It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why homosexuality is not genetic
page: 7share:
I just don't know why ppl keep on insisting homosexuality is a choice.
I've yet to meet someone who suddenly decides they're going to be gay.
Ask ANY gay person and they will tell they DIDN'T choose it. Did you chose to be straight? Was there a point in your life where you said "OK should I be gay or straight?"
Why would anyone choose something that is going to be extremely difficult to live with? Something that gets them alienated from family and friends?
It's a little easier these days than it was 20yrs ago, thats why obviuosly we hear more about it now. It's hell to live a lie, to keep something like that hidden and secret. Making bogus excuses for not being married, or having to hide your true likes so not to appear "unmanly".
Are you really surprised that Gays are so "in your face" about it, years of opression will do that to people. It's like wahooo! I can be who I really am and I'm gonna tell everybody, no need to hide anymore. That's freedom, and liberty!
And for the Christians, take the log out of thine own eyes...You're forgeting your own Bible....Love the sinner, hate the sin...You're forgetting your own Bible....Do not judge others...You are forgetting your own Bible!!
I've yet to meet someone who suddenly decides they're going to be gay.
Ask ANY gay person and they will tell they DIDN'T choose it. Did you chose to be straight? Was there a point in your life where you said "OK should I be gay or straight?"
Why would anyone choose something that is going to be extremely difficult to live with? Something that gets them alienated from family and friends?
It's a little easier these days than it was 20yrs ago, thats why obviuosly we hear more about it now. It's hell to live a lie, to keep something like that hidden and secret. Making bogus excuses for not being married, or having to hide your true likes so not to appear "unmanly".
Are you really surprised that Gays are so "in your face" about it, years of opression will do that to people. It's like wahooo! I can be who I really am and I'm gonna tell everybody, no need to hide anymore. That's freedom, and liberty!
And for the Christians, take the log out of thine own eyes...You're forgeting your own Bible....Love the sinner, hate the sin...You're forgetting your own Bible....Do not judge others...You are forgetting your own Bible!!
I want to respond to your original post without any thoughts or ideas that came from other member's posts. Sorry if this steps out of the flow of the
thread, but I'm not even going to read the last few posts above mine.
I very rarely respond without reading the entire thread, and I promise I'll go back and read the entirety after I make my points on your original post.
I'll spare you any attack of a religious nature because we probably share simular views in that area. I have beliefs, but they don't involve any organized religion, so we'll leave that alone.
I want to tell you something about me, but keep it to yourself.
I'm a gay male and a twin, though not identical. My twin sister died at 18 months old, and that was over 40 years ago. I grew up with one sister and two brothers in the 1960's in a family that was probably pretty normal. Dad went to work, us kids went to school, and mom stayed home and looked after everyone.
I don't think she treated me any different from my other siblings, and yet I'm the only one that's gay. Myself, my brothers and my sister are all in long term, stable relationships, that don't seem to have many major problems. And bless their souls, my parents seem to love each other more today than ever before.
We had a pretty good life as kids and got to travel a lot because dad love to camp and hike, and my parents had a little bit of hippy in them. (maybe it was gypsy, we moved around a lot)
When you say "perhaps it is a psychological reaction to experiences or a traumatic event", that does not apply to me. Sure I got some spankings and life wasn't always perfect, but I never went through any trauma or had an experience that could have turned me gay.
There was no sexual abuse in my family that could have swayed my desires towards men, and my first sexual experience with another person was with a boy in my class from school when I was 13. (gotta love those sleep-overs)
I knew from a very early age that I was not like the rest of the boys, nothing I can define, but they had different intrests than mine. But I got along OK, I wasn't a very femmie type person.
I'm sure if you met me on the street today, you would never suspect I was gay. And yet I've been with my husband for almost 17 years.
You made a point that you had always thought it was genetic, and I've never seen that as the case. I have no gay family members except a great-uncle on my fathers side of the family, and even that was never confirmed. All the relations are in long-term straight relationships.
I seem to be the odd man out, in my family at least, but they love me and mine like all the rest.
And as to the reason I turned out to be gay???? I just don't know, it's the way I am.
And I'm very happy...............
Never make a statement like "Any way, this kind of cements it as far as I am concerned".
Look at all the data on the subject. One case is not a valid base to form an opinion on.
*now I'll go and read the rest of the thread*
I very rarely respond without reading the entire thread, and I promise I'll go back and read the entirety after I make my points on your original post.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
To start out, I want to say that I am not a Christian, or even religious for that matter, so spare me that attack.
Anyways, My mom's best friend has identical twin sons. One is gay, one is not. That to me says that being gay has nothing to do with genetics, as these two people have the EXACT same genes. Instead, perhaps it is a psychological reaction to experiences or a traumatic event.
Any way, this kind of cements it as far as I am concerned, and to be honest, I was always of the opinion that being gay was a genetic condition.
I'll spare you any attack of a religious nature because we probably share simular views in that area. I have beliefs, but they don't involve any organized religion, so we'll leave that alone.
I want to tell you something about me, but keep it to yourself.
I'm a gay male and a twin, though not identical. My twin sister died at 18 months old, and that was over 40 years ago. I grew up with one sister and two brothers in the 1960's in a family that was probably pretty normal. Dad went to work, us kids went to school, and mom stayed home and looked after everyone.
I don't think she treated me any different from my other siblings, and yet I'm the only one that's gay. Myself, my brothers and my sister are all in long term, stable relationships, that don't seem to have many major problems. And bless their souls, my parents seem to love each other more today than ever before.
We had a pretty good life as kids and got to travel a lot because dad love to camp and hike, and my parents had a little bit of hippy in them. (maybe it was gypsy, we moved around a lot)
When you say "perhaps it is a psychological reaction to experiences or a traumatic event", that does not apply to me. Sure I got some spankings and life wasn't always perfect, but I never went through any trauma or had an experience that could have turned me gay.
There was no sexual abuse in my family that could have swayed my desires towards men, and my first sexual experience with another person was with a boy in my class from school when I was 13. (gotta love those sleep-overs)
I knew from a very early age that I was not like the rest of the boys, nothing I can define, but they had different intrests than mine. But I got along OK, I wasn't a very femmie type person.
I'm sure if you met me on the street today, you would never suspect I was gay. And yet I've been with my husband for almost 17 years.
You made a point that you had always thought it was genetic, and I've never seen that as the case. I have no gay family members except a great-uncle on my fathers side of the family, and even that was never confirmed. All the relations are in long-term straight relationships.
I seem to be the odd man out, in my family at least, but they love me and mine like all the rest.
And as to the reason I turned out to be gay???? I just don't know, it's the way I am.
And I'm very happy...............
Never make a statement like "Any way, this kind of cements it as far as I am concerned".
Look at all the data on the subject. One case is not a valid base to form an opinion on.
*now I'll go and read the rest of the thread*
TO: Gemwolf (posted on 25-11-2005 at 01:20 AM Post Number: 1824789 post id: 1846682)
Thank YOU for proving several of my points, but most about homosexual "thinking" failing to even meet the definition what most
people understand the word to mean; revelling in subjective 'revery'
would be more apt for what you do. Allow me to further dissassemble
your spongiform brain, as nature seems to've given me a head-start.
I'm quite apprised of all the subjects you think I need help in.
You said: "It has been said a million times, and not just only in this thread. Homosexuality does not equal sex! If you think homosexuality is all about sex, then you're just advertising your ignorance. Sex is a part of a relationship - heterosexual or homosexual - whether the relationship lasts only one night or a lifetime. If you bothered to actually read this thread to this point, you would have found more than enough reason(s) why homosexuality is NOT a choice!"
Homosexuality may not equal sex, but it's ALL ABOUT sex, as countless people who "act-up" demonstrate, also the term has the word 'sex' in it so yes we can assume it's about sex. You prove your intellectual dishonesty early on by trying to redefine commonly understood definitions, which of course is your agenda and the physics of slippery-slopes. Rigorously, 'Sex'
is the hardware (or software) nature bestowed you with. It's an engineering issue. What do you have, what was it made for, what will you
do with it. If you're a normal man you have a penis and are potentially capable of impregnating a woman. Doesn't mean you will or are obligated to, but all the functional assets are there.
Of course, engaging in sex is a choice. Not many people are capable to
have sex while unconscious, therefore I assert it's a conscious act. And if
you're conscious, you are choosing your thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
Believe it or not we can choose to think certain thoughts or feel a certain way, unless you're of course an automoton and 'believe' (still doesn't make it true) that all locus of control exist OUTSIDE yourself. Can you control yourself? Obviously not too well, which is a problem homosexuals wrestle with.
You said: "And yes, if you haven't caught on by now, I am one of the homosexuals with a particularly lame quality of thinking."
OK! We can agree on at least that one thing! Moving on,
you said: "What does gay stereo type jokes have to do with gay genes. Nothing."
It has everything to do with lame choices and thinking, which is what homosexuality is.
You said: "Again you think homosexuality is all about sex."
(Please spell the word and you will find 'sex' right smack in the middle.)
"You also forget about millions of heterosexual men who have anal sex with their wives. This isn't "natural".
I didn't forget, but since you brought it up, you're right: anal sex is UNNATURAL and suicidal behaviour without a condom, allowing you
to flaunt nature and common sense.
"You also forget about billions of men and women who have oral sex. Where is the natural reproduction in that? Was having sex for pleasure "purely human invention"? Did a caveman one day decide... "Hey, this having sex for procreation is getting old... Why not make it fun? Wait, I got one... Let's invent an orgasm!"
If it wasn't fun, people wouldn't do it. But you're no closer to waking to or fathoming the bigger Plan.
"You say that we shouldn't compare ourselves to animals... yet you point out that we should only have sex for reproducing. Like animals? Survival of the species?"
What I said (or say) is that's what the original design is for and does. Form follows function. It's an engineering/design principle. You can missuse what you've been given. That's a choice. Nature kills you faster if you make bad choices. No pity here.
