Thread: Secular reasons against homosexuality?

I was viewing a recent online debate between two fellow students, both were accomplished in academics, I.E one was a valedictorian candidate and both had SATs over 2,000. The discussion was on homosexuality, one student arguing that it was socially acceptable while the other stating that they disagreed. A quote from the latter "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical." It somewhat perturbed me, as I'm not terribly aware of scientifically grounded reasons to be against homosexuality "Asides from reproduction and STD risks". I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment. Am I being obstinate and downright oblivious to the latter student's correctness, or is the latter student a travesty of what academic achievement should provide?

With incredibly intelligent individuals throughout history being homosexual "Alan Turing?", how could one say that it was logical to disagree with homosexuality? I hope I'm not being incompetent here, and feel free to correct any misconceptions of mine.

long ago and far away, when i studied debate
it was kinda like war games
we were given a topic and position and told to attack or defend that position

I found it difficult to work up much passion for positions with which I had no empathy.

debate, you say
do you think the debaters chose the topic and positions?

Originally Posted by sculptor

long ago and far away, when i studied debate
it was kinda like war games
we were given a topic and position and told to attack or defend that position

I found it difficult to work up much passion for positions with which I had no empathy.

debate, you say
do you think the debaters chose the topic and positions?

Yes, it was a voluntary debate.

Originally Posted by shlunka

With incredibly intelligent individuals throughout history being homosexual "Alan Turing?", how could one say that it was logical to disagree with homosexuality?

Most great minds in history didn't have good information--it has only been in recent decades that we've really started to understand human sexuality, how diverse it is and its probable links to genetics/prenatal conditions. Nor until recently have we had a reasonable understanding of the sexual life of animals including our closest relatives.

There's also humans rather amazing ability to compartmentalize logic from personal bias about certain behaviors and form elaborate self-deceiving arguments to support that bias.

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by sculptor

long ago and far away, when i studied debate
it was kinda like war games
we were given a topic and position and told to attack or defend that position

I found it difficult to work up much passion for positions with which I had no empathy.

debate, you say
do you think the debaters chose the topic and positions?

Yes, it was a voluntary debate.

who won?
one winning arguement?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by sculptor

long ago and far away, when i studied debate
it was kinda like war games
we were given a topic and position and told to attack or defend that position

I found it difficult to work up much passion for positions with which I had no empathy.

debate, you say
do you think the debaters chose the topic and positions?

Yes, it was a voluntary debate.

who won?
one winning arguement?

The latter student won, though it may have been due to the other student's loss of interest, as it was over the internet.

Originally Posted by shlunka

I was viewing a recent online debate between two fellow students, both were accomplished in academics, I.E one was a valedictorian candidate and both had SATs over 2,000. The discussion was on homosexuality, one student arguing that it was socially acceptable while the other stating that they disagreed. A quote from the latter "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical." It somewhat perturbed me, as I'm not terribly aware of scientifically grounded reasons to be against homosexuality "Asides from reproduction and STD risks". I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment. Am I being obstinate and downright oblivious to the latter student's correctness, or is the latter student a travesty of what academic achievement should provide?

With incredibly intelligent individuals throughout history being homosexual "Alan Turing?", how could one say that it was logical to disagree with homosexuality? I hope I'm not being incompetent here, and feel free to correct any misconceptions of mine.

Ha! Why do they make left handed mandolins? Of course the really good guitar players didn't need a left handed version. Debate that.

No debate there. We're old enough that my husband holds a view (but not very firmly) that rock music died when Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin did.

Originally Posted by shlunka

I was viewing a recent online debate between two fellow students, both were accomplished in academics, I.E one was a valedictorian candidate and both had SATs over 2,000. The discussion was on homosexuality, one student arguing that it was socially acceptable while the other stating that they disagreed. A quote from the latter "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical." It somewhat perturbed me, as I'm not terribly aware of scientifically grounded reasons to be against homosexuality "Asides from reproduction and STD risks". I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment. Am I being obstinate and downright oblivious to the latter student's correctness, or is the latter student a travesty of what academic achievement should provide?

With incredibly intelligent individuals throughout history being homosexual "Alan Turing?", how could one say that it was logical to disagree with homosexuality? I hope I'm not being incompetent here, and feel free to correct any misconceptions of mine.

Is there a link to the debate so we can know what arguments were made?

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by shlunka

I was viewing a recent online debate between two fellow students, both were accomplished in academics, I.E one was a valedictorian candidate and both had SATs over 2,000. The discussion was on homosexuality, one student arguing that it was socially acceptable while the other stating that they disagreed. A quote from the latter "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical." It somewhat perturbed me, as I'm not terribly aware of scientifically grounded reasons to be against homosexuality "Asides from reproduction and STD risks". I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment. Am I being obstinate and downright oblivious to the latter student's correctness, or is the latter student a travesty of what academic achievement should provide?

With incredibly intelligent individuals throughout history being homosexual "Alan Turing?", how could one say that it was logical to disagree with homosexuality? I hope I'm not being incompetent here, and feel free to correct any misconceptions of mine.

Is there a link to the debate so we can know what arguments were made?

Unfortunately no, as it would reveal my school of attendance, fellow students, and various other bits of personal information.

The only "scientific" - which I'd consider to be bad science - evidence that I can possibly think of makes all sorts of assumptions about homosexuality, and irresponsibility. The assumption being that all homosexuals participate in sexual behaviour that includes an active and passive partner, and that irresponsibility can lead to passive partners receiving serious injuries from said behaviour. This is just as likely for heterosexual partners as it is for homosexual ones - not to mention the fact that irresponsibility does not have anything to do with sexual orientation. Some people are going to make irresponsible decisions, and sometimes those decisions have pretty serious consequences. If the latter made such an argument, I do not see the relevance to the debated subject.

Originally Posted by adelady

No debate there. We're old enough that my husband holds a view (but not very firmly) that rock music died when Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin did.

Maybe, but my point is the fact they had a debate at all is as illogical as in debating the morality of the lefthandedness of mankind. Morality ....my @ss.

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by shlunka

I was viewing a recent online debate between two fellow students, both were accomplished in academics, I.E one was a valedictorian candidate and both had SATs over 2,000. The discussion was on homosexuality, one student arguing that it was socially acceptable while the other stating that they disagreed. A quote from the latter "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical." It somewhat perturbed me, as I'm not terribly aware of scientifically grounded reasons to be against homosexuality "Asides from reproduction and STD risks". I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment. Am I being obstinate and downright oblivious to the latter student's correctness, or is the latter student a travesty of what academic achievement should provide?

With incredibly intelligent individuals throughout history being homosexual "Alan Turing?", how could one say that it was logical to disagree with homosexuality? I hope I'm not being incompetent here, and feel free to correct any misconceptions of mine.

Is there a link to the debate so we can know what arguments were made?

Unfortunately no, as it would reveal my school of attendance, fellow students, and various other bits of personal information.

Is there any way you can get a transcript and remove identifying information from it?

