved are actually if you have sex with the gender you feel attracted to or not and if you tell it the people around you. But most probably you will not choose to feel attracted to a gender. So saying it is not a single choice is kinda misleading, it is also not something you become because of several choices.


Yes, I would not really choose, it cannot really happens with a matter of choice.

It is a chance that several choices will lead to a change. Take for example a hypothetical experience of a group of men with strong sexual urge living in extreme conditions without contact with woman during a long time. In this hypothetical experience the men could choose engage in homosexual behaviour - even they were originally heterosexuals - just to appease the sexual libido.

What those men become if they choose appease the sexual urge with another men? Heterosexuals? Homosexuals? Bisexuals?

[Belz...]

Anyway... Look like you did not explained where exactly homosexuality fits in the theory of evolution.

Oh yes, you fail.

You mean I actually MISSED all those explanations I gave you ?

No, I am done with the dispute of "natural" and "unnatural"

I will take that to mean that you are retracting your claim that homosexuality is unnatural, since you have yet to define that word properly.

Look like you cannot understand the nature's purpose to our biological morphology.

There is no purpose in nature. This isn't Lamarckism or creationism. Things are used the way they're used. Penises are used for reproduction AND for other things. I'm sorry if that bothers you but it's a fact of life, natural or otherwise.

I am done with you.

So far you have adressed none of my points. I would say you haven't even started with me.

[Belz...]

Masturbation is unnatural because do not use the genitals in an appropriate manner.

So animals in nature can do things that are unnatural ? That's an odd twist to that word.

And who are you to determine what's the appropriate way to use genitals ?

[JFrankA]

Yes, I see what you did there: an interesting assumption of what I think without the endorsement of my consent or my agreement.

I was only doing what you are doing.

[Belz...]

Yes, it is not a matter of a single choice. It is a behaviour which can change during the time in accordance with the social environment, not only by a single choice.

I'm sorry. I don't think I could become gay. Could you ?

[kuroyume0161]

Yes, I would not really choose, it cannot really happens with a matter of choice.

It is a chance that several choices will lead to a change. Take for example a hypothetical experience of a group of men with strong sexual urge living in extreme conditions without contact with woman during a long time. In this hypothetical experience the men could choose engage in homosexual behaviour - even they were originally heterosexuals - just to appease the sexual libido.

What those men become if they choose appease the sexual urge with another men? Heterosexuals? Homosexuals? Bisexuals?

This is an extreme case. They would be heterosexuals engaging in sex out of the circumstances. It would more than likely not change their sexual identities at all. But remember that sexuality isn't THIS or THAT. While I have a deeper attraction to males, I am also attracted to females. What? You mean, 'sexuality' isn't a dichotomy!? Are you attracted to the boobs and twat or to the person? I don't see a guy and say, "Wow, he must have a huge c-ck! That's why I'm gay! I'm gonna go have sex with every man!" You think that, don't you? That is your simplistic view of homosexuality: hetero is love, homo is sex. You must be Christian, maybe Protestant, since they are typically very focused on genitalia. I could care less. I'm interested in the person and not what is between their thighs...

[JFrankA]

I asked you examples of what is "unnatural", not what was wrong with my definitions.

Could you provide examples of "unnatural" events? Could you provide examples of "unnatural" things in nature, including human behaviour or physiology?

I gave you three. I'm sorry if you can't defend your examples nor see what was unnatural about mine....

[JFrankA]

This is an extreme case. They would be heterosexuals engaging in sex out of the circumstances. It would more than likely not change their sexual identities at all. But remember that sexuality isn't THIS or THAT. While I have a deeper attraction to males, I am also attracted to females. What? You mean, 'sexuality' isn't a dichotomy!? Are you attracted to the boobs and twat or to the person? I don't see a guy and say, "Wow, he must have a huge c-ck! That's why I'm gay! I'm gonna go have sex with every man!" You think that, don't you? That is your simplistic view of homosexuality: hetero is love, homo is sex. You must be Christian, maybe Protestant, since they are typically very focused on genitalia. I could care less. I'm interested in the person and not what is between their thighs...

Bingo! Very well put.

[SnakeTongue]

You mean I actually MISSED all those explanations I gave you ?

No, I did not missed. The explanations were poor and without evidence.

[SnakeTongue]

So animals in nature can do things that are unnatural ? That's an odd twist to that word.

I do not know. That is what I am trying to discovery, since the dispute against my definitions is: everything which happens in nature is natural. So unnatural would be nothing which happens in nature. What is nothing which happens in nature?

And who are you to determine what's the appropriate way to use genitals ?

I am SnakeTongue.

[SnakeTongue]

I was only doing what you are doing.

All right.

I gave you three. I'm sorry if you can't defend your examples nor see what was unnatural about mine....

No, you gave definitions. It is difficult to you to present an example? So far I had now two examples:

Depends upon the definition of 'unnatural' in use. If we are using the strict definition (see below) then there are no concrete examples to be given. Heaven, god, hell, fairies, Jabberwockies, people walking through brick walls, and any other non-existent thing could be considered 'unnatural'.

Also, Artificial Insemination (which couldn't me a more unnatural way of reproduction) does lead to reproduction

[Emet]

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.



Heterosexuals:
1. Engage in the very same 'inappropriate' use of their genitals. Every. Single. Day.
2. None of the conduct implied in #1 has the purpose of natural fertilization--whether homosexual or heterosexual.
3. Disease transmission depends on the number of partners one has, and what, if any precautions one may take (in the case of humans)
4. Many males of multiple species (in the wild) will participate in sex with many females. They can and do transmit diseases. Is this unnatural?

What do you expect me to do with the list above?

Okay then. Let me spell it out for you.


1. You posted a list explaining your POV--why homosexuality is unnatural.
2. I posted a list that mostly counter argued by showing you examples that both heterosexual people and heterosexual animals do the exact same things you listed. Did you notice the "?" at the end of #4?
3. You did not reply, other than ask what you are supposed to do with the list.
4. What you should do: either disprove that I have shown you that your list of why homosexuality is unnatural is hogwash--since heterosexuals do the exact same things--or accept that you don't have a leg to stand on.

My expectation: you will not even reply to this post. You are very selective about responding to others. You cherry pick when you can find something to say, or seemingly feign confusion or ask for clarification. No language barriers can account for this, IMO.

Your posts suggest that you find homosexuality icky; your posts seem to show an inability to employ empathy, compassion, and understanding of others who think or feel differently than you.

My posting history (especially in community), has convinced many that I possess these qualities, even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue. (I have received many pms from members telling me just that)

The world is changing, whether you like it or not. Progress is inevitable, regardless of what you think or feel. I expect you will never change your POV, even if someone close to you is homosexual.

That saddens me. But such is life.

[SnakeTongue]

I'm sorry. I don't think I could become gay. Could you ?

If you mean homosexual, no, I would not adopt such behaviour.

[Belz...]

No, I did not missed. The explanations were poor and without evidence.

Really ? So when I said that non-reproductive members of societies like ants and bees can be very beneficial to their society not in spite of their inability to reproduce but because of it, it just flew over your head ?

And what's unconvincing about the bonding effect I mentionned ?

And if you want links:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[bikerdruid]

If you mean homosexual, no, I would not adopt such behaviour.

that is not the question.
you were asked if you could choose to be homosexual.
that is the crux of the matter.
for example, i could not choose to be straight. it would be an unnatural thing for me, since i was born queer.

[Belz...]

I am SnakeTongue.

Yes. Now please explain how that helps you determine the "appropriate" way to use one's genitals, please.

Remember that "designed to do X" is not an argument, since you can't determine what something is designed to do except by looking at how it's used; and also that animals use genitals in ways that you deem appropriate.

If you mean homosexual, no, I would not adopt such behaviour.

What do you mean "can't" ? I thought it was a choice ?

[SnakeTongue]

This is an extreme case. They would be heterosexuals engaging in sex out of the circumstances. It would more than likely not change their sexual identities at all.

I disagree with your argument.

Why more likely to not change? The change can happens, a male can have an sexual experience with another male and repeat it many times if please him. The presence of power of choice to repeat the experience is what changes the social behaviour.

How people become bisexuals? It is not a change of behaviour?

But remember that sexuality isn't THIS or THAT.

What is this and that?

While I have a deeper attraction to males, I am also attracted to females.

Are that a definition of bisexual?

What? You mean, 'sexuality' isn't a dichotomy!? Are you attracted to the boobs and twat or to the person? I don't see a guy and say, "Wow, he must have a huge c-ck! That's why I'm gay! I'm gonna go have sex with every man!" You think that, don't you?

No, I do not think that.

That is your simplistic view of homosexuality: hetero is love, homo is sex.

No, it is not.

You must be Christian, maybe Protestant, since they are typically very focused on genitalia.

I am not. What a fallacious argument...

I could care less. I'm interested in the person and not what is between their thighs...

Do you mean that when you are sexually attracted?

[AnnoyingPony]

No, it is not.

Just the perverted human species use sex to "many other things besides reproduction."

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years exclusively to reproduce.



-



-

Dolphins have been seen engaging in homosexual and/or bisexual relationships for pleasure. I don't have the link, but I do remember reading it somewhere.

[SnakeTongue]

Really ? So when I said that non-reproductive members of societies like ants and bees can be very beneficial to their society not in spite of their inability to reproduce but because of it, it just flew over your head ?

And what's unconvincing about the bonding effect I mentionned ?

And if you want links:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

You just post two links with not reliable references. You did not made your argument and presented the parts of a research which supports your claim.

Wikipedia is not reliable source of reference and New Scientist is not an official reference for objective science.

Please, provide link to researches and web pages without commercial bias.

Yes. Now please explain how that helps you determine the "appropriate" way to use one's genitals, please.

I observe nature.

What do you mean "can't" ? I thought it was a choice ?

Where did I said "can't"?

[SnakeTongue]

Okay then. Let me spell it out for you.


1. You posted a list explaining your POV--why homosexuality is unnatural.
2. I posted a list that mostly counter argued by showing you examples that both heterosexual people and heterosexual animals do the exact same things you listed. Did you notice the "?" at the end of #4?
3. You did not reply, other than ask what you are supposed to do with the list.
4. What you should do: either disprove that I have shown you that your list of why homosexuality is unnatural is hogwash--since heterosexuals do the exact same things--or accept that you don't have a leg to stand on.

My expectation: you will not even reply to this post. You are very selective about responding to others. You cherry pick when you can find something to say, or seemingly feign confusion or ask for clarification. No language barriers can account for this, IMO.

Your posts suggest that you find homosexuality icky; your posts seem to show an inability to employ empathy, compassion, and understanding of others who think or feel differently than you.

I asked what to do with the list, not a psychological examination of my character.

My posting history (especially in community), has convinced many that I possess these qualities, even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue. (I have received many pms from members telling me just that)

Are you conspiring against me with members of this community?

The world is changing, whether you like it or not. Progress is inevitable, regardless of what you think or feel. I expect you will never change your POV, even if someone close to you is homosexual.

That saddens me. But such is life.

What you mean by POV?

[SnakeTongue]

that is not the question.
you were asked if you could choose to be homosexual.
that is the crux of the matter.

No, I think I could not choose adopt the homosexual orientation.

for example, i could not choose to be straight. it would be an unnatural thing for me, since i was born queer.

You did not born queer. You born a male which developed a queer behaviour. "Queer" is not a gender identity.

[Alan]

I am not here to be correct. This is not a classroom. This is a forum in the cyberspace to debate.
Is this an admission that you just want to be argumentative, and do not care about whether what you write is factual?

We should use facts to reach the positions that we hold, and debates should be based not on contrarianism but the desire see which position is better supported by the facts.

I will happily change my point of view when in a debate with somebody who has a convincing argument. I like being right, and think that you do too. For me, that involves letting go of beliefs that I find out were wrong.

[SnakeTongue]

Dolphins have been seen engaging in homosexual and/or bisexual relationships for pleasure. I don't have the link, but I do remember reading it somewhere.

How do you know that was for pleasure?

[SnakeTongue]

Is this an admission that you just want to be argumentative, and do not care about whether what you write is factual?

We should use facts to reach the positions that we hold, and debates should be based not on contrarianism but the desire see which position is better supported by the facts.

I will happily change my point of view when in a debate with somebody who has a convincing argument. I like being right, and think that you do too. For me, that involves letting go of beliefs that I find out were wrong.

If you mean that:

argumentative

adjective
1 given to arguing:
2 using or characterized by systematic reasoning:

Yes, with much care to facts.

[Emet]

I asked what to do with the list, not a psychological examination of my character.

I did nothing of the sort. I drew conclusions from your posts about your posts. You perceive it as personal. It is not.

Are you conspiring against me with another members of this community?

Are you serious? :boggled: CT------------------------->

I specifically stated it had to do with community posts. The community sub-forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=26). Have you even posted there? It had absolutely, positively, nothing at all to do with you. The evidence is there for you to see--and draw your own conclusions. I have only interacted with you in this thread, to the best of my recollection.

What you mean by POV?

Point of view.

But as expected, you did not answer my question--you know the one with the question mark. Nor did you refute that your view of what is unnatural is exactly what heterosexuals do. As I pointed out in #4.

So once again, evasion noted, and nice derail.

[Alan]

No, I mean that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, without caring about whether what you are saying is correct or not. That is what you wrote looks like.

I am not here to be correct. This is not a classroom. This is a forum in the cyberspace to debate.

[Nichiro]

Methinks that HS is a rebellion against Normal.

[Garrison0fMars]

Methinks that HS is a rebellion against Normal.

Why? Does this include transsexuality and bisexuality as well?

[bikerdruid]

No, I think I could not choose adopt the homosexual orientation.

You did not born queer. You born a male which developed a queer behaviour. "Queer" is not a gender identity.

i was born as a homosexual male.
i have no ambiguity about my gender. i am a man.
i just happen to be a queer man.
as you say that you could not choose to be homosexual, neither could i choose to be heterosexual.
it is not in my nature. it would be unnatural for me.

[JFrankA]

How do you know that was for pleasure?

How do you know it's not?

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6592199#post6592199)
This is an extreme case. They would be heterosexuals engaging in sex out of the circumstances. It would more than likely not change their sexual identities at all.

I disagree with your argument.

Why more likely to not change? The change can happens, a male can have an sexual experience with another male and repeat it many times if please him. The presence of power of choice to repeat the experience is what changes the social behaviour.

How people become bisexuals? It is not a change of behaviour?

Do you have evidence that it is change or simply situational adaptation? Like I said, you are offering a drastic situation as exemplar and expect us to, what, use that as the template for all reasons for sexuality? Me no think so.

I think that studies show that sex is a basal drive in any animal (or plant) and the drive will be achieved one way or another (even if not for, omg, procreation!). Life will find a way. You cannot expect people to be celibate when a good portion of our body is wired for sex (sexual organs, pheromones in the brain, hormones, and other sexual factors). That is the wish of an idealistic religion, not of realistic humans. Masturbation, for instance, has its purpose. We don't do it mainly for pleasure but for satisfaction (release). If there were no impulse to do so, why is it there?

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6592199#post6592199)
But remember that sexuality isn't THIS or THAT.

What is this and that?

Strictly Heterosexual or Homosexual. Kinsey showed that sexual attraction is a range not an either/or situation. To say even:

Hetero, Bi, Homo is incorrect. There is a spectra between some ideally strict heterosexuality and ideally strict homosexuality. It is not 'you are homosexual 100%' (etc.).

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6592199#post6592199)
While I have a deeper attraction to males, I am also attracted to females.

Are that a definition of bisexual?

See, again, using the strictures. I'm homosexual about 80% and 20% heterosexual. It all depends upon the personal attraction and 'chemistry'. To pre-answer a later query: Yes, isn't all attraction initially about physical appearances maybe with a bit of personality? More on that anon.

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6592199#post6592199)
What? You mean, 'sexuality' isn't a dichotomy!? Are you attracted to the boobs and twat or to the person? I don't see a guy and say, "Wow, he must have a huge c-ck! That's why I'm gay! I'm gonna go have sex with every man!" You think that, don't you?

No, I do not think that.

Good

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6592199#post6592199)
That is your simplistic view of homosexuality: hetero is love, homo is sex.

No, it is not.

Correct.

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6592199#post6592199)
You must be Christian, maybe Protestant, since they are typically very focused on genitalia.

I am not. What a fallacious argument...

Maybe if you offered more information I wouldn't have to make assumptions. You sure are coming off as this. Or don't you see it?

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6592199#post6592199)
I could care less. I'm interested in the person and not what is between their thighs...

Do you mean that when you are sexually attracted?

'Love' is a dream. Anyone with any knowledge of biological processes involving courtship, mating, and such should realize that, say, 'love at first sight' is no such thing. We have 'lustful interchange of pheromones at first sight and close encounter'. We each have individual ideals in our heads about the types of partners in which we are interested. And in the process of bonding, we are drugged by dopamine to retain a euphoric state we call 'love' to increase the bonding and move it towards something more possibly.

There are some ideals that are more universal about beauty even (symmetry, type-casting, health, and so on). These types aren't choices. I would say that they have many inputs from many sources (and NOT many choices). There is good evidence, which you keep ignoring and denying, that suggests that our attractions are based upon genetics, nurture, nature, environment, upbringing, parents, siblings, and probably other stimuli. But you continue to hammer in on 'the gay gene' (which obviously doesn't exist but there may be genetic factors which we haven't yet found). People who are attracted to the same sex do exist. And they exist in nature for other species. Where is the 'unnatural' part of which you drone on about?

Your avatar (the Caduceus) belies your complete misunderstanding of biology and physiology!

[SnakeTongue]

I did nothing of the sort. I drew conclusions from your posts about your posts. You perceive it as personal. It is not.

Oh yes, you did:

My expectation: you will not even reply to this post. You are very selective about responding to others. You cherry pick when you can find something to say, or seemingly feign confusion or ask for clarification. No language barriers can account for this, IMO.

Your posts suggest that you find homosexuality icky; your posts seem to show an inability to employ empathy, compassion, and understanding of others who think or feel differently than you.
-
Are you serious? :boggled: CT------------------------->

I specifically stated it had to do with community posts. The community sub-forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=26). Have you even posted there? It had absolutely, positively, nothing at all to do with you. The evidence is there for you to see--and draw your own conclusions. I have only interacted with you in this thread, to the best of my recollection.

So why did you bring it into the debate?

Do you expect me guess what to do with your list because your posting history has convinced many that you possess these qualities, even if you disagree with someone on a particular issue?

Why are you appealing to authority and appealing to emotion?

Point of view.

But as expected, you did not answer my question--you know the one with the question mark. Nor did you refute that your view of what is unnatural is exactly what heterosexuals do. As I pointed out in #4.

So once again, evasion noted, and nice derail.

Instead to explain the list, you made observations about your expectations, about who I could be and about who you think you are.

Should I consider your previous post an effort of derailing?

I will answer your question with a single answer due the lack of an appropriate explanation:

4. Many males of multiple species (in the wild) will participate in sex with many females. They can and do transmit diseases. Is this unnatural?

No, disease transmission is natural.

[SnakeTongue]

No, I mean that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, without caring about whether what you are saying is correct or not. That is what you wrote looks like.

All right.

Could you provide examples of "unnatural" events?

[Alan]

I am not the one saying that things can be unnatural. I think that "natural" is a silly word, as anything that happens is natural.

[Furcifer]

All right.

Could you provide examples of "unnatural" events?

Pamela Anderson's rack and a Justin Beiber concert. :p

[Belz...]

You did not made your argument and presented the parts of a research which supports your claim.

Neither did you. Why should I put more effort into this than you ?

Wikipedia is not reliable source of reference

Why not ? Do they not cite their sources ?

New Scientist is not an official reference for objective science.

Why not ?

Please, provide link to researches and web pages without commercial bias.

No. Your refusal to accept what is being told to you is not my problem. I've given you pointers and a starting point. Your continued bigotry is your problem.

I observe nature.

You're not a very good observer since you missed the fact that genitals are used in other ways in nature.

Where did I said "can't"?

Here:

No, I think I could not choose adopt the homosexual orientation.

If it's a choice, why can't you ?

[JFrankA]

All right.

Could you provide examples of "unnatural" events?

I'll give you two more:

Using sex for only procreation.

Believing that using sex as an act bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love for each other, is not "natural" and immoral.

[JFrankA]

Oh yes, you did:

So why did you bring it into the debate?

Do you expect me guess what to do with your list because your posting history has convinced many that you possess these qualities, even if you disagree with someone on a particular issue?

Why are you appealing to authority and appealing to emotion?

Do you even know what those are?


Instead to explain the list, you made observations about your expectations, about who I could be and about who you think you are.

Should I consider your previous post an effort of derailing?

Are you talking to yourself, here? You constantly do that. You have drawn conclusions about me and others based on what I had typed, ignored or dodged any challenges put to you.


I will answer your question with a single answer due the lack of an appropriate explanation:

No, disease transmission is natural.

Finally, a direct answer. Now let's see if you got the guts to defend you point when it's challenged or you going to be a coward.

If disease transmission is natural, and one of your points about why homosexuallity is not "natural" because

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:
<snip>
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

then an example of "unnatural" would be to have heterosexual sex with a partner who has a disease or has a high chance of transmitting a disease, such as herpes or have a hemophilia or has a family history of heart disease, mental disorders, substance addiction, etc, even if that sex is meant to procreate.

Is that correct in your opinion?

[SnakeTongue]

Do you have evidence that it is change or simply situational adaptation? Like I said, you are offering a drastic situation as exemplar and expect us to, what, use that as the template for all reasons for sexuality? Me no think so.

What is the difference between change and situational adaptation?

No, I not proposing a model to explain the human sexuality. I am doing an exemplification to explain how the sexual behavior can change.

I think that studies show that sex is a basal drive in any animal (or plant) and the drive will be achieved one way or another (even if not for, omg, procreation!).

Could you provide a reference to the studies?

Life will find a way.

For what?

You cannot expect people to be celibate when a good portion of our body is wired for sex (sexual organs, pheromones in the brain, hormones, and other sexual factors).

You mean I cannot expect people control the sexual urge because it is an instinct that overcomes the intellect?

That is the wish of an idealistic religion, not of realistic humans.

Realistic humans also appreciate control of the sexual urge. This is not reserved to a specific religion.

Masturbation, for instance, has its purpose. We don't do it mainly for pleasure but for satisfaction (release). If there were no impulse to do so, why is it there?

Not for pleasure, but for satisfaction?

Pleasure is equivalent to satisfaction:

satisfaction

noun
[mass noun]
1 fulfilment of one's wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure
2 Lawthe payment of a debt or fulfilment of an obligation or claim
3 Christian TheologyChrist's atonement for sin.

pleasure

noun
[mass noun]
a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment
enjoyment and entertainment, as opposed to necessity
[count noun] an event or activity from which one derives enjoyment
sensual gratification

adjective
[attributive]
used or intended for entertainment rather than business

verb
[with object]
give sexual enjoyment or satisfaction to
[no object]
(pleasure in) derive enjoyment from

http://oxforddictionaries.com/
-
Strictly Heterosexual or Homosexual. Kinsey showed that sexual attraction is a range not an either/or situation. To say even:

How he showed that sexual attraction is a range and not a behaviour?

Hetero, Bi, Homo is incorrect. There is a spectra between some ideally strict heterosexuality and ideally strict homosexuality. It is not 'you are homosexual 100%' (etc.).

Incorrect?