"Funny you should mention Leviticus. Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that you must not eat pork."
Pork grows tapeworms and no I don't eat it. I'll bet you're crawling with them tho, which might explain 'anal itch.'
"...Funny you don't mention that the same scripture says that parents should kill their child, should the child swear at them."
Fewer behavioral problems in a self-regulating society is a bad thing?
"...Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that a brother should marry and care for his brother's widow (i.e. when the brother died)"
There was no welfare or SSI back then, so caring for inlaws was a loving thing to do.
"... Funny that you don't mention that "you shall not divorce" is one of the Ten Commandments, yet it is not frowned upon."
Sure it is, depending your depth of understanding, responsibility and commitment. Which just shows how superficial we've become. Homosexual 'thinking' makes superficiallization (nonsense) it's singular agenda.
"Funny how you want to apply only certain rules from the Old Testament and completely ignore those that doesn't fit your bill."
Not really but since you brought them up, I dealt with them in turn.
"Err... I suggest that you go google some stats on this point you touched. Most sex crimes are committed by heterosexuals. Married men. We've got two terms. Homosexual. A person who is attracted to the same sex. Paedophile. A person who is sexually aroused by children. I don't see how you can mention them in the same sense. And let's compare the stats off how many heterosexual men rape women, with the amount of homosexual rapes? Hmmm... I wonder who is perverse now? (No, I'm not saying heterosexuals are perverse. Just making a point.) "
Only because hetero's outnumber homos by a large percentage. How would you define Catholic priests who violate alter boys? Are they homos? pedasterers? pedophiles? all three? Great, let's have more of their kind coaching sports, the boy-scouts (not.)
"I wouldn't want you in my home. Hate is not welcome in my home. "
Nor perversions in mine.
"Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Nature is not "out to get" homosexuals."
So is death been around. Yes it is.
As for God that might be out to get homosexuals? God is willing to love murderers, rapists, whores, thieves and other "sinners".
He loves them after they repent and straighten out their thinking and lives.
Punishment follows one's bad choices. It's not vindictive, just natural law working itself out. 'I take no pleasure in seeing man die the death. Turn from your sins and live, ye.'
"Why would God "hate" me because I love another person?"
Blurring definitions again. God affirms whoever you love, just not who
you suck or bugger. Sex and love aren't even the same thing.
"I made my peace with God. Now, I wonder if you would want to go to heaven, if you knew I was going to be there, as well as millions of other Christian homosexuals?"
If you make it to heaven, it won't be because of your homosexuality, but some other redeeming quality that outweighed it. Miracles are possible, just not likely. Anyway there are no buggers in heaven. God specifically stated how he deals with people like you.
Thank YOU for proving several of my points, but most about homosexual "thinking" failing to even meet the definition what most
people understand the word to mean; revelling in subjective 'revery'
would be more apt for what you do. Allow me to further dissassemble
your spongiform brain, as nature seems to've given me a head-start.
I'm quite apprised of all the subjects you think I need help in.
You said: "It has been said a million times, and not just only in this thread. Homosexuality does not equal sex! If you think homosexuality is all about sex, then you're just advertising your ignorance. Sex is a part of a relationship - heterosexual or homosexual - whether the relationship lasts only one night or a lifetime. If you bothered to actually read this thread to this point, you would have found more than enough reason(s) why homosexuality is NOT a choice!"
Homosexuality may not equal sex, but it's ALL ABOUT sex, as countless people who "act-up" demonstrate, also the term has the word 'sex' in it so yes we can assume it's about sex. You prove your intellectual dishonesty early on by trying to redefine commonly understood definitions, which of course is your agenda and the physics of slippery-slopes. Rigorously, 'Sex'
is the hardware (or software) nature bestowed you with. It's an engineering issue. What do you have, what was it made for, what will you
do with it. If you're a normal man you have a penis and are potentially capable of impregnating a woman. Doesn't mean you will or are obligated to, but all the functional assets are there.
Of course, engaging in sex is a choice. Not many people are capable to
have sex while unconscious, therefore I assert it's a conscious act. And if
you're conscious, you are choosing your thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
Believe it or not we can choose to think certain thoughts or feel a certain way, unless you're of course an automoton and 'believe' (still doesn't make it true) that all locus of control exist OUTSIDE yourself. Can you control yourself? Obviously not too well, which is a problem homosexuals wrestle with.
You said: "And yes, if you haven't caught on by now, I am one of the homosexuals with a particularly lame quality of thinking."
OK! We can agree on at least that one thing! Moving on,
you said: "What does gay stereo type jokes have to do with gay genes. Nothing."
It has everything to do with lame choices and thinking, which is what homosexuality is.
You said: "Again you think homosexuality is all about sex."
(Please spell the word and you will find 'sex' right smack in the middle.)
"You also forget about millions of heterosexual men who have anal sex with their wives. This isn't "natural".
I didn't forget, but since you brought it up, you're right: anal sex is UNNATURAL and suicidal behaviour without a condom, allowing you
to flaunt nature and common sense.
"You also forget about billions of men and women who have oral sex. Where is the natural reproduction in that? Was having sex for pleasure "purely human invention"? Did a caveman one day decide... "Hey, this having sex for procreation is getting old... Why not make it fun? Wait, I got one... Let's invent an orgasm!"
If it wasn't fun, people wouldn't do it. But you're no closer to waking to or fathoming the bigger Plan.
"You say that we shouldn't compare ourselves to animals... yet you point out that we should only have sex for reproducing. Like animals? Survival of the species?"
What I said (or say) is that's what the original design is for and does. Form follows function. It's an engineering/design principle. You can missuse what you've been given. That's a choice. Nature kills you faster if you make bad choices. No pity here.
"Funny you should mention Leviticus. Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that you must not eat pork."
Pork grows tapeworms and no I don't eat it. I'll bet you're crawling with them tho, which might explain 'anal itch.'
"...Funny you don't mention that the same scripture says that parents should kill their child, should the child swear at them."
Fewer behavioral problems in a self-regulating society is a bad thing?
"...Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that a brother should marry and care for his brother's widow (i.e. when the brother died)"
There was no welfare or SSI back then, so caring for inlaws was a loving thing to do.
"... Funny that you don't mention that "you shall not divorce" is one of the Ten Commandments, yet it is not frowned upon."
Sure it is, depending your depth of understanding, responsibility and commitment. Which just shows how superficial we've become. Homosexual 'thinking' makes superficiallization (nonsense) it's singular agenda.
"Funny how you want to apply only certain rules from the Old Testament and completely ignore those that doesn't fit your bill."
Not really but since you brought them up, I dealt with them in turn.
"Err... I suggest that you go google some stats on this point you touched. Most sex crimes are committed by heterosexuals. Married men. We've got two terms. Homosexual. A person who is attracted to the same sex. Paedophile. A person who is sexually aroused by children. I don't see how you can mention them in the same sense. And let's compare the stats off how many heterosexual men rape women, with the amount of homosexual rapes? Hmmm... I wonder who is perverse now? (No, I'm not saying heterosexuals are perverse. Just making a point.) "
Only because hetero's outnumber homos by a large percentage. How would you define Catholic priests who violate alter boys? Are they homos? pedasterers? pedophiles? all three? Great, let's have more of their kind coaching sports, the boy-scouts (not.)
"I wouldn't want you in my home. Hate is not welcome in my home. "
Nor perversions in mine.
"Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Nature is not "out to get" homosexuals."
So is death been around. Yes it is.
As for God that might be out to get homosexuals? God is willing to love murderers, rapists, whores, thieves and other "sinners".
He loves them after they repent and straighten out their thinking and lives.
Punishment follows one's bad choices. It's not vindictive, just natural law working itself out. 'I take no pleasure in seeing man die the death. Turn from your sins and live, ye.'
"Why would God "hate" me because I love another person?"
Blurring definitions again. God affirms whoever you love, just not who
you suck or bugger. Sex and love aren't even the same thing.
"I made my peace with God. Now, I wonder if you would want to go to heaven, if you knew I was going to be there, as well as millions of other Christian homosexuals?"
If you make it to heaven, it won't be because of your homosexuality, but some other redeeming quality that outweighed it. Miracles are possible, just not likely. Anyway there are no buggers in heaven. God specifically stated how he deals with people like you.
Thrival, you're whole reply was one long oversimplification, not so much intelectually lazy as completely redundant.
You have no idea and it shows.
[edit on 1-12-2005 by ubermunche]
You have no idea and it shows.
[edit on 1-12-2005 by ubermunche]
Thank you for posting (eventually) and through that back what I originally said. You know absolutely nothing about homosexuality. You base your
argument on what? Ignorant articles you read from other homophobes? Your own opinion? A view based on single verse in the Old Testament?
You made my reply so much easier. You did your utmost to appear intelligent. And you succeed in sounding really intelligent. But in the end, you repeat the same nonsensical arguments over and over. It is clear that you know nothing about homosexual psychology. It is clear that you don't even know a homosexual person personally. You cannot argue against something you know nothing about. But nonetheless I will reply to your post, seeing that you made an extra effort to make it enjoyable for me.
Such as?
Seeing that you spent some time on this topic, so will I elsewhere in my reply. And why can I not be subjective on this? It's not as if you stepped into this unbiased. You came here hating homosexual people. You will leave here hating homosexual people even more. And one tend to think that it's because of me, but when you think about it for a second, it's because you are closed-minded and pre-programmed. Nothing will change your carved-in-stone mind. No matter how factual my arguments are.
When I reached the end of your post I was laughing out loud. I'm sorry to say you failed completely to "dissassemble" [sic] my "spongiform brain". I fail to see where nature gave you a head start? In being more primitive than me? Wanting to procreate all the time? Wanting to impregnate every possible female? Or do you have a head-start because you fail to understand human psyche? Sir, let's not compare brain pans. It might humiliate you even more.