Bah!
Scientific argument?
Gay people are responsible for global warming.
They're trying to make it so hot that I have to remove my clothes, all so that they can slake their unnatural lusts by watching me through their satellites!

Originally Posted by shlunka

I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment.

Wouldn't that rule out disagreeing with the morals of anybody on anything?

Originally Posted by sampson

Originally Posted by adelady

No debate there. We're old enough that my husband holds a view (but not very firmly) that rock music died when Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin did.

Maybe, but my point is the fact they had a debate at all is as illogical as in debating the morality of the lefthandedness of mankind. Morality ....my @ss.

Have you ever met a left-handed person? I for one refuse to accept the postulation that left-handed peoples are in any way as moral as us right-handed peoples. I have scientific evidence to back this up, but don't ask me for it - because I will then resort to ad hominem and question your objective opinion by implying you are a part of the conspiratorial agenda of the Lefty Cabal. Left-handed peoples' "born this way" rhetoric is tired and hollow. Everybody knows its a matter of choice. Follow the money, man... Follow the Money.

As a side note, I found this hilarious cheat sheet for those who want to make a "secular" argument against homosexuality. Apologetics at its finest.

How To Make A Valid Secular Case Against Homosexual Practice

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by shlunka

I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment.

Wouldn't that rule out disagreeing with the morals of anybody on anything?

I don't see how you can have morality in the same sentence with scientific and logical. Morality is mostly opinion and is subjective. It doesn't even seem like something that ca be debatable because you cannot say which morality is right or wrong. Neither are right, neither are wrong.

If you are debating morality within a religion, and you are using the edicts of one particular religion to justify or nullify the morality arguments then it could work. But something that is as cross cultural as homosexuality is, you really can't reasonably bring in morality. You end up with the argument that "it's bad because we say so" and well that is argumentum ad populum which doesn't really work well in most debates. if it works, then it is not a debate, its a vote.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by shlunka

I also question the "moral" reasons, as I don't see how one can disagree with the morals of another individual that was encouraged into their lifestyle behaviors from genetics/environment.

Wouldn't that rule out disagreeing with the morals of anybody on anything?

Point taken, I should've evaluated that statement more thoroughly. It could be more suitably changed to "I don't see how one can call another individuals sexual preference immoral."

Originally Posted by shlunka

"I don't see how one can call another individuals sexual preference immoral."

You need to qualify that some too. I think bestiality is immoral and that is certainly a sexual preference for some fukwads.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by shlunka

"I don't see how one can call another individuals sexual preference immoral."

You need to qualify that some too. I think bestiality is immoral and that is certainly a sexual preference for some fukwads.

Ummm...your name is pumaman...

Originally Posted by shlunka

Ummm...your name is pumaman...

Its a hell of a lot better moniker than "shlunka". Is that Romanian for scheissekopf? Or is it something you catch from the toilet seat?

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by shlunka

Ummm...your name is pumaman...

Its a hell of a lot better moniker than "shlunka". Is that Romanian for scheissekopf? Or is it something you catch from the toilet seat?

You should have made it "PeeewwwwwmaMan"

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by shlunka

Ummm...your name is pumaman...

Its a hell of a lot better moniker than "shlunka". Is that Romanian for scheissekopf? Or is it something you catch from the toilet seat?

Toilet seat unfortunately. I was merely playing on the beastiliaty, puma + man = pumaman. Also, shlunka is a completely meaningless moniker, it holds no value nor meaning in most languages.

Immoral sexual preferences? Basically those that involve coercion or a power difference where coercion may or may not be involved.

Bestiality and paedophilia involve a power differential regardless of the particular activity. Rape of anyone by anyone involves coercion.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by shlunka

Also, shlunka is a completely meaningless moniker, it holds no value nor meaning in most languages.

There is a good Japanese restaurant in Barcelona called Shunka (any relation), apparently it is a Japanese girls name meaning "high flower"...

These intellectual flowers never budded.

Originally Posted by adelady

Immoral sexual preferences? Basically those that involve coercion or a power difference where coercion may or may not be involved.

Bestiality and paedophilia involve a power differential regardless of the particular activity. Rape of anyone by anyone involves coercion.

And this is why I hate being stupid.

[QUOTE=stander-j;419120]
Have you ever met a left-handed person? [QUOTE]Well, of course I have. Those are the ones that can get to first base 2 hundreds of a second faster than a right hander. How about the ones that bat right handed but throw left handed, or vice versa? What we gonna do with those nuts. Then there are the cross handed batters like Ty Cobb happen to be, and the cross-handed back hand of Monica Seles. Put an asterisk by the records they set? Now to complicate things further for these logical moral Scientists, you have many tennis instructors teaching kids the double handed backhand. jesus, it was disgusting enough just trying to watch no nothins like Hendrix try to play a guitar upside down.

Originally Posted by stander-j

As a side note, I found this hilarious cheat sheet for those who want to make a "secular" argument against homosexuality. Apologetics at its finest.

How To Make A Valid Secular Case Against Homosexual Practice

Wow.
That link is one massive steaming heap of shit.
It is only half a step away from claiming that homosexuality causes paedophilia and incest.

But if that link is anything to go by: the real reason that those 'christians' don't like homosexuality is because those 'christians' are educationally sub-normal and morally bankrupt.

And this is why I hate being stupid.

Nothing to do with clever or otherwise. I was an activist feminist for many years - and I was never able to express this idea so clearly then. All it takes is to live long enough to read lots of other people's good ideas/ expression. And remember the good ones when you need to.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by shlunka

With incredibly intelligent individuals throughout history being homosexual "Alan Turing?", how could one say that it was logical to disagree with homosexuality?

Most great minds in history didn't have good information--it has only been in recent decades that we've really started to understand human sexuality, how diverse it is and its probable links to genetics/prenatal conditions. Nor until recently have we had a reasonable understanding of the sexual life of animals including our closest relatives.

There's also humans rather amazing ability to compartmentalize logic from personal bias about certain behaviors and form elaborate self-deceiving arguments to support that bias.

May I ask how you came to that conclusion that the understanding of sexuality is a recent thing? Sexuality is not new; it has been with us forever. Homosexuality is also not new. The expansion of lesbianism and homosexuals in recent times has exploded. Do you think that older cultures did not understand their sexuality? I am sure they did, that is how we emerged.
There is a book called “Indaba my Children” written by Credo Mutwa from South Africa, he explains that homosexuality is very old. A long time ago, it resulted in a demographic problem as it is posing now.

People make choices because of all kind of reasons. Sex itself does not care about male or female, it is quite different when it comes to procreation.

Originally Posted by Therapy

May I ask how you came to that conclusion that the understanding of sexuality is a recent thing?

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

The expansion of lesbianism and homosexuals in recent times has exploded

There's little evidence for that either--if anything based on that little we do know from ancient cultures and other contemporary cultures is the rates of homosexual relationship seem pretty uniform across the all humanity--somewhere in the 3-5% range. What does differ is the tolerance.

Sex itself does not care about male or female, it is quite different when it comes to procreation.