So Bikerdruid is incorrect when he types:

i just happen to be a queer man. (...) i could not choose to be straight. it would be an unnatural thing for me (...)

He is affirming that he is a homosexual man (which prefer being recognized as queer). If he is not a man with exclusively homosexual behaviour, what he is?

See, again, using the strictures. I'm homosexual about 80% and 20% heterosexual. It all depends upon the personal attraction and 'chemistry'.

:big:

Strictures?

I am using definitions which anyone can verify in the Oxford dictionary:

bisexual

adjective
1 sexually attracted to both men and women.
2 Biology having characteristics of both sexes.

That means you are bisexual since you admit attraction to both genders.

To pre-answer a later query: Yes, isn't all attraction initially about physical appearances maybe with a bit of personality? More on that anon.

I did not understand the question.

Maybe if you offered more information I wouldn't have to make assumptions. You sure are coming off as this. Or don't you see it?

No, I do not see it.

I told in another thread: I am a follower of the Greek god Hermes, the messenger of the gods. That is why I said in this thread I am a theist.

'Love' is a dream. Anyone with any knowledge of biological processes involving courtship, mating, and such should realize that, say, 'love at first sight' is no such thing. We have 'lustful interchange of pheromones at first sight and close encounter'. We each have individual ideals in our heads about the types of partners in which we are interested. And in the process of bonding, we are drugged by dopamine to retain a euphoric state we call 'love' to increase the bonding and move it towards something more possibly.

There are some ideals that are more universal about beauty even (symmetry, type-casting, health, and so on). These types aren't choices. I would say that they have many inputs from many sources (and NOT many choices). (...)

Interesting explanation...

My original question was: when you are sexually attracted to a person, what is between their tights do not really matter?

Your answer was a long explanation that love is a biological trait.

That means a yes since our genitals are also part of our biological trait?

(...) There is good evidence, which you keep ignoring and denying, that suggests that our attractions are based upon genetics, nurture, nature, environment, upbringing, parents, siblings, and probably other stimuli. (...)

Where is the evidence?

(...) But you continue to hammer in on 'the gay gene' (which obviously doesn't exist but there may be genetic factors which we haven't yet found). (...)

Yes, I do.

No genes, no genetic trait.

The search for the gay gene started more than a decade ago and failed. Why do you think it will be found if was not in the last decade?

(...) People who are attracted to the same sex do exist. And they exist in nature for other species. Where is the 'unnatural' part of which you drone on about?

The unnatural part is in the 99.05% of the species. There are not any behaviour equivalent to human homosexual behaviour.

Your avatar (the Caduceus) belies your complete misunderstanding of biology and physiology!

I guess you could not interpret the hide symbols in the Caduceus... Could you?

[SnakeTongue]

I am not the one saying that things can be unnatural. I think that "natural" is a silly word, as anything that happens is natural.

Interesting... You cannot provide examples of unnatural because you admit that everything which happens is natural.

I am correct?

[SnakeTongue]

Pamela Anderson's rack and a Justin Beiber concert. :p

:big:

I will add to the list of examples.

[SnakeTongue]

Neither did you. Why should I put more effort into this than you ?

You are doing the claims, not me.

Why not ? Do they not cite their sources ?

Because my six old daughter could create her own page in the Wikipedia and put how much sources she wish to prove that she exist.

Why not ?

Because New Scientists do not represent the official institutions of science. New Scientists is a commercial magazine, not a scientific publication.

No. Your refusal to accept what is being told to you is not my problem. I've given you pointers and a starting point. Your continued bigotry is your problem.

You are able to call me a bigot, but you are not able to copy and paste parts of an article which supports your claim?

You're not a very good observer since you missed the fact that genitals are used in other ways in nature.

Which are the other ways? Could you provide examples?

Here:

No can't anywhere...

If it's a choice, why can't you ?

I did not typed I cannot. I typed I could not.

[DC]

You are doing the claims, not me.



Because my six old daughter could create her own page in the Wikipedia and put how much sources she wish to prove that she exist.



Because New Scientists do not represent the official institutions of science. New Scientists is a commercial magazine, not a scientific publication.



You are able to call me a bigot, but you are not able to copy and paste parts of an article which supports your claim?



Which are the other ways? Could you provide examples?



No can't anywhere...



I did not typed I cannot. I typed I could not.

why could you not?

[JFrankA]

No, I did not missed. The explanations were poor and without evidence.

I only used what explanations you gave.

What does that say about you?

[SnakeTongue]

I'll give you two more:

Using sex for only procreation.

Believing that using sex as an act bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love for each other, is not "natural" and immoral.

All right.

1. Sex only for procreation is unnatural.
2. Sex only for pleasure is unnatural.

I will add to the list.

Do you even know what those are?

The qualities? Yes, I know.

Are you talking to yourself, here? You constantly do that. You have drawn conclusions about me and others based on what I had typed, ignored or dodged any challenges put to you.

No, I am typing to another user that is not you.

Why you like to answer questions that are not for you?

Finally, a direct answer. Now let's see if you got the guts to defend you point when it's challenged or you going to be a coward.

If disease transmission is natural, and one of your points about why homosexuallity is not "natural" because

(...)

then an example of "unnatural" would be to have heterosexual sex with a partner who has a disease or has a high chance of transmitting a disease, such as herpes or have a hemophilia or has a family history of heart disease, mental disorders, substance addiction, etc, even if that sex is meant to procreate.

Is that correct in your opinion?

It depends on how the sexual conduct is performed and which partners have the respective diseases.

[SnakeTongue]

why could you not?

Because I do not really wish adopt a homosexual behaviour.

[SnakeTongue]

I only used what explanations you gave.

What does that say about you?

I do not know. What does that say about me?

[JFrankA]

He is affirming that he is a homosexual man (which prefer being recognized as queer). If he is not a man with exclusively homosexual behaviour, what he is?

This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.

There may not be a gene (we haven't found one yet), but there is no gene for "liking chocolate ice cream" either. It's a mixture of several different things going on that may include genes, especially since having a gene for one thing may have a side effect on another. E.g. Blue eyes are a side effect of having melanin in the skin.

Also, there are ways the neurons in the brain are set up and connected, which people often use the term "wired", to make an outcome.

Can a person choose to be left handed? No. An right handed infant will use her/his right hand instinctively. Now one can train to be left handed but no matter how much one trains, a right handed person will instinctively choose their right hand.

Basic sexual attraction is the same thing. Bikerdruid and other men like him are basically attracted to men. It's like being left handed or it's like chocolate ice cream and not vanilla.

Let me ask you this: I am attracted to black haired, blue eyed women. Olivia Wilde in the upcoming movie Tron is drop dead sexy and irresistible to me. However, when she appears in her normal look in the television show she stars in, I am not attracted to her as intensely. Yeah, she's good looking, but not nearly as captivating to me when she's in the short hair and blue eyes.

Am I not attracted to women now?

Here's another question. My girlfriend is heterosexual. If you were to ask her, she is very heterosexual. However, in certain circumstance, with certain people, she would have sex with another woman.

I ask you, is she bisexual?

I am heterosexual. However, in certain circumstances, it would turn me on to watch a bunch of men have sex with my girlfriend.

I ask you, am I bisexual?

Let's take it down a step. I hate bananas. Don't like them in cakes, don't like them alone, don't like banana splits, etc. So I am an "anti-banana eater". But I do like banana bread. I will eat banana bread with butter. That's the only time I'll eat anything that tastes like bananas.

I ask you, do I still not like bananas?

The point is this: You are simplifying the whole issue. You say something to effect of "ah, there is no 'homosexual gene' so it's not natural to be homosexual" yet, you are ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FACTORS IN.

Living beings, especially the higher functioning ones, such as mammals, etc, are very complex. Things are not black and white like you are trying to lump them into. Attraction has a base that is just is. That can change temporarily depending on circumstances, people involved, conditions and state of mind at the time. However, the basic thing that a person desires does not change. When it comes to emotion and reaction, nothing is black and white.

Now I'm sure you haven't read this, or maybe you skimmed it, looking for "evidence" and quotes, not see any and you are going to do your ignoring and dismissing dodge that you have been pulling since you started pontificating. You are off in your own little world. And I'm sorry, what a sad, terrible place it is because it's so limited.

[JFrankA]

All right.

1. Sex only for procreation is unnatural.
2. Sex only for pleasure is unnatural.

I will add to the list.

:rolleyes: *golf clap* Nice job. Very nice twisting what I said. You must have been selling snake oil and straw men for a long time.

That is not what I said. Not even close. I know because I was careful in my choice of words.

Here, let me show you:

1.
Using sex for only procreation.
is not same as
Sex only for procreation is unnatural.

In my quote, what I imply is that if a species uses sex only for procreation and not for any other purpose, e.g. bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love for each other, is not "natural".

In your quote, what you imply is that having sex to procreate is not natural.

You made a dishonest, misrepresentation of what I said. But in fairness, I will let that side, because I may not have been clear enough.

However:
2.
Believing that using sex as an act bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love for each other, is not "natural" and immoral.

and

Sex only for pleasure is unnatural.

is definately NOT what I said. You ignored the word "Believing" and ignored EVERYTHING IN THE STATEMENT other than the word "pleasure".

This is an out and out misrepresentation and a lie on your part. You are arguing dishonestly. There is no way to trust anything you say now, not your resources, not your observations, certainly not you.

You do not have poison, you have snake oil.

The qualities? Yes, I know.

If you really know what those logical fallacies are and still use them incorrectly on purpose, that shows that you are dishonest and don't care about the truth.

No, I am typing to another user that is not you.

Based on your track record, you are purposely missing what I am saying.

Why you like to answer questions that are not for you?

Because it is a group discussion.

It depends on how the sexual conduct is performed and which partners have the respective diseases.

Stop dodging, get some guts to defend your position when it's challenged. I gave an example in detail. Do you have the courage to answer it honestly or are you going to be a coward and dodge again because you clearly can't back your opinion?

Here is the example again. Is this kind of sex "natural" or not?

heterosexual sex with a partner who has a disease or has a high chance of transmitting a disease, such as herpes or have a hemophilia or has a family history of heart disease, mental disorders, substance addiction, etc, even if that sex is meant to procreate.

[SnakeTongue]

This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.

All right, a person is basically attracted to something.

There may not be a gene (we haven't found one yet), but there is no gene for "liking chocolate ice cream" either. (...)

Yet? How much faith is necessary to find it?

(...) It's a mixture of several different things going on that may include genes, especially since having a gene for one thing may have a side effect on another. E.g. Blue eyes are a side effect of having melanin in the skin.

Also, there are ways the neurons in the brain are set up and connected, which people often use the term "wired", to make an outcome.

Yes, that is defined as brain plasticity.

Can a person choose to be left handed? No. An right handed infant will use her/his right hand instinctively. Now one can train to be left handed but no matter how much one trains, a right handed person will instinctively choose their right hand.

Basic sexual attraction is the same thing. Bikerdruid and other men like him are basically attracted to men. It's like being left handed or it's like chocolate ice cream and not vanilla.

Male attracted to another male means homosexual.

Thank you by help answer the original question.

Let me ask you this: I am attracted to black haired, blue eyed women. Olivia Wilde in the upcoming movie Tron is drop dead sexy and irresistible to me. However, when she appears in her normal look in the television show she stars in, I am not attracted to her as intensely. Yeah, she's good looking, but not nearly as captivating to me when she's in the short hair and blue eyes.

Am I not attracted to women now?

I do not know. Are you not?

Here's another question. My girlfriend is heterosexual. If you were to ask her, she is very heterosexual. However, in certain circumstance, with certain people, she would have sex with another woman.

I ask you, is she bisexual?

Oh yes, she is.

I am heterosexual. However, in certain circumstances, it would turn me on to watch a bunch of men have sex with my girlfriend.

I ask you, am I bisexual?

If you do not engage sexual intercourse or do not wish to engage in sexual intercourse with men, you are not.

In this case, voyeurism is part of you sexual orientation.

Let's take it down a step. I hate bananas. Don't like them in cakes, don't like them alone, don't like banana splits, etc. So I am an "anti-banana eater". But I do like banana bread. I will eat banana bread with butter. That's the only time I'll eat anything that tastes like bananas.

I ask you, do I still not like bananas?

Yes, you still do not like bananas, but you still like banana bread.

The point is this: You are simplifying the whole issue. You say something to effect of "ah, there is no 'homosexual gene' so it's not natural to be homosexual" yet, you are ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FACTORS IN.

What is everything else?

Living beings, especially the higher functioning ones, such as mammals, etc, are very complex. Things are not black and white like you are trying to lump them into. Attraction has a base that is just is. That can change temporarily depending on circumstances, people involved, conditions and state of mind at the time. However, the basic thing that a person desires does not change. When it comes to emotion and reaction, nothing is black and white.

Your voyeuristic desire does not change? Do you have this desire since your childhood?

Now I'm sure you haven't read this, or maybe you skimmed it, looking for "evidence" and quotes, not see any and you are going to do your ignoring and dismissing dodge that you have been pulling since you started pontificating. You are off in your own little world. And I'm sorry, what a sad, terrible place it is because it's so limited.

:big:

Why you like so much to appeal to ad hominem?

[Belz...]

You are doing the claims, not me.

"Homosexuality is a choice" is not a claim ?

Because my six old daughter could create her own page in the Wikipedia and put how much sources she wish to prove that she exist.

And once you check the sources you'd see that her claims are bull. Did you check the sources ?

Because New Scientists do not represent the official institutions of science. New Scientists is a commercial magazine, not a scientific publication.

There is no such thing as an official institution of science. There is the mechanism of peer-review.

You are able to call me a bigot, but you are not able to copy and paste parts of an article which supports your claim?

Copy and paste ? I gave you two links and you hand-waved them. Why should I believe you'll read anything I put up here ?

Which are the other ways? Could you provide examples?

I already HAVE, Snaketongue. Masturbation, for one, homosexual behaviour, for two. Urinating, for three.

No can't anywhere...

Now you are being fully dishonest. "Could not" and "can not" are not equivalent, here ? You could not but you can ? What kind of dodgy nonsense is that ?

[Belz...]

Because I do not really wish adopt a homosexual behaviour.

That was not the question. This is the third time you are evading it. What are you so afraid of ?

For the record, even if I WISHED to adopt a homosexual behaviour, I would still not be a homosexual because that's not who I am. Again, can YOU adopt this behaviour or not ? It's a choice, isn't it ? I'm not asking you if you wish it, but if you CAN.

[Belz...]

Why you like so much to appeal to ad hominem?

That was not an ad hominem. Perhaps you should work on your knowledge of skeptical thinking, first. Oh, and grammar, too.

[JFrankA]

All right, a person is basically attracted to something.

Good start. Now the argument is can that basic attraction be chosen?

Can you prove that it is?

Yet? How much faith is necessary to find it?
Why does it require faith? It's an unknown. Searching for possibilities does not require faith, it's just looking. That's science.

Up until a few years ago, we did not know that there were planets outside of our solar system, but we kept searching for them to find out if they did exist. The technology got better, etc, and we found planets.

Same thing.

Yes, that is defined as brain plasticity.

Okay, I'll go along with that. However, that does not prove that it's a choice. All that it shows is that a basic attraction to something comes from a bunch of different things. It doesn't prove that it didn't come from a gene, nor does it prove that it isn't affected by one or a set of genes. Also, it doesn't prove the attraction to the same sex is not "natural". Because if the brain can "wired", for lack of a better word, to be basically attracted to a member of the same gender, then it must use the same process to be "wired" to be attracted to a member of the opposite gender.

Male attracted to another male means homosexual.

Thank you by help answer the original question.

Then why do you do question that definition when others use it in that way? Also, you seem to forget women can be homosexual too.

I do not know. Are you not?

Well, here's the question: I wouldn't be all that attracted to Olivia Wilde when she is not in short black hair. If she came on to me as Olivia Wilde without the short black hair, I don't think I'd accept.

Is that being homosexual?

Oh yes, she is.

Funny, she says she's not. So she can't choose to say she's heterosexual. So does that mean she has no choice to be heterosexual?

If you do not engage sexual intercourse or do not wish to engage in sexual intercourse with men, you are not.

But what if I wanted to join in with all the men? I mean, I'd be with my girl (I'm trying to make this a non-NSFW as possible), but other men would be performing with her too.

Am I homosexual now?

In this case, voyeurism is part of you sexual orientation.

No, that's a misuse of the words "sexual orientation". It's actually called a sexual "-phile".

Sexual orientation is:

one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

And by that definition, my girlfriend is NOT bisexual, because her predilection is for heterosexuality.

So again, is she heterosexual, or bisexual?

Yes, you still do not like bananas, but you still like banana bread.

Ah, so the fact that I like banana bread but don't like bananas still makes me a person who doesn't like bananas so my basic likes (or dislikes in this case) doesn't change, I haven't chosen to like bananas now, just in that circumstance.

So if a man who isn't basically attracted to women, may find a woman attractive, that doesn't mean he's chosen to change his basic attractions. Indeed, they are still there and not his "choice".

[quote]What is everything else?

Open your eyes and look around you. You mentioned one of the "everything else" things in this post.

Your voyeuristic desire does not change? Do you have this desire since your childhood?

Yes. Just as I have known since childhood that I am attracted to women. Just as I had desires for other sexual -philes since childhood.


:big:

Why you like so much to appeal to ad hominem?

I am man enough and honest enough to admit that last part did have an ad hominem to it.

Are you man enough and honest enough to admit that you made a straw man what I listed as unnatural?

Oh, I see you did not reply to that part of my previous post.....

That says a lot.

[SnakeTongue]

:rolleyes: *golf clap* Nice job. Very nice twisting what I said. You must have been selling snake oil and straw men for a long time.

That is not what I said. Not even close. I know because I was careful in my choice of words.

Here, let me show you:

1.

is not same as

In my quote, what I imply is that if a species uses sex only for procreation and not for any other purpose, e.g. bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love for each other, is not "natural".

In your quote, what you imply is that having sex to procreate is not natural.

You made a dishonest, misrepresentation of what I said. But in fairness, I will let that side, because I may not have been clear enough.



All right. So you example is?

1. Sex only for procreation without emotions and pleasure (bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love) is unnatural.

That is it?

However:
2.

and

is definately NOT what I said. You ignored the word "Believing" and ignored EVERYTHING IN THE STATEMENT other than the word "pleasure".

This is an out and out misrepresentation and a lie on your part. You are arguing dishonestly. There is no way to trust anything you say now, not your resources, not your observations, certainly not you.

You do not have poison, you have snake oil.

All right. I will not consider as example.

If you really know what those logical fallacies are and still use them incorrectly on purpose, that shows that you are dishonest and don't care about the truth.

What truth?

Based on your track record, you are purposely missing what I am saying.

I am purposely typing that I not welcome you to interrupt questions not directed for you or about you.

Because it is a group discussion.

All right.

Stop dodging, get some guts to defend your position when it's challenged. I gave an example in detail. Do you have the courage to answer it honestly or are you going to be a coward and dodge again because you clearly can't back your opinion?

Excuse me, but I typed: It depends on how the sexual conduct is performed and which partners have the respective diseases.

Which part did you not understand?

Here is the example again. Is this kind of sex "natural" or not?

heterosexual sex with a partner who has a disease or has a high chance of transmitting a disease, such as herpes or have a hemophilia or has a family history of heart disease, mental disorders, substance addiction, etc, even if that sex is meant to procreate.

I asked examples, not disputes of definitions. That is a example of unnatural sexual intercourse or not?

[alfaniner]

Masturbation is unnatural because do not use the genitals in an appropriate manner.

Then you're doing it wrong.

[Alt+F4]

Masturbation is unnatural because do not use the genitals in an appropriate manner.

Good god, it's the sex police!

I guess if a penis touchs anything other than a vigina it's UNATURAL!. If a penis accidentally touchs a clitoris...UNNATURAL! If a mouth comes in contact with a nipple....UNNATURAL!

Snake, do you realize how silly you appear or are you someone that has never had a sexual encounter with another human being? I'm not trying to be mean, but your arguments are ridiculous.

[SnakeTongue]

"Homosexuality is a choice" is not a claim ?

It is a claim.


And once you check the sources you'd see that her claims are bull. Did you check the sources ?

Yes, few days ago.

There is no such thing as an official institution of science. There is the mechanism of peer-review.

What is a mechanism of peer-review?

Copy and paste ? I gave you two links and you hand-waved them. Why should I believe you'll read anything I put up here ?

Yes, copy and paste.

I do not know.

I already HAVE, Snaketongue. Masturbation, for one, homosexual behaviour, for two. Urinating, for three.

All right.

Genitals are designed for the use of procreation and also for:

1. Masturbation (sex)
2. Homosexual behaviour (sex)
3. Urinating (no sex)

Very good list. May I add the fact that few insects use the genitals as potential weapons?

4. Kill (no sex)

That was very good examples.

Anything else?

Now you are being fully dishonest. "Could not" and "can not" are not equivalent, here ? You could not but you can ? What kind of dodgy nonsense is that ?

Verbs.

[SnakeTongue]

That was not the question. This is the third time you are evading it. What are you so afraid of ?

I am not afraid of anything.

For the record, even if I WISHED to adopt a homosexual behaviour, I would still not be a homosexual because that's not who I am. Again, can YOU adopt this behaviour or not ? It's a choice, isn't it ? I'm not asking you if you wish it, but if you CAN.

No, I cannot adopt this behaviour at this moment.

It can be a choice.

That was not an ad hominem. Perhaps you should work on your knowledge of skeptical thinking, first. Oh, and grammar, too.

It was.

You also like to defend comments not made for you? Group discussion? With who you are grouping here?

[Belz...]

This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.

There may not be a gene (we haven't found one yet), but there is no gene for "liking chocolate ice cream" either.

Exactly this.

[Belz...]

It is a claim.

So your comment that you weren't making a claim was a lie, then.

What is a mechanism of peer-review?

Look it up. It's what separates real science litterature from the popular kind.

I do not know.

That shoudl get you thinking. If people have no reason to expect you to be reasonable because you gave them reasons to believe otherwise, then you are not likely to have productive conversations with them.

All right.

Genitals are designed for the use of procreation and also for:

1. Masturbation (sex)
2. Homosexual behaviour (sex)
3. Urinating (no sex)

Very good list. May I add the fact that few insects use the genitals as potential weapons?

4. Kill (no sex)

That was very good examples.

Anything else?

So far, so good. You have admitted that genitals can be used naturally for things other than procreation. So now the question becomes: why doesn't homosexuality fit in that list, in your opinion ?

No, I cannot adopt this behaviour at this moment.

It can be a choice.

Make up your mind. Either it's a choice and you CAN, or you CANNOT and it's not a matter of choice. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

It was.

You also like to defend comments not made for you?

I'm allergic to nonsense, no matter who it's directed against. Insults are not ad hominems. Look it up.

[DC]

Because I do not really wish adopt a homosexual behaviour.

but if you wished, you would be able to change the gender you feel attracted to?
Or do you feel attracted by both genders now already?

[SnakeTongue]

Good start. Now the argument is can that basic attraction be chosen?

Can you prove that it is?

What would be a basic attraction? It is just one?

Why does it require faith? It's an unknown. Searching for possibilities does not require faith, it's just looking. That's science.

Faith is required when science has show in the last decade of researching that no gay gene was found and no serious scientific project are doing any progress.