You assume completely wrong. Heterosexuality contains sex, yet it's not all about sex. Let's take a few examples:
Sussex. A town in the UK. The word contains sex. Is this town all about sex?
Ignorant. Uneducated. The word contains "ant". So we can assume that its basic meaning is to be uneducated about ants?
Parental. Characteristic of a parent. The word contains "rent". So we can assume that its basic meaning is about renting a mom or dad?
Should I continue this stupid game? What a ridiculous argument and assumption.
And yes, the word does contain sex, but may I remind you that "sex" can also refer to gender? Sex in homosexuality or heterosexuality has nothing to do with the physical act of "making love", but you attraction to a gender.
Homosexuality may refer to:* A sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same sex or gender identity.* Sexual relations with another of the same sex or gender regardless of sexual orientation or self-identification.* A sexual identity or self-identification, which may or may not imply exclusively homosexual behavior or attraction.
en.wikipedia.org...
So we're back at the homosexuality has nothing to do with sex point. The idea that gays are only about sex may come from stereotyping, certain media projections and authority programming. Homosexuality is no more or no less about sex than any heterosexual relationship.
Is it so hard to believe or even grasp that homosexual people can have a meaningful relationship? Maybe if you get to know some homosexual people you'll be a bit more informed.
This argument (whatever it was you were trying to say) does not hold any water because you cannot get beyond the point of understanding that homosexuality is not about sex.
You blatantly insult homosexuals and the way they think. Again you make assumptions. Sir, I can control myself better than most heterosexual men. Need I remind you of the hordes of sex-deprived men that hangs out in strip clubs? Or the countless married men who would rather pay a woman to have sex with him because his wife can no longer satisfy him?
Is it really that "obvious" that homosexuals cannot control their sexual urges? Sir, you see only what you want to see.
Oh, I see we're finally at the end of your hammering on "homosexuality=sex". May I point out that all this "sex-talk" revolves around male and male-sex. Yet you fail to even mention how female homosexuals fit into this. Sir, you are a hypocrite because you love the idea of two women having sex, but you shudder at the thought of two men having sex. I suggest that if you again bring up the sex argument, that you include women in it, because these girls are some tough feminists who hate being left out.
LoL. You are the only one agreeing on that. You have this weak theory that homosexuals are "dumb" or "stupid" and you have superior intellect. You have nothing to support that theory. I gave you the opportunity to prove your theory, by using my posts, my thoughts and me as an example. You failed to do so. My guess is that you did look at a couple of my posts but saw that you won't succeed.
Luckily all readers have access to all we've said. You are welcome to think that you are more intelligent than homosexuals. The rest of the readers will make up our own minds about that theory.
LoL! Such as blonde jokes has everything to do with how stupid blonde women are. Such as Jewish jokes has everything to do with how stingy Jews are. Such as 9/11 has everything to do with how funny the deaths of thousands of people are.
Sir, you are only making yourself look bad with your arguments. Maybe you should stop while you're ahead... Err... Maybe you should stop while you're not that far behind.
I thought we were finished with this...
Advocating. An umbrella term for organized activism related to a particular set of issues. I found "cat" right smack in the middle of the word. So we can assume that advocating is all about protecting the rights of cats.
Cumbersome. Difficult to handle. It contains the word... Well it's right smack at the beginning. So we can assume that it's difficult to handle sperm?
This is getting boring. Moving on.
Yet you failed to mention it.
Suicidal? Your chances of dying from anal sex without a condom - because of bacterial infections are no more than getting bacterial infections from kissing someone or licking their toes. Funny if it's so unnatural how come so many heterosexual men enjoy it?
And while we're on the topic. You assume again that all homosexuals have anal sex. It's a small percentage of homosexuals that actually have anal sex. Seeing that you don't know any homosexuals, I will use myself to let you understand "us" better.
I do not like or even have anal sex with my boyfriend. Personally I find it uncomfortable and unsatisfying. This does not mean that I don't have a meaningful relationship with my boyfriend - with whom I've been with for over two years. And it doesn't make me less gay if I don't have anal sex.
And again you fail to bring lesbians into your argument.
The "bigger Plan"? To procreate and over-populate planet earth?
They say that animals don't have sex for fun (with the exception of dolphins?), yet they do it all the time. Instinct?
You were the one who said "The first and functional purpose for sex is reproduction. What we make of it beyond that is a purely human invention." So I asked if "sex for fun" was a human invention. You have no answer to that, so there must be something wrong with your argument. If only I can put my finger on it...
And you fail in your great wisdom to inform us if oral sex is natural on unnatural. It must be unnatural because it's not for "the bigger plan". But you enjoy it, so how can it be wrong?
I'm still alive and kicking? Are you saying that nature is "the one" that kills everyone that doesn't die of old age? Those that die at an age of 12, did they make a bad decision that "goes against nature"... Again, I'm still very much alive (as far as I know)... Does this mean that I didn't make any bad choices? Or is nature just too busy with other people's bad choices for my turn to come up? Oh, wait... That can't be right because homosexuality is not a choice.
LoL. Err... I might live on what most people consider "a third world continent", but we do cook and process our meat.
But now that you mention the "anal itch" ... I was wondering about that... Thanks for the heads up.
I suppose you don't eat chickens because they possibly carry the bird-flu. But Leviticus doesn't mention that... So which is it? You eat it or not?
So you consider it to be fine for a parent to kill his/her own child because the child swore at them in an anger fit. Hmm... I wonder how many modern teenagers would still be alive if this "law" was still upheld. And I wonder how many people would still be Christians?
And on the point you then consider it fine for a man to have more than one wife? I wonder why the law disagrees with you.
Darn this superficial modern society we live in. How I long to the times when right was right and wrong was wrong. When you feared that your next move could cost you your life or eternal damnation to hell.
(See if you can make a pointless statement I can make one as well ... )
Did you really? I picked a few random ones. So we can work through the whole lot of them. And you'll have a (supposed) answer to why that rule/law has no meaning in modern life. Except for a handful. Because they don't fit your bill. It’s called tunnel vision. Sad. See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.
Let's go through this one more time.
Paedophile = attracted to minors.
Homosexual = attracted to same sex.
Older person (Priest) + Young person/boy (Altar boy) = Paedophile.
Hope my explanation was simple enough to understand.
Did you know that in past times the church leaders encouraged Catholic Priests to rather have sex with the altar boys than woman in order to stay "celibate"? This is totally beyond the point. There are hundreds of threads on this topic, and I suggest that you go there to argue about it. It has no connection whatsoever to "Why Homosexuality is NOT genetic".
Not only does heterosexuals outnumber "homos", but they're also more likely to commit a sexual offence. Check your numbers.
Again you assume.
And I wonder which is more perverted. Men howling at a naked lady on a stage or getting off on lesbian porn, or the "supposed gay sex".
Prove it.
You're still stuck with the idea that homosexuality is a choice.
Does God still punish people left and right? Strike them down with lightning, right?
I wonder what Jesus would think about you judging and hating me? Hmmm...
Is this really your whole argument? That homosexuality is all about sex? I've given more than enough reason why homosexuality is not about sex. Your only argument is that "sex" is in homosexuality therefore homosexuality is all about sex. You are quite correct. Sex and love is not the same thing. If you were under some kind of misconception (Which you clearly are) homosexual people love their partners just as much as heterosexual people love their better halves.
I love my boyfriend with my whole heart. I would die for him. He makes me happy. He makes life worth living. Tell me again how that is a sin and land me in hell?
So you're saying that my (or anybody else's) homosexuality may not be a big enough sin not to be allowed into heaven? Not quite. So YOU can tell God that YOU don't think I should be allowed into heaven. Go ahead. Tell Him. His Son, Jesus Christ, told me that I will have eternal life, no matter who are what I am. So you'll have to go over Jesus' head and get God to keep me out.
God "deals" with people like me? Where does He say that? Leviticus? Oh, right. So homosexual men should be killed, but luckily lesbians are safe. Where and when did Jesus Christ say anything about gays burning in hell? I do recall, however, what He said about loving your neighbour, and not judging. You remind me about the hypocritical High Priests who crucified Jesus. Because Jesus "worked" on a Sunday and it’s forbidden!
I know that I'm wasting my time even speaking to you, and you will hate homosexuals even more because I remind you that you are wrong, but your "program" doesn't allow you to change your mind. I must be wrong. You must be right. And that's that.
And if you reply again, please make it a bit more challenging.
Edit: Spelling
[edit on 2-12-2005 by Gemwolf]
You made my reply so much easier. You did your utmost to appear intelligent. And you succeed in sounding really intelligent. But in the end, you repeat the same nonsensical arguments over and over. It is clear that you know nothing about homosexual psychology. It is clear that you don't even know a homosexual person personally. You cannot argue against something you know nothing about. But nonetheless I will reply to your post, seeing that you made an extra effort to make it enjoyable for me.
Originally posted by thrival
Thank YOU for proving several of my points
Such as?
Originally posted by thrival
, but most about homosexual "thinking" failing to even meet the definition what most people understand the word to mean; revelling in subjective 'revery' would be more apt for what you do.
Seeing that you spent some time on this topic, so will I elsewhere in my reply. And why can I not be subjective on this? It's not as if you stepped into this unbiased. You came here hating homosexual people. You will leave here hating homosexual people even more. And one tend to think that it's because of me, but when you think about it for a second, it's because you are closed-minded and pre-programmed. Nothing will change your carved-in-stone mind. No matter how factual my arguments are.
Originally posted by thrival
Allow me to further dissassemble your spongiform brain, as nature seems to've given me a head-start. I'm quite apprised of all the subjects you think I need help in.
When I reached the end of your post I was laughing out loud. I'm sorry to say you failed completely to "dissassemble" [sic] my "spongiform brain". I fail to see where nature gave you a head start? In being more primitive than me? Wanting to procreate all the time? Wanting to impregnate every possible female? Or do you have a head-start because you fail to understand human psyche? Sir, let's not compare brain pans. It might humiliate you even more.