Indeed. It's mostly about sexual release and what characteristics people find attractive enough to have sex with--we are animals after all.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

May I ask how you came to that conclusion that the understanding of sexuality is a recent thing?

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

The expansion of lesbianism and homosexuals in recent times has exploded

There's little evidence for that either--if anything based on that little we do know from ancient cultures and other contemporary cultures is the rates of homosexual relationship seem pretty uniform across the all humanity--somewhere in the 3-5% range. What does differ is the tolerance.

Sex itself does not care about male or female, it is quite different when it comes to procreation.

Indeed. It's mostly about sexual release and what characteristics people find attractive enough to have sex with--we are animals after all.

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

I am having a little problem with the above statement, because as I have read and heard, different cultures look at procreation differently. In some cultures, sex is not known as such, they look at it as evil by itself. Some cultures look at having twins as evil. Sex is a body muscle release, and masturbation is forbidden. There are cultures where procreation is taught to the younger generation, they are initiated into the culture through rituals.

I think western culture is catching up on sexual education and now it is becoming open in recent times. As you well know, it is still taboo for many religions across the world. We are approaching a period where it is now been used openly as a political tool.

There is also the demographic reality, just as the anti baby pill changed the demographics there is now a problem for babies born in developed countries. Although there are, reasons to believe that Africa would not be the fastest developing nation on the economic front there are signs of population explosion occurring at this time.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

May I ask how you came to that conclusion that the understanding of sexuality is a recent thing?

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

The expansion of lesbianism and homosexuals in recent times has exploded

There's little evidence for that either--if anything based on that little we do know from ancient cultures and other contemporary cultures is the rates of homosexual relationship seem pretty uniform across the all humanity--somewhere in the 3-5% range. What does differ is the tolerance.

Sex itself does not care about male or female, it is quite different when it comes to procreation.

Indeed. It's mostly about sexual release and what characteristics people find attractive enough to have sex with--we are animals after all.

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

I am having a little problem with the above statement, because as I have read and heard, different cultures look at procreation differently. In some cultures, sex is not known as such, they look at it as evil by itself. Some cultures look at having twins as evil. Sex is a body muscle release, and masturbation is forbidden. There are cultures where procreation is taught to the younger generation, they are initiated into the culture through rituals.

I think western culture is catching up on sexual education and now it is becoming open in recent times. As you well know, it is still taboo for many religions across the world. We are approaching a period where it is now been used openly as a political tool.

There is also the demographic reality, just as the anti baby pill changed the demographics there is now a problem for babies born in developed countries. Although there are, reasons to believe that Africa would not be the fastest developing nation on the economic front there are signs of population explosion occurring at this time.

I think you may have missed some very important words in his statement

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

Your rebuttal only offered examples of sex being studied from a philosophical or religious standpoint. There is usually little to no science involved in coming up with cultural taboos and customs. Science does not recognize good or evil. Science is mostly an observation of patterns in order to predict results when enough data is known.

As far as Africa having a population boom even though the economy may not be faring well is probably because without money there is tension and sex relieves tension. So no job and plenty of time on your hands will force you to find other ways to entertain yourself. And few probably have access to birth control there (anti baby pill? what a weird way of saying it).

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

May I ask how you came to that conclusion that the understanding of sexuality is a recent thing?

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

The expansion of lesbianism and homosexuals in recent times has exploded

There's little evidence for that either--if anything based on that little we do know from ancient cultures and other contemporary cultures is the rates of homosexual relationship seem pretty uniform across the all humanity--somewhere in the 3-5% range. What does differ is the tolerance.

Sex itself does not care about male or female, it is quite different when it comes to procreation.

Indeed. It's mostly about sexual release and what characteristics people find attractive enough to have sex with--we are animals after all.

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

I am having a little problem with the above statement, because as I have read and heard, different cultures look at procreation differently. In some cultures, sex is not known as such, they look at it as evil by itself. Some cultures look at having twins as evil. Sex is a body muscle release, and masturbation is forbidden. There are cultures where procreation is taught to the younger generation, they are initiated into the culture through rituals.

I think western culture is catching up on sexual education and now it is becoming open in recent times. As you well know, it is still taboo for many religions across the world. We are approaching a period where it is now been used openly as a political tool.

There is also the demographic reality, just as the anti baby pill changed the demographics there is now a problem for babies born in developed countries. Although there are, reasons to believe that Africa would not be the fastest developing nation on the economic front there are signs of population explosion occurring at this time.

I think you may have missed some very important words in his statement

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

Your rebuttal only offered examples of sex being studied from a philosophical or religious standpoint. There is usually little to no science involved in coming up with cultural taboos and customs. Science does not recognize good or evil. Science is mostly an observation of patterns in order to predict results when enough data is known.

As far as Africa having a population boom even though the economy may not be faring well is probably because without money there is tension and sex relieves tension. So no job and plenty of time on your hands will force you to find other ways to entertain yourself. And few probably have access to birth control there (anti baby pill? what a weird way of saying it).

The anti baby pill was discovered in Uganda by western scientist. They followed a ritual where 20 women were initiated and penetrated. This penetration was carried out by one elder who was ordained to perform the sexual act. He penetrated the females by bursting the hymen. After some number of penetration he sometimes ejaculated. Just to make sure he did not impregnate any of the females they were given a liquid made from the bark of a tree that prevented pregnancy. This was the birth of the anti baby pill.

As far as Africa having a population boom even though the economy may not be faring well is probably because without money there is tension and sex relieves tension. So no job and plenty of time on your hands will force you to find other ways to entertain yourself. And few probably have access to birth control there (anti baby pill? what a weird way of saying it).

This is very true but it is not the only reason. I think the reason why the Chinese have such a large population is mainly based on poverty, as opposed to western low population growth owing to better choices for especially women and the pill as a choice option.


We could say the same thing for homosexuality. Sex is sex, it is a part of human existence, if you put men together they will have any type of sex. The same goes for women, although men seem to tolerate lesbians quicker that homosexuals. Prison is a good breeding ground for

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

May I ask how you came to that conclusion that the understanding of sexuality is a recent thing?

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

The expansion of lesbianism and homosexuals in recent times has exploded

There's little evidence for that either--if anything based on that little we do know from ancient cultures and other contemporary cultures is the rates of homosexual relationship seem pretty uniform across the all humanity--somewhere in the 3-5% range. What does differ is the tolerance.

Sex itself does not care about male or female, it is quite different when it comes to procreation.

Indeed. It's mostly about sexual release and what characteristics people find attractive enough to have sex with--we are animals after all.

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

I am having a little problem with the above statement, because as I have read and heard, different cultures look at procreation differently. In some cultures, sex is not known as such, they look at it as evil by itself. Some cultures look at having twins as evil. Sex is a body muscle release, and masturbation is forbidden. There are cultures where procreation is taught to the younger generation, they are initiated into the culture through rituals.

I think western culture is catching up on sexual education and now it is becoming open in recent times. As you well know, it is still taboo for many religions across the world. We are approaching a period where it is now been used openly as a political tool.