Up until a few years ago, we did not know that there were planets outside of our solar system, but we kept searching for them to find out if they did exist. The technology got better, etc, and we found planets.

Same thing.

Completely different things...

Okay, I'll go along with that. However, that does not prove that it's a choice. All that it shows is that a basic attraction to something comes from a bunch of different things. It doesn't prove that it didn't come from a gene, nor does it prove that it isn't affected by one or a set of genes. Also, it doesn't prove the attraction to the same sex is not "natural".

It proves that a change happens in the human sexual behaviour, whatever how this changed had happened.

Because if the brain can "wired", for lack of a better word, to be basically attracted to a member of the same gender, then it must use the same process to be "wired" to be attracted to a member of the opposite gender.

How do you know that?

Then why do you do question that definition when others use it in that way? Also, you seem to forget women can be homosexual too.

I did not understand your question.

Well, here's the question: I wouldn't be all that attracted to Olivia Wilde when she is not in short black hair. If she came on to me as Olivia Wilde without the short black hair, I don't think I'd accept.

Is that being homosexual?

No, it is not.

Funny, she says she's not. So she can't choose to say she's heterosexual. So does that mean she has no choice to be heterosexual?

No, does not mean that.

That means she choose say whatever she wish to say.

To say and to be are different.

But what if I wanted to join in with all the men? I mean, I'd be with my girl (I'm trying to make this a non-NSFW as possible), but other men would be performing with her too.

Am I homosexual now?

No.

No, that's a misuse of the words "sexual orientation". It's actually called a sexual "-phile".

Sexual orientation is:

I disagree with that definition.

And by that definition, my girlfriend is NOT bisexual, because her predilection is for heterosexuality.

So again, is she heterosexual, or bisexual?

The definition of the sexual orientation is made in accordance with the attraction to something.

She is attracted to males and females.

Bisexual.

yes, you still do not like bananas, but you still like banana bread.

Ah, so the fact that I like banana bread but don't like bananas still makes me a person who doesn't like bananas so my basic likes (or dislikes in this case) doesn't change, I haven't chosen to like bananas now, just in that circumstance.

So if a man who isn't basically attracted to women, may find a woman attractive, that doesn't mean he's chosen to change his basic attractions. Indeed, they are still there and not his "choice".

What fruit would represent the absence of attraction (asexual)?

Open your eyes and look around you. You mentioned one of the "everything else" things in this post.

I did not read everything else in this post.

Yes. Just as I have known since childhood that I am attracted to women. Just as I had desires for other sexual -philes since childhood.

All right.

I am man enough and honest enough to admit that last part did have an ad hominem to it.

Are you man enough and honest enough to admit that you made a straw man what I listed as unnatural?

No comments

Oh, I see you did not reply to that part of my previous post.....
That says a lot.

Which part?

[SnakeTongue]

Then you're doing it wrong.

What are I am doing?

[SnakeTongue]

Good god, it's the sex police!

I guess if a penis touchs anything other than a vigina it's UNATURAL!. If a penis accidentally touchs a clitoris...UNNATURAL! If a mouth comes in contact with a nipple....UNNATURAL!

Snake, do you realize how silly you appear or are you someone that has never had a sexual encounter with another human being? I'm not trying to be mean, but your arguments are ridiculous.

No, I do not.

Can I add your examples of unnatural events to the list?

[SnakeTongue]

So your comment that you weren't making a claim was a lie, then..

I do not endorse your conclusion.

Look it up. It's what separates real science litterature from the popular kind.

New Scientist magazine is popular kind or real science literature?

That shoudl get you thinking. If people have no reason to expect you to be reasonable because you gave them reasons to believe otherwise, then you are not likely to have productive conversations with them.

Whatever...

All right.

So far, so good. You have admitted that genitals can be used naturally for things other than procreation. So now the question becomes: why doesn't homosexuality fit in that list, in your opinion ?

I did not typed naturally anywhere in that post.

Make up your mind. Either it's a choice and you CAN, or you CANNOT and it's not a matter of choice. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I already made.

I'm allergic to nonsense, no matter who it's directed against.

What are you doing here? You should be far away if my non-sense irritates you.

Insults are not ad hominems. Look it up.

Look it up? Where?

[Belz...]

I do not endorse your conclusion.

Let's see:

You are doing the claims, not me.
"Homosexuality is a choice" is not a claim ?
It is a claim.
So your comment that you weren't making a claim was a lie, then.

So basically you're not making a claim; then I repeat your claim which you admit is a claim, meaning that your assertion that it wasn't one was a lie, and you do not endorse your conclusion ? Are you now saying that you forgot your own opinion ?

Whatever...

Of course. How naive of me to expect you to reflect upon your own behaviour.

I did not typed naturally anywhere in that post.

Of course you did, implicitely, since that was the very point of the question you were answering. Your word games are idiotic and juvenile.

I already made.

That's not a full sentence.

What are you doing here? You should be far away if my non-sense irritates you.

You may be able to tolerate lies and idiocy, but I feel obligated to adress it in order to reduce the amount of it that's found in the world. Your suggestion that I leave shows how little integrity you have.

Look it up? Where?

You do know about search engines, right ?

[SnakeTongue]

Let's see:

So basically you're not making a claim; then I repeat your claim which you admit is a claim, meaning that your assertion that it wasn't one was a lie, and you do not endorse your conclusion ? Are you now saying that you forgot your own opinion ?

Of course. How naive of me to expect you to reflect upon your own behaviour.

Of course you did, implicitely, since that was the very point of the question you were answering. Your word games are idiotic and juvenile.

That's not a full sentence.

You may be able to tolerate lies and idiocy, but I feel obligated to adress it in order to reduce the amount of it that's found in the world. Your suggestion that I leave shows how little integrity you have.

You do know about search engines, right ?

Your insults are not helping the debate.

New Scientist magazine is popular kind or real science literature?

[kuroyume0161]

I guess you could not interpret the hide symbols in the Caduceus... Could you?

????

The Caduceus is used as a symbol of medicine in the USA (even if mistakenly used). The Rod of Asclepius is more apropo for sure but there is still a boat load of irony in your avatar and this entire discussion. :)

[SnakeTongue]

????

The Caduceus is used as a symbol of medicine in the USA (even if mistakenly used). The Rod of Asclepius is more apropo for sure but there is still a boat load of irony in your avatar and this entire discussion. :)

That is what is strange, the Caduceus is not a appropriate symbol for medicine. You are quite right, the Rod of Asclepius would be more appropriate.

Why my avatar is a boat load of irony to the entire discussion?

[Arcade22]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed". If we did choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex there would be no real ethical problem for them to tell kids and adults alike everywhere that we should stop "being gay" and become "perfectly normal heterosexual people" since we all know how "immoral, bad, disgusting and blablala" homosexuality really is, which many parents, teachers and all kinds of worthless rabble do today and in the process cause endless grief and pain in their victims.

It's essentially just an Ad Hoc justification for their hatred of homosexuals because, since "it's a choice", we homosexuals could simply stop being gay and therefore we wouldn't suffer discrimination, murder, assault, burning with hot pokers, lynchings, corrective rape, being buried alive or any other colorful things Christians and all kinds of disgusting cretins fantasize about.

[JFrankA]

What would be a basic attraction? It is just one?

I admit that "basic attraction" is a term I'm using for lack of a better one. What I mean by "basic attraction" in the terms of sexual attraction is the attraction to something that goes without thinking, may distract one's thoughts at the time, that sort of thing. If someone can come up with a better term and explanation, please do.

That kind of reaction can not change.

Faith is required when science has show in the last decade of researching that no gay gene was found and no serious scientific project are doing any progress.

Oh, so how long is the time limit on research? Ten years? Really? If something is not proven in ten years, that's it, it's scientifically correct to stop?

By the way, you're wrong. There has been some proof that a gene change can influence sexual orientation in fruit flies.

Completely different things...

You keep asking for examples and you keep rejecting them. That was an example of how, for hundreds of years, we hypothesized that something existed, but could not prove it or find it. We finally found it to be true several years ago.

I'm speaking in this example of scientific study, how is this different from that?

It proves that a change happens in the human sexual behaviour, whatever how this changed had happened.

Behavior, maybe. Sadly, plenty of gay people have changed their behavior to satisfy society. However, the orientation never changes.

How do you know that?

Logic. If someone can be sexually attracted to the same sex because of a combination of genes, pre-natal fluids, "wiring" of the neurons during pregnancy, environment, etc, then the same process can produce the opposite result or something in between.

I did not understand your question.

You said:
Male attracted to another male means homosexual.

Your definition leaves out females attracted to females. Homosexuality works with all genders.


Funny, she says she's not. So she can't choose to say she's heterosexual. So does that mean she has no choice to be heterosexual?

No, does not mean that.
That means she choose say whatever she wish to say.

To say and to be are different.


So she is bisexual, she has no choice, she may call herself heterosexual, but her basic attraction is bisexual. Her sexual orientation, no matter what she calls herself is not a choice?


But what if I wanted to join in with all the men? I mean, I'd be with my girl (I'm trying to make this a non-NSFW as possible), but other men would be performing with her too.

Am I homosexual now?

No.

How about bisexual? At what point would you call me homosexual? If, during the example above, I purposely touched another man?

No, that's a misuse of the words "sexual orientation". It's actually called a sexual "-phile".

I disagree with that definition.[/quote]

Too bad. Deal with it. That is the definition of "sexual orientation".

How you defined it:

The definition of the sexual orientation is made in accordance with the attraction to something.

Is wrong.

She is attracted to males and females.

Bisexual.

So what if she found females attractive yet never ever has sex with any of them, is she still bisexual?

What fruit would represent the absence of attraction (asexual)?

Going with the analogy, an asexual person wouldn't like any fruit. But still my point remains. I do like banana bread but still doesn't like bananas. The basic like and dislike does not change. The only reason why I like banana bread is because of the other ingredients, (or circumstances, if you will) that allows me to like the bread. It does not mean I have made the choice to like bananas now. I still wouldn't eat one.

I did not read everything else in this post.

I said:
You are simplifying the whole issue. You say something to effect of "ah, there is no 'homosexual gene' so it's not natural to be homosexual" yet, you are ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FACTORS IN.

One of the things you mentioned was brain plasticity. That factors in. There was a posting of how pre-natal fluids affect how the neurons are wired, there's also the fact that there may not be a gene, but a combination of genes may affect how one is sexually orientated, there's also environment factors, in others everything else.

The point I was making is that the logic of "there is no homosexual gene, therefore being attracted to the same gender is not natural" is very flawed.

No comments

Which part?

That speaks volumes.

[Mycroft]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed". If we did choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex there would be no real ethical problem for them to tell kids and adults alike everywhere that we should stop "being gay" and become "perfectly normal heterosexual people" since we all know how "immoral, bad, disgusting and blablala" homosexuality really is, which many parents, teachers and all kinds of worthless rabble do today and in the process cause endless grief and pain in their victims.

Well, except if homosexuality is just a choice that would imply that heterosexuality is just a choice too. Once you accept that then there is no empirical reason why one choice is better than the other that doesn't rely on some religious doctrine. Far from being an excuse to discriminate it should be a reason not to discriminate. If someone's personal faith tells them some dead-guy from two-thousand years ago really cares who they find sexually attractive, that's their choice, but the rest of us have the freedom to disagree and make the choices for ourselves.

[JFrankA]

All right. So you example is?

1. A person using sex only for procreation and not for pleasure bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love is unnatural.

That is it?

Close. I fixed it for you.

The second example of unnatural to me is, to be clear, is someone believing that sex is only for procreation without and not pleasure, or bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love.

All right. I will not consider as example.

Thank you.

What truth?

That's what we are debating to find out.

I am purposely typing that I not welcome you to interrupt questions not directed for you or about you.

Too bad. Welcome to the forums. This is a discussion. Whatever one says here is fair game for others to comment on, support, clarify, etc. Happens to everyone who posts.

Getting to my example:

Excuse me, but I typed: It depends on how the sexual conduct is performed and which partners have the respective diseases.

Which part did you not understand?

Excuse me, I gave you a clear cut detailed example.


heterosexual sex with a partner who has a disease or has a high chance of transmitting a disease, such as herpes or have a hemophilia or has a family history of heart disease, mental disorders, substance addiction, etc, even if that sex is meant to procreate.

What part of it did you not understand?

I asked examples, not disputes of definitions. That is a example of unnatural sexual intercourse or not?

That is what I am asking you about the above example.

ETA: I apologize, after re-reading my post to your response, something struck me. Are you saying what the sexual position was would determine whether it's unnatural or not? Also, are you saying that unnatural or natural would hinge on if the male had a high chance of transmitting a disease of if the female had a high chance of transmitting a disease?

[Alt+F4]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed". If we did choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex there would be no real ethical problem for them to tell kids and adults alike everywhere that we should stop "being gay" and become "perfectly normal heterosexual people" since we all know how "immoral, bad, disgusting and blablala" homosexuality really is, which many parents, teachers and all kinds of worthless rabble do today and in the process cause endless grief and pain in their victims.

It's essentially just an Ad Hoc justification for their hatred of homosexuals because, since "it's a choice", we homosexuals could simply stop being gay and therefore we wouldn't suffer discrimination, murder, assault, burning with hot pokers, lynchings, corrective rape, being buried alive or any other colorful things Christians and all kinds of disgusting cretins fantasize about.

I think that the whole "it's just a choice" crap is just another way the homo haters can sleep better at night. They will never have to worry about ever developing those type of feelings, cause it's just a choice, like which shirt to wear to work. It's about trying to control the uncontroable.

[alfaniner]

What are I am doing?

See, the whole reason for the "quote" feature is to allow replies to a single part of what may be a lengthy post.


Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Masturbation is unnatural because do not use the genitals in an appropriate manner.

And I said...
"Then you're doing it wrong."

It was supposed to be a joke, but now I'm not so sure.

[Piggy]

Well, except if homosexuality is just a choice that would imply that heterosexuality is just a choice too.

This is what confuses the stemwinding hell out of me when it comes to the HIAC argument... I don't know of any adherents of HIAC who believe that heterosexuality is a choice.

It's kind of like they think it's similar to tattooing -- you're born without tattoos and if you want to get one, it's a choice: you're born heterosexual, and if you want to be gay, that's a choice.

Nevermind that they don't believe they could actually make that choice... but I digress....

I suppose re-conversion (a la Gavin MacLeod) is something similar to having a tattoo lasered out?

It makes no sense to me.

I don't believe that I could simply choose to be attracted to men instead of women. So why should I believe that gay men could choose to be attracted to women instead of men, or that lesbians could choose to be attracted to men instead of women?

[Belz...]

Your insults are not helping the debate.

What insults ? There are no insults in my reply. You're just dodging my points. Here they are again:

I do not endorse your conclusion.

Let's see:

You are doing the claims, not me.
"Homosexuality is a choice" is not a claim ?
It is a claim.
So your comment that you weren't making a claim was a lie, then.

So basically you're not making a claim; then I repeat your claim which you admit is a claim, meaning that your assertion that it wasn't one was a lie, and you do not endorse your conclusion ? Are you now saying that you forgot your own opinion ?

Whatever...

Of course. How naive of me to expect you to reflect upon your own behaviour.

I did not typed naturally anywhere in that post.

Of course you did, implicitely, since that was the very point of the question you were answering. Your word games are idiotic and juvenile.

I already made.

That's not a full sentence.

What are you doing here? You should be far away if my non-sense irritates you.

You may be able to tolerate lies and idiocy, but I feel obligated to adress it in order to reduce the amount of it that's found in the world. Your suggestion that I leave shows how little integrity you have.

Look it up? Where?

You do know about search engines, right ?

[Belz...]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed".

That's the impression that SnakeTongue gives me. I fear that's exactly what he's planning to advocate once he "proves" his point. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Belz...]

This is what confuses the stemwinding hell out of me when it comes to the HIAC argument... I don't know of any adherents of HIAC who believe that heterosexuality is a choice.

It's kind of like they think it's similar to tattooing -- you're born without tattoos and if you want to get one, it's a choice: you're born heterosexual, and if you want to be gay, that's a choice.

Nevermind that they don't believe they could actually make that choice... but I digress....

I suppose re-conversion (a la Gavin MacLeod) is something similar to having a tattoo lasered out?

It makes no sense to me.

I don't believe that I could simply choose to be attracted to men instead of women. So why should I believe that gay men could choose to be attracted to women instead of men, or that lesbians could choose to be attracted to men instead of women?

Thank you for summarizing the thread so eloquently.

[SnakeTongue]

I admit that "basic attraction" is a term I'm using for lack of a better one. What I mean by "basic attraction" in the terms of sexual attraction is the attraction to something that goes without thinking, may distract one's thoughts at the time, that sort of thing. If someone can come up with a better term and explanation, please do.

That kind of reaction can not change.

Psychoanalysis libido:

Freud conceived of the mind as having only a fixed amount of psychic energy, or libido. Though the word libido has since acquired overt sexual implications, in Freud's theory it stood for all psychic energy. This energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and sexual urges. In Freud's theory, the mind, like the universe, could neither create nor destroy energy, but merely transfer it from one form or function to another. (...)1

Libido is the primeval energy which drive the sexual desire towards an object.

(...) A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life.4

The primeval energy cannot be directed controlled by conscious thoughts, but it can directed from one object to another. In contrast, the libido can also be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an individual.

Oh, so how long is the time limit on research? Ten years? Really? If something is not proven in ten years, that's it, it's scientifically correct to stop?

Yes, that is it.

By the way, you're wrong. There has been some proof that a gene change can influence sexual orientation in fruit flies.

The conclusion of the Drosophila Melanogaster research was that a defective gene is the cause of an abnormal male reproduction behaviour. It is not any indication of sexual behaviour equivalent to the Homo Sapiens sexual behaviour:

(...) Uncovering the fru distal breakpoint with deletions usually led to males with two of the fru courtship abnormalities: no copulation attempts with females (hence, behavioral sterility) and vigorous courtship among males, including the formation of "courtship chains". However, certain genetic changes involving region 91B resulted in males who formed courtship chains but who mated with females. (...)2

There is no proof that a gene can influence the human sexual orientation.

You keep asking for examples and you keep rejecting them. That was an example of how, for hundreds of years, we hypothesized that something existed, but could not prove it or find it. We finally found it to be true several years ago.

I'm speaking in this example of scientific study, how is this different from that?

You are comparing a perversion of the human sexuality with planets and stars.

Sexology and astronomy are very different subjects.

Behavior, maybe. Sadly, plenty of gay people have changed their behavior to satisfy society. However, the orientation never changes.

(...)

Logic. If someone can be sexually attracted to the same sex because of a combination of genes, pre-natal fluids, "wiring" of the neurons during pregnancy, environment, etc, then the same process can produce the opposite result or something in between.

It is no defined process of human sexuality.

Sexual behaviour it is not an unchangeable process.

The neurons are wired after birth and brain plasticity proves that such phenomenon occurs in accordance with our life experience.

Scientists have not been able to find clear gender-related structural differences between the brains of boys and girls at birth. At that stage of life their properties and functions overlap almost entirely. The same is true for behaviors. Male and female behavior - let alone homosexuality and heterosexuality - is apparently not hardwired into the brain at birth. In fact, only one quarter of the brain is formed in a new-born child; the rest is developed through learning and experience (environmental input). We can be confident that whatever male/female differences exist in adult brains (and, no doubt, more will be found at some stage), they will be largely shaped by learning and behavior. But what learn ing and experiences do to the brain is not set in concrete either. Brain cells are replaced in roughly seven year cycles, meaning that new neuron pathways can be formed and old ones reshaped. Intensive exercise, training or imagination changes the brain microstructure. We are not victims of our biology or the experiences which shape the detail of our brain. Anatomy is not destiny; change is always possible. The brain is plastic and is in a constant state of change. Indeed the question is rather: what change is not possible?3

You said:

Your definition leaves out females attracted to females. Homosexuality works with all genders.

Yes, I know that.

So she is bisexual, she has no choice, she may call herself heterosexual, but her basic attraction is bisexual. Her sexual orientation, no matter what she calls herself is not a choice?

The definition of the sexual orientation is not a choice.

How about bisexual? At what point would you call me homosexual? If, during the example above, I purposely touched another man?

What is your intention when touching another man in the hypothetical example above?

Too bad. Deal with it. That is the definition of "sexual orientation".

How you defined it:

Is wrong.

Yourself had agreed with the definition:

This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.

All right, a person is basically attracted to something.

Good start. Now the argument is can that basic attraction be chosen?

Can you prove that it is?

It is not sexual orientation equivalent to the libido oriented towards an object?

Libido means in psychoanalysis in the first instance the force (thought of as quantitatively variable and measurable) of the sexual instincts directed towards an object - "sexual" in the extended sense required by analytic theory. (...)4

So what if she found females attractive yet never ever has sex with any of them, is she still bisexual?

Yes, the definition of bisexual is based in attraction, not in sexual intercourse.

Going with the analogy, an asexual person wouldn't like any fruit. But still my point remains. I do like banana bread but still doesn't like bananas. The basic like and dislike does not change. The only reason why I like banana bread is because of the other ingredients, (or circumstances, if you will) that allows me to like the bread. It does not mean I have made the choice to like bananas now. I still wouldn't eat one.

What would you do if the only food available are just bananas?

What would do a person which dislike bananas at all (asexual) when bananas are the only food available?

I said:

One of the things you mentioned was brain plasticity. That factors in. There was a posting of how pre-natal fluids affect how the neurons are wired, there's also the fact that there may not be a gene, but a combination of genes may affect how one is sexually orientated, there's also environment factors, in others everything else.

The point I was making is that the logic of "there is no homosexual gene, therefore being attracted to the same gender is not natural" is very flawed.

Pre-natal fluids were already refuted.

Neurons are wired after birth.

No combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour.

The environmental factors are the only explanation with a solid scientific base.


References:
1 The Libido, or Psychic Energy, in Freud - http://www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/libido.html
2 Behavior and Cytogenetics of fruitless in Drosophila melanogaster - http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/4/773
3 Brain Plasticity Backs Up Orientation Change - http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Plasticity.htm
4 Sigmund Freud - Life and Work - http://www.freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/libido.html

[Marcus]

No, I think I could not choose adopt the homosexual orientation.
Now we are getting somewhere! Or at least we were 4 days ago, which is how old this post is. It took you months to finally admit this.It's only a short step for you to admit that no one else can Choose either.

[Arcade22]

Well, except if homosexuality is just a choice that would imply that heterosexuality is just a choice too.

I've always heard this weird reasoning from that we humans have a "natural" purpose to reproduce and get our own offspring. All humans are "supposed" to breed, and since a homosexual couple cannot have a offspring without the help of a surrogate mother, technology or something unnatural therefore homosexuals ARE unnatural and since it's a choice to deviate from nature homosexuality should always be discouraged, hidden or even legislated against.

Some variation of this has nearly always been the justification for not supporting gay rights that I have heard from those who either don't want to outright state that their homophobic beliefs come from religious edicts that some rambling delusional peasants from thousands of years ago came up with, or from those that simply have no other arguments or reasons why they can object to gay rights.

All of this falls apart because it assumes, out of nowhere, that we humans have some kind of purpose or goals other than those that we give ourselves.

[Belz...]

I've always heard this weird reasoning from that we humans have a "natural" purpose to reproduce and get our own offspring. All humans are "supposed" to breed

Typical misunderstanding of evolution. Just like the phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't represent evolution well, etc. This comes from people with little or no knowledge of the subject matter. Dunning-Kruger in full effect.