Originally posted by thrival
You said: "It has been said a million times, and not just only in this thread. Homosexuality does not equal sex! If you think homosexuality is all about sex, then you're just advertising your ignorance. Sex is a part of a relationship - heterosexual or homosexual - whether the relationship lasts only one night or a lifetime. If you bothered to actually read this thread to this point, you would have found more than enough reason(s) why homosexuality is NOT a choice!"
Homosexuality may not equal sex, but it's ALL ABOUT sex, as countless people who "act-up" demonstrate, also the term has the word 'sex' in it so yes we can assume it's about sex. You prove your intellectual dishonesty early on by trying to redefine commonly understood definitions, which of course is your agenda and the physics of slippery-slopes.
You assume completely wrong. Heterosexuality contains sex, yet it's not all about sex. Let's take a few examples:
Sussex. A town in the UK. The word contains sex. Is this town all about sex?
Ignorant. Uneducated. The word contains "ant". So we can assume that its basic meaning is to be uneducated about ants?
Parental. Characteristic of a parent. The word contains "rent". So we can assume that its basic meaning is about renting a mom or dad?
Should I continue this stupid game? What a ridiculous argument and assumption.
And yes, the word does contain sex, but may I remind you that "sex" can also refer to gender? Sex in homosexuality or heterosexuality has nothing to do with the physical act of "making love", but you attraction to a gender.
Homosexuality may refer to:* A sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same sex or gender identity.* Sexual relations with another of the same sex or gender regardless of sexual orientation or self-identification.* A sexual identity or self-identification, which may or may not imply exclusively homosexual behavior or attraction.
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by thrival
Rigorously, 'Sex' is the hardware (or software) nature bestowed you with. It's an engineering issue. What do you have, what was it made for, what will you
do with it. If you're a normal man you have a penis and are potentially capable of impregnating a woman. Doesn't mean you will or are obligated to, but all the functional assets are there.
So we're back at the homosexuality has nothing to do with sex point. The idea that gays are only about sex may come from stereotyping, certain media projections and authority programming. Homosexuality is no more or no less about sex than any heterosexual relationship.
Is it so hard to believe or even grasp that homosexual people can have a meaningful relationship? Maybe if you get to know some homosexual people you'll be a bit more informed.
Originally posted by thrival
Of course, engaging in sex is a choice. Not many people are capable to
have sex while unconscious, therefore I assert it's a conscious act. And if
you're conscious, you are choosing your thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
Believe it or not we can choose to think certain thoughts or feel a certain way, unless you're of course an automoton and 'believe' (still doesn't make it true) that all locus of control exist OUTSIDE yourself. Can you control yourself? Obviously not too well, which is a problem homosexuals wrestle with.
This argument (whatever it was you were trying to say) does not hold any water because you cannot get beyond the point of understanding that homosexuality is not about sex.
You blatantly insult homosexuals and the way they think. Again you make assumptions. Sir, I can control myself better than most heterosexual men. Need I remind you of the hordes of sex-deprived men that hangs out in strip clubs? Or the countless married men who would rather pay a woman to have sex with him because his wife can no longer satisfy him?
Is it really that "obvious" that homosexuals cannot control their sexual urges? Sir, you see only what you want to see.
Oh, I see we're finally at the end of your hammering on "homosexuality=sex". May I point out that all this "sex-talk" revolves around male and male-sex. Yet you fail to even mention how female homosexuals fit into this. Sir, you are a hypocrite because you love the idea of two women having sex, but you shudder at the thought of two men having sex. I suggest that if you again bring up the sex argument, that you include women in it, because these girls are some tough feminists who hate being left out.
Originally posted by thrival
You said: "And yes, if you haven't caught on by now, I am one of the homosexuals with a particularly lame quality of thinking."
OK! We can agree on at least that one thing! Moving on,
LoL. You are the only one agreeing on that. You have this weak theory that homosexuals are "dumb" or "stupid" and you have superior intellect. You have nothing to support that theory. I gave you the opportunity to prove your theory, by using my posts, my thoughts and me as an example. You failed to do so. My guess is that you did look at a couple of my posts but saw that you won't succeed.
Luckily all readers have access to all we've said. You are welcome to think that you are more intelligent than homosexuals. The rest of the readers will make up our own minds about that theory.
Originally posted by thrival
you said: "What does gay stereo type jokes have to do with gay genes. Nothing."
It has everything to do with lame choices and thinking, which is what homosexuality is.
LoL! Such as blonde jokes has everything to do with how stupid blonde women are. Such as Jewish jokes has everything to do with how stingy Jews are. Such as 9/11 has everything to do with how funny the deaths of thousands of people are.
Sir, you are only making yourself look bad with your arguments. Maybe you should stop while you're ahead... Err... Maybe you should stop while you're not that far behind.
Originally posted by thrival
You said: "Again you think homosexuality is all about sex."
(Please spell the word and you will find 'sex' right smack in the middle.)
I thought we were finished with this...
Advocating. An umbrella term for organized activism related to a particular set of issues. I found "cat" right smack in the middle of the word. So we can assume that advocating is all about protecting the rights of cats.
Cumbersome. Difficult to handle. It contains the word... Well it's right smack at the beginning. So we can assume that it's difficult to handle sperm?
This is getting boring. Moving on.
Originally posted by thrival
"You also forget about millions of heterosexual men who have anal sex with their wives. This isn't "natural".
I didn't forget, but since you brought it up, you're right: anal sex is UNNATURAL and suicidal behaviour without a condom, allowing you
to flaunt nature and common sense.
Yet you failed to mention it.
Suicidal? Your chances of dying from anal sex without a condom - because of bacterial infections are no more than getting bacterial infections from kissing someone or licking their toes. Funny if it's so unnatural how come so many heterosexual men enjoy it?
And while we're on the topic. You assume again that all homosexuals have anal sex. It's a small percentage of homosexuals that actually have anal sex. Seeing that you don't know any homosexuals, I will use myself to let you understand "us" better.
I do not like or even have anal sex with my boyfriend. Personally I find it uncomfortable and unsatisfying. This does not mean that I don't have a meaningful relationship with my boyfriend - with whom I've been with for over two years. And it doesn't make me less gay if I don't have anal sex.
And again you fail to bring lesbians into your argument.
Originally posted by thrival
"You also forget about billions of men and women who have oral sex. Where is the natural reproduction in that? Was having sex for pleasure "purely human invention"? Did a caveman one day decide... "Hey, this having sex for procreation is getting old... Why not make it fun? Wait, I got one... Let's invent an orgasm!"
If it wasn't fun, people wouldn't do it. But you're no closer to waking to or fathoming the bigger Plan.
The "bigger Plan"? To procreate and over-populate planet earth?
They say that animals don't have sex for fun (with the exception of dolphins?), yet they do it all the time. Instinct?
You were the one who said "The first and functional purpose for sex is reproduction. What we make of it beyond that is a purely human invention." So I asked if "sex for fun" was a human invention. You have no answer to that, so there must be something wrong with your argument. If only I can put my finger on it...
And you fail in your great wisdom to inform us if oral sex is natural on unnatural. It must be unnatural because it's not for "the bigger plan". But you enjoy it, so how can it be wrong?
Originally posted by thrival
"You say that we shouldn't compare ourselves to animals... yet you point out that we should only have sex for reproducing. Like animals? Survival of the species?"
What I said (or say) is that's what the original design is for and does. Form follows function. It's an engineering/design principle. You can missuse what you've been given. That's a choice. Nature kills you faster if you make bad choices. No pity here.
I'm still alive and kicking? Are you saying that nature is "the one" that kills everyone that doesn't die of old age? Those that die at an age of 12, did they make a bad decision that "goes against nature"... Again, I'm still very much alive (as far as I know)... Does this mean that I didn't make any bad choices? Or is nature just too busy with other people's bad choices for my turn to come up? Oh, wait... That can't be right because homosexuality is not a choice.
Originally posted by thrival
"Funny you should mention Leviticus. Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that you must not eat pork."
Pork grows tapeworms and no I don't eat it. I'll bet you're crawling with them tho, which might explain 'anal itch.'
LoL. Err... I might live on what most people consider "a third world continent", but we do cook and process our meat.
But now that you mention the "anal itch" ... I was wondering about that... Thanks for the heads up.
I suppose you don't eat chickens because they possibly carry the bird-flu. But Leviticus doesn't mention that... So which is it? You eat it or not?
Originally posted by thrival
"...Funny you don't mention that the same scripture says that parents should kill their child, should the child swear at them."
Fewer behavioral problems in a self-regulating society is a bad thing?
So you consider it to be fine for a parent to kill his/her own child because the child swore at them in an anger fit. Hmm... I wonder how many modern teenagers would still be alive if this "law" was still upheld. And I wonder how many people would still be Christians?
Originally posted by thrival
"...Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that a brother should marry and care for his brother's widow (i.e. when the brother died)"
There was no welfare or SSI back then, so caring for inlaws was a loving thing to do.
And on the point you then consider it fine for a man to have more than one wife? I wonder why the law disagrees with you.
Originally posted by thrival
"... Funny that you don't mention that "you shall not divorce" is one of the Ten Commandments, yet it is not frowned upon."
Sure it is, depending your depth of understanding, responsibility and commitment. Which just shows how superficial we've become. Homosexual 'thinking' makes superficiallization (nonsense) it's singular agenda.
Darn this superficial modern society we live in. How I long to the times when right was right and wrong was wrong. When you feared that your next move could cost you your life or eternal damnation to hell.
(See if you can make a pointless statement I can make one as well ... )
Originally posted by thrival
"Funny how you want to apply only certain rules from the Old Testament and completely ignore those that doesn't fit your bill."
Not really but since you brought them up, I dealt with them in turn.