There is also the demographic reality, just as the anti baby pill changed the demographics there is now a problem for babies born in developed countries. Although there are, reasons to believe that Africa would not be the fastest developing nation on the economic front there are signs of population explosion occurring at this time.

I think you may have missed some very important words in his statement

In simple terms no one studied human sexuality in any rigorous scientific sense until the mid 20th century.

Your rebuttal only offered examples of sex being studied from a philosophical or religious standpoint. There is usually little to no science involved in coming up with cultural taboos and customs. Science does not recognize good or evil. Science is mostly an observation of patterns in order to predict results when enough data is known.

As far as Africa having a population boom even though the economy may not be faring well is probably because without money there is tension and sex relieves tension. So no job and plenty of time on your hands will force you to find other ways to entertain yourself. And few probably have access to birth control there (anti baby pill? what a weird way of saying it).

The anti baby pill was discovered in Uganda by western scientist. They followed a ritual where 20 women were initiated and penitrated. This penitration was carried out by one elder who was ordained to perform the sexual act. He penitrated the femails by bursting the hymen. After some penitration he sometimes ejaculated. Just to make sure he did not impregnate any of the females they were given a liquid made from the bark of a tree that prevented pregnacy. This was the birth of the anti baby pill.

As far as Africa having a population boom even though the economy may not be faring well is probably because without money there is tension and sex relieves tension. So no job and plenty of time on your hands will force you to find other ways to entertain yourself. And few probably have access to birth control there (anti baby pill? what a weird way of saying it).

This is very true but it is not the only reason. I think the reason why the Chinese have such a large population is mainly based on poverty, as opposed to western low population growth owing to better choices for especially women and the pill as a choice option.


We could say the same thing for homosexuality. Sex is sex, it is a part of human existence, if you put men together they will have any type of sex. The same goes for women, although men seem to tolerate lesbians quicker that homosexuals. Prison is a good breeding ground for

Anti-baby pill carries many false connotations. Could be renamed, anti-pregnancy pill, or anti-conception pill, but anti-baby pill, no.

Originally Posted by Therapy

The anti baby pill was discovered in Uganda by western scientist. They followed a ritual where 20 women were initiated and penetrated. This penetration was carried out by one elder who was ordained to perform the sexual act. He penetrated the females by bursting the hymen. After some number of penetration he sometimes ejaculated. Just to make sure he did not impregnate any of the females they were given a liquid made from the bark of a tree that prevented pregnancy. This was the birth of the anti baby pill.

Whut?
Source please.

Originally Posted by shlunka

... A quote from the latter "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical." ... .

and then you wrote:

The latter student won, though it may have been due to the other student's loss of interest, as it was over the internet.

wow, really?

Personally, i could give a damn less how anyone but me gets their rocks off; men, women, cows, pigs, horses, sheep, chickens or mechanical devises--why in hell should anyone actually care?

and yet, the "I disagree" guy won

lol

Slunka, I have to laugh. Science can change and move genes around and clone anything these days. The anti baby pill as now developed into the new pregnancy pill

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

The anti baby pill was discovered in Uganda by western scientist. They followed a ritual where 20 women were initiated and penetrated. This penetration was carried out by one elder who was ordained to perform the sexual act. He penetrated the females by bursting the hymen. After some number of penetration he sometimes ejaculated. Just to make sure he did not impregnate any of the females they were given a liquid made from the bark of a tree that prevented pregnancy. This was the birth of the anti baby pill.

Whut?
Source please.

You use Google a lot, just go and look up sexual rituals in different places in Africa and the rest of the world. Then look for western demographics, and population growth in Africa.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

The anti baby pill was discovered in Uganda by western scientist. They followed a ritual where 20 women were initiated and penetrated. This penetration was carried out by one elder who was ordained to perform the sexual act. He penetrated the females by bursting the hymen. After some number of penetration he sometimes ejaculated. Just to make sure he did not impregnate any of the females they were given a liquid made from the bark of a tree that prevented pregnancy. This was the birth of the anti baby pill.

Whut?
Source please.

Yes, they pulled contraceptive pills from trees, last I heard they were already bottled when they found them under 2" of bark.

Since this thread is really off-track, here is my secular opinion on homosexuality . . .

I couldn't care less. To each his own. As long as people stay out of my face with their sexual relations, and that goes for hetero or homo, I'm fine with it. They aren't hurting me any. I've never felt threatened by gays or lesbians. And, as far as raising kids, how can they be any worse than hetero parents?

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Since this thread is really off-track, ley me state my secular opinion on homosexuality . . .

I couldn't care less. To each his own. As long as people stay out of my face with their sexual relations, and that goes for hetero or homo, I'm fine with it. They aren't hurting me any. I've never felt threatened by gays or lesbians. And, as far as raising kids, how can they be any worse than hetero parents?

Listen we cannot dictate anything to anyone, we can discuss it but that is as far as I think we can take it. I like you do not want anyones lifestyle, since I have my own. As you say we do not want to come off topic.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Listen we cannot dictate anything to anyone, we can discuss it but that is as far as I think we can take it. I like you do not want anyones lifestyle, since I have my own. As you say we do not want to come off topic.

I have no idea WTF you just said but . . . whatever.

Originally Posted by Therapy

We could say the same thing for homosexuality. Sex is sex, it is a part of human existence, if you put men together they will have any type of sex. The same goes for women, although men seem to tolerate lesbians quicker that homosexuals. Prison is a good breeding ground for

No we cant say the same thing. When do you CHOSE to be heterosexual? How much internal debate did you have about men vrs women as the object of your sexual excitement?

As a gay man I can say I am not attracted in any way to women, and this would not change.

Sex in prison is either between gay men, or rape, period. If it is not consensual then it is being done as a means of domination.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Therapy

Listen we cannot dictate anything to anyone, we can discuss it but that is as far as I think we can take it. I like you do not want anyones lifestyle, since I have my own. As you say we do not want to come off topic.

I have no idea WTF you just said but . . . whatever.

I was responding to your post. I like you do not have problems with anyones lifestyle, I live my life and thats enough for me.


What does WTF mean?

Originally Posted by Therapy

I was responding to your post. I like you do not have problems with anyones lifestyle, I live my life and thats enough for me.


What does WTF mean?

OK. My bad. I understand you now. Maybe it's because English is not your first language. If that is so, then I apologize.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Therapy

Listen we cannot dictate anything to anyone, we can discuss it but that is as far as I think we can take it. I like you do not want anyones lifestyle, since I have my own. As you say we do not want to come off topic.

I have no idea WTF you just said but . . . whatever.

I was responding to your post. I like you do not have problems with anyones lifestyle, I live my life and thats enough for me.


What does WTF mean?

It means "What the Fu**" . A figure of speech translating roughly as "That makes no sense at all"

Originally Posted by Therapy

You use Google a lot, just go and look up sexual rituals in different places in Africa and the rest of the world. Then look for western demographics, and population growth in Africa.