[kuroyume0161]

Sigmund Freud? Really? You, SnakeTongue, used two references of four of Freudian psychoanalysis to back up your claims and responses. You may wish to have a more recent look at how Freud is viewed in the psychiatric and psychoanalytical fields these days. Freud is considered a Fraud. The reason is that all of his analyses were based upon his authority and interpretation (id est: subjective) using very lax rules. While he started out his career studying brain physiology, especially neural structure, he eventually went down this blind path of analyzing things based upon his own inductive relationships without any objective evidence or testing.

Please don't include Rorschach tests either as they have been shown to be useless analytic tools as well.

[Emet]

This guy (http://borngay.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=002852) isn't any better as a credible source.

another link (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html).

[SnakeTongue]

Sigmund Freud? Really? You, SnakeTongue, used two references of four of Freudian psychoanalysis to back up your claims and responses. You may wish to have a more recent look at how Freud is viewed in the psychiatric and psychoanalytical fields these days. Freud is considered a Fraud. The reason is that all of his analyses were based upon his authority and interpretation (id est: subjective) using very lax rules. While he started out his career studying brain physiology, especially neural structure, he eventually went down this blind path of analyzing things based upon his own inductive relationships without any objective evidence or testing.

Please don't include Rorschach tests either as they have been shown to be useless analytic tools as well.

Have you a better theory to explain the basic attraction example presented by JFrankA?

[SnakeTongue]

Close. I fixed it for you.

The second example of unnatural to me is, to be clear, is someone believing that sex is only for procreation without and not pleasure, or bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love.

All right, I will add to the list.

Thank you.

That's what we are debating to find out.

Too bad. Welcome to the forums. This is a discussion. Whatever one says here is fair game for others to comment on, support, clarify, etc. Happens to everyone who posts.

Freedom of speech.

Getting to my example:

Excuse me, I gave you a clear cut detailed example.

What part of it did you not understand?

None.

That is what I am asking you about the above example.

ETA: I apologize, after re-reading my post to your response, something struck me. Are you saying what the sexual position was would determine whether it's unnatural or not? Also, are you saying that unnatural or natural would hinge on if the male had a high chance of transmitting a disease of if the female had a high chance of transmitting a disease?

No, I am affirming that the use of the genitals would determine whether the sexual conduct it is unnatural or not.

No, I am affirming that sexual intercourse with inappropriate use of the genitals can increase the risk to acquire a disease.

[kuroyume0161]

Have you a better theory to explain the basic attraction example presented by JFrankA?

Here's a piece of sound logical, skeptic, scientific reasoning for you:

Just because there might not be (but there probably is) a better 'theory' to explain this does not make Sigmund Freud the de facto best 'theory'. His 'theory' has been soundly dismissed and therefore cannot be used. If no one could replace the 'Aesther' hypothesis that doesn't make it a theory - it remains a hypothesis until confirmed by objective experiments. Freud's psychoanalysis is a hypothesis, has flaws, and has not been confirmed (because it is based upon subjective notions instead of objective observations).*

*Theory is in quotes because it is, at best, a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis that is no longer accepted. Why do I need to provide sources? Do a search on Google or Bing! You will find large volumes of valid academic and professional sources discrediting Freud. Stop being pertinacious, please.

For your oedi-fication (play on Oedipus Complex, hardy-har):

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/cabinjohnms/comp/st-prj/web/chrisc/theory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

There are still people who cling to his hypotheses as having practical application but without clinical evidence they are just guidelines and unproven.

[SnakeTongue]

This guy (http://borngay.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=002852) isn't any better as a credible source.

another link (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html).

He is not a credible source because you typed so?

Your links do not present one single evidence that he is not credible.

Are you empathy powers not working properly?

[SnakeTongue]

Here's a piece of sound logical, skeptic, scientific reasoning for you:

Just because there might not be (but there probably is) a better 'theory' to explain this does not make Sigmund Freud the de facto best 'theory'. His 'theory' has been soundly dismissed and therefore cannot be used. If no one could replace the 'Aesther' hypothesis that doesn't make it a theory - it remains a hypothesis until confirmed by objective experiments. Freud's psychoanalysis is a hypothesis, has flaws, and has not been confirmed (because it is based upon subjective notions instead of objective observations).*

*Theory is in quotes because it is, at best, a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis that is no longer accepted. Why do I need to provide sources? Do a search on Google or Bing! You will find large volumes of valid academic and professional sources discrediting Freud. Stop being pertinacious, please.

For your oedi-fication (play on Oedipus Complex, hardy-har):

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/cabinjohnms/comp/st-prj/web/chrisc/theory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

There are still people who cling to his hypotheses as having practical application but without clinical evidence they are just guidelines and unproven.

I did not ask you to disprove Freud.

I ask you if you have a better explanation which replaces Freud's libido theory.

What references do you have to a theory which can explain the basic attraction example raised by JFrankA?

[kuroyume0161]

I did not ask you to disprove Freud.

I ask you if you have a better explanation which replaces Freud's libido theory.

What references do you have to a theory which can explain the basic attraction example raised by JFrankA?

Did you read what I wrote at all?

I will repeat this v-e-r-y slowly:

Freud's hypotheses are no longer accepted as valid in psychology, psychiatrics, or psychoanalysis. Even if there are NO other hypotheses to explain 'basic attraction' that does not make Freud's unconfirmed, unevidenced, and disputed hypotheses the working model by default. And, again, if you research then you will probably find that there are more contemporary hypotheses with better evidence and well-established models than ancient Freud.

You definitely have no notion of scientific methodology and theoretic evidence if you think this way.

ETA: I do not need to disprove Freud. Many academics and professionals in the field have already done that.

[Alt+F4]

No, I am affirming that sexual intercourse with inappropriate use of the genitals can increase the risk to acquire a disease.

Wow, I must have missed the news of the epidemic of HIV transmissions due to lesbian sex.

[Emet]

He is not a credible source because you typed so?

Your links do not present one single evidence that he is not credible.

Are you empathy powers not working properly?

:rolleyes:

What makes you think he is credible? Did you see his CV?

[Pacal]

Wow, I must have missed the news of the epidemic of HIV transmissions due to lesbian sex.

I suppose he also missed that Lesbians have the lowest rate of Sexually transmitted diseases also.

[Alt+F4]

I suppose he also missed that Lesbians have the lowest rate of Sexually transmitted diseases also.

Indeed. This "inappropriate use of the genitals" decreases the risk to acquire a disease.

[JFrankA]

Have you a better theory to explain the basic attraction example presented by JFrankA?

Do you actually understand what my example is saying?

[Belz...]

What insults ? There are no insults in my reply. You're just dodging my points. Here they are again:

Aw, come on, SnakeTongue. I'm sure you can find it in your heart to answer my points.

[JFrankA]

Freud has been proven wrong for quite a while, but even so, how can you jump from this:

Psychoanalysis libido:

Freud conceived of the mind as having only a fixed amount of
psychic energy, or libido. Though the word libido has since acquired overt
sexual implications, in Freud's theory it stood for all psychic energy. This
energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and
sexual urges. In Freud's theory, the mind, like the universe, could neither
create nor destroy energy, but merely transfer it from one form or function to
another. (...)1

To this:
Libido is the primeval energy which drive the sexual desire towards an
object.

What you quoted basically says that Freud's theory is that there is psychic energy that cannot be destroyed, merely transferred depending on what the mind is doing. That has NOTHING to do with with what you said.

And then you jump from this:

(...) A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is
its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another.
This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects,
which often persists throughout
life.4]

To this

The primeval energy cannot be directed controlled by conscious thoughts, but
it can directed from one object to another. In contrast, the libido can also
be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an
individual.

First off, let's forget that Freud was completely wrong. Second, where did you get the word "primeval"? That wasn't in there at all. You added it. Thirdly, you got his wrong hypothesis wrong! The libido can be controlled by conscious thought! It says so it the first quote you posted:

Freud's theory it stood for all psychic energy. This
energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and
sexual urges.

Forth, where the hell did you get "libido can also
be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an
individual"? Again, you missing your own first quote completely when it says that the libido is simply psychic energy that gets transferred depending on what the mind is doing.

Also, you are basing this entire stance on a hypothesis is that has been wrong, and further, have completely got the wrong conclusions from a hypnotesis that has been wrong for a years!

.....poison, or snake oil?


Oh, so how long is the time limit on research? Ten years? Really? If something is not proven in ten years, that's it, it's scientifically correct to stop?
Yes, that is it.

Really? So we have a universal time limit to find scientific discoveries. If in ten years we don't prove something, give up.

Sorry, science doesn't have a time limit. Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that:
Sorry, science doesn't have a natural time limit.


The conclusion of the Drosophila Melanogaster research was that a defective
gene is the cause of an abnormal male reproduction behaviour. It is not any
indication of sexual behaviour equivalent to the Homo Sapiens sexual
behaviour:

(...) Uncovering the fru distal breakpoint with deletions usually
led to males with two of the fru courtship abnormalities: no copulation
attempts with females (hence, behavioral sterility) and vigorous courtship
among males, including the formation of "courtship chains". However, certain
genetic changes involving region 91B resulted in males who formed courtship
chains but who mated with females.
(...)2

There is no proof that a gene can influence the human sexual orientation.

Let's look at what you said:

The conclusion of the Drosophila Melanogaster research was that a defective gene is the cause of an abnormal male reproduction behaviour.

and then in the next paragraph:

There is no proof that a gene can influence the human sexual orientation.

Looks like one little gene in one little fruit fly did something to them. I'll agree that it's not a definitive proof that one gene can influence human sexual orientation, but it does show that one gene can influence sexual behavior. If one gene can do that, think of what a combination of genes can do. Maybe a combination of genes that haven't been altered can cause influence in human sexual behavior. They'd have to study more and see how a group of genes (and maybe other factors) can influence human sexual orientation.

Oh wait. Those findings came out a few years ago. They've only got now...what...five more years to research this? :rolleyes:

'Sides, if an altered gene made a fruit fly go after members of their own sex, that means the flies had no choice, did they?

Further, you do know that altered genes, in other words, mutations, are natural. They have to mutate (or alter) in order for evolution to work.


You keep asking for examples and you keep rejecting them. That was an example of how, for hundreds of years, we hypothesized that something existed, but could not prove it or find it. We finally found it to be true several years ago.

I'm speaking in this example of scientific study, how is this different from that?

You are comparing a perversion of the human sexuality with planets and stars.

Sexology and astronomy are very different subjects.

A) You missed my point completely. I was giving an example of scientific
research that took hundreds of years to prove. According to your rules, we
should've given up looking for planets outside our solar system decades ago.

and

B) You are being a hypocrite. You yourself tried to use math to show that homosexuality is not natural.

It is no defined process of human sexuality.

Sexual behaviour it is not an unchangeable process.

Behavior, no, I'll go along with that. Behavior can change. But basic desires never ever changes.

The neurons are wired after birth and brain plasticity proves that such
phenomenon occurs in accordance with our life experience.

Scientists have not been able to find clear gender-related
structural differences between the brains of boys and girls at birth. At that
stage of life their properties and functions overlap almost entirely. The same
is true for behaviors. Male and female behavior - let alone homosexuality and
heterosexuality - is apparently not hardwired into the brain at birth. In
fact, only one quarter of the brain is formed in a new-born child; the rest is
developed through learning and experience (environmental input). We can be
confident that whatever male/female differences exist in adult brains (and, no
doubt, more will be found at some stage), they will be largely shaped by
learning and behavior. But what learn ing and experiences do to the brain is
not set in concrete either. Brain cells are replaced in roughly seven year
cycles, meaning that new neuron pathways can be formed and old ones reshaped.
Intensive exercise, training or imagination changes the brain microstructure.
We are not victims of our biology or the experiences which shape the detail of
our brain. Anatomy is not destiny; change is always possible. The brain is
plastic and is in a constant state of change. Indeed the question is rather:
what change is not
possible?3

You know, I didn't agree that it was exclusively brain placisty. That's your
view, and it hasn't been proven that it is. My view is that it's a culmination of several factors. You are resting your view on one thing only and that hasn't been proven.

Maybe a person who was homosexual has started behaving heterosexually. That doesn't mean that person's basic desires changed, it only means that the person is acting in accordance to a behavior that is preferable to that person (whatever the reasons are), but it does not change the basic desire for the same gender.

You say that looking at animals performing homosexual behavior does not prove that the animal has a sexual desire for the same gender. Fine. I'll go along with that provided that you have to admit that you cannot prove that a homosexual person, doing heterosexual behavior after some kind of treatment, does not still have a sexual desire for the same gender.

Oh sure, they may claim that they are heterosexual now. But do you really know that they are or are they claiming that because their desire to fit in or whatever is so strong that they are lieing to themselves and the world How do you know?

Hey, if you can't prove that two animals having homosexual sex don't really desire the same gender, you can't prove that two humans having heterosexual sex don't really have desire for the opposite gender either.

Besides:

"Because we know that performance on these cognitive tests depends on the integrity of specific brain regions, the differences implicate robust differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women and suggest that hormonal factors early in development (probably during the 1st trimester of pregnancy) produce these differences." - Interview, Irish Examiner, Mar. 25, 2003 -Qazi Rahman, PhD

"There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.

Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.

Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual." - Jan. 27, 2005 - Brian S. Mustanski, PhD

I'll post the reference later.

The definition of the sexual orientation is not a choice.

But she's attracted to men, more often would be with men. So is she bi or slightly bi or a little bi or...?

What is your intention when touching another man in the hypothetical example above?

So if touch the male with the intention of turning on my girl more, which in turn turns me on more, then...? But if it's to help the guy stay aroused, so that he continues to do what he's doing to my girl, which turns me on more, then it's...?


Yourself had agreed with the definition:
This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.


All right, a person is basically attracted to something.
Good start. Now the argument is can that basic attraction be chosen?

Can you prove that it is?

It is not sexual orientation equivalent to the libido oriented
towards a object?

Libido means in psychoanalysis in the first instance the force
(thought of as quantitatively variable and measurable) of the sexual instincts
directed towards an object - "sexual" in the extended sense required by
analytic theory. (...)4

Nope. It has been shown that Freud was wrong. There is no such thing, except for Freud's wrong hypothesis, as "libido oriented".


So what if she found females attractive yet never ever has sex with any of them, is she still bisexual?
Yes, the definition of bisexual is based in attraction, not in sexual intercourse.

....basic attraction, huh?

[quote=JFrankA]
Going with the analogy, an asexual person wouldn't like any fruit. But still my point remains. I do like banana bread but still doesn't like bananas. The basic like and dislike does not change. The only reason why I like banana bread is because of the other ingredients, (or circumstances, if you will) that allows me to like the bread. It does not mean I have made the choice to like bananas now. I still wouldn't eat one.
What would you do if the only food available are just bananas?

I would have to eat the bananas to prevent starving of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to actually like them. I will tell everyone around, though, that I love bananas because they keep you fit, they have potassium, they are good in foods like...banana bread and sing it's praises.

But I would not ever enjoy them. Given the chance to get my hands on some grapes, I'd drop the bananas in heartbeat.

[quote]What would do a person which dislike bananas at all (asexual) when bananas are the only food available?

If they want to survive, they'd do what I said above. If they'd rather die, then they'd stave to death.

The point is that the behavior may change, I may grow to tolerate bananas, but I would never ever desire them. My basic likes do not include bananas, even if there was nothing else.

Pre-natal fluids were already refuted.

No, you just dismissed it without a dispute.

Neurons are wired after birth.

That's wrong. Neurons are wired during birth as well. They just don't instantly connect when a baby is born.

No combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour.

That statement hasn't been proven.

The environmental factors are the only explanation with a solid scientific base.

That statement hasn't been proven either.

The last three statements are just assertions. Nothing in the last three statements, especially since the first one is out and out wrong, has no conclusive evidence to it.

[bikerdruid]

snaketongue:
bottom line.....
are you going to tell me that i chose to be homosexual, even though my own experience denies that?
are you going to tell me that you never chose to be heterosexual?

real answers, please.

[SnakeTongue]

Did you read what I wrote at all?

I will repeat this v-e-r-y slowly:

Freud's hypotheses are no longer accepted as valid in psychology, psychiatrics, or psychoanalysis. Even if there are NO other hypotheses to explain 'basic attraction' that does not make Freud's unconfirmed, unevidenced, and disputed hypotheses the working model by default. And, again, if you research then you will probably find that there are more contemporary hypotheses with better evidence and well-established models than ancient Freud.

You definitely have no notion of scientific methodology and theoretic evidence if you think this way.

ETA: I do not need to disprove Freud. Many academics and professionals in the field have already done that.

Yes, I read.

You do not know me.

Where is a better theory to explain the basic attraction? The sexual desire? Could you provide or not?

[SnakeTongue]

Wow, I must have missed the news of the epidemic of HIV transmissions due to lesbian sex.

Do not play the naive.

Homosexual conduct also refers to anal sexual intercourse.

[SOdhner]

Homosexual conduct also refers to anal sexual intercourse.

What about heterosexual anal intercourse? That's still inappropriate use, right? Are you saying that a male-female couple are more likely to contract STDs from each other when having anal sex rather than good old missionary position?

Also, do you believe that it CAUSES the STDs? If not, this isn't a problem so long as neither person has an STD to begin with, right?

[JFrankA]

Do not play the naive.

Homosexual conduct also refers to anal sexual intercourse.

....so if a male has anal sexual intercourse with a female (with the female as the receiver) it's homosexual conduct????


Reaaaaaalllllly?

[JFrankA]

Wait...I had to comment on this as well...


Wow, I must have missed the news of the epidemic of HIV transmissions due to lesbian sex.
Do not play the naive.

Homosexual conduct also refers to anal sexual intercourse.

And you do know that your retort does not address, even remotely address the fact that lesbian sex has the lowest rate of sexually transmitted diseases.

[Alt+F4]

Do not play the naive.

Homosexual conduct also refers to anal sexual intercourse.

Evasion noted. Even if male/male anal intercourse is what you're obsessed with, lesbian sex is homosexual conduct.

[SnakeTongue]

Evasion noted. Even if male/male anal intercourse is what you're obsessed with, lesbian sex is homosexual conduct.

So? Where did I said that is not?

[SnakeTongue]

Wait...I had to comment on this as well...


And you do know that your retort does not address, even remotely address the fact that lesbian sex has the lowest rate of sexually transmitted diseases.

I could provide evidence that anal homosexual intercourse among males have the highest rate of disease transmission, therefore supporting my argument.

Could you provide evidence to support your argument?

....so if a male has anal sexual intercourse with a female (with the female as the receiver) it's homosexual conduct????


Reaaaaaalllllly?

No, it is not. It is sodomy.

[Alt+F4]

So? Where did I said that is not?

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Since you admit that lesbian sex is homosexual behavior you have been proven wrong that "inappropriate use of the genitals can increase the risk to acquire a disease".

Now, why do you think that anal intercourse is a homosexual behavior when straight couples do it too?

[Alt+F4]

I could provide evidence that anal homosexual intercourse among males have the highest rate of disease transmission, therefore supporting my argument.

That wouldn't support your argument at all since lesbian sex has the lowest rate of disease transmission. If you're trying to make an argument about sex and disease transmission then women should be having lesbian sex, and not straight sex, right?

[SumDood]

....so if a male has anal sexual intercourse with a female (with the female as the receiver) it's homosexual conduct????


Reaaaaaalllllly?

Since you specified, I'll ask: Is anal sex between a man and a woman (with the man receiving) homosexual conduct?

[Belz...]

Aw, come on, SnakeTongue. I'm sure you can find it in your heart to answer my points.

Still waiting.

[SnakeTongue]

Freud has been proven wrong for quite a while, but even so, how can you jump from this:

To this:

What you quoted basically says that Freud's theory is that there is psychic energy that cannot be destroyed, merely transferred depending on what the mind is doing. That has NOTHING to do with with what you said.

And then you jump from this:

To this

First off, let's forget that Freud was completely wrong. Second, where did you get the word "primeval"? That wasn't in there at all. You added it. Thirdly, you got his wrong hypothesis wrong! The libido can be controlled by conscious thought! It says so it the first quote you posted:

I get it from the Oxford Dictionaries.

primeval
of the earliest time in history: mile after mile of primeval forest
(of emotion or behaviour) strongly instinctive and unreasoning: a primeval desire1

Where it affirms that it can be consciously controlled?

This energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and sexual urges.2

Fueled is not equivalent of controlled.

Fuel
a thing that sustains or inflames passion, argument, or other intense emotion: the remuneration packages will add fuel to the debate about top-level rewards1

Forth, where the hell did you get "libido can also
be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an
individual"? Again, you missing your own first quote completely when it says that the libido is simply psychic energy that gets transferred depending on what the mind is doing.

A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life. (Sigmund Freud: An Outline of Psychoanalysis, 1938.)3

I did not miss the first quote. It is correct and it do not contradict any another quote.

Also, you are basing this entire stance on a hypothesis is that has been wrong, and further, have completely got the wrong conclusions from a hypnotesis that has been wrong for a years!

.....poison, or snake oil?

All right. What better theory do you have to support your basic attraction example?

Poison.

Really? So we have a universal time limit to find scientific discoveries. If in ten years we don't prove something, give up.

Sorry, science doesn't have a time limit. Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that:
Sorry, science doesn't have a natural time limit.

Yes, really.

Let's look at what you said:

and then in the next paragraph:

Looks like one little gene in one little fruit fly did something to them. I'll agree that it's not a definitive proof that one gene can influence human sexual orientation, but it does show that one gene can influence sexual behavior. If one gene can do that, think of what a combination of genes can do. Maybe a combination of genes that haven't been altered can cause influence in human sexual behavior. They'd have to study more and see how a group of genes (and maybe other factors) can influence human sexual orientation.

There it is a gene in the Drosophila Melanogaster. It has nothing to do with the Homo Sapiens genetic code.

Oh wait. Those findings came out a few years ago. They've only got now...what...five more years to research this? :rolleyes:

'Sides, if an altered gene made a fruit fly go after members of their own sex, that means the flies had no choice, did they?

Yes, the flies did not have choices inside a vial of laboratory.

Do you like to compare the instinct of a fly with the intellect of a human?

Further, you do know that altered genes, in other words, mutations, are natural. They have to mutate (or alter) in order for evolution to work.

In another words, artificial intervention.

The research did not present any conclusion about the evolutionary process of the specie and its gene mutation.

A) You missed my point completely. I was giving an example of scientific research that took hundreds of years to prove. According to your rules, we should've given up looking for planets outside our solar system decades ago.

and

B) You are being a hypocrite. You yourself tried to use math to show that homosexuality is not natural.

Try to use numbers in language de-construction is not equivalent to compare astronomy with failed researches of homosexual behaviour.

Behavior, no, I'll go along with that. Behavior can change. But basic desires never ever changes.

If a person had a basic desire for children during its childhood, that person will be attracted to children forever?

You know, I didn't agree that it was exclusively brain placisty. That's your view, and it hasn't been proven that it is. My view is that it's a culmination of several factors. You are resting your view on one thing only and that hasn't been proven.

What has not been proven? Brain plasticity?

Maybe a person who was homosexual has started behaving heterosexually. That doesn't mean that person's basic desires changed, it only means that the person is acting in accordance to a behavior that is preferable to that person (whatever the reasons are), but it does not change the basic desire for the same gender.