Did you really? I picked a few random ones. So we can work through the whole lot of them. And you'll have a (supposed) answer to why that rule/law has no meaning in modern life. Except for a handful. Because they don't fit your bill. It’s called tunnel vision. Sad. See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.
Originally posted by thrival
Only because hetero's outnumber homos by a large percentage. How would you define Catholic priests who violate alter boys? Are they homos? pedasterers? pedophiles? all three? Great, let's have more of their kind coaching sports, the boy-scouts (not.)
Let's go through this one more time.
Paedophile = attracted to minors.
Homosexual = attracted to same sex.
Older person (Priest) + Young person/boy (Altar boy) = Paedophile.
Hope my explanation was simple enough to understand.
Did you know that in past times the church leaders encouraged Catholic Priests to rather have sex with the altar boys than woman in order to stay "celibate"? This is totally beyond the point. There are hundreds of threads on this topic, and I suggest that you go there to argue about it. It has no connection whatsoever to "Why Homosexuality is NOT genetic".
Not only does heterosexuals outnumber "homos", but they're also more likely to commit a sexual offence. Check your numbers.
Originally posted by thrival
"I wouldn't want you in my home. Hate is not welcome in my home. "
Nor perversions in mine.
Again you assume.
And I wonder which is more perverted. Men howling at a naked lady on a stage or getting off on lesbian porn, or the "supposed gay sex".
Originally posted by thrival
"Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Nature is not "out to get" homosexuals."
So is death been around. Yes it is.
Prove it.
Originally posted by thrival
As for God that might be out to get homosexuals? God is willing to love murderers, rapists, whores, thieves and other "sinners".
He loves them after they repent and straighten out their thinking and lives.
Punishment follows one's bad choices. It's not vindictive, just natural law working itself out. 'I take no pleasure in seeing man die the death. Turn from your sins and live, ye.'
You're still stuck with the idea that homosexuality is a choice.
Does God still punish people left and right? Strike them down with lightning, right?
I wonder what Jesus would think about you judging and hating me? Hmmm...
Originally posted by thrival
"Why would God "hate" me because I love another person?"
Blurring definitions again. God affirms whoever you love, just not who
you suck or bugger. Sex and love aren't even the same thing.
Is this really your whole argument? That homosexuality is all about sex? I've given more than enough reason why homosexuality is not about sex. Your only argument is that "sex" is in homosexuality therefore homosexuality is all about sex. You are quite correct. Sex and love is not the same thing. If you were under some kind of misconception (Which you clearly are) homosexual people love their partners just as much as heterosexual people love their better halves.
I love my boyfriend with my whole heart. I would die for him. He makes me happy. He makes life worth living. Tell me again how that is a sin and land me in hell?
Originally posted by thrival
"I made my peace with God. Now, I wonder if you would want to go to heaven, if you knew I was going to be there, as well as millions of other Christian homosexuals?"
If you make it to heaven, it won't be because of your homosexuality, but some other redeeming quality that outweighed it. Miracles are possible, just not likely. Anyway there are no buggers in heaven. God specifically stated how he deals with people like you.
So you're saying that my (or anybody else's) homosexuality may not be a big enough sin not to be allowed into heaven? Not quite. So YOU can tell God that YOU don't think I should be allowed into heaven. Go ahead. Tell Him. His Son, Jesus Christ, told me that I will have eternal life, no matter who are what I am. So you'll have to go over Jesus' head and get God to keep me out.
God "deals" with people like me? Where does He say that? Leviticus? Oh, right. So homosexual men should be killed, but luckily lesbians are safe. Where and when did Jesus Christ say anything about gays burning in hell? I do recall, however, what He said about loving your neighbour, and not judging. You remind me about the hypocritical High Priests who crucified Jesus. Because Jesus "worked" on a Sunday and it’s forbidden!
I know that I'm wasting my time even speaking to you, and you will hate homosexuals even more because I remind you that you are wrong, but your "program" doesn't allow you to change your mind. I must be wrong. You must be right. And that's that.
And if you reply again, please make it a bit more challenging.
Edit: Spelling
[edit on 2-12-2005 by Gemwolf]
yeah there really isnt anythnig that will excuse a persons admittance into heaven. if youre participating in sexual immorality then youre corrupting
the spiritual body which is christ manifesting in man.
he wouldnt have had the female if he wanted male on male. simply put. i dont know if you guys mentioned corinthians but that book of the bible states just, that homosexuals arent allowed into heaven.
he wouldnt have had the female if he wanted male on male. simply put. i dont know if you guys mentioned corinthians but that book of the bible states just, that homosexuals arent allowed into heaven.
Homosexuality.
Homo is the root or prefix of the word. We see this used in many words such as homogenized, homosexual, homonym, homophone. Homo is a Greek word that means same. Considering this it would be silly to call someone a "Homo" in a derogatory manner since you're basically saying they are your equal. "Hello same(as me)". I suppose this would be correct if you were calling a man a homo and you are a man as well. Homo- "Look we're the same".
There's also a Latin version of this root which means "man" or a human in general. You'll find this used in terms like homo sapiens and homo erectus, but I don't believe it applies in this case.
Sexual is from Latin "sexus" which means male or female gender. It has nothing to do with the reproductive act itself. It's basically a way of stating a difference between a species based on their re-productive organs.
So Homosexual means literally "The same gender". We can have more fun with this if we examine the words longer. Does "homophobe" mean fear of humans? It actually could and that would be a terrible phobia to have. everywhere you go you're with a human...youself. Aaaaaah!!! Of course it could mean (and usually is used as) "fear of the same" which means you would be scared anytime you saw two or more of the same thing together.
That said, please clarify your stance next time you claim someone is a homophobe. Also can those butchering the English language with their Cracker Jack degrees quit finding things like "cat" in cataract. As if that meant you had a member of the feline species in your eyes. If you're going to break a word down to it's real meaning do it correctly please.
If you want to read stories about homophobic people, try reading Isaac Asimov's robot series books. In some instances people would rather die than meet another human. You can also find instances of people being afraid of meeting multiple robots. There something in there for all homophobes no matter which way you lean.
Homosexuals and Homo Sapiens:A Formal Confusion
[edit on 2-12-2005 by dbates]
Homo is the root or prefix of the word. We see this used in many words such as homogenized, homosexual, homonym, homophone. Homo is a Greek word that means same. Considering this it would be silly to call someone a "Homo" in a derogatory manner since you're basically saying they are your equal. "Hello same(as me)". I suppose this would be correct if you were calling a man a homo and you are a man as well. Homo- "Look we're the same".
There's also a Latin version of this root which means "man" or a human in general. You'll find this used in terms like homo sapiens and homo erectus, but I don't believe it applies in this case.
Sexual is from Latin "sexus" which means male or female gender. It has nothing to do with the reproductive act itself. It's basically a way of stating a difference between a species based on their re-productive organs.
So Homosexual means literally "The same gender". We can have more fun with this if we examine the words longer. Does "homophobe" mean fear of humans? It actually could and that would be a terrible phobia to have. everywhere you go you're with a human...youself. Aaaaaah!!! Of course it could mean (and usually is used as) "fear of the same" which means you would be scared anytime you saw two or more of the same thing together.
That said, please clarify your stance next time you claim someone is a homophobe. Also can those butchering the English language with their Cracker Jack degrees quit finding things like "cat" in cataract. As if that meant you had a member of the feline species in your eyes. If you're going to break a word down to it's real meaning do it correctly please.
If you want to read stories about homophobic people, try reading Isaac Asimov's robot series books. In some instances people would rather die than meet another human. You can also find instances of people being afraid of meeting multiple robots. There something in there for all homophobes no matter which way you lean.
Homosexuals and Homo Sapiens:A Formal Confusion
[edit on 2-12-2005 by dbates]
The initial argument is predicated on the belief that our genes remain constant throughout our lives.
This is not so.
Recent evidence shows genes can mutate throughout our lives. In a female genes are more likely to mutate while the infant is still in the womb. In a male, genes are more likely to mutate in the early stages of pubity.
Something to think about is that the very process of IVF has been shown to mutate genes. That is to say that just selecting eggs from a petri dish can increase the chances of an infant acquiring certain genetic diseases.
These diseases are not inherited. They are caused by mutations which arise when the eggs are taken from their natural environment. Yet these mutation can still be passed on to further generations.
In males early pubity is a time when we are most susceptable to genetic mutations (Where certain parts of an inherited gene might be switched on and off).
Cases of Pedophila, where a young male is abused and then goes on to be an abuser themselves, may well turn out to be a prime example of such genetic mutation. The accounts of such incidents are so common that to suggest that there is no scientific explanation beggers belief.
Of course once a mutation has happened there is still a chance that that mutation could then be passed on and become inherited.
So, to conclude, the example given about two identical twins on gay the other straight as proof that homosexuality is not genetic may well turn out to be without foundation.
It is possible that either both inherited a gene that predicated homosexuality but that an event in early pubity mutated the gene and made one of the twins straight or that neither had an inherited 'gay gene' and an event in the other's life around the same time mutated a gene which made it more likely that he'd become gay.
Now, what I've said is based upon very recent solid scientific evidence. I have no axe to grind. I just wanted to point out that the premise that has carried this thread is false
This is not so.
Recent evidence shows genes can mutate throughout our lives. In a female genes are more likely to mutate while the infant is still in the womb. In a male, genes are more likely to mutate in the early stages of pubity.
Something to think about is that the very process of IVF has been shown to mutate genes. That is to say that just selecting eggs from a petri dish can increase the chances of an infant acquiring certain genetic diseases.
These diseases are not inherited. They are caused by mutations which arise when the eggs are taken from their natural environment. Yet these mutation can still be passed on to further generations.
In males early pubity is a time when we are most susceptable to genetic mutations (Where certain parts of an inherited gene might be switched on and off).