That's not how it works. You are responsible to provide a source if you want it to be accepted as credible.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Therapy

I was responding to your post. I like you do not have problems with anyones lifestyle, I live my life and thats enough for me.


What does WTF mean?

OK. My bad. I understand you now. Maybe it's because English is not your first language. If that is so, then I apologize.

No problems man.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

You use Google a lot, just go and look up sexual rituals in different places in Africa and the rest of the world. Then look for western demographics, and population growth in Africa.

That's not how it works. You are responsible to provide a source if you want it to be accepted as credible.

Ok I will get it for him, although not everyone does that.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

You use Google a lot, just go and look up sexual rituals in different places in Africa and the rest of the world. Then look for western demographics, and population growth in Africa.

That's not how it works. You are responsible to provide a source if you want it to be accepted as credible.

Ok I will get it for him, although not everyone does that.

this is a science forum. if you make a claim and expect people to believe it, you should be able to support what you said. otherwise you could just be making stuff up.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Therapy

We could say the same thing for homosexuality. Sex is sex, it is a part of human existence, if you put men together they will have any type of sex. The same goes for women, although men seem to tolerate lesbians quicker that homosexuals. Prison is a good breeding ground for

No we cant say the same thing. When do you CHOSE to be heterosexual? How much internal debate did you have about men vrs women as the object of your sexual excitement?

As a gay man I can say I am not attracted in any way to women, and this would not change.

Sex in prison is either between gay men, or rape, period. If it is not consensual then it is being done as a means of domination.

You may not be attracted to women but you are attracted to sex.

I think we are all born from a women and man, we later develop life styles and enjoy them. There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle. As you know that has nothing to do with sex but fear.

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle.

Source please.

As you know that has nothing to do with sex but fear.

What?

BTW:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

The anti baby pill was discovered in Uganda by western scientist. They followed a ritual where 20 women were initiated and penetrated. This penetration was carried out by one elder who was ordained to perform the sexual act. He penetrated the females by bursting the hymen. After some number of penetration he sometimes ejaculated. Just to make sure he did not impregnate any of the females they were given a liquid made from the bark of a tree that prevented pregnancy. This was the birth of the anti baby pill.

Whut?
Source please.

Still waiting.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle.

Source please.

As you know that has nothing to do with sex but fear.

What?

BTW:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

The anti baby pill was discovered in Uganda by western scientist. They followed a ritual where 20 women were initiated and penetrated. This penetration was carried out by one elder who was ordained to perform the sexual act. He penetrated the females by bursting the hymen. After some number of penetration he sometimes ejaculated. Just to make sure he did not impregnate any of the females they were given a liquid made from the bark of a tree that prevented pregnancy. This was the birth of the anti baby pill.

Whut?
Source please.

Still waiting.

I have been trying to find the source of the said topic, but it is so long ago that I cannot seem to find it. I have to do so much searching when it comes to finding anything relevant about Africa. However, I have found several topics on rituals and the use of birth control in Africa long time before western medicine was developed. I have found the info on western birth and growth rate if you want it.

There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle

My sourse here is just talking to some homosexuals. There are all kind of reasons for homosexuality and enough for you to talk to.

Originally Posted by Therapy

My sourse here is just talking to some homosexuals. There are all kind of reasons for homosexuality and enough for you to talk to.

Oh right.
Uncorroborated talk.
Coupled with unjustified extrapolation.

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle

My sourse here is just talking to some homosexuals. There are all kind of reasons for homosexuality and enough for you to talk to.

So....homosexual men want to sleep with men.

Stop. The. Press.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

My sourse here is just talking to some homosexuals. There are all kind of reasons for homosexuality and enough for you to talk to.

Oh right.
Uncorroborated talk.
Coupled with unjustified extrapolation.

Seriously, you don't talk to any homosexuals? When you talk to people do they ask you to always prove everything you say. I seem to get the idea that you only believe what you read or is confirmed by someone else. You must have your own conviction, or don't you?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle

My sourse here is just talking to some homosexuals. There are all kind of reasons for homosexuality and enough for you to talk to.

So....homosexual men want to sleep with men.

Stop. The. Press.

Sorry I did not understand your responce, could you explain?

Originally Posted by Therapy

Seriously, you don't talk to any homosexuals?

What?
I have no idea how you arrived at this "conclusion".
I happen to be an "honorary lesbian".

When you talk to people do they ask you to always quote what you say. I seem to get the idea that you only believe what you read or is confirmed by someone else. You must have your own conviction, or don't you?

Again, you're jumping to erroneous suppositions.
I would not, ever, assume that my limited experience of talking to anyone constituted a significant proportion of an overall population.
Simply because [a certain number] of homosexuals of your acquaintance have said that they're "gay because they don't want hassles with women" ¹ does not imply that "lots of men" do it for this reason.
If you know even 1,000 homosexuals and all 1,000 declared that's their reason, does that constitute "lots" as a percentage of the total number? Or is it a barely significant portion?

1 I suspect that there's also more than a slight pre-existing proclivity toward homo- or bi-sexuality in such cases anyway. It seems weird that entering a gay relationship/ lifestyle merely to avoid the "man/woman tangle" is somewhat overdoing it ².
2 Equally spurious statistic for you: 100% of those polled in the last five minutes have said that the easiest way to avoid "man/ woman tangles" is just to avoid relationships with women, and that "turning gay" isn't even an option.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

Seriously, you don't talk to any homosexuals?

What?
I have no idea how you arrived at this "conclusion".
I happen to be an "honorary lesbian".

When you talk to people do they ask you to always quote what you say. I seem to get the idea that you only believe what you read or is confirmed by someone else. You must have your own conviction, or don't you?

Again, you're jumping to erroneous suppositions.
I would not, ever, assume that my limited experience of talking to anyone constituted a significant proportion of an overall population.
Simply because [a certain number] of homosexuals of your acquaintance have said that they're "gay because they don't want hassles with women" ¹ does not imply that "lots of men" do it for this reason.
If you know even 1,000 homosexuals and all 1,000 declared that's their reason, does that constitute "lots" as a percentage of the total number? Or is it a barely significant portion?

1 I suspect that there's also more than a slight pre-existing proclivity toward homo- or bi-sexuality in such cases anyway. It seems weird that entering a gay relationship/ lifestyle merely to avoid the "man/woman tangle" is somewhat overdoing it ².
2 Equally spurious statistic for you: 100% of those polled in the last five minutes have said that the easiest way to avoid "man/ woman tangles" is just to avoid relationships with women, and that "turning gay" isn't even an option.

I really do not care if you are a lesbian or what you want to call yourself, I am having a conversation with you and I am enjoying it, let us leave it there. I talk to every body and I use the information in the same way they do poles. I make some assumptions and sometimes I am right other times I am wrong. What I know can never account for a whole nation. People live their lives and I respect their choices

Way to ignore the point.
Well done.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle

My sourse here is just talking to some homosexuals. There are all kind of reasons for homosexuality and enough for you to talk to.

So....homosexual men want to sleep with men.

Stop. The. Press.