Brain plasticity proves that behaviour can change.

The behaviour is the reflection of a person's desires.

You say that looking at animals performing homosexual behavior does not prove that the animal has a sexual desire for the same gender. Fine. I'll go along with that provided that you have to admit that you cannot prove that a homosexual person, doing heterosexual behavior after some kind of treatment, does not still have a sexual desire for the same gender.

I will not admit anything under your terms.

Oh sure, they may claim that they are heterosexual now. But do you really know that they are or are they claiming that because their desire to fit in or whatever is so strong that they are lieing to themselves and the world How do you know?

How do I know what?

Hey, if you can't prove that two animals having homosexual sex don't really desire the same gender, you can't prove that two humans having heterosexual sex don't really have desire for the opposite gender either.

Your conclusion is fallacious because you are comparing animals instincts with human emotions.

Besides:

"Because we know that performance on these cognitive tests depends on the integrity of specific brain regions, the differences implicate robust differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women and suggest that hormonal factors early in development (probably during the 1st trimester of pregnancy) produce these differences." - Interview, Irish Examiner, Mar. 25, 2003 -Qazi Rahman, PhD

What every neuroscientist knows: the brain changes with its use.

The hormonal factors are already refuted:

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4

"There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.

Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.

Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual." - Jan. 27, 2005 - Brian S. Mustanski, PhD

What is your guess? My guess is that homosexual genes do not exist.

I'll post the reference later.

Please, a reference to anyone read and verify the methodology of the research.

But she's attracted to men, more often would be with men. So is she bi or slightly bi or a little bi or...?

I do not know. It is your girlfriend. Ask her.

So if touch the male with the intention of turning on my girl more, which in turn turns me on more, then...? But if it's to help the guy stay aroused, so that he continues to do what he's doing to my girl, which turns me on more, then it's...?

Appears that you are a voyeuristic, not a homosexual.

Nope. It has been shown that Freud was wrong. There is no such thing, except for Freud's wrong hypothesis, as "libido oriented".

All right. Freud was wrong. Which better scientific model you have to support your basic attraction hypothesis?

....basic attraction, huh?

No.

I would have to eat the bananas to prevent starving of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to actually like them. I will tell everyone around, though, that I love bananas because they keep you fit, they have potassium, they are good in foods like...banana bread and sing it's praises.

But I would not ever enjoy them. Given the chance to get my hands on some grapes, I'd drop the bananas in heartbeat.

What if a person which do not like to eat bananas, it like grapes?

A person which do not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) is equivalent to an asexual. But an asexual have the absence of sexual desire. That means the person do not practise sex at all (to eat bananas). It not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) at all, but it like grapes (?). What the grapes mean?

What would be the another sexual desire of a person which do not have a sexual desire at all?

If they want to survive, they'd do what I said above. If they'd rather die, then they'd stave to death.

The point is that the behavior may change, I may grow to tolerate bananas, but I would never ever desire them. My basic likes do not include bananas, even if there was nothing else.

So basic likes include more than just one option?

In your analogy, hunger is equivalent to sexual desire or sexual orientation?



Pre-natal fluids were already refuted.

No, you just dismissed it without a dispute.

Dispute:

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4



Neurons are wired after birth.

That's wrong.

Neurons are wired after birth is wrong? Are you affirming that neurons are not wired after birth?

I disagree with you.

A brain is not a computer. The brain begins working long before it is finished. And the same processes that wire the brain before birth also drive the very rapid growth of learning that occurs immediately after birth. At birth, a baby’s brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. Before birth, the brain produces trillions more neurons and “synapses” (connections between the brain cells) than needed. During the first years of life, the brain undergoes a series of extraordinary changes. Then, through a process that resembles Darwinian competition, the brain eliminates connections that are seldom or never used.5

I did not understand your contradiction:

Neurons are wired during birth as well.

They just don't instantly connect when a baby is born.

So neurons are wired during birth but don't instantly connect when a baby is born?



No combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour.

That statement hasn't been proven.

Not also the negative statement. The burden of proof stay on the hypothesis theorized: combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour?

If has not been proven true, it do not exist.

It has been proven true?



The environmental factors are the only explanation with a solid scientific base.

That statement hasn't been proven either.

Brain plasticity have solid scientific bases in neurology.

The last three statements are just assertions. Nothing in the last three statements, especially since the first one is out and out wrong, has no conclusive evidence to it.

Where are yours conclusive evidences?

:eusa_think:

References:
1 Oxford Dictionaries - http://oxforddictionaries.com/
2 The Libido, or Psychic Energy, in Freud - http://www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/libido.html
3 Sigmund Freud - Life and Work - http://www.freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/libido.html
4 An Antiboy Antibody? Re-examination Of The Maternal Immune Hypothesis - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1359088
5 Brain Development - http://extension.umaine.edu/publications/4356e/

[Alt+F4]

Can I add your examples of unnatural events to the list?

Sure, ballet. Ballet dancing is unnatural because it requires the body the move in ways it was not naturally designed to. It contorts its dancers into movements unnatural for the human body. Using the tips of the toes to support the entire body is unnatural.

[SnakeTongue]

That wouldn't support your argument at all since lesbian sex has the lowest rate of disease transmission. If you're trying to make an argument about sex and disease transmission then women should be having lesbian sex, and not straight sex, right?

No, wrong.

I am not advocating what people should or not do to avoid diseases.

My original argument was to define what is natural or not.

That would support my argument that male homosexual intercourse can increase the chances of disease transmission, which is one of the premisses to my definition of unnatural sexual behaviour.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Since you admit that lesbian sex is homosexual behavior you have been proven wrong that "inappropriate use of the genitals can increase the risk to acquire a disease".

You and me are not getting anywhere.

I indeed agree that lesbians means female homosexual behaviour, but this do not invalidate my original arguments of unnatural sexual behaviour.

You did not prove anything wrong. You just asked me the obvious.

Now, why do you think that anal intercourse is a homosexual behavior when straight couples do it too?

I did not think that.

[SnakeTongue]

snaketongue:
bottom line.....
are you going to tell me that i chose to be homosexual, even though my own experience denies that?

No, I am not going to tell you that.

are you going to tell me that you never chose to be heterosexual?

No, I am not going to tell you that.

real answers, please.

How do you know when the answers are real or not?

[SnakeTongue]

Sure, ballet. Ballet dancing is unnatural because it requires the body the move in ways it was not naturally designed to. It contorts its dancers into movements unnatural for the human body. Using the tips of the toes to support the entire body is unnatural.

All right. I will add to the list.

[Alt+F4]

All right. I will add to the list.

Just address it. Is ballet dancing unnatural or not?

[Alt+F4]

That would support my argument that male homosexual intercourse can increase the chances of disease transmission, which is one of the premisses to my definition of unnatural sexual behaviour.

If your definition of unnatural sexual behavior is that it increases the chance of disease transmission then you are conceding that lesbian sex, which is homosexual, is not unnatural sexual behavior. In fact, it's more natural than straight sex.

You seem to be trying to move the goal post between male and female homosexual sex. Sorry, that evasion isn't going to work. It's homosexual sex, whether it's male or female.

[JFrankA]

<...>

My original argument was to define what is natural or not.

That would support my argument that male homosexual intercourse can increase the chances of disease transmission, which is one of the premisses to my definition of unnatural sexual behaviour.
<...>
I indeed agree that lesbians means female homosexual behaviour, but this do not invalidate my original arguments of unnatural sexual behaviour.

So, to avoid a straw man, correct me if I'm wrong please.

Are you saying that male homosexual behavior is not natural, but female homosexual behavior is?


Now, why do you think that anal intercourse is a homosexual behavior when straight couples do it too?
I did not think that.

So please answer the question, just to be clear:
Is anal intercourse between a male and a female (female receiving) homosexual behavior or not?
and
Is anal intercourse between a male and a female (male receiving) homosexual behavior or not?

[SnakeTongue]

:rolleyes:

What makes you think he is credible? Did you see his CV?

His experience.

I read something like a CV:

Dr NE Whitehead, PhD (research scientist)

Author of the book My Genes Made Me Do It - a scientific look at sexual orientation (1999/USA) and over 130 published scientific papers. The updated edition of My Genes takes a position based on an objective and extremely comprehensive 20-year review of more than 10,000 scientific papers and publications on homosexuality. PhD in biochemistry, 1971, New Zealand. Employed as a scientist with the NZ Govt (24 years) and the United Nations (4 years), more recently a scientific research consultant. Neil Whitehead has lived and worked in New Zealand, India, the United States, France, Japan and Afghanistan.1

PhD, Biochemistry, New Zealand, 1971

He also wrote a book:

Neil E Whitehead, Briar Whitehead
My Genes Made Me Do It!
1999; Huntington House Publishers; 15638416572

What you have which proves that Neil E Whitehead is not a credible source of scientific information?

References:
1 http://www.mygenes.co.nz/About%20Us.htm
2 http://www.researchbooks.org/1563841657/GENES-MADE/

[SnakeTongue]

Just address it. Is ballet dancing unnatural or not?

I will meditate about it and I will answer you.

If your definition of unnatural sexual behavior is that it increases the chance of disease transmission then you are conceding that lesbian sex, which is homosexual, is not unnatural sexual behavior. In fact, it's more natural than straight sex.

That is not my definition to unnatural sexual behaviour.

You seem to be trying to move the goal post between male and female homosexual sex. Sorry, that evasion isn't going to work. It's homosexual sex, whether it's male or female.

So?

[Alt+F4]

I will meditate about it and I will answer you.

What is it about ballet that you need to meditate on? Ballet is simply a dance that requires very unnatual movements of the anatomy and physiology of the dancer's body.

That is not my definition to unnatural sexual behaviour.

Well you keep moving the goal post, so you have not given any set definition. You have proven nothing except the fact that you, personally, don't like male homosexual sex.

[SnakeTongue]

So, to avoid a straw man, correct me if I'm wrong please.

Are you saying that male homosexual behavior is not natural, but female homosexual behavior is?

No.

So please answer the question, just to be clear:
Is anal intercourse between a male and a female (female receiving) homosexual behavior or not?
and
Is anal intercourse between a male and a female (male receiving) homosexual behavior or not?

If the female is receiving the male penis, it is not.

If the male is receiving (...) to enhance his desire towards the female performing the act, it is not.

It is sodomy at all.

[SnakeTongue]

What is it about ballet that you need to meditate on? Ballet is simply a dance that requires very unnatual movements of the anatomy and physiology of the dancer's body.

Well you keep moving the goal post, so you have not given any set definition. You have proven nothing except the fact that you, personally, don't like male homosexual sex.

I indeed gave a definition.



Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.



Post #714 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6586825&postcount=714)

[Alt+F4]

If the female is receiving the male penis, it is not.

If the male is receiving (...) to enhance his desire towards the female performing the act, it is not.

Again, your personal opinion, it holds no truth except for you.

What a misogynist/homophobic farce. As long as the female recieves the male penis it doesn't matter what her desire is. But when it's the male getting it up the bum he had better be desiring the female!

Such hyprocricy, such a double standard. No one is buying this crap Snake, you should stop before you embarrasse yourself more.

[SnakeTongue]

Again, your personal opinion, it holds no truth except for you.

What a misogynist/homophobic farce. As long as the female recieves the male penis it doesn't matter what her desire is. But when it's the male getting it up the bum he had better be desiring the female!

Such hyprocricy, such a double standard. No one is buying this crap Snake, you should stop before you embarrasse yourself more.

I do not endorse your assumptions neither your insults.

Ctrl-Alt+Del and turn off.

[Marcus]

snaketongue:
bottom line.....
are you going to tell me that i chose to be homosexual, even though my own experience denies that?
are you going to tell me that you never chose to be heterosexual?

real answers, please.
Snaketongue has admitted that he could not choose to be a homosexual. AFAIK, he has not admitted that you could not choose either, but the inference is obvious, even if he can not bear to say it.

[Alt+F4]

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:
1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).Well Snake unless you are a troglodyte living in your parents basement eating Hot Pockets all day can we assume that you have masturbated and/or have had oral sex? No details, just a yes or no.
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
I'm 46, too old to get pregnant the old fashioned way. If I have straight sex is it unnatural?

3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.
Again, you ignore that lesbian sex decreases the chance to transmit/acquire disease.

[Alt+F4]

I do not endorse your assumptions neither your insults.

Ctrl-Alt+Del and turn off.

Translation: you can't answer my questions.

[DC]

I do not endorse your assumptions neither your insults.

Ctrl-Alt+Del and turn off.

oh kid, face it, Homosexuality is natural behavior, and it is in no way something you choose, you cannot choose to what you feel atracted.
you are clueless and just trying to defend your bigoted views that do not hold any trueth.


you failed.

[Belz...]

I indeed gave a definition.



Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.



Post #714 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6586825&postcount=714)

1) and 2) seem to be equivalent, no ? Again, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that genitals are used for non-reproductive purposes all the time.

And I simply don't see how 3) applies. Lots of things increase the chances of infection. Getting wounded, for instance.

[DC]

:eek: pissing is unnatural?

[JFrankA]

I indeed gave a definition.



Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.



Post #714 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6586825&postcount=714)

So, is cooking unnatural?

I mean, if one doesn't cook their food there's an increase in the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases. But I don't see many animals cooking. In fact, I think pretty much all of the animals, except for one, eat their food raw......

[Belz...]

So, is cooking unnatural?

I mean, if one doesn't cook their food there's an increase in the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases. But I don't see many animals cooking. In fact, I think pretty much all of the animals, except for one, eat their food raw......

Yes, cooking is unnatural. So is clothing. Boy, we've got a number of things to work on, eh ?

[JFrankA]

I get it from the Oxford Dictionaries.

primeval
of the earliest time in history: mile after mile of primeval forest
(of emotion or behaviour) strongly instinctive and unreasoning: a primeval desire1

Where it affirms that it can be consciously controlled?

This energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and sexual urges.2

Fueled is not equivalent of controlled.

Fuel
a thing that sustains or inflames passion, argument, or other intense emotion: the remuneration packages will add fuel to the debate about top-level rewards1



A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life. (Sigmund Freud: An Outline of Psychoanalysis, 1938.)3

I did not miss the first quote. It is correct and it do not contradict any another quote.

All of it mental masturbation on your part. (If you pardon the pun). This whole tirade is moot because Freud was wrong. You are defending something that is based on something that is wrong in the first place. I merely pointed out how you made it...uhm...wronger....by injecting your own interpretation to fit your ideals and morals.

Just one big dish of wrongness served with a side dish of wrong with a glass of red wrong and for dessert, a big piece of wrong dripping with with wrong and a cherry on top.

All right. What better theory do you have to support your basic attraction example?

I'm sorry. I don't do this often but that statement has forced me to do this to you.

:dl:

Realllllly? That is your defense? "Well, we know Freud's hypothesis was wrong, but do you have anything better?" Reeeeeaaaaaalllllllly?

Poison.

Might want to learn the difference between poison and snake oil.


Really? So we have a universal time limit to find scientific discoveries. If in ten years we don't prove something, give up.

Sorry, science doesn't have a time limit. Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that:
Sorry, science doesn't have a natural time limit.

Yes, really.

Congratulations. You have caused me to repeat myself.

:dl:

Do you even know what the scientific process is? Giving a time limit on proof is like saying that since it took centuries between the hypothesis and proof that the planets revolve around the sun, and not proven within ten years, the Earth must be the center of the solar system.

There it is a gene in the Drosophila Melanogaster. It has nothing to do with the Homo Sapiens genetic code.

Ah, but it is a gene that can alter sexual behavior in animals....

Yes, the flies did not have choices inside a vial of laboratory.

See? No choice. Thank you.

Do you like to compare the instinct of a fly with the intellect of a human?

It's an experiment in genetics, gene change affects the organism. It is not an experiment in intellect.

In another words, artificial intervention.

Re-read what I said:

Altered genes, in other words, mutations, are natural. They have to mutate (or alter) in order for evolution to work.

It is natural occurrence when a gene somehow gets altered from generation to generation. The scientist in the lab did this one, but just for experimentation purposes, but in the real world, in nature, gene mutation is natural and happens quite a bit without any intervention at all.

The research did not present any conclusion about the evolutionary process of the specie and its gene mutation.

But it did produce a result. It did show that one little bitty gene can make a difference in this fly's behavior. If one little bitty gene can make a difference in this fly's behavior, the next step is to see what would happen if a whole mess of genes get altered.

And it didn't present a conclusion. Welcome to science: the place where an answer raises more questions.

Try to use numbers in language de-construction is not equivalent to compare astronomy with failed researches of homosexual behaviour.

You are either uncomprehending what I am trying to say or you are purposely twisting it.

Again, the example about astronomy is about your declaration that science has a time limit of ten years. That is absurd. If science actually had a time limit, as you say, then we would be saying things like the Earth is the center of the solar system.

Your "language de-construstion" is nothing but a ploy. It's a way to manipulate the language and math so that you get the results you want. Here, I'll show you:

A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life. (Sigmund Freud: An Outline of Psychoanalysis, 1938.)

"mobility"
the ability to move or be moved freely and easily

"libido"
sexual desire

So since the libido is sexual desire, and must be able to move freely and easily, it is a force that passes from object to object.

Now let's throw in your word:

"Primeval"
strongly instinctive and unreasoning: a primeval desire

Since the libido is a primeval force, and is "instinctive and unreasoning", then the libido will lock on to something for sexual desire without any choice, and further that lock on to that desire will "persists throughout life".

Therefore, according to Freud and language de-construction:

The libido is what causes basic sexual desire and it is something that is uncontrollable and instinctive and never ever leaves that object. So there is my guess as to where sexual orientation comes from and why it doesn't change though the behavior might.

There, see? I can do it too. I didn't even break out a sweat.

It was fun (mental) masturbating with you. :D

If a person had a basic desire for children during its childhood, that person will be attracted to children forever?

Yes. That person's behavior might change, but the desire never leaves.

What has not been proven? Brain plasticity?

What has not be proven is that Brain Plasticity is the exclusive and only reason for a person's sexual orientation. Again, that's your view and there is no proof that it is the only thing.

Brain plasticity proves that behaviour can change.

Behavior can change. Fine. Desire cannot.

The behaviour is the reflection of a person's desires.

If you really believe that in every case, then you are very gullible. Desires are complicated things and though the behavior has changed, the desires has not. It will always be there. Always.

Personal antidote: In 2002, I was 320 pounds. I lost 120 in three years by going to the gym and using Weight Watchers. Now going to gym is something I do three times a week and I go for two hours. I rarely miss going to the gym. I used to go at 7am before going to work, but my hours changed last year and now I have to go to the gym at 3:30am. I still go, like I have been for over 8 years now, faithfully. My behavior is that of someone who loves going to gym. People that I talk to about going to the gym tell me, with confidence, that I must love working out and going to the gym.

I hate it.

I hate going. I dread the night before because I have to get up early. I hate being there. I much rather go home and sleep or watch tv or play World of Warcraft or something else. I do my business and get out.

But to someone who is observing my behavior, I must basically desire and enjoy going to the gym. I'm there at 3:30am, I'm there for two hours, I rarely miss a day and when I do, I feel incredibly guilty and horrible. So my behavior wrongly reflects my desire.

So why do I go if I hate it so much? Because I keep reminding myself that if I don't go, I won't be thin anymore. Again, I KEEP REMINDING THAT TO MYSELF. If I didn't, the desire to stay home would overrun my desire to go to the gym with ease. Only the reminding of my desire to stay healthy keeps me going. Yes, the basic desire to stay healthy in me overrides my basic desire to stay home and that basic desire to stay healthy works only if I remind myself of it.

That is a change in behavior, but not desire. Ask anyone trying to give up anything: the desire is there. Always.

See how complicated this gets?


You say that looking at animals performing homosexual behavior does not prove that the animal has a sexual desire for the same gender. Fine. I'll go along with that provided that you have to admit that you cannot prove that a homosexual person, doing heterosexual behavior after some kind of treatment, does not still have a sexual desire for the same gender.
I will not admit anything under your terms.

:rolleyes: Fine. Let me put it this way:

If you say that scientist can observe homosexual behavior in animals but cannot know that the homosexual behavior is sexual desire and not some kind of gender mistake or show of power or something else in every case, then you have to say that a scientist can observe homosexual behavior in animals but cannot know that the homosexual behavior is some kind of gender mistake or show of power or something else, and not out of sexual desire in every case.

It works both ways, kid.


Oh sure, (homosexual people who have claimed to have changed to heterosexual) may claim that they are heterosexual now. But do you really know that they are or are they claiming that because their desire to fit in or whatever is so strong that they are lieing to themselves and the world.
How do you know?

How do I know what?

Exactly.

Hey, if you can't prove that two animals having homosexual sex don't really desire the same gender, you can't prove that two humans having heterosexual sex don't really have desire for the opposite gender either.
Your conclusion is fallacious because you are comparing animals instincts with human emotions.

Really? You're going to make me do this a third time? I'm sorry.....

:dl:

That is what I've been saying this entire thread!!!! In fact, YOU are the one who has been comparing animals instincts with human emotions the since you've joined in on the conversation. In fact, every time I or anyone else on this thread has said that you can't compare animal instincts with human emotions, you go a pull some "evidence" to prove that animals are "natural".

Sheesh. You didn't just move the goalposts, you moved the entire stadium!

What every neuroscientist knows: the brain changes with its use.

The hormonal factors are already refuted:

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4

Did you even read that? First off that's a study of

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers.

That's just ONE hormonal factor during pregnancy. Just one. There's plenty more to study. Also the hypothesis involves the question of birth order. That's not a clear disproving of hormonal factors during pregnancy.

What is your guess? My guess is that homosexual genes do not exist.

*sigh* I hate to repeat Myself.

My guess is that you are correct. It's not one gene. It's a bunch of genes, that may have a side effect, combined with hormonal pre-natal fluids, combined with environment and upbringing (brain plasticity, if you will) and whole bunch of other factors.

My guess is that it's waaaaay more complicated than you give it credit for.

Please, a reference to anyone read and verify the methodology of the research.

:rolleyes:

I do not know. It is your girlfriend. Ask her.
I have. I know how she feels. I know what she thinks. I'm asking your opinion because I don't know you and I want to see the way you think.

Appears that you are a voyeuristic, not a homosexual.

...voyeuristic for homosexual acts? hmmmmm......



All right. Freud was wrong. Which better scientific model you have to support your basic attraction hypothesis?

.....must...resist...urge....to......post......lau ghing....dog...must ..resist....urge.....resist....



I would have to eat the bananas to prevent starving of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to actually like them. I will tell everyone around, though, that I love bananas because they keep you fit, they have potassium, they are good in foods like...banana bread and sing it's praises.

But I would not ever enjoy them. Given the chance to get my hands on some grapes, I'd drop the bananas in heartbeat.
What if a person which do not like to eat bananas, it like grapes?

Don't know about other people. I like grapes a lot. I don't think I understand your question.

A person which do not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) is equivalent to an asexual. But an asexual have the absence of sexual desire. That means the person do not practise sex at all (to eat bananas). It not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) at all, but it like grapes (?). What the grapes mean?

Okay, no, that's not what I mean at all. Once again, you're going too simple with this.

There's a whole bunch of fruits out there. There are some people who like bananas, love them, and enough people like bananas enough so that it can be considered "natural" to like bananas.

However, there are people, like me, who don't.

What would be the another sexual desire of a person which do not have a sexual desire at all?