Cases of Pedophila, where a young male is abused and then goes on to be an abuser themselves, may well turn out to be a prime example of such genetic mutation. The accounts of such incidents are so common that to suggest that there is no scientific explanation beggers belief.
Of course once a mutation has happened there is still a chance that that mutation could then be passed on and become inherited.
So, to conclude, the example given about two identical twins on gay the other straight as proof that homosexuality is not genetic may well turn out to be without foundation.
It is possible that either both inherited a gene that predicated homosexuality but that an event in early pubity mutated the gene and made one of the twins straight or that neither had an inherited 'gay gene' and an event in the other's life around the same time mutated a gene which made it more likely that he'd become gay.
Now, what I've said is based upon very recent solid scientific evidence. I have no axe to grind. I just wanted to point out that the premise that has carried this thread is false
Gemwolf:
By your logic the only person who can "understand" homsexuality
is another homosexual, but that would just 'drag' (excuse the pun)
everyone into your subjective error, which IS the homosexual agenda.
Sure I know plenty of homosexuals, I just don't fraternize with them,
mainly because they just can't keep the subject of sex to themselves.
I can have plenty of associations with hetero people, business,
friendships or otherwise, but only homosexuals force me to deal
with their singular preoccupation, which is all about them, their
perverse sexuality. Yes it is perverse, as in 'abnormal.' That's how
words aquire their definitions. Obviously you don't like and would redefine
the definition of perverse, as has been ascribed to homosexuality. Every
great civilization that has adopted homosexuality has fallen, mainly
because superficial nonsense (homosexual) 'thinking' just isn't adequate to
hold civilization together. God routed two cities just for those crimes
against nature, which they are, because they violate natural design.
Your subjective error is simply your stubborn refusal to accept that fact.
You would rather that nature be otherwise. Incidentally, nature is divine
expression or 'art.' Everyone emits energy and I find homosexuals to be
emitting a bandwidth of noise without content.
You said: "When I reached the end of your post I was laughing out loud.
I'm sorry to say you failed completely to "dissassemble" [sic] y "spongiform
brain". I fail to see where nature gave you a head start? In being more
primitive than me? Wanting to procreate all the time? Wanting to
impregnate every possible female? Or do you have a head-start because
you fail to understand human psyche? Sir, let's not compare brain pans. It
might humiliate you even more."
Please-- nothing could humiliate me a particle as much as your own degrading behaviour, or defense of same.
"You assume completely wrong. Heterosexuality contains sex, yet it's not
all about sex. Let's take a few examples: Sussex. A town in the UK. The
word contains sex. Is this town all about sex? Ignorant. Uneducated. The
word contains "ant". So we can assume that its basic meaning is to be
uneducated about ants?"
Now you engage in didactics and presume readers to be idiots. Some
words contain roots of other words for logical reasons and others not. One
thing we all know, homosexuality is about sex, between people who share
the same gender attributes. Unbridled desires leads to actions, IOW, gay
attraction leads to gay actions (sucking and buggery.) And perverse
activity are what homosexuals have worked hard to legitimize, but the
definitions of perverse still stand.
"So we're back at the homosexuality has nothing to do with sex point. The
idea that gays are only about sex may come from stereotyping, certain
media projections and authority programming. Homosexuality is no more or
no less about sex than any heterosexual relationship. Is it so hard to
believe or even grasp that homosexual people can have a meaningful
relationship? Maybe if you get to know some homosexual people you'll be
a bit more informed. "
I really don't care about your other behaviours so long as they're not
criminal and affect me or other innocent members of the population. I care
less what your relationships are since "meaningful" is subjective to the
user. You try to make a persuasive or logical arguement but it's still just
drivel. You sure know nothing about me or who I've "known" and guess
what; it's better that way. No I'm not in sympathy with your perversion
problem, at least not in the sense of wanting to join in with it.
"Sir, I can control myself better than most heterosexual men."
It's not about comparisons, but the perverse behavior you choose to
engage in. Don't engage in it, and don't fill the airwaves or media with it
and I have absolutely no problem with you or your similarly tempted
bretheren.
"Your chances of dying from anal sex without a condom - because of
bacterial infections are no more than getting bacterial infections from
kissing someone or licking their toes."
Please engage in as much unprotected anal sex as your heart desires with
your perverted partner. Good chance nature will educate you herself what
crimes against her are.
"And you fail in your great wisdom to inform us if oral sex is natural on
unnatural. It must be unnatural because it's not for "the bigger plan". But
you enjoy it, so how can it be wrong?"
Hetero sex has a purpose yours doesn't. How would you possibly know
what I enjoy? Are you suggesting everything that people enjoy is OK?
"homosexuality is not a choice."
Then you're either an automaton, sleep-walking, or an incompetent who
can't possibly be held responsible for any of your behaviours. If nothing
else, society needs protection against people who hold similar views.
"I suppose you don't eat chickens because they possibly carry the bird-flu.
But Leviticus doesn't mention that... So which is it? You eat it or not?"
Why the concern about what I or other people eat?. Study up on dietetics,
and fasting. Changing your chemistry can change your thoughts, radically.
In a few years you may not even remember your old perverted self.
"So you consider it to be fine for a parent to kill his/her own child because
the child swore at them in an anger fit. Hmm... I wonder how many modern
teenagers would still be alive if this "law" was still upheld. And I wonder
how many people would still be Christians?"
Cursing one's parents was a versy serious offense at a time when God
was very active in a personal way, in the Jewish people's lives. Basically
the child was high-signing his moral ineptitude. God was establishing the
parameters of civilization. "Honor thy father & mother" is one of the
commandments.
"And on the point you then consider it fine for a man to have more than
one wife? I wonder why the law disagrees with you."
The old Jewish law was about taking care of people for lack of government
safety nets, not sex, altho there were fewer people back then and jews
were mostly outnumbered. Some jewish kings did have harems and God
did NOT approve.
"Again you assume. And I wonder which is more perverted. Men howling at
a naked lady on a stage or getting off on lesbian porn, or the "supposed
gay sex".
That you would need to wonder, positively and diagnostically establishes
your perversion.
"You're still stuck with the idea that homosexuality is a choice.
Does God still punish people left and right? Strike them down with
lightning, right? I wonder what Jesus would think about you judging and
hating me? Hmmm... "
Behaviour is a choice. The words and ideas you choose to channel are also
a choice. I don't hate you, not knowing you well enough to have an opinion
either way. What I DO hate is your defense of perversion, perverse
activities, promotion of perversion as something other than what it is.
Yes God does punish people left, right and sideways, after giving them
adequate opportunities to get it right. Some people are in better position
than others, to perceive cause and effects. Obviously you've done nothing
to be in a better position, so your spiritual blindness is evident.
"Your only argument is that "sex" is in homosexuality therefore
homosexuality is all about sex. You are quite correct. Sex and love is not
the same thing. If you were under some kind of misconception (Which you
clearly are) homosexual people love their partners just as much as
heterosexual people love their better halves. I love my boyfriend with my
whole heart. I would die for him. He makes me happy. He makes life worth
living. Tell me again how that is a sin and land me in hell?
Love is not the crime against nature, but buggery; using equipment for
purposes not intended, defending and promoting perverse behaviour.
Then again, God IS jealous of your (missplaced) affections. I really don't
need to challenge you. Your perversion is already more than you can
handle. Homosexuality is a lame choice people make, man or women. I've
read all the other arguements (far more than you know) and they're simply
crap.
By your logic the only person who can "understand" homsexuality
is another homosexual, but that would just 'drag' (excuse the pun)
everyone into your subjective error, which IS the homosexual agenda.
Sure I know plenty of homosexuals, I just don't fraternize with them,
mainly because they just can't keep the subject of sex to themselves.
I can have plenty of associations with hetero people, business,
friendships or otherwise, but only homosexuals force me to deal
with their singular preoccupation, which is all about them, their
perverse sexuality. Yes it is perverse, as in 'abnormal.' That's how
words aquire their definitions. Obviously you don't like and would redefine
the definition of perverse, as has been ascribed to homosexuality. Every
great civilization that has adopted homosexuality has fallen, mainly
because superficial nonsense (homosexual) 'thinking' just isn't adequate to
hold civilization together. God routed two cities just for those crimes
against nature, which they are, because they violate natural design.
Your subjective error is simply your stubborn refusal to accept that fact.
You would rather that nature be otherwise. Incidentally, nature is divine
expression or 'art.' Everyone emits energy and I find homosexuals to be
emitting a bandwidth of noise without content.
You said: "When I reached the end of your post I was laughing out loud.
I'm sorry to say you failed completely to "dissassemble" [sic] y "spongiform
brain". I fail to see where nature gave you a head start? In being more
primitive than me? Wanting to procreate all the time? Wanting to
impregnate every possible female? Or do you have a head-start because
you fail to understand human psyche? Sir, let's not compare brain pans. It
might humiliate you even more."
Please-- nothing could humiliate me a particle as much as your own degrading behaviour, or defense of same.
"You assume completely wrong. Heterosexuality contains sex, yet it's not
all about sex. Let's take a few examples: Sussex. A town in the UK. The
word contains sex. Is this town all about sex? Ignorant. Uneducated. The
word contains "ant". So we can assume that its basic meaning is to be
uneducated about ants?"
Now you engage in didactics and presume readers to be idiots. Some
words contain roots of other words for logical reasons and others not. One
thing we all know, homosexuality is about sex, between people who share
the same gender attributes. Unbridled desires leads to actions, IOW, gay
attraction leads to gay actions (sucking and buggery.) And perverse
activity are what homosexuals have worked hard to legitimize, but the
definitions of perverse still stand.