Sorry I did not understand your responce, could you explain?

Well, you asked homosexual men if they would sleep with men if there were no women...and they said: "Yes".

Since the very definition of a homosexual man is: "wants to sleep with men not women", their answer is not exactly a surprise.
Well, it's not a surprise to anyone that knows anything about homosexual men.

"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Way to ignore the point.
Well done.

I am not really ignoring the point, I am just saying as much as I can. I have heard all kind of reasons and explanations, but I still have to accept a persons choice. What I personally say does not really matter to anything or anyone but myself. I think you are right in what you say there is not much to comment on.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle

My sourse here is just talking to some homosexuals. There are all kind of reasons for homosexuality and enough for you to talk to.

So....homosexual men want to sleep with men.

Stop. The. Press.

Sorry I did not understand your responce, could you explain?

Well, you asked homosexual men if they would sleep with men if there were no women...and they said: "Yes".

Since the very definition of a homosexual man is: "wants to sleep with men not women", their answer is not exactly a surprise.
Well, it's not a surprise to anyone that knows anything about homosexual men.

I am so sorry, I think I used the wrong word "forgo" No, homosexuals did not tell me they would sleep with men if there were no women. Some told me that they were not attracted to women because they were too jealous, they did not like the look of the woman anatomy, they gave all sorts of reasons, I do not think that is out of the human usual reasoning of things.

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am not really ignoring the point, I am just saying as much as I can.

But you ARE ignoring the point, and you're making spurious claims.
For example:
There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle
and
I use the information in the same way they do poles.

Please stop posting your personal opinion as if it were actual data.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

People make laws about everthing, then they turn around and brake them to suit how they feel at the moment. Some of these ideas are just trendy.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am not really ignoring the point, I am just saying as much as I can.

But you ARE ignoring the point, and you're making spurious claims.
For example:
There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle
and
I use the information in the same way they do poles.

Please stop posting your personal opinion as if it were actual data.

I just told you, they are personal experiences, not proven data. I talk to people and they tell me what they want and I accept it, I use the data like they use poles, I make my own deductions. I think you should leave a little room for personal judgment, it does not have to be negative. You are saying things to me as I am to you.

Originally Posted by Therapy

I just told you, they are personal experiences, not proven data.

Yes you did.
AFTER being questioned.

I use the data like they use poles

Except that polls are conducted on a scientific basis, using statistically significant samples.

You are saying things to me as I am to you.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I just told you, they are personal experiences, not proven data.

Yes you did.
AFTER being questioned.

I use the data like they use poles

Except that polls are conducted on a scientific basis, using statistically significant samples.

You are saying things to me as I am to you.

Try again.

Science is a study; I study people more that I study things. People are more important to me than anything else in life. World science does not take personal observation into consideration, but I do. Most of the time I am on the forum, I listen to how people express themselves. My wife studies languages, I learnt most of what I know about languages from her. She focuses on the sound and the song in a language. Most of what she knows did not come from the university, she used her own methods and she is very good at it. I suspect you study phenomena, I am sure you have made some interesting observation yourself. I am not on the forum to rehash what I have read confirmed by someone else who have also red it, but to hear your views on the topic we chose. When I say I interpret the data I get from people like the poles, I mean I analyze the information and make a personal judgment.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Therapy

We could say the same thing for homosexuality. Sex is sex, it is a part of human existence, if you put men together they will have any type of sex. The same goes for women, although men seem to tolerate lesbians quicker that homosexuals. Prison is a good breeding ground for

No we cant say the same thing. When do you CHOSE to be heterosexual? How much internal debate did you have about men vrs women as the object of your sexual excitement?

As a gay man I can say I am not attracted in any way to women, and this would not change.

Sex in prison is either between gay men, or rape, period. If it is not consensual then it is being done as a means of domination.

You may not be attracted to women but you are attracted to sex.

I think we are all born from a women and man, we later develop life styles and enjoy them. There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle. As you know that has nothing to do with sex but fear.

That makes no sense.


I am a straight woman with a normal sexual appetite. and if you put me on an island with a man there is no guarantee that I will want to EVER have sex with him. I am more likely to want to find a way to kill him and eat him because i need to eat to survive. I do not need to have sex. I am not attracted to sex. some people are but not all people. I am grossed out by porn. And i hate to hear about other peoples' sex lives. I don't even like to describe my own in detail with my husband.

I am attracted to personalities that are appealing. As well as appearance.

You still seem to think that sexuality is actually a choice.

one of my closest friends in the army
was gay
I'll call him d
he led me through all sorts of crazy times and I out ranked him
but our nission was communications, and d was a flippin electro genius
toss a pile of parts at him, and he'd build something
with him on board, i never worried about that end of the mission
damned if he didn't make it possible to do what we did
kicked the "can do" attitude in the ass and sent it into outer space, smiling all the while
and my connection to the co meant i could turn his abilities loose and let us fly
........ so...... why would i actually care how he got his rocks off?
that wasn't what we were about
whatever we did together helped me look good to the colonel
which allowed us a lot of freedom to complete our mission
trust build upon trust, and for a few shining moments in my life
i enjoyed damned near every last second of it.

so
let

"I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical."

be damned it is bigoted illogical imoral unscientific idiocy and deserves no more than scorn

...........................
but, then again, i've met a few dishonest sexistcocksuckingbutfuckingfags who i damned near hated---I took to calling them the gay gestapo

homosexual don't make you right nor wrong
it's the whole person that matters
do you have value to your buddies/peers/associates?
Does anything else really matter?

There's probably no truth to this but . . . I think that men who hate gays do so because they themselves have had those kinds of feelings and because of their upbringing and environment they have become self-hating. And there is no one more likely to lash out at people as those people who really don't like themselves.

Since we're talking secular here, I just need to hear one convincing, reasonable & logical argument on why someone shouldn't be a homosexual if they are so inclined.

if aliens attacked the planet demanding all the homosexuals be turned over so they can be eaten by the aliens? crap you said reasonable and logical.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

if aliens attacked the planet demanding all the homosexuals be turned over so they can be eaten by the aliens? crap you said reasonable and logical.

I did..... I'm waiting for the argument that two good looking members of the same sex loving each other in a homosexual relationship is a waste. I've heard that one several times but I think it's just a running joke, at least I hope so.

I'm actually invited to a gay wedding this year and I'm going. Never been to one. I don't expect it to be much different than the usual heterosexual ceremony. I know these two gals pretty good and to be honest, they're no different than anybody else, same sets of life problems everyone faces. I feel stupid just saying that, like what else should I or anyone expect?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by seagypsy

if aliens attacked the planet demanding all the homosexuals be turned over so they can be eaten by the aliens? crap you said reasonable and logical.

I did..... I'm waiting for the argument that two good looking members of the opposite sex loving each other in a homosexual relationship is a waste. I've heard that one several times but I think it's just a running joke, at least I hope so.