I'm not sure I am understanding your question here, either, sorry.

So basic likes include more than just one option?

Yup. It could be more than one option or it could no option at all.

In your analogy, hunger is equivalent to sexual desire or sexual orientation?

Hunger is a sex drive.

What fruits one likes is sexual orientation/desire.


Dispute:

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4

I've already said that only looks at one hormone, and looks also at birth order. It doesn't count for all of them. You just dismissed the point.


Neurons are wired after birth is wrong? Are you affirming that neurons are not wired after birth?

I disagree with you.

Hold the phone. First off, here is the original exchange about that:


Neurons are wired after birth.
That's wrong. Neurons are wired during birth as well. They just don't instantly connect when a baby is born.

First off, I must apologize. I made a mistake in what I meant to say. What I meant to say was this "Neurons are wired before birth as well." So I apologize for that.

Please notice the "as well" at the end of that statement. In other words, I agree that neurons are wired after birth. But, as I meant to say, neurons are wired before birth, too.

Of course, this dispute doesn't matter considering your own quote below shows you must agree with me that the brain is wired after AND before birth.


A brain is not a computer. The brain begins working long before it is finished. And the same processes that wire the brain before birth also drive the very rapid growth of learning that occurs immediately after birth. At birth, a baby’s brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. Before birth, the brain produces trillions more neurons and “synapses” (connections between the brain cells) than needed. During the first years of life, the brain undergoes a series of extraordinary changes. Then, through a process that resembles Darwinian competition, the brain eliminates connections that are seldom or never used.5

So yes, the neurons get wired after birth, but, as you have just proven, neurons get wired before birth as well.

I did not understand your contradiction:

So neurons are wired during birth but don't instantly connect when a baby is born?

As I said, my mistake. I didn't mean to type the word "during" I meant to type the word "before". I hope that clears that up because it seems we agree that neurons are wired before and after birth.

Not also the negative statement. The burden of proof stay on the hypothesis theorized: combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour?

If has not been proven true, it do not exist.

It has been proven true?

I admit the hypothesis is out there and hasn't been proven, however, it stands to reason. There are so many genes and each affect and have side effects on the final living organism.

The research on this is ongoing and MUST be ongoing, not cut off because of some silly "ten year limit" on research.

Brain plasticity have solid scientific bases in neurology.

Yes, I'll agree with that, however, that does NOT prove that it is EXCLUSIVELY the only thing that affect sexual orientation or basic desires.

Where are yours conclusive evidences?

:eusa_think:

All in good time. But then again, you have not provided any conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is a choice, either.

[SnakeTongue]

oh kid, face it, Homosexuality is natural behavior, and it is in no way something you choose, you cannot choose to what you feel atracted.
you are clueless and just trying to defend your bigoted views that do not hold any trueth.


you failed.

Argumentum ad hominem.

[SnakeTongue]

So, is cooking unnatural?

I mean, if one doesn't cook their food there's an increase in the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases. But I don't see many animals cooking. In fact, I think pretty much all of the animals, except for one, eat their food raw......

The subject of my argument is related to sex, not to cooking.

All of it mental masturbation on your part. (If you pardon the pun). This whole tirade is moot because Freud was wrong. You are defending something that is based on something that is wrong in the first place. I merely pointed out how you made it...uhm...wronger....by injecting your own interpretation to fit your ideals and morals.

What are my morals and ideals?

What you know if I did not provide any evidence of my morals and ideals?

Just one big dish of wrongness served with a side dish of wrong with a glass of red wrong and for dessert, a big piece of wrong dripping with with wrong and a cherry on top.

I'm sorry. I don't do this often but that statement has forced me to do this to you.

:dl:

Realllllly? That is your defense? "Well, we know Freud's hypothesis was wrong, but do you have anything better?" Reeeeeaaaaaalllllllly?

Might want to learn the difference between poison and snake oil.

Congratulations. You have caused me to repeat myself.

:dl:

Not really.

I asked you if you have a better model to explain your hypothesis. You provided an icon of a dog laughing as a model to support you basic desire example.

That is all?

An icon of a dog laughing is what you have to support your arguments?

Do you even know what the scientific process is? Giving a time limit on proof is like saying that since it took centuries between the hypothesis and proof that the planets revolve around the sun, and not proven within ten years, the Earth must be the center of the solar system.

I know very well.

Ah, but it is a gene that can alter sexual behavior in animals....

Please, provide evidence to support your claim.

The research of the Drosophila Melanogaster shows that is a gene for defective reproduction behaviour. That is not evidence for a existence of homosexual gene in another animals.

See? No choice. Thank you.

It's an experiment in genetics, gene change affects the organism. It is not an experiment in intellect.

So why you are asking if the Drosophila Melanogaster had any power of choice?

Re-read what I said:

It is natural occurrence when a gene somehow gets altered from generation to generation. The scientist in the lab did this one, but just for experimentation purposes, but in the real world, in nature, gene mutation is natural and happens quite a bit without any intervention at all.

Are you affirming that homosexual behaviour is the result of a genetic mutation?

But it did produce a result. It did show that one little bitty gene can make a difference in this fly's behavior. If one little bitty gene can make a difference in this fly's behavior, the next step is to see what would happen if a whole mess of genes get altered.

And it didn't present a conclusion. Welcome to science: the place where an answer raises more questions.

Are you proposing delete and mess up with more genes of different species until a hypothetical homosexual attraction is obtained from the experiment?

You are either uncomprehending what I am trying to say or you are purposely twisting it.

Again, the example about astronomy is about your declaration that science has a time limit of ten years. That is absurd. If science actually had a time limit, as you say, then we would be saying things like the Earth is the center of the solar system.

Your "language de-construstion" is nothing but a ploy. It's a way to manipulate the language and math so that you get the results you want. Here, I'll show you:

"mobility"

"libido"

So since the libido is sexual desire, and must be able to move freely and easily, it is a force that passes from object to object.

Now let's throw in your word:

"Primeval"

Since the libido is a primeval force, and is "instinctive and unreasoning", then the libido will lock on to something for sexual desire without any choice, and further that lock on to that desire will "persists throughout life".

Therefore, according to Freud and language de-construction:

The libido is what causes basic sexual desire and it is something that is uncontrollable and instinctive and never ever leaves that object. So there is my guess as to where sexual orientation comes from and why it doesn't change though the behavior might.

There, see? I can do it too. I didn't even break out a sweat.

It was fun (mental) masturbating with you. :D

All right. So you are now in agreement with Freud's libido theory?

What has not be proven is that Brain Plasticity is the exclusive and only reason for a person's sexual orientation. Again, that's your view and there is no proof that it is the only thing.

The another factors where refuted. Brain plasticity were not refuted.

That is how I hold my arguments.

Behavior can change. Fine. Desire cannot.

Yes. That person's behavior might change, but the desire never leaves.

That means all humans once where children and had a sexual basic desire for children, will be always attracted to children, even when they become adults?

Are all that people forever paedophiles?

If you really believe that in every case, then you are very gullible. Desires are complicated things and though the behavior has changed, the desires has not. It will always be there. Always.

Personal antidote: In 2002, I was 320 pounds. I lost 120 in three years by going to the gym and using Weight Watchers. Now going to gym is something I do three times a week and I go for two hours. I rarely miss going to the gym. I used to go at 7am before going to work, but my hours changed last year and now I have to go to the gym at 3:30am. I still go, like I have been for over 8 years now, faithfully. My behavior is that of someone who loves going to gym. People that I talk to about going to the gym tell me, with confidence, that I must love working out and going to the gym.

I hate it.

I hate going. I dread the night before because I have to get up early. I hate being there. I much rather go home and sleep or watch tv or play World of Warcraft or something else. I do my business and get out.

But to someone who is observing my behavior, I must basically desire and enjoy going to the gym. I'm there at 3:30am, I'm there for two hours, I rarely miss a day and when I do, I feel incredibly guilty and horrible. So my behavior wrongly reflects my desire.

So why do I go if I hate it so much? Because I keep reminding myself that if I don't go, I won't be thin anymore. Again, I KEEP REMINDING THAT TO MYSELF. If I didn't, the desire to stay home would overrun my desire to go to the gym with ease. Only the reminding of my desire to stay healthy keeps me going. Yes, the basic desire to stay healthy in me overrides my basic desire to stay home and that basic desire to stay healthy works only if I remind myself of it.

That is a change in behavior, but not desire. Ask anyone trying to give up anything: the desire is there. Always.

See how complicated this gets?

I am really sorry, but I do not wish know about your personal life.

You had already refuted one of my personal experience as anecdotal evidence.

Therefore I am not considering any personal experience from you as evidence.

:rolleyes: Fine. Let me put it this way:

If you say that scientist can observe homosexual behavior in animals but cannot know that the homosexual behavior is sexual desire and not some kind of gender mistake or show of power or something else in every case, then you have to say that a scientist can observe homosexual behavior in animals but cannot know that the homosexual behavior is some kind of gender mistake or show of power or something else, and not out of sexual desire in every case.

It works both ways, kid.

Exactly.

I must admit that I read the comments above and did not read anything reasonable.

Really? You're going to make me do this a third time? I'm sorry.....

:dl:

That is what I've been saying this entire thread!!!! In fact, YOU are the one who has been comparing animals instincts with human emotions the since you've joined in on the conversation. In fact, every time I or anyone else on this thread has said that you can't compare animal instincts with human emotions, you go a pull some "evidence" to prove that animals are "natural".

Sheesh. You didn't just move the goalposts, you moved the entire stadium!

Why the argumentum ad ignorantium?

Refresh your memory, the debate in the last pages of this thread started when one of the users did try to affirm that homosexual behaviour is natural and is part of the animal kingdom. I just has been disputing that original arguments:

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

(...)

Homosexual behavior has been observed all throughout the animal kingdom, among primates, elephants, whales, and other mammals. It's natural, and nothing to be ashamed about.

So, when that chimp decides he's going to rape the frog, is that natural? Or have chimpanzees suffered a similar fall from grace like we humans?

Did some dumb chimp eat a banana he wasn't supposed to a couple thousand years ago thereby releasing evil into the chimp world and creating a class of frog-humpers?

I myself had affirmed:

(...)

Homosexual behaviour define the same-gender human sexual conduct. It cannot be compared with nature's environment because is an artificial human condition. Nature do not have a biological device which enables the homosexual behaviour to mate and procreate.

(...)

Did you even read that? First off that's a study of

That's just ONE hormonal factor during pregnancy. Just one. There's plenty more to study. Also the hypothesis involves the question of birth order. That's not a clear disproving of hormonal factors during pregnancy.

Please, provide evidence to support your claim.

*sigh* I hate to repeat Myself.

My guess is that you are correct. It's not one gene. It's a bunch of genes, that may have a side effect, combined with hormonal pre-natal fluids, combined with environment and upbringing (brain plasticity, if you will) and whole bunch of other factors.

Please, provide evidence to support your claim.

My guess is that it's waaaaay more complicated than you give it credit for.

:rolleyes:

I have. I know how she feels. I know what she thinks. I'm asking your opinion because I don't know you and I want to see the way you think.

That is good. I am not the best person to help you discover more about her.

...voyeuristic for homosexual acts? hmmmmm......

I do not know. Are you?

.....must...resist...urge....to......post......lau ghing....dog...must ..resist....urge.....resist....

Don't know about other people. I like grapes a lot. I don't think I understand your question.

Okay, no, that's not what I mean at all. Once again, you're going too simple with this.

There's a whole bunch of fruits out there. There are some people who like bananas, love them, and enough people like bananas enough so that it can be considered "natural" to like bananas.

However, there are people, like me, who don't.

I'm not sure I am understanding your question here, either, sorry.

Yup. It could be more than one option or it could no option at all.

Hunger is a sex drive.

What fruits one likes is sexual orientation/desire.

But if the hunger is the sex drive and the fruit is the sexual orientation, what happens with an asexual?

The asexual is defined by absence of sexual drive, thus the equivalence to absence of hunger. A person with absence of hunger will not eat because it do not have the hunger to prepare the organism to digest the food. It do not eat anything at all.

How celibacy fits in your analogy? A person with hunger could avoid any food at all, but will eventually die. But nobody dies from sexual abstinence!

How you analogy explain the people which change its food preference during the course of a life.

I've already said that only looks at one hormone, and looks also at birth order. It doesn't count for all of them. You just dismissed the point.

Hold the phone. First off, here is the original exchange about that:

Which all of them? Which hormones were defined as the cause of homosexuality?

First off, I must apologize. I made a mistake in what I meant to say. What I meant to say was this "Neurons are wired before birth as well." So I apologize for that.

Please notice the "as well" at the end of that statement. In other words, I agree that neurons are wired after birth. But, as I meant to say, neurons are wired before birth, too.

Of course, this dispute doesn't matter considering your own quote below shows you must agree with me that the brain is wired after AND before birth.

So yes, the neurons get wired after birth, but, as you have just proven, neurons get wired before birth as well.

As I said, my mistake. I didn't mean to type the word "during" I meant to type the word "before". I hope that clears that up because it seems we agree that neurons are wired before and after birth.

Yes, I agree that neurons can be wired before and after birth.

I admit the hypothesis is out there and hasn't been proven, however, it stands to reason. There are so many genes and each affect and have side effects on the final living organism.

The research on this is ongoing and MUST be ongoing, not cut off because of some silly "ten year limit" on research.

Keep the faith.

Yes, I'll agree with that, however, that does NOT prove that it is EXCLUSIVELY the only thing that affect sexual orientation or basic desires.

All right.

All in good time. But then again, you have not provided any conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is a choice, either.

As usual, you cannot provide reliable references to support your arguments.

I am not trying to prove that sexual orientation is a choice.

[Belz...]

1) and 2) seem to be equivalent, no ? Again, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that genitals are used for non-reproductive purposes all the time.

And I simply don't see how 3) applies. Lots of things increase the chances of infection. Getting wounded, for instance.

Helloooooo ?????

[Belz...]

Argumentum ad hominem.

Since you couldn't be bothered to check for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You'll notice that "insult" is not an ad hominem. The insult has to be used as an argument.

It's amazing that you didn't even bother to check that. When I told you that you didn't know what ad hominems were, it should've made you curious. But it didn't, and that's sad, because you can't accept the possibility that you're wrong.

[DC]

Argumentum ad hominem.

and again, you fail.

[bikerdruid]

I am not trying to prove that sexual orientation is a choice.

...uh....methinks you are confused....
i suggest you read the title of your thread and your many posts previous to this...this...lie.

[DC]

SnakeTongue.

what is your point here?

you agree that Homosexuality is not a choice and also it has been showed that Homosexuality is natural behavior.

what are you arguing here?

[Mister Earl]

Meh. My whole point on this is people have a tendency to rationalize their behavior against others doing things they don't approve of in order to legitimize mistreatment of said people. I don't approve of mistreating a minority based on the prejudices of a majority.

[TraneWreck]

Since you couldn't be bothered to check for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You'll notice that "insult" is not an ad hominem. The insult has to be used as an argument.

It's amazing that you didn't even bother to check that. When I told you that you didn't know what ad hominems were, it should've made you curious. But it didn't, and that's sad, because you can't accept the possibility that you're wrong.

It consistently amuses me that people can't tell the difference between:

You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong.

and

You're wrong, therefore you're an idiot.

[Legend]

The subject of my argument is related to sex, not to cooking.



What are my morals and ideals?

What you know if I did not provide any evidence of my morals and ideals?



Not really.

I asked you if you have a better model to explain your hypothesis. You provided an icon of a dog laughing as a model to support you basic desire example.

That is all?

An icon of a dog laughing is what you have to support your arguments?



I know very well.



Please, provide evidence to support your claim.

The research of the Drosophila Melanogaster shows that is a gene for defective reproduction behaviour. That is not evidence for a existence of homosexual gene in another animals.



So why you are asking if the Drosophila Melanogaster had any power of choice?



Are you affirming that homosexual behaviour is the result of a genetic mutation?



Are you proposing delete and mess up with more genes of different species until a hypothetical homosexual attraction is obtained from the experiment?



All right. So you are now in agreement with Freud's libido theory?



The another factors where refuted. Brain plasticity were not refuted.

That is how I hold my arguments.





That means all humans once where children and had a sexual basic desire for children, will be always attracted to children, even when they become adults?

Are all that people forever paedophiles?



I am really sorry, but I do not wish know about your personal life.

You had already refuted one of my personal experience as anecdotal evidence.

Therefore I am not considering any personal experience from you as evidence.



I must admit that I read the comments above and did not read anything reasonable.



Why the argumentum ad ignorantium?

Refresh your memory, the debate in the last pages of this thread started when one of the users did try to affirm that homosexual behaviour is natural and is part of the animal kingdom. I just has been disputing that original arguments:





I myself had affirmed:





Please, provide evidence to support your claim.



Please, provide evidence to support your claim.



That is good. I am not the best person to help you discover more about her.



I do not know. Are you?



But if the hunger is the sex drive and the fruit is the sexual orientation, what happens with an asexual?

The asexual is defined by absence of sexual drive, thus the equivalence to absence of hunger. A person with absence of hunger will not eat because it do not have the hunger to prepare the organism to digest the food. It do not eat anything at all.

How celibacy fits in your analogy? A person with hunger could avoid any food at all, but will eventually die. But nobody dies from sexual abstinence!

How you analogy explain the people which change its food preference during the course of a life.



Which all of them? Which hormones were defined as the cause of homosexuality?



Yes, I agree that neurons can be wired before and after birth.



Keep the faith.



All right.



As usual, you cannot provide reliable references to support your arguments.

I am not trying to prove that sexual orientation is a choice.

God I hate dire straights.

[SnakeTongue]

SnakeTongue.

what is your point here?

you agree that Homosexuality is not a choice and also it has been showed that Homosexuality is natural behavior.

what are you arguing here?

Sexual behaviour is not an inheritable unchangeable trait and it is caused by the environment.

[DC]

Sexual behaviour is not an inheritable unchangeable trait and it is caused by the environment.

Research indicates that it indeed is not only caused by the environment.

[SnakeTongue]

Research indicates that it indeed is not only caused by the environment.

I do not know any research which proves that. I know researchers which speculate that.

Do you have a reference to a research which proves (not which speculate) that are more factors rather than just the environment?

[DC]

I do not know any research which proves that. I know researchers which speculate that.

Do you have a reference to a research which proves (not which speculate) that are more factors rather than just the environment?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

and btw, i said, indicates, what evidence do you actually have that support your speculations about homosexuality.

[SnakeTongue]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

and btw, i said, indicates, what evidence do you actually have that support your speculations about homosexuality.

The reference you provided support my argument rather than undermine it: the environmental factors changes people's behaviour.

The differences detected in the brain of individuals of the same gender is the scientific evidence of brain plasticity.

[DC]

The reference you provided support my argument rather than undermine it: the environmental factors changes people's behaviour.

The differences detected in the brain of individuals of the same gender is the scientific evidence of brain plasticity.

so you actually believe brains change in size when someone has sex with the same gender?

what evidence do you have to support that belief?

[Bishadi]

oh kid, face it, Homosexuality is natural behavior, no it aint.

and you clarify it nicely


and it is in no way something you choose, you cannot choose to what you feel atracted. sure you can...............

ie... choice is exactly WHY, the homosexual or purely the same sex sexual intercourse is what mankind can comprehend is not natural but of frustrations (in the animal, mammal, instinctive reactions) and then of fun and entertainment for many of human desires.

"OH kid, face it"


you are clueless and just trying to defend your bigoted views that do not hold any trueth.


you failed.

calling someone a bigot for not lying to himself is pretty ruff


must not be very happy

[Alt+F4]

ie... choice is exactly WHY, the homosexual or purely the same sex sexual intercourse is what mankind can comprehend is not natural but of frustrations (in the animal, mammal, instinctive reactions) and then of fun and entertainment for many of human desires.

What the heck does this mean?

[JFrankA]

Sexual behaviour is not an inheritable unchangeable trait and it is caused by the environment.

Behavior may change, but sexual orientation/desire does not.

[Bishadi]

What the heck does this mean?

in nature same sex intercourse is ooosually of sexual frustration and often of bonafide rape or submission to dominance.

but of human capacity, then choice it involved and with comprehension of events, cause, reason, and compassion............. then before lying to oneself about sex is a requirement to love, marriage or even a requisite to fun, then choice offeres anyone with any sense to comprehend that same sex between concensual partners is a choice.



ie... just to render "concensual" sex means it is a choice before an act. That does not mean, that it is normal it means each can choose before causing an action of ones self.

[TraneWreck]

"concensual"

I'm not sure how this word is pronounced. Is the second "c" hard?

[TraneWreck]

and you clarify it nicely sure you can...............

ie... choice is exactly WHY, the homosexual or purely the same sex sexual intercourse is what mankind can comprehend is not natural but of frustrations (in the animal, mammal, instinctive reactions) and then of fun and entertainment for many of human desires.

When did you decide to be attracted to women (assuming your a straight-male)?

I remember deciding that Republicans were idiots, that God wasn't real, that Michael Jordan was awesome, that New Kids on the Block sucked hard, but I don't remember deciding to like women.

Were you presented with a dong and some snizz and told to pick one? How does that work?

[DC]

no it aint.

and you clarify it nicely sure you can...............

ie... choice is exactly WHY, the homosexual or purely the same sex sexual intercourse is what mankind can comprehend is not natural but of frustrations (in the animal, mammal, instinctive reactions) and then of fun and entertainment for many of human desires.

"OH kid, face it"



calling someone a bigot for not lying to himself is pretty ruff


must not be very happy

nice demonstration of your cluelessness.

Like someone else asked you already, when did you choose to be attracted to the gender you are attracted to?

i have never choosen to feel attracted to woman. I have never choosen to not be attracted by man. But i have choosen to have sex with woman.

you are liying to your self. why?

[Bishadi]

When did you decide to be attracted to women (assuming your a straight-male)?
as far as conforming, i dont do the straight of the complacent.

likewise..........
I remember deciding that Republicans were idiots,

many in te south think like that too

wiki .................. The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party (GOP).



that God wasn't real, if you comprehended nature, then the garden would be already known as YOUR CREATOR.

Learn to appreciate and love it!

that Michael Jordan was awesome, that New Kids on the Block sucked hard, but I don't remember deciding to like women.

at least you are thinking about it

Were you presented with a dong and some snizz and told to pick one? How does that work?


i haven't killed anyone yet either................... but i did wonder once, what a liver, fava beans and a fresh chianti would be like.


perhaps best i dont have a taste of that......

[Bishadi]

nice demonstration of your cluelessness.

Like someone else asked you already, when did you choose to be attracted to the gender you are attracted to?

after an experience with a babysitter

i have never choosen to feel attracted to woman. I have never choosen to not be attracted by man. But i have choosen to have sex with woman.


wow.............

you make a choice, but for some reason others cant?


nice demonstration of your cluelessness.


you are liying to your self. why?

[DC]

after an experience with a babysitter



wow.............

you make a choice, but for some reason others cant?


nice demonstration of your cluelessness.


you are liying to your self. why?

as i said , i never have choosen to feel attracted to woman. but i have choosen to have sex with woman. when you do not realize the difference then there is something wrong with you.

and i have a hard time believing you did actively choose to feel attracted to something.

[TraneWreck]

as far as conforming, i dont do the straight of the complacent.

likewise..........

Huh?


many in te south think like that too

wiki .................. The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party (GOP).