"So we're back at the homosexuality has nothing to do with sex point. The
idea that gays are only about sex may come from stereotyping, certain
media projections and authority programming. Homosexuality is no more or
no less about sex than any heterosexual relationship. Is it so hard to
believe or even grasp that homosexual people can have a meaningful
relationship? Maybe if you get to know some homosexual people you'll be
a bit more informed. "
I really don't care about your other behaviours so long as they're not
criminal and affect me or other innocent members of the population. I care
less what your relationships are since "meaningful" is subjective to the
user. You try to make a persuasive or logical arguement but it's still just
drivel. You sure know nothing about me or who I've "known" and guess
what; it's better that way. No I'm not in sympathy with your perversion
problem, at least not in the sense of wanting to join in with it.
"Sir, I can control myself better than most heterosexual men."
It's not about comparisons, but the perverse behavior you choose to
engage in. Don't engage in it, and don't fill the airwaves or media with it
and I have absolutely no problem with you or your similarly tempted
bretheren.
"Your chances of dying from anal sex without a condom - because of
bacterial infections are no more than getting bacterial infections from
kissing someone or licking their toes."
Please engage in as much unprotected anal sex as your heart desires with
your perverted partner. Good chance nature will educate you herself what
crimes against her are.
"And you fail in your great wisdom to inform us if oral sex is natural on
unnatural. It must be unnatural because it's not for "the bigger plan". But
you enjoy it, so how can it be wrong?"
Hetero sex has a purpose yours doesn't. How would you possibly know
what I enjoy? Are you suggesting everything that people enjoy is OK?
"homosexuality is not a choice."
Then you're either an automaton, sleep-walking, or an incompetent who
can't possibly be held responsible for any of your behaviours. If nothing
else, society needs protection against people who hold similar views.
"I suppose you don't eat chickens because they possibly carry the bird-flu.
But Leviticus doesn't mention that... So which is it? You eat it or not?"
Why the concern about what I or other people eat?. Study up on dietetics,
and fasting. Changing your chemistry can change your thoughts, radically.
In a few years you may not even remember your old perverted self.
"So you consider it to be fine for a parent to kill his/her own child because
the child swore at them in an anger fit. Hmm... I wonder how many modern
teenagers would still be alive if this "law" was still upheld. And I wonder
how many people would still be Christians?"
Cursing one's parents was a versy serious offense at a time when God
was very active in a personal way, in the Jewish people's lives. Basically
the child was high-signing his moral ineptitude. God was establishing the
parameters of civilization. "Honor thy father & mother" is one of the
commandments.
"And on the point you then consider it fine for a man to have more than
one wife? I wonder why the law disagrees with you."
The old Jewish law was about taking care of people for lack of government
safety nets, not sex, altho there were fewer people back then and jews
were mostly outnumbered. Some jewish kings did have harems and God
did NOT approve.
"Again you assume. And I wonder which is more perverted. Men howling at
a naked lady on a stage or getting off on lesbian porn, or the "supposed
gay sex".
That you would need to wonder, positively and diagnostically establishes
your perversion.
"You're still stuck with the idea that homosexuality is a choice.
Does God still punish people left and right? Strike them down with
lightning, right? I wonder what Jesus would think about you judging and
hating me? Hmmm... "
Behaviour is a choice. The words and ideas you choose to channel are also
a choice. I don't hate you, not knowing you well enough to have an opinion
either way. What I DO hate is your defense of perversion, perverse
activities, promotion of perversion as something other than what it is.
Yes God does punish people left, right and sideways, after giving them
adequate opportunities to get it right. Some people are in better position
than others, to perceive cause and effects. Obviously you've done nothing
to be in a better position, so your spiritual blindness is evident.
"Your only argument is that "sex" is in homosexuality therefore
homosexuality is all about sex. You are quite correct. Sex and love is not
the same thing. If you were under some kind of misconception (Which you
clearly are) homosexual people love their partners just as much as
heterosexual people love their better halves. I love my boyfriend with my
whole heart. I would die for him. He makes me happy. He makes life worth
living. Tell me again how that is a sin and land me in hell?
Love is not the crime against nature, but buggery; using equipment for
purposes not intended, defending and promoting perverse behaviour.
Then again, God IS jealous of your (missplaced) affections. I really don't
need to challenge you. Your perversion is already more than you can
handle. Homosexuality is a lame choice people make, man or women. I've
read all the other arguements (far more than you know) and they're simply
crap.
Originally posted by thrival
It's not about comparisons, but the perverse behavior you choose to
engage in. Don't engage in it, and don't fill the airwaves or media with it
and I have absolutely no problem with you or your similarly tempted
bretheren.
:shk:
I would rather people engage in concentual sex rather than biggoty. The first does not affect me unless I choose to participate.. [] but your addled and hatefilled opinion of your fellow human being does [you said you don't hate but clearly you do]. You speak of mother nature 'punnishing' people yet it's what mother nature gave them. You speak of empires falling because of homosexuality? Thats ridiculous.. homosexuality does not effect economies.. that is like blaming famines and genocides on gays.. biggotry however does tear empires apart. Try reading some history books.. as far as I know most war mongers were not gay.
It's pathetic how some have to put others down to make a grab at the high moral ground when it's so obviously groundless.
Thrival>By your logic the only person who can "understand" homsexuality
is another homosexual, but that would just 'drag' (excuse the pun)
everyone into your subjective error, which IS the homosexual agenda.
Oh just love the snidey little digs you've managed to pepper your posts with, quotation marks too, just in case we don't get it first time Very good!Did the rest of the guys at the frat party have any input or are you soley responsible for this drivel.
I think we've all sussed out that you don't like homosexuals, luckily enough we've also worked out that your opinion good, bad or indifferent, is hardly something worth courting anyway.
is another homosexual, but that would just 'drag' (excuse the pun)
everyone into your subjective error, which IS the homosexual agenda.
Oh just love the snidey little digs you've managed to pepper your posts with, quotation marks too, just in case we don't get it first time Very good!Did the rest of the guys at the frat party have any input or are you soley responsible for this drivel.
I think we've all sussed out that you don't like homosexuals, luckily enough we've also worked out that your opinion good, bad or indifferent, is hardly something worth courting anyway.
Alright everyone. If we can't keep the discussion on the topic at hand, then this thread will have outlived it's usefulness and be closed. This
thread really isn't about homosexuality being right or wrong. It's supposed to be a scientific approach.(Thus being in the Science and Technology
forum). There are several other forums on ATS if you want to discuss homosexuality being right or wrong.
In short, stay on topic please.
[edit on 2-12-2005 by dbates]
In short, stay on topic please.
[edit on 2-12-2005 by dbates]
dbates:
May I suggest that the idea of a moral universe is a new idea to some and
perhaps a gray area between discussion of homosexuality being genetic,
right or wrong. Rigorous scientific ideas should be testable and tested.
Proof can often be found, depending where one chooses to look. Gravity
can be tested, so can fire. Jump off a cliff and you'll likely die from the fall.
Hold your hand in a fire and you'll likely be burned. Stick your penis in another
person's anus (male or female) too many times without man-made, artificial
protection (condom) and you will likely catch an illness in that organ from the
countless bacterial strains living in that person's colon. Sucking a penis that
has been inside another person's anus, licking anus, ingesting e-coli et al will
likely result in illness. These are legitimate scientific tests that millions of
people have already made to their cost, and can be read about from medical
statistics. It's perfectly fair to say that 'sin' is simply a violation of natural laws
that violate man's health. That form- follows-function is a principle of nature
isn't really disputable. That nature in her largess can be beautiful too, doesn't
trump her primary, functional usefulness. (Because homosexuals are sure to
search far and wide for examples in nature that violate the usefulness
principle, I will simply say that nature's purposes aren't always immediately
obvious to the human mind, but whatever is useless gets recycled.)
The original topic is why homosexuality is not genetic. There are many
reasons and proofs why it is not. First, homosexuality is not genetic because
it serves no natural purpose. Second, it is not genetic because human beings
are conscious beings who make choices. Thoughts and feelings are choices
and homosexuality is a choice. Yes, you can control your feelings, and your
behaviour. If not, that IS a cause for social concerns. How much energy you
decide to devote to self-control is another matter. Society makes laws to
regulate destructive behaviors and protect the innocent. Nature doesn't
'make' anyone gay. As long as your thoughts and feelings stay within your
own body's confines, they are simply that. But when you act upon them, they
have effects.
Scientific truth has its rewards. We can see how true chemical principles
create whole industries and useful products. Falsehoods on the other hand,
give us nothing to build upon. Truth always wins out because nature is
inherently useful while falsehoods offer nothing of value. To convince others
that falsehoods are true or useful is to misslead. Much pain and destruction
can result before the ultimate discovery of the error. Homosexuality offers
nothing useful. That is not to say that persons who identify with the condition
of homosexuality have nothing to offer or no useful qualities, but their belief
that their intrinsic value or usefulness stems FROM their homosexual
identification is quite false. A homosexual engineer would be just as
competent an engineer after s/he 'discovers' his-her heterosexuality. That's
why I say homosexuality is a lame choice based upon defective (or
unfinished) thinking. Such persons simply haven't carried their observations or
experiment far enough. I would much rather they confined their research
before subjecting society with their false conclusions. Yes, abheration and
perversion and its resulting sickness has always been with us, but thankfully,
hasn't imposed itself upon the healthy and useful majority that would cause
complete social collapse. Should we work hard to convince people that a
certain amount of cancer in their body is normal, just to accomodate the
cancer's 'right' to act up?
The fact is, beyond the need for human population to maintain its numbers,
sex is unnecessary, and for that purpose, only hetero-sex IS necessary;
homo-sexuality is UNnecessary, therefore extraneous, violating nature's first
principle of inherent usefulness. In other words, homosexuality is an
Unnecessary and destructive choice people make. That hetero people also
make stupid choices is obvious, but it's not a comparison issue. Anyone can
put their's and other people's lives in jeaopardy from making bad choices.
There is no hate in calling stupidity (willful stubborness) for what it is,
however many egos get offended.