I'm actually invited to a gay wedding this year and I'm going. Never been to one. I don't expect it to be much different than the usual heterosexual ceremony. I know these two gals pretty good and to be honest, they're no different than anybody else, same sets of life problems everyone faces. I feel stupid just saying that, like what else should I or anyone expect?

did you mean to say "two good looking members of the same sex"? I don't think two member of opposite sex can have a homosexual relationship. but my head hurts and im on lots of meds, I may have just missed what you meant.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Way to ignore the point.
Well done.

I am not really ignoring the point, I am just saying as much as I can. I have heard all kind of reasons and explanations, but I still have to accept a persons choice. What I personally say does not really matter to anything or anyone but myself. I think you are right in what you say there is not much to comment on.

As a gay man I can say for a certainty that my physical attraction to men is NOT a choice, and I wil NOT at any point be physically attracted to women.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I just told you, they are personal experiences, not proven data.

Yes you did.
AFTER being questioned.

I use the data like they use poles

Except that polls are conducted on a scientific basis, using statistically significant samples.

You are saying things to me as I am to you.

Try again.

Science is a study; I study people more that I study things. People are more important to me than anything else in life. World science does not take personal observation into consideration, but I do. Most of the time I am on the forum, I listen to how people express themselves. My wife studies languages, I learnt most of what I know about languages from her. She focuses on the sound and the song in a language. Most of what she knows did not come from the university, she used her own methods and she is very good at it. I suspect you study phenomena, I am sure you have made some interesting observation yourself. I am not on the forum to rehash what I have read confirmed by someone else who have also red it, but to hear your views on the topic we chose. When I say I interpret the data I get from people like the poles, I mean I analyze the information and make a personal judgment.

Science also relies on the field of statistics as a very good measure of what is NOT a viable sample size. You are well under the reliable sample size needed for you to be making the assertions you are, and I, as a gay man can say they are bullshit assertions.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by seagypsy

if aliens attacked the planet demanding all the homosexuals be turned over so they can be eaten by the aliens? crap you said reasonable and logical.

I did..... I'm waiting for the argument that two good looking members of the opposite sex loving each other in a homosexual relationship is a waste. I've heard that one several times but I think it's just a running joke, at least I hope so.

I'm actually invited to a gay wedding this year and I'm going. Never been to one. I don't expect it to be much different than the usual heterosexual ceremony. I know these two gals pretty good and to be honest, they're no different than anybody else, same sets of life problems everyone faces. I feel stupid just saying that, like what else should I or anyone expect?

did you mean to say "two good looking members of the same sex"? I don't think two member of opposite sex can have a homosexual relationship. but my head hurts and im on lots of meds, I may have just missed what you meant.

My bad....I meant to say same sex. I'll edit it.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

As a gay man I can say for a certainty that my physical attraction to men is NOT a choice, and I wil NOT at any point be physically attracted to women.

Like you, I cannot change my sexual preference.

But there are many people in the public eye (e.g. politicians) that say that being gay is a choice.
Surely, (and this relates to what PumaMan said above) the only way that someone can think that sexual preference is a choice is if they could choose to be gay.
Shouldn't that - in their eyes - mean that they are the 'sexual deviants'?

Do they also think that they could find children sexually attractive - but that they simply choose not to?
Is sexual attraction to farm animals also just a choice for them?
Is there anything that they could not find attractive?

To say that "being gay is a choice" opens up the whole gamut of sexual preferences to being just a decision.
They would enjoy having a cow poo on them while humping a car's exhaust pipe - but they have decided not to.

Homosexuality isn't a choice, but living as a homosexual is. People who are intolerant of homosexuality couldn't care less if you choose to be a homosexual so long as you choose not to act upon it. They see it as something deviant, so suppressing it is not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Homosexuality isn't a choice, but living as a homosexual is. People who are intolerant of homosexuality couldn't care less if you choose to be a homosexual so long as you choose not to act upon it. They see it as something deviant, so suppressing it is not a bad thing.

Are you advocating bending the knee to tyranny?

Living your life by someone else's dictates is repugnant to anyone who values freedom!
And, may have been part of what led my scottish ancestors to move to this continent circa 280+ years ago.(they're all dead now, so I can't actually ask them)

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Therapy

We could say the same thing for homosexuality. Sex is sex, it is a part of human existence, if you put men together they will have any type of sex. The same goes for women, although men seem to tolerate lesbians quicker that homosexuals. Prison is a good breeding ground for

No we cant say the same thing. When do you CHOSE to be heterosexual? How much internal debate did you have about men vrs women as the object of your sexual excitement?

As a gay man I can say I am not attracted in any way to women, and this would not change.

Sex in prison is either between gay men, or rape, period. If it is not consensual then it is being done as a means of domination.

You may not be attracted to women but you are attracted to sex.

I think we are all born from a women and man, we later develop life styles and enjoy them. There are lots of men who think that if they have a man they will forgo the natural man/woman tangle. As you know that has nothing to do with sex but fear.

That makes no sense.


I am a straight woman with a normal sexual appetite. and if you put me on an island with a man there is no guarantee that I will want to EVER have sex with him. I am more likely to want to find a way to kill him and eat him because i need to eat to survive. I do not need to have sex. I am not attracted to sex. some people are but not all people. I am grossed out by porn. And i hate to hear about other peoples' sex lives. I don't even like to describe my own in detail with my husband.

I am attracted to personalities that are appealing. As well as appearance.

You still seem to think that sexuality is actually a choice.

I do not think we live from food alone, your stomach could be full and you are so lonely that you die from the loss of human contact. I do agree with you that if you were on an Island and you had a man but no food the first thing you would want to do is eat. After you have eaten and the other functions set in such as sex, you will begin to think differently because its a function that crosses many biological barriers. At that moment when your body begins to react sexually, you respond to it as sex and you will find no barriers, it is simply release. If we change the scenario where you have some choices, then the general idea of strait forward release is no longer applicable.

To the point where you say you are not attracted to sex, I can understand, however, there is always a difference in humans and everything, it just is not the norm, and your type has to be present for all things to balance it.

Originally Posted by sculptor

one of my closest friends in the army
was gay
I'll call him d
he led me through all sorts of crazy times and I out ranked him
but our nission was communications, and d was a flippin electro genius
toss a pile of parts at him, and he'd build something
with him on board, i never worried about that end of the mission
damned if he didn't make it possible to do what we did
kicked the "can do" attitude in the ass and sent it into outer space, smiling all the while
and my connection to the co meant i could turn his abilities loose and let us fly
........ so...... why would i actually care how he got his rocks off?
that wasn't what we were about
whatever we did together helped me look good to the colonel
which allowed us a lot of freedom to complete our mission
trust build upon trust, and for a few shining moments in my life
i enjoyed damned near every last second of it.

so
let

"I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical."

be damned it is bigoted illogical imoral unscientific idiocy and deserves no more than scorn

...........................
but, then again, i've met a few dishonest sexistcocksuckingbutfuckingfags who i damned near hated---I took to calling them the gay gestapo

homosexual don't make you right nor wrong
it's the whole person that matters
do you have value to your buddies/peers/associates?
Does anything else really matter?