You should do some reading about the Republican Convention of 1912. Teddy, upset that his chosen successor, Taft, failed to follow in his trust-busting footsteps, ran for the nomination. Teddy demolished Taft in the primaries (this was the first year they were held), but Taft controlled the Republican National Committee. At the convention, they gave basically all of the delegates to Taft and he became the nominee despite being spanked in the primary.

Teddy was furious and split, forming the Bull Moose Party. The vast majority of progressives in the Republican Party went with him. From that point on, the sorts of people who were anti-slavery activists began to abandon the Republicans, eventually ending up as Democrats when Teddy's third party failed.

The Republican Party then became the conservative party. The only region where conservatives weren't Republicans was in the Deep South. They HATED Lincoln, a Republican, and stayed with the Democrats as a result.

That is until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. All of the racist a-holes in the Democratic Party jumped off like rats from a sinking ship and joined the Republicans.

Add in some religious nuttiness, and you have today's Republicans.

But I'm sure you already knew that.


if you comprehended nature, then the garden would be already known as YOUR CREATOR.

Learn to appreciate and love it!

"Garden?" Is that some kind of sex term?



at least you are thinking about it

Huh?


i haven't killed anyone yet either................... but i did wonder once, what a liver, fava beans and a fresh chianti would be like.


perhaps best i dont have a taste of that......

So you're saying, like cannibalism, you've had fantasies about screwing a man or having your business handled by one, you've just chosen not to.

That's interesting. I've never had such desires (not that there's anything wrong with that!).

The constant battle to resist temptation has obviously turned you against the source of those powerful desires. I think we all understand the source of your statements with regard to homosexuals much better now.

[SnakeTongue]

so you actually believe brains change in size when someone has sex with the same gender?

what evidence do you have to support that belief?

Not exactly the size changes, but the functionality and the presence of neurons.

Your own reference lead to a study which shows that the brains of individuals of different sexual orientations had changed due a learned effect.

The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403

[SnakeTongue]

Behavior may change, but sexual orientation/desire does not.

So what happened with the sexual basic desire for children that many adults once had when they were children?

Many adults lost the sexual basic desire for children.

It is a change?

[Belz...]

It consistently amuses me that people can't tell the difference between:

You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong.

and

You're wrong, therefore you're an idiot.

Usually I assign this to ignorance, because people simply say "ad hominem" and leave it at that. But since SnakeTongue specifically said "argumentum ad hominem", I think he's being willfully ignorant, not just ignorant. No one throws "argumentum" without spotting the obvious English correspondance. Someone who's insulting you isn't actually arguing.

Sigh.

[Belz...]

I'm not sure how this word is pronounced. Is the second "c" hard?

We keep talking about intercourse, so I'll assume it is. :D

[JonathanQuick]

Homosexuality is a choice because homosexuals themselves chant "recruit, recruit, recruit." Homosexuals demand that such recruitment begin as early as grade school.
Now if you are "born" that way, you wouldn't have to be indoctrinated and brainwashed as the left demands.

Now this on the ugly and very deadly statistics of homosexuality:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

[Belz...]

as far as conforming, i dont do the straight of the complacent.

You don't do the what of the who ?

Again, when did you choose to be straight ? If you choose to be gay, don't you also choose not to be ?

[Belz...]

Let's see:



So basically you're not making a claim; then I repeat your claim which you admit is a claim, meaning that your assertion that it wasn't one was a lie, and you do not endorse your conclusion ? Are you now saying that you forgot your own opinion ?



Of course. How naive of me to expect you to reflect upon your own behaviour.



Of course you did, implicitely, since that was the very point of the question you were answering. Your word games are idiotic and juvenile.



That's not a full sentence.



You may be able to tolerate lies and idiocy, but I feel obligated to adress it in order to reduce the amount of it that's found in the world. Your suggestion that I leave shows how little integrity you have.



You do know about search engines, right ?


1) and 2) seem to be equivalent, no ? Again, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that genitals are used for non-reproductive purposes all the time.

And I simply don't see how 3) applies. Lots of things increase the chances of infection. Getting wounded, for instance.

Snaketongue seems to have me on ignore, then.

Perhaps someone can remind him that I'm waiting for his answers on those two posts.

[TraneWreck]

Homosexuality is a choice because homosexuals themselves chant "recruit, recruit, recruit." Homosexuals demand that such recruitment begin as early as grade school.
Now if you are "born" that way, you wouldn't have to be indoctrinated and brainwashed as the left demands.

Now this on the ugly and very deadly statistics of homosexuality:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

Man, homosexuals are cool:

•One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).
•One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
•Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).


You have any stats on lesbians?

Edit: Alright, I started dealing with that link humorously, but everyone needs to read through these. They are AMAZING:

•Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex.

•Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities"

•37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism

•Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries

They get funnier as you go. This is like reading a 9-year old's website about zombies.

[ZirconBlue]

Homosexuality is a choice because homosexuals themselves chant "recruit, recruit, recruit."

Evidence?

Homosexuals demand that such recruitment begin as early as grade school.

Evidence?


Now if you are "born" that way, you wouldn't have to be indoctrinated and brainwashed as the left demands.


Evidence of anyone being "indoctrinated and brainwashed" into homosexuality? Evidence of "the left" demanding such?

[Emet]

Homosexuality is a choice because homosexuals themselves chant "recruit, recruit, recruit." Homosexuals demand that such recruitment begin as early as grade school.
Now if you are "born" that way, you wouldn't have to be indoctrinated and brainwashed as the left demands.

Now this on the ugly and very deadly statistics of homosexuality:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

Soooooo...


Homosexuals have an agenda, a chant, and anyone who has ever watched The Puppy Episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode) knows they recruit and win toaster ovens.

And of course, there's the handshake (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/shake.html).

:cool:

[JFrankA]

Did you notice that when you ask the question "When did you decide to be sexually attracted to only women?" to the people who claim homosexuality is a choice, they never ever ever give a straightforward answer?

Maybe because they can't give out a straight answer?

















.....:D

[JFrankA]

So what happened with the sexual basic desire for children that many adults once had when they were children?

Many adults lost the sexual basic desire for children.

It is a change?

Interesting. I remember as a child that I was sexually attracted to people like Barbara Eden.

You're mixing up sexual -philes with sexual orientation again.

[ReverendClog]

I was a homosexual once you know, of course it was before the war.

I had always felt a wistful longing when I saw the odd pack of nancy boys sashaying down the Oxford Streets, twirling their neat moustaches and squealing delightfully. At the time I was engaged to be married with a smashing little filly from down in Sussex, whose name I don't think I ever knew, and being very much in love I drew a veil over my unholy fascination and turned my attention to the study of my beloved antimacassars.
When my fiance was killed horribly whilst fighting a pig I found myself all alone and rootless, all my relatives having died from various fantastical forms of suicide, with only my loyal Heeler, Mr. Turps, my aged batman, Robin Thruttleshank, (my father had had him), and my seventy two staff and the villagers on my estate to keep me company.

Sad to relate, Melancholy o'ertook me, and I wandered as the proverbial, my only comfort being gin and opium, (fortunately the cellars still held several tons of mithridatium - a present from a grateful nation following the first opium war.), often spending days away from the house with only seven or eight of the lowlier underfootmen's cook's scullery boys for company.

It was on one of these wild perambulations, blitherated from my cranium, that I noticed the rather shy way that one of the scullery lad's had of looking upon me, a wild and pure disgust that fired my long dormant bumming fever, and with the cunning of the truly romantic I contrived to occasion his presence in my rooms that evening. I entered my chamber, (having decoyed the rest of the staff by setting fire to the menagerie), and upon spying the boy with a come hither look, leaning seductively upon the window ledge, my fevered brain allowed the all-conquering lust to fill me and I dashed forward into his willing embrace.

I was discovered several hours later, befouled with emission, upon the graveled courtyard beneath my window, a shattered campaign chest beneath my lacerated loins and my face bearing an expression of profound satiation. Days later, having been nursed back to a semblance of health, I came to see that in my dope addled state I had mistaken the travelling furniture my staff had borne whilst following my frenzied wanderings, for a sweet, bashful, possibly five-foot seven, gem eyed young man, and consequently all my deviant lust had been for a wooden travesty, absolving me of the sin of 'batting for the other side'.

As you may know I was later to cut a scandalous gash through the ladies in later years, but there is a rather odd postscript to relate. Ten years later I began to suffer a rather odd pain in my gentleman, and fearing the worst I shot off to the cock doctor in Harley Street who, by dint of careful surgery, (I had my service pistol to his temple), manage to extract from my end-section a tooth. Moreover it was the tooth, (verified by the chaps at the British Museum), of a boy of seventeen and had been embedded there for about ten years!.

P.s. I did think about having the tooth made into a pendant, but I couldn't be bothered and threw the blasted thing away.

PP.s. I never did get to the bottom of it all.

[SnakeTongue]

Interesting. I remember as a child that I was sexually attracted to people like Barbara Eden.

You're mixing up sexual -philes with sexual orientation again.

I am not referring to any paraphilia.

You affirmed that a sexual basic desire never changes.

Why children changes its sexual basic desire for children when it become adults?

That contradicts your basic desire hypothesis.

[ria_rokz]

Homosexuality is a choice because homosexuals themselves chant "recruit, recruit, recruit." Homosexuals demand that such recruitment begin as early as grade school.
Now if you are "born" that way, you wouldn't have to be indoctrinated and brainwashed as the left demands.

Now this on the ugly and very deadly statistics of homosexuality:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

Your boy Frankie Munroe uses books, articles, and statistics that are 20-30 years old. Got any more recent data there, bubs?

[Bishadi]

Huh?



You should do some reading about the Republican Convention of 1912. Teddy, upset that his chosen successor, Taft, failed to follow in his trust-busting footsteps, ran for the nomination. Teddy demolished Taft in the primaries (this was the first year they were held), but Taft controlled the Republican National Committee. At the convention, they gave basically all of the delegates to Taft and he became the nominee despite being spanked in the primary.

Teddy was furious and split, forming the Bull Moose Party. The vast majority of progressives in the Republican Party went with him. From that point on, the sorts of people who were anti-slavery activists began to abandon the Republicans, eventually ending up as Democrats when Teddy's third party failed.

The Republican Party then became the conservative party. The only region where conservatives weren't Republicans was in the Deep South. They HATED Lincoln, a Republican, and stayed with the Democrats as a result.

That is until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. All of the racist a-holes in the Democratic Party jumped off like rats from a sinking ship and joined the Republicans.

Add in some religious nuttiness, and you have today's Republicans.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

i do know the difference of the parties and the history lesson was that to make the statement you did about a group of people

Taft aint the 'party' nor are either 'party' the people themselves in all cases.

it would be like labeling all colored (you pick the flavor) as either good or bad



"Garden?" Is that some kind of sex term? the garden is mother nature.

You breath air from the garden. The garden is where you live and evolved from and mankind created all them god(s).


Simple!




Huh?



So you're saying, like cannibalism, you've had fantasies about screwing a man or having your business handled by one, you've just chosen not to. you saying it, not me.

kind of sick but i can indulge. i think sex in a weightless environment (space) would be just the most.



That's interesting. I've never had such desires (not that there's anything wrong with that!). i was also getting a kick out of you trying to talk about a fantasy of mine simply because i say i dont want to eat people because i may like the taste.




The constant battle to resist temptation has obviously turned you against the source of those powerful desires. I think we all understand the source of your statements with regard to homosexuals much better now.

the source?

are you now going to tell me what the source of my opinion is?

WOW! Lots of fantasies in that funny world you live in!

[A Laughing Baby]

Homosexuality is a choice because homosexuals themselves chant "recruit, recruit, recruit." Homosexuals demand that such recruitment begin as early as grade school.
Now if you are "born" that way, you wouldn't have to be indoctrinated and brainwashed as the left demands.

Now this on the ugly and very deadly statistics of homosexuality:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

Ah, I remember the good old days of grade school, when the teachers would put us in a big pile and chant "recruit, recruit, recruit" at us until we admitted we were gay. Good times.

[Bishadi]

Did you notice that when you ask the question "When did you decide to be sexually attracted to only women?" to the people who claim homosexuality is a choice, they never ever ever give a straightforward answer?

Maybe because they can't give out a straight answer?

















.....:D

i sucked on boobies within minutes of birth; does that count?

Does that make me hetero or homo or perhaps both? I tink freud said, 'its' mom's fault'.


But then again, i could embellish.......................... How about if i say..."When i was an egg, flopping around the fallopian tubes, when my utter half was wiggling up my zona pellucida, i came to be OnE". Does that make me happy to have 2 sides, by 2 separate nodes to be ONE; to have been born?



That question you are ranting on is like asking someone, "hey dood are you making yourself breath or is god doing it?" And then when i say, "i am doing it" the nut replies, "so in your sleep you are making your lungs work and know it?"



:cool:

[Marcus]

Snaketongue, I'm afraid that you have been out-wooed by a true wackatoid, someone who believes that gays are demanding that grade schoolers be recruited.

And no, that's not an ad hom, JonathanQuick is not wrong because he's a wackatoid, he's just wrong.

I'm afraid you and he are going to have some problems, I doubt that he will buy into your assertion that you couldn't choose to be gay if you wanted to.

[Bishadi]

Ah, I remember the good old days of grade school, when the teachers would put us in a big pile and chant "recruit, recruit, recruit" at us until we admitted we were gay. Good times.


does that make you a boyscout, a catholic or just from san fransisco where the public dont believe that sexual orientation is related to biology.

[A Laughing Baby]

Try this on for size. I'm an Eagle Scout AND a Freemason. I must be OOZING homosexuality by this point, you know?

[A Laughing Baby]

I mean, who can forget that fateful day--you're 9 years old. You're back from school. You burst through the door of your house to find your father standing in the hall, holding a gun. He points it at you.

"Son, there comes a point in every man's life when he has to choose. For you, that point is now."

[TraneWreck]

i do know the difference of the parties and the history lesson was that to make the statement you did about a group of people

Taft aint the 'party' nor are either 'party' the people themselves in all cases.

it would be like labeling all colored (you pick the flavor) as either good or bad

No, not really. Someone self-identifying as "Republican" assents to a general set of propositions. Anyone assenting to those propositions is an idiot.

Said assent actually is a choice.


the garden is mother nature.

You breath air from the garden. The garden is where you live and evolved from and mankind created all them god(s).


Simple!

So yes, it was a sex thing. Weird.


you saying it, not me.

No, it was you, you sick, sick pervert. Although, I don't remember the Bible prohibiting cannibalism, so I guess you're ok on that level.


kind of sick but i can indulge. i think sex in a weightless environment (space) would be just the most.

i was also getting a kick out of you trying to talk about a fantasy of mine simply because i say i dont want to eat people because i may like the taste.

You have homosexual and cannibalistic fantasies. Thanks for letting us know.


the source?

are you now going to tell me what the source of my opinion is?

WOW! Lots of fantasies in that funny world you live in!

Yes, you're desperately attracted to men and you also want to eat them. You work hard to avoid *********** and eating men, this has made you angry at homosexuals for tempting you.

Strangely, you don't express as much hate aimed at cannibals. Or maybe you're just mad at all humans for looking so damn tasty.

There's a lesson there, but it would takes someone with more experience with human perversion to sort it out.

[bikerdruid]

Homosexuality is a choice because homosexuals themselves chant "recruit, recruit, recruit." Homosexuals demand that such recruitment begin as early as grade school.


...this is just silly...
in my life as a queer man, i have met hundreds of gay people, both male and female....i have never heard this chant.
perhaps you hang around in different gay crowds than i do.

[Mirrorglass]

Well, in right wing-fundie-crazy speak, "recruitment" is synonymous to "informing about" and "saying it's wrong to persecute".

Don't ask me what "chant" is synonymous to.

[TraneWreck]

Well, in right wing-fundie-crazy speak, "recruitment" is synonymous to "informing about" and "saying it's wrong to persecute".

Don't ask me what "chant" is synonymous to.

It does fascinate me that Conservatives think that homosexuals recruiting members for their groups means, "WE MUST TURN STRAIGHT PEOPLE GAY!"

Instead of, "Hey, you other homosexuals or straight people that support our cause, do you want to be on our mailing list?"

[TraneWreck]

...this is just silly...
in my life as a queer man, i have met hundreds of gay people, both male and female....i have never heard this chant.
perhaps you hang around in different gay crowds than i do.

Of course you'd say that...

And we all know that when someone shouts, "recruit, recruit, recruit" at you, there is no choice but to join.

That's how I ended up selling Amway.

[Mirrorglass]

It does fascinate me that Conservatives think that homosexuals recruiting members for their groups means, "WE MUST TURN STRAIGHT PEOPLE GAY!"

Instead of, "Hey, you other homosexuals or straight people that support our cause, do you want to be on our mailing list?"

Well yeah, but then they start sending you letters infected with gay, and then what are you going to do?

[Alan]

Mailing List? I thought it was the Male-ing Lisp.

I'm bored. :(

[Achán hiNidráne]

2. Sex only for pleasure is unnatural.


So those incapable for siring/bearing children are engaging in "unnatural" sex since they can have it only for pleasure?

[TraneWreck]

So those incapable for siring/bearing children are engaging in "unnatural" sex since they can have it only for pleasure?

I take it you haven't read the whole thread. To save you some time, the answer to the question according to SnakeTongue is "Applejacks." Except it makes even less sense than that.

Imagine what it would be like if your calculus teacher tried to teach you by making fart noises with his armpit. That's basically how SnakeTongue has explained his position.

[JFrankA]

Of course you'd say that...

And we all know that when someone shouts, "recruit, recruit, recruit" at you, there is no choice but to join.

That's how I ended up selling Amway.

I knew it!!!!!!!!!

"Teh Gay" is nothin' but a Pyramid Scheme!!!!



:D

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well, in right wing-fundie-crazy speak, "recruitment" is synonymous to "informing about" and "saying it's wrong to persecute".

Actually, I think it's synonymous with "I hope that cutie puts out on the first date."

[JFrankA]

Did you notice that when you ask the question "When did you decide to be sexually attracted to only women?" to the people who claim homosexuality is a choice, they never ever ever give a straightforward answer?

Maybe because they can't give out a straight answer?


i sucked on boobies within minutes of birth; does that count?

Does that make me hetero or homo or perhaps both? I tink freud said, 'its' mom's fault'.


But then again, i could embellish.......................... How about if i say..."When i was an egg, flopping around the fallopian tubes, when my utter half was wiggling up my zona pellucida, i came to be OnE". Does that make me happy to have 2 sides, by 2 separate nodes to be ONE; to have been born?



That question you are ranting on is like asking someone, "hey dood are you making yourself breath or is god doing it?" And then when i say, "i am doing it" the nut replies, "so in your sleep you are making your lungs work and know it?"



:cool:

See what I mean? No straight answer......

[Achán hiNidráne]

I take it you haven't read the whole thread.

Yeah, I thought that was the last post on the thread. My bad.

(I was WRONG!)

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, I thought that was the last post on the thread. My bad.

(I was WRONG!)

Are you kidding? You still have a chance. There's no bad...only hope that someone can make it out.

[JFrankA]

I am not referring to any paraphilia.

Yes you are:

Paraphilia:
a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices, as pedophilia, sadomasochism, or exhibitionism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphilia

You affirmed that a sexual basic desire never changes.

I should clarify. When I say "basic desires" in the case of sex, for there are many desires people have other than sexual, I do not mean a -phile. I mean sexual orientation and maybe preferences. But to be honest, and looking back on our conversation, I'm beginning to think that I may have been wrong in using the term "basic desires" because it's too general. So again, my apologies. We are talking about sexual orientation, so I shall use that term from now on.

Why children changes its sexual basic desire for children when it become adults?

That contradicts your basic desire hypothesis.

Not at all. If I may go back to my food analogy, (which I will admit is a pretty simplified and clumsy version of the whole picture).

Let's say an infant loves apple juice. As that infant gets older, it still likes apple juice but is old enough to now eat sliced apples, then full apples, then as that infant goes into her/his elderly years, they still like apples but only as applesauce.

It's kind of clumsy analogy I admit, but the point is this: there may be changes in behavior, changes in details, changes in circumstances, etc, but the basic desire, in this case, sexual orientation, (and maybe some preferences) does not change.

That's why I said that you are mixing sexual orientation and -philes.

[SnakeTongue]

Yes you are:

Paraphilia:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphilia

My questions is about adults who do not like children.

It have nothing to do with a paraphilia.

I should clarify. When I say "basic desires" in the case of sex, for there are many desires people have other than sexual, I do not mean a -phile. I mean sexual orientation and maybe preferences. But to be honest, and looking back on our conversation, I'm beginning to think that I may have been wrong in using the term "basic desires" because it's too general. So again, my apologies. We are talking about sexual orientation, so I shall use that term from now on.

So you are now supporting your hypothesis of sexual basic desire with the definition of sexual orientation?

Not at all. If I may go back to my food analogy, (which I will admit is a pretty simplified and clumsy version of the whole picture).

Let's say an infant loves apple juice. As that infant gets older, it still likes apple juice but is old enough to now eat sliced apples, then full apples, then as that infant goes into her/his elderly years, they still like apples but only as applesauce.

It's kind of clumsy analogy I admit, but the point is this: there may be changes in behavior, changes in details, changes in circumstances, etc, but the basic desire, in this case, sexual orientation, (and maybe some preferences) does not change.

That's why I said that you are mixing sexual orientation and -philes.

What you mean by some preferences? Which preferences are that which are not defined in the sexual orientation?

[ZirconBlue]

Are you kidding? You still have a chance. There's no bad...only hope that someone can make it out.

Ah-HA! Recruiting for the Homosexuals, I see.


My questions is about adults who do not like children.

It have nothing to do with a paraphilia.

I guess you didn't click the link, since "paraphilia" and "pedophilia" are not synonyms.

[JFrankA]

My questions is about adults who do not like children.

It have nothing to do with a paraphilia.

Yes it does. You are asking me why we all don't grow up to be pedophiles. Some people, however, do.

So you are now supporting your hypothesis of sexual basic desire with the definition of sexual orientation?

Yes, because there are some things that people always had a preference. That's not saying that I'm including all preferences for one thing over another, nor am I saying that the behavior of some of the preferences can change or mature throughout one's life, but there are preferences that people have that persist through out one's life.


What you mean by some preferences? Which preferences are that which are not defined in the sexual orientation?

It could be anything, including some sexual -philes. Hair color, attitude, body type, sound of voice, circumstances, whatever. I will agree with you if you say some of these are learned however, not all can be. There are preferences that people have had throughout all their lives and cannot change no matter what happens to them. It's persists in more than just sexual preferences, too. It could be something as simple as preferring the color blue.

We are basically talking about what people are attracted to, what their likes and dislikes are when it comes to sexual attraction. It is more complicated that "it's a choice" because the next question is "why did you choose X over Y and Z and however many other things?"

It's also more complicated than "you learn all the things you like" because that simply cannot apply to everything. There are preferences that people will always like and dislike and it can't be "unlearned". Now the behavior towards that preference may change, but that preference never ever leaves a person.

This is why I used "basic desire" when speaking about this idea in the terms of sexual attraction. We are not talking just sexual orientation, but other preferences that never ever leave us. Those things cannot be "unlearned". Brain Placidity can change the behavior of reaction and action of some of those preferences, but it cannot remove them completely. And there is no proof that Brain Placidity does.

[SnakeTongue]

I guess you didn't click the link, since "paraphilia" and "pedophilia" are not synonyms.