The only time I get angry with anyone is when he or she tries to force his or her lifestyle in my face. I cannot change anyone’s interpretation of how to live his or her lives. I have my own life style and I love it. If however, the discussion is about procreation, I will argue differently.

Originally Posted by sculptor

one of my closest friends in the army
was gay
I'll call him d
he led me through all sorts of crazy times and I out ranked him
but our nission was communications, and d was a flippin electro genius
toss a pile of parts at him, and he'd build something
with him on board, i never worried about that end of the mission
damned if he didn't make it possible to do what we did
kicked the "can do" attitude in the ass and sent it into outer space, smiling all the while
and my connection to the co meant i could turn his abilities loose and let us fly
........ so...... why would i actually care how he got his rocks off?
that wasn't what we were about
whatever we did together helped me look good to the colonel
which allowed us a lot of freedom to complete our mission
trust build upon trust, and for a few shining moments in my life
i enjoyed damned near every last second of it.

so
let

"I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical."

be damned it is bigoted illogical imoral unscientific idiocy and deserves no more than scorn

...........................
but, then again, i've met a few dishonest sexistcocksuckingbutfuckingfags who i damned near hated---I took to calling them the gay gestapo

homosexual don't make you right nor wrong
it's the whole person that matters
do you have value to your buddies/peers/associates?
Does anything else really matter?

The only time I get angry with anyone is when he or she tries to force his or her lifestyle in my face. I cannot change anyone’s interpretation of how to live his or her lives. I have my own life style and I love it. If however, the discussion is about procreation, I will argue differently.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

There's probably no truth to this but . . . I think that men who hate gays do so because they themselves have had those kinds of feelings and because of their upbringing and environment they have become self-hating. And there is no one more likely to lash out at people as those people who really don't like themselves.

Why do you post it if you think there is no truth to it?

Originally Posted by seagypsy

if aliens attacked the planet demanding all the homosexuals be turned over so they can be eaten by the aliens? crap you said reasonable and logical.

There might be a few more, but this one is good enough. The same could go for heterosexuals.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I just told you, they are personal experiences, not proven data.

Yes you did.
AFTER being questioned.

I use the data like they use poles

Except that polls are conducted on a scientific basis, using statistically significant samples.

You are saying things to me as I am to you.

Try again.

Science is a study; I study people more that I study things. People are more important to me than anything else in life. World science does not take personal observation into consideration, but I do. Most of the time I am on the forum, I listen to how people express themselves. My wife studies languages, I learnt most of what I know about languages from her. She focuses on the sound and the song in a language. Most of what she knows did not come from the university, she used her own methods and she is very good at it. I suspect you study phenomena, I am sure you have made some interesting observation yourself. I am not on the forum to rehash what I have read confirmed by someone else who have also red it, but to hear your views on the topic we chose. When I say I interpret the data I get from people like the poles, I mean I analyze the information and make a personal judgment.

Science also relies on the field of statistics as a very good measure of what is NOT a viable sample size. You are well under the reliable sample size needed for you to be making the assertions you are, and I, as a gay man can say they are bullshit assertions.

I have no problems with that. I am not gay, I am speaking as a man who has made a choice.

Originally Posted by Therapy

I have no problems with that. I am not gay, I am speaking as a man who has made a choice.

At what age did you decide to be straight?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I have no problems with that. I am not gay, I am speaking as a man who has made a choice.

At what age did you decide to be straight?

I decide every day.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I have no problems with that. I am not gay, I am speaking as a man who has made a choice.

At what age did you decide to be straight?

I decide every day.

Interesting. I just wake up that way.

Any particular reason why you choose one sexuality over the other? Do you ever decide to try something else? Ever get tired of always doing the same thing, wanna try another flavor?

I'm like that with food. But sexuality, well that just happens and it always happens the same way. I don't even think about it.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Why do you post it if you think there is no truth to it?

Why do you think I post it when I think there may be no truth to it?

Originally Posted by Therapy

I decide every day.

Presumably before you get dressed.
But do you decide before or after making the choice of what to have for breakfast?
Or do you sometimes leave it and make your mind up about lunch time?

Maybe he has no sexuality until an opportunity for sex presents itself. then his decision to have sex or not determines his sexuality. So until he makes a conscious decision, its like Schrodinger's cat. He is gay and straight. or neither.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I have no problems with that. I am not gay, I am speaking as a man who has made a choice.

At what age did you decide to be straight?

I decide every day.

Interesting. I just wake up that way.

Any particular reason why you choose one sexuality over the other? Do you ever decide to try something else? Ever get tired of always doing the same thing, wanna try another flavor?

I'm like that with food. But sexuality, well that just happens and it always happens the same way. I don't even think about it.

I am sure my up bringing has something to do with it, but on the other hand I do not see myself as just male but both. I have now appeared on the planet as a male that makes my opposite a female and because I love myself I love the female. She offers me all I can imagine.


I like you do not think about it, it is not dominant in my life. I am interested in people, when it comes to sex, (although the word itself is not what I like to use because it seems to illiminate the emotional aspect) I love my woman she is all I have.

Any particular reason why you choose one sexuality over the other? Do you ever decide to try something else? Ever get tired of always doing the same thing, wanna try another flavor?

I usualy go for peanuts and rum cream.

Or maybe, and I realise I'm going out on a limb here, he has no idea what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I have no problems with that. I am not gay, I am speaking as a man who has made a choice.

At what age did you decide to be straight?

I decide every day.

So in otherwords, you are in fact bisexual, and have a preference for the opposite gender. And you are using the fact that you are bisexual as groundwork to assert that all people willingly choose to be the orientation they are.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by sculptor

one of my closest friends in the army
was gay
I'll call him d
he led me through all sorts of crazy times and I out ranked him
but our nission was communications, and d was a flippin electro genius
toss a pile of parts at him, and he'd build something
with him on board, i never worried about that end of the mission
damned if he didn't make it possible to do what we did
kicked the "can do" attitude in the ass and sent it into outer space, smiling all the while
and my connection to the co meant i could turn his abilities loose and let us fly
........ so...... why would i actually care how he got his rocks off?
that wasn't what we were about
whatever we did together helped me look good to the colonel
which allowed us a lot of freedom to complete our mission
trust build upon trust, and for a few shining moments in my life
i enjoyed damned near every last second of it.

so
let

"I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for reasons scientific, moral, and logical."

be damned it is bigoted illogical imoral unscientific idiocy and deserves no more than scorn

...........................
but, then again, i've met a few dishonest sexistcocksuckingbutfuckingfags who i damned near hated---I took to calling them the gay gestapo

homosexual don't make you right nor wrong
it's the whole person that matters
do you have value to your buddies/peers/associates?
Does anything else really matter?

The only time I get angry with anyone is when he or she tries to force his or her lifestyle in my face. I cannot change anyone’s interpretation of how to live his or her lives. I have my own life style and I love it. If however, the discussion is about procreation, I will argue differently.

Who is forcing their "lifestyle" (why the fuck to do call it a lifestyle?) on you?