Yes, I know that.

Do you wish to answer the question?

Why the sexual desire of children for children changes when the children becomes adults?

[Alan]

It's annoying that I'm talking a lot about this subject, possibly.

I have written earlier here that there is evidence for sexual fluidity within biologically-determined boundaries.

A person who is sexually attracted to people of one sex exclusively, for example, might find themself attracted to different body shapes and ages and be interested in different behaviours with others as time goes on. That's sexual fluidity. Nobody should deny that. For people who are bisexual, there is an additional axis for the fluidity to be seen on.

The evidence for the biological boundaries? Under your nose in this thread (but you, apparently ideologically, won't accept it).

[MysterOnyx]

I told somebody that a homosexual cannot be aroused by a member of the opposite sex unless he or she is tricked (thinks the person is the opposite sex, for example). They said, "long ago when homosexuality was even more frowned upon, gay men would marry and have children, living seemingly normal lives. Therefore, gay people can be aroused by the opposite sex if they put their mind to it."

I had two responses:

1. Wouldn't a person who is aroused by both sexes a bisexual rather than a homosexual?

2. Assuming you're straight, imagine trying to have sex with someone of the same sex. Is it possible to be aroused by them simply by choice?

And even then for #2, if you can be aroused by the same sex, then you'd be bisexual and not straight. So, it seems to end in a non-falsifiable distinction. A straight person could never be attracted to the same sex, or they technically would be bisexual / homosexual.

[JFrankA]

I told somebody that a homosexual cannot be aroused by a member of the opposite sex unless he or she is tricked (thinks the person is the opposite sex, for example). They said, "long ago when homosexuality was even more frowned upon, gay men would marry and have children, living seemingly normal lives. Therefore, gay people can be aroused by the opposite sex if they put their mind to it."

I had two responses:

1. Wouldn't a person who is aroused by both sexes a bisexual rather than a homosexual?

2. Assuming you're straight, imagine trying to have sex with someone of the same sex. Is it possible to be aroused by them simply by choice?

And even then for #2, if you can be aroused by the same sex, then you'd be bisexual and not straight. So, it seems to end in a non-falsifiable distinction. A straight person could never be attracted to the same sex, or they technically would be bisexual / homosexual.

...you haven't read this thread all the way through, have you?

[MummRa]

All I know is this...

Being raised religious has ruined the way I feel about myself. My self-image is beyond awful, and I cannot enter into normal relationships with people, because I spent the first 30 years of my life convinced I was evil, and beating myself for not turning out the way God wanted me to.

I cheer the *********** day I tossed that rope off my neck, but even as an atheist now I can't escape it. Even now I am still ********** up and alone because of what idiots and the God did to me. Hopefully one day I won't be, but it's a long *********** road back.

Incidentally, someone up there mentioned a stat that "gays have on average 28 to 106 partners a year." If that's the case, then there must be a few Wilt Chamberlain-like gays out there to make up for the 0 I've had for 31 years running (though it is a really awesome streak....).

The only choice I made relating to my sexuality was to leave the cesspool that told me I was wrong for being born. Nobody would choose the life I have had, and the loathing and fear I feel. People who think homosexuality can be changed like a lightswitch have some damned nerve, I must say.

[Dani]

I told somebody that a homosexual cannot be aroused by a member of the opposite sex unless he or she is tricked (thinks the person is the opposite sex, for example). They said, "long ago when homosexuality was even more frowned upon, gay men would marry and have children, living seemingly normal lives. Therefore, gay people can be aroused by the opposite sex if they put their mind to it."

I had two responses:

1. Wouldn't a person who is aroused by both sexes a bisexual rather than a homosexual?

2. Assuming you're straight, imagine trying to have sex with someone of the same sex. Is it possible to be aroused by them simply by choice?

And even then for #2, if you can be aroused by the same sex, then you'd be bisexual and not straight. So, it seems to end in a non-falsifiable distinction. A straight person could never be attracted to the same sex, or they technically would be bisexual / homosexual.

Categories are useful, but sexual orientation is more a continuum. If a person has sexual intercourse only with people of the same gender, we will refer to that person as homosexual. However this doesn't mean that her/his sexual orientation is exclusively homosexual. The definitions we use are nuanced by both cultural and biological factors in conflicting ways.

Even if I agree that sexual orientation is mostly biological, there is an unavoidable cultural factor to it, and when we refer to other people we don't know all the facts in great part due to the enviornmental pressure. Sometimes the environmental factors conflict with biological factors, especially when the environment doesn't particularly favor a specific sexual orientation. The paradigmatic example of this is closet homosexuality, but it's also conceivable in today's society that a person who is an avowed homosexual can be aroused by members of the other gender.

Also (and I'm heterosexual) imagining myself having sex with someone of the same gender entails dealing with my cultural baggage, so the question is tricky. I think it's kind of gross, but it shouldn't necessarily be. I just learned to see it this way.

[DC]

Categories are useful, but sexual orientation is more a continuum. If a person has sexual intercourse only with people of the same gender, we will refer to that person as homosexual. However this doesn't mean that her/his sexual orientation is exclusively homosexual. The definitions we use are nuanced by both cultural and biological factors in conflicting ways.

Even if I agree that sexual orientation is mostly biological, there is an unavoidable cultural factor to it, and when we refer to other people we don't know all the facts in great part due to the enviornmental pressure. Sometimes the environmental factors conflict with biological factors, especially when the environment doesn't particularly favor a specific sexual orientation. The paradigmatic example of this is closet homosexuality, but it's also conceivable in today's society that a person who is an avowed homosexual can be aroused by members of the other gender.

Also (and I'm heterosexual) imagining myself having sex with someone of the same gender entails dealing with my cultural baggage, so the question is tricky. I think it's kind of gross, but it shouldn't necessarily be. I just learned to see it this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

[bikerdruid]

All I know is this...

Being raised religious has ruined the way I feel about myself. My self-image is beyond awful, and I cannot enter into normal relationships with people, because I spent the first 30 years of my life convinced I was evil, and beating myself for not turning out the way God wanted me to.

I cheer the *********** day I tossed that rope off my neck, but even as an atheist now I can't escape it. Even now I am still ********** up and alone because of what idiots and the God did to me. Hopefully one day I won't be, but it's a long *********** road back.

Incidentally, someone up there mentioned a stat that "gays have on average 28 to 106 partners a year." If that's the case, then there must be a few Wilt Chamberlain-like gays out there to make up for the 0 I've had for 31 years running (though it is a really awesome streak....).

The only choice I made relating to my sexuality was to leave the cesspool that told me I was wrong for being born. Nobody would choose the life I have had, and the loathing and fear I feel. People who think homosexuality can be changed like a lightswitch have some damned nerve, I must say.

excellent post.
i can strongly identify with this statement.
being raised in a very catholic household and being queer has done this to me too.
i have recovered from catholicism, as much as that is possible, but i still view myself as 'damaged goods'.
if being queer is a choice.....i would have chosen 'straight', for sure.

[Mycroft]

I told somebody that a homosexual cannot be aroused by a member of the opposite sex unless he or she is tricked (thinks the person is the opposite sex, for example). They said, "long ago when homosexuality was even more frowned upon, gay men would marry and have children, living seemingly normal lives. Therefore, gay people can be aroused by the opposite sex if they put their mind to it."

I had two responses:

1. Wouldn't a person who is aroused by both sexes a bisexual rather than a homosexual?

2. Assuming you're straight, imagine trying to have sex with someone of the same sex. Is it possible to be aroused by them simply by choice?

And even then for #2, if you can be aroused by the same sex, then you'd be bisexual and not straight. So, it seems to end in a non-falsifiable distinction. A straight person could never be attracted to the same sex, or they technically would be bisexual / homosexual.

I think most people who have been through puberty have had the experience of being "aroused" at an inconvenient time or place without apparently having the correct stimulation available. Intimate contact is still intimate contact, so even though your preference may be for one type of body, it doesn't mean you will be unable to function in the presence of a different type of body.

[Aitch]

I think most people who have been through puberty have had the experience of being "aroused" at an inconvenient time or place without apparently having the correct stimulation available...

Yeah, in the words of Xander Harris ...


I'm 17, Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex.


Sitting over the axle of a bus or train apparently works too. :cool:

[MysterOnyx]

...you haven't read this thread all the way through, have you?

I haven't read any of it. I decided to reply w/ my thoughts rather than make a new thread.

[MysterOnyx]

I think most people who have been through puberty have had the experience of being "aroused" at an inconvenient time or place without apparently having the correct stimulation available.

Sometimes we become aroused for random physiological reasons. So, you've established that we can become aroused without needing a person you're sexually attracted to within your sensory range.


Intimate contact is still intimate contact, so even though your preference may be for one type of body, it doesn't mean you will be unable to function in the presence of a different type of body.

Are you suggesting that a man intimately touching a heterosexual man will cause arousal in the same way a woman touching a heterosexual man will?

[Alan]

That is definitely a bisexual arousal pattern.

[Taarkin]

Are you suggesting that a man intimately touching a heterosexual man will cause arousal in the same way a woman touching a heterosexual man will?
It's called "masturbation".

[MysterOnyx]

It's called "masturbation".

If when masturbating the cognitive focus is on somebody of the opposite sex, then it's heterosexual. If the cognitive focus is on somebody of the same sex, it's homosexual.

[MummRa]

Thanks, bikerdruid. I'm really looking forward to hanging out with some other homos at TAM. This will be the first time I have interacted with gay people (other than a 60-minute lunch last year) since my boyfriend I broke up 11 years ago. So it's well past due. :)

[Mycroft]

Are you suggesting that a man intimately touching a heterosexual man will cause arousal in the same way a woman touching a heterosexual man will?

I'm more than suggesting it.

Will it be exactly the same? No. If he is a heterosexual man being stimulated by another man he will likely have all kinds of negative emotions. Guilt, shame, fear, disgust...but the equipment isn't designed to be picky about when and how it functions. Stimulation is stimulation, and the body takes over.

Just because you can have sex with a man doesn't necessarily make you gay or bi. That comes from wanting to, and also having the appropriate emotional responses to go with it. In exactly the same way, a gay man may be perfectly capable of having sex with a woman, and many do. It's a lot easier when society encourages it.

[JFrankA]

I'm more than suggesting it.

Will it be exactly the same? No. If he is a heterosexual man being stimulated by another man he will likely have all kinds of negative emotions. Guilt, shame, fear, disgust...but the equipment isn't designed to be picky about when and how it functions. Stimulation is stimulation, and the body takes over.

Just because you can have sex with a man doesn't necessarily make you gay or bi. That comes from wanting to, and also having the appropriate emotional responses to go with it. In exactly the same way, a gay man may be perfectly capable of having sex with a woman, and many do. It's a lot easier when society encourages it.

I completely agree. I bolded two points because, for me, this is what makes the difference between hetero- and homo- sexual.

[JFrankA]

If when masturbating the cognitive focus is on somebody of the opposite sex, then it's heterosexual. If the cognitive focus is on somebody of the same sex, it's homosexual.

No, that's called fantasy. It's not the same as reality. It's not as simple as you think it is.

[Marcus]

I'm more than suggesting it.

Will it be exactly the same? No. If he is a heterosexual man being stimulated by another man he will likely have all kinds of negative emotions. Guilt, shame, fear, disgust...but the equipment isn't designed to be picky about when and how it functions. Stimulation is stimulation, and the body takes over.

Just because you can have sex with a man doesn't necessarily make you gay or bi. That comes from wanting to, and also having the appropriate emotional responses to go with it. In exactly the same way, a gay man may be perfectly capable of having sex with a woman, and many do. It's a lot easier when society encourages it.
Interesting. I find it difficult to believe, that a heterosexual man could be aroused by another man, but I suppose I shouldn't discount the possibility, since I haven't known anyone who has been in this situation. I presume you have some reason for thinking this? Anecdotal evidence? Of course, I can see a person making this happen by ignoring where the stimulation is coming from, thinking about girls and treating it as a matrubatory situation. But this sounds like you could make someone become aroused against their will.

[Taarkin]

Interesting. I find it difficult to believe, that a heterosexual man could be aroused by another man, but I suppose I shouldn't discount the possibility, since I haven't known anyone who has been in this situation. I presume you have some reason for thinking this? Anecdotal evidence? Of course, I can see a person making this happen by ignoring where the stimulation is coming from, thinking about girls and treating it as a matrubatory situation. But this sounds like you could make someone become aroused against their will.
Boners happen. They are not always the result of pure will.

[JFrankA]

Boners happen. They are not always the result of pure will.

Agreed.

But why just boners? Women get aroused too.

The point is this: Situations can cause arousal as well. Sure a person of one sex might find a a person of the opposite sex sexy, but what really gets a people (especially women) aroused is foreplay and fantasy. And if that foreplay and fantasy is done right, a member of the same sex can be involved. That doesn't make that person a homosexual nor even bi.

[Mycroft]

Interesting. I find it difficult to believe, that a heterosexual man could be aroused by another man, but I suppose I shouldn't discount the possibility, since I haven't known anyone who has been in this situation. I presume you have some reason for thinking this? Anecdotal evidence? Of course, I can see a person making this happen by ignoring where the stimulation is coming from, thinking about girls and treating it as a matrubatory situation. But this sounds like you could make someone become aroused against their will.

Sometimes people who are raped have orgasms while being raped. Why? It's biology. The body is programmed to behave in certain ways.

Under normal circumstances it won't come up, no pun intended, a heterosexual man has no reason to try to have sex with another man. But a homosexual man does have reason to have sex with a woman, and that reason is that society places a lot of pressure on people to conform to the norm, and the norm is heterosexuality.

[Arcade22]

Interesting. I find it difficult to believe, that a heterosexual man could be aroused by another man, but I suppose I shouldn't discount the possibility, since I haven't known anyone who has been in this situation. I presume you have some reason for thinking this? Anecdotal evidence? Of course, I can see a person making this happen by ignoring where the stimulation is coming from, thinking about girls and treating it as a matrubatory situation. But this sounds like you could make someone become aroused against their will.

Dude, some of those 'guys' can be just as pretty as girls. Though i guess you would need to be some 'homosexuality' to get the party started, but then again talking about human sexuality in binary terms like 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' is just dumb.

[ZirconBlue]

Interesting. I find it difficult to believe, that a heterosexual man could be aroused by another man, but I suppose I shouldn't discount the possibility, since I haven't known anyone who has been in this situation.


Do you think that all the "actors" in gay porn are actually gay?

[Marcus]

Sometimes people who are raped have orgasms while being raped. Why? It's biology. The body is programmed to behave in certain ways.

Under normal circumstances it won't come up, no pun intended, a heterosexual man has no reason to try to have sex with another man. But a homosexual man does have reason to have sex with a woman, and that reason is that society places a lot of pressure on people to conform to the norm, and the norm is heterosexuality.Wow is that really true, about the rape thing? I thought it was just a porn fantasy.

Dude, some of those 'guys' can be just as pretty as girls. Though i guess you would need to be some 'homosexuality' to get the party started, but then again talking about human sexuality in binary terms like 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' is just dumb.I'm aware there is a continuum, what surprises me is that a completely straight male would be aroused by a male.

Do you think that all the "actors" in gay porn are actually gay?
I had assumed they were at least bi, to allow them to perform, but perhaps that's wrong.

Okay, I believe you guys, mostly. As a completely binary heterosexual, with no attractions to males whatsoever, I'm still having trouble imagining being aroused by a male against my will, but I don't think I will put it to the test.

[DC]

Do you think that all the "actors" in gay porn are actually gay?

well i actually did :blush:

[katy_did]

Dude, some of those 'guys' can be just as pretty as girls. Though i guess you would need to be some 'homosexuality' to get the party started, but then again talking about human sexuality in binary terms like 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' is just dumb.
Yeah, this. Talking about sexuality as if it were some kind of fixed identity that a person just is has never made a whole lot of sense to me.

[tesscaline]

Wow is that really true, about the rape thing? I thought it was just a porn fantasy. Yes, it's really true.

I'm aware there is a continuum, what surprises me is that a completely straight male would be aroused by a male.If you close your eyes, can you really really tell if the mouth on your nether regions is male or female? Really? A mouth is, after all, just a mouth...


I had assumed they were at least bi, to allow them to perform, but perhaps that's wrong.Yeah, you're wrong. There are plenty of "completely" straight men who do gay porn, just for the money.

Okay, I believe you guys, mostly. As a completely binary heterosexual, with no attractions to males whatsoever, I'm still having trouble imagining being aroused by a male against my will, but I don't think I will put it to the test.That's fine... The problem is when you take your own incredulousness and try to apply it to situations involving other people. :)

[Marcus]

That's fine... The problem is when you take your own incredulousness and try to apply it to situations involving other people. :)
Not to worry, these situations don't come up for me in real life.:)

I will make one further observation, I'm not yet convinced that no thought process is involved. After all, one's hand can cause arousal, but thought is needed, I doubt if any of us become aroused while showering or going to the bathroom.

I would be interested in learning how the heterosexual gay porn actors do it. Do they think about women while performing? In your mouth example, if my eyes were closed and I mistakenly believed a female was involved, certainly I could become aroused. If I knew a male was involved, and I wasn't, say, pretending it was a female, I doubt it.

[Marcus]

Wow is that really true, about the rape thing? I thought it was just a porn fantasy

Yes, it's really true.
Not to be too picky, but this is JREF, do you have any evidence for this? I'm not saying that I don't believe you, just that I would like to see the evidence.

[Emet]

Not to be too picky, but this is JREF, do you have any evidence for this? I'm not saying that I don't believe you, just that I would like to see the evidence.

Well, short of videos, I'm not sure what evidence you are requesting.

Try these for starters:

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender

[ZirconBlue]

well i actually did :blush:

As an example, famed (straight) porn actor "Peter North" got his start in gay porn as "Matt Ramsey".

[Alan]

There is one performer who has said that nobody in gay pornography is gay. Jack Roys is his pseudonym.

Which is clearly absurd.

Although saying that about lesbian pornography would for some reason not be taken as such a big claim.

[tesscaline]

Not to worry, these situations don't come up for me in real life.:)

I will make one further observation, I'm not yet convinced that no thought process is involved. After all, one's hand can cause arousal, but thought is needed, I doubt if any of us become aroused while showering or going to the bathroom. Um... My turn to ask for evidence (someone kindly provided the evidence for my statement for me). What makes you think that "thought is necessary" for physical arousal?

I would be interested in learning how the heterosexual gay porn actors do it. Do they think about women while performing? In your mouth example, if my eyes were closed and I mistakenly believed a female was involved, certainly I could become aroused. If I knew a male was involved, and I wasn't, say, pretending it was a female, I doubt it.There are any number of ways. I'm not a man, so I can't tell you what men think about. However, if I want to "perform" for someone, but am not turned on enough to do so, I can make myself turned on enough by thinking about something that turns me on (whether that's a person or an act or a set of words depends on the situation). I can also close my eyes and just focus on the physical stimulation separately from any thought about who may be carrying out that physical stimulation. The inside of man's mouth and a woman's mouth really don't feel different from one another (yes, I know that from experience, no I will not go into detail :) ), just like a blonde's mouth doesn't feel any different from a brunette's.

[Marcus]

Well, short of videos, I'm not sure what evidence you are requesting.

Try these for starters:

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender
That first link is interesting, it is bit muddled because they are addressing rape by a male of a female. They do talk about being aroused against one's will by a female, they may be implying that a male can be aroused against his will by a male, especially in the case of pressure on the prostate gland causing an erection. Unfortunately they don't give any citations, or any links to relevant data or studies on the subject.

Is there a similar page that addresses females having orgasms while being raped?

[ThunderChunky]

That first link is interesting, it is bit muddled because they are addressing rape by a male of a female. They do talk about being aroused against one's will by a female, they may be implying that a male can be aroused against his will by a male, especially in the case of pressure on the prostate gland causing an erection. Unfortunately they don't give any citations, or any links to relevant data or studies on the subject.

Is there a similar page that addresses females having orgasms while being raped?

His second link has the reference.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WHN-4BRTKC2-7&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5d16ed7bc168370c3ef80609c2601bfa&searchtype=a

[tesscaline]

That first link is interesting, it is bit muddled because they are addressing rape by a male of a female. They do talk about being aroused against one's will by a female, they may be implying that a male can be aroused against his will by a male, especially in the case of pressure on the prostate gland causing an erection. Unfortunately they don't give any citations, or any links to relevant data or studies on the subject.

Is there a similar page that addresses females having orgasms while being raped?Being aroused against one's will is being aroused against one's will, whether the person doing the arousing is male or female. I don't know why you think there needs to be a distinction...

[JFrankA]

Not to worry, these situations don't come up for me in real life.:)

I will make one further observation, I'm not yet convinced that no thought process is involved. After all, one's hand can cause arousal, but thought is needed, I doubt if any of us become aroused while showering or going to the bathroom.

I would be interested in learning how the heterosexual gay porn actors do it. Do they think about women while performing? In your mouth example, if my eyes were closed and I mistakenly believed a female was involved, certainly I could become aroused. If I knew a male was involved, and I wasn't, say, pretending it was a female, I doubt it.

Why the focus on male porno actors? There's plenty of female porno actresses who are heterosexual and do girl-on-girl scenes. In fact, there are quite a few who say they are heterosexual and will only have sex with women on film.

Beyond porn, there are a few women I know who are heterosexual, yet, given the right circumstances and setting, would be with a woman. That doesn't make her homosexual nor bi. Just a set of circumstances that fuel her arousal.

[DC]

As an example, famed (straight) porn actor "Peter North" got his start in gay porn as "Matt Ramsey".

ha another sterotype is , porn actors are lousy actors :D

[GrandMasterFox]

I'm not yet convinced that no thought process is involved.

So you think there's no such thing as drugs that cause you to get arousel even against your own will?

What about strangulation?

[Mycroft]

So you think there's no such thing as drugs that cause you to get arousel even against your own will?

What about strangulation?

Viagra is probably less risky. :)

[Marcus]

Why the focus on male porno actors? There's plenty of female porno actresses who are heterosexual and do girl-on-girl scenes. In fact, there are quite a few who say they are heterosexual and will only have sex with women on film.

Beyond porn, there are a few women I know who are heterosexual, yet, given the right circumstances and setting, would be with a woman. That doesn't make her homosexual nor bi. Just a set of circumstances that fuel her arousal.
Since female porn acting involves a lot of fake orgasms ( I think I'm safe in making that assumption!) it would be rather harder to tell if they were becoming aroused. Still, if a woman is being truthful about regularly having orgasms on screen with another woman, that really sounds like she's bisexual.

Yes, I know, it's a continuum, in the example of your friends above, perhaps they are 2's on a 1 to 10 scale.

[JFrankA]

Since female porn acting involves a lot of fake orgasms ( I think I'm safe in making that assumption!) it would be rather harder to tell if they were becoming aroused. Still, if a woman is being truthful about regularly having orgasms on screen with another woman, that really sounds like she's bisexual.

Yes, I know, it's a continuum, in the example of your friends above, perhaps they are 2's on a 1 to 10 scale.

The more I read this thread, the less I'm convinced that sexual orientation as a "scale". A scale is too limiting and strict, and people's emotions and desires are not like that. I believe it's a mix of nature and nurture, throw in a lot of emotions, fantasies, circumstance and type of people involved, and everyone is bisexual or not, depending on the elements above.

...just an opinion.