May I suggest that the idea of a moral universe is a new idea to some and
perhaps a gray area between discussion of homosexuality being genetic,
right or wrong. Rigorous scientific ideas should be testable and tested.
Proof can often be found, depending where one chooses to look. Gravity
can be tested, so can fire. Jump off a cliff and you'll likely die from the fall.
Hold your hand in a fire and you'll likely be burned. Stick your penis in another
person's anus (male or female) too many times without man-made, artificial
protection (condom) and you will likely catch an illness in that organ from the
countless bacterial strains living in that person's colon. Sucking a penis that
has been inside another person's anus, licking anus, ingesting e-coli et al will
likely result in illness. These are legitimate scientific tests that millions of
people have already made to their cost, and can be read about from medical
statistics. It's perfectly fair to say that 'sin' is simply a violation of natural laws
that violate man's health. That form- follows-function is a principle of nature
isn't really disputable. That nature in her largess can be beautiful too, doesn't
trump her primary, functional usefulness. (Because homosexuals are sure to
search far and wide for examples in nature that violate the usefulness
principle, I will simply say that nature's purposes aren't always immediately
obvious to the human mind, but whatever is useless gets recycled.)
The original topic is why homosexuality is not genetic. There are many
reasons and proofs why it is not. First, homosexuality is not genetic because
it serves no natural purpose. Second, it is not genetic because human beings
are conscious beings who make choices. Thoughts and feelings are choices
and homosexuality is a choice. Yes, you can control your feelings, and your
behaviour. If not, that IS a cause for social concerns. How much energy you
decide to devote to self-control is another matter. Society makes laws to
regulate destructive behaviors and protect the innocent. Nature doesn't
'make' anyone gay. As long as your thoughts and feelings stay within your
own body's confines, they are simply that. But when you act upon them, they
have effects.
Scientific truth has its rewards. We can see how true chemical principles
create whole industries and useful products. Falsehoods on the other hand,
give us nothing to build upon. Truth always wins out because nature is
inherently useful while falsehoods offer nothing of value. To convince others
that falsehoods are true or useful is to misslead. Much pain and destruction
can result before the ultimate discovery of the error. Homosexuality offers
nothing useful. That is not to say that persons who identify with the condition
of homosexuality have nothing to offer or no useful qualities, but their belief
that their intrinsic value or usefulness stems FROM their homosexual
identification is quite false. A homosexual engineer would be just as
competent an engineer after s/he 'discovers' his-her heterosexuality. That's
why I say homosexuality is a lame choice based upon defective (or
unfinished) thinking. Such persons simply haven't carried their observations or
experiment far enough. I would much rather they confined their research
before subjecting society with their false conclusions. Yes, abheration and
perversion and its resulting sickness has always been with us, but thankfully,
hasn't imposed itself upon the healthy and useful majority that would cause
complete social collapse. Should we work hard to convince people that a
certain amount of cancer in their body is normal, just to accomodate the
cancer's 'right' to act up?
The fact is, beyond the need for human population to maintain its numbers,
sex is unnecessary, and for that purpose, only hetero-sex IS necessary;
homo-sexuality is UNnecessary, therefore extraneous, violating nature's first
principle of inherent usefulness. In other words, homosexuality is an
Unnecessary and destructive choice people make. That hetero people also
make stupid choices is obvious, but it's not a comparison issue. Anyone can
put their's and other people's lives in jeaopardy from making bad choices.
There is no hate in calling stupidity (willful stubborness) for what it is,
however many egos get offended.
Originally posted by thrival
I've read all the other arguements (far more than you know) and they're simply crap.
On Dbates’ request I will no longer poke your ignorance with a stick. It was fun while it lasted. In the end I might have been better off trying to converse with the wall behind me about this topic. It might have showed more insight on the matter.
But the quote used here ^ sums up your knowledge, views, insight and intellect in such a satisfactory way, that I need to say no more.
We both claim to know what we're talking about. We both claim to be right. But that can't be. Someone must be wrong. Everything you said is based on opinion and misinterpreted information from stereotype gay jokes, from conservative prepositioned educators (including a handful media representatives, preachers and politicians) and maybe from some fellow members of the KKK.
Everything I said is based on fact. I am gay. I should know about the homosexual side of this. I've spent a good 7+ years of my life looking into homosexuality to understand myself better. And I also spent a lot of time on my knees talking to God about who and what I am. And I got my answers.
Now I wonder who's right and who's wrong?
Maybe a quick indication can be the amount of other ATS members who responded to your posts and confirmed that your meaningless banter could kill many goldfish out of boredom. How many people ganged up on your side...? Hear that? The silence?
That's right. No one's got your back. Because no matter how much people differ from each other, ATS members know to respect other each other and to DENY HATE.
Enough said. Good luck with your time here at ATS, Thrival. We'll meet again some day. You know where. Then we'll know the truth. I can't wait.
Gemwolf:
The issue of right or wrong is never settled in the court of public opinion
(i.e. human ideas.) People hold on to falsehoods all the time. Just because
most people are hetero and WOULD agree with me doesn't make me right
either. Again it's the form-follows function issue. Homosexuality is frivolous,
superficial, extraneous, unnecessary, nonsense. Nature has no place or use
for it. It's a behavioral choice. God didn't 'make you' that way.
Why do homosexuals continue to confuse hatred of perversion with hatred of
their persons? Do you identify with your perversion so strongly that you think
you would cease to exist without it? Some people love vice, others virtue.
People will forever try to justify their vices; thieves, murderers, members of
NAMBLA, persons who practice bestiality, etc. Everyone is redeemable, once
they stop violating the laws of life/creation. Creating a planet where spirits
can act out their perversion and learn from their experiences, might be an act
of compassion but not a long-term solution.
Now you may not take this seriously, but it's an idea as worthy of exploring
as any other; homosexuality could be caused from a confused hormonal
system from too much cooked and processed food, chemicals/hormones
added to meat, excessive animal protein consumption, junk food, etc. While
diet is also largely a matter of choice, the KNOWLEDGE of how food affects
brain chemistry isn't commonly known or taught. That is why I suggest you
make your experiments conscious and objective, rather than merely
subjective and/or social. "The reasons why miracles aren't more common is
that while much praying is done, no fasting is adhered to." (Quote: Prof.
Arnold Ehret)
[edit on 5-12-2005 by thrival]
The issue of right or wrong is never settled in the court of public opinion
(i.e. human ideas.) People hold on to falsehoods all the time. Just because
most people are hetero and WOULD agree with me doesn't make me right
either. Again it's the form-follows function issue. Homosexuality is frivolous,
superficial, extraneous, unnecessary, nonsense. Nature has no place or use
for it. It's a behavioral choice. God didn't 'make you' that way.
Why do homosexuals continue to confuse hatred of perversion with hatred of
their persons? Do you identify with your perversion so strongly that you think
you would cease to exist without it? Some people love vice, others virtue.
People will forever try to justify their vices; thieves, murderers, members of
NAMBLA, persons who practice bestiality, etc. Everyone is redeemable, once
they stop violating the laws of life/creation. Creating a planet where spirits
can act out their perversion and learn from their experiences, might be an act
of compassion but not a long-term solution.
Now you may not take this seriously, but it's an idea as worthy of exploring
as any other; homosexuality could be caused from a confused hormonal
system from too much cooked and processed food, chemicals/hormones
added to meat, excessive animal protein consumption, junk food, etc. While
diet is also largely a matter of choice, the KNOWLEDGE of how food affects
brain chemistry isn't commonly known or taught. That is why I suggest you
make your experiments conscious and objective, rather than merely
subjective and/or social. "The reasons why miracles aren't more common is
that while much praying is done, no fasting is adhered to." (Quote: Prof.
Arnold Ehret)
[edit on 5-12-2005 by thrival]
Originally posted by anxietydisorder
When you say "perhaps it is a psychological reaction to experiences or a traumatic event", that does not apply to me. Sure I got some spankings and life wasn't always perfect, but I never went through any trauma or had an experience that could have turned me gay.
I said that as a possibility, not as fact. I understand that that may have offended you, or at least bothered you a bit, but it was simply one of many possibilities.
You made a point that you had always thought it was genetic, and I've never seen that as the case. I have no gay family members except a great-uncle on my fathers side of the family, and even that was never confirmed. All the relations are in long-term straight relationships.
I had read a lot of material that pointed towards a probable gay gene or genes. It seemed to me logical that there was a resisive gay gene.
Never make a statement like "Any way, this kind of cements it as far as I am concerned".
Look at all the data on the subject. One case is not a valid base to form an opinion on.
Well, as far as it being genetic, and with my understanding of genetics, it seemed like it was impossible for sexuality to be based on genetics, if 2 people had the EXACT same genes but both were not hetero/homo.
There were of course some posts that pointed to reasons that it could be genetic in this case, but I still have a hard time believing it is genetic now.
I've hesitated to reply to this thread so far....but here goes:
This is my story. Parents: Christians (one could say right wing) while I was growing up. No trama. etc. BTW, my parents are great and everything.
Now, my brother does not have the same father as I do (half brother). My father adopted him when he was 2 when my parents got married.
My brother is straight. I'm gay and my sister who has the same father as me is bi. How would one explain this without genetics? My brother and I grew up together...did the same things together, etc. Just goes to show that you can not take one example and explain the diversity of the human genome.
This is my story. Parents: Christians (one could say right wing) while I was growing up. No trama. etc. BTW, my parents are great and everything.
Now, my brother does not have the same father as I do (half brother). My father adopted him when he was 2 when my parents got married.
My brother is straight. I'm gay and my sister who has the same father as me is bi. How would one explain this without genetics? My brother and I grew up together...did the same things together, etc. Just goes to show that you can not take one example and explain the diversity of the human genome.
It is impossible to tag homosexuality to one reason, there are many factors. The child could have been molested or they could feel attraction for men
and women naturally. They could also confuse the feelings they have towards men with something else and get caught up in it. In the early years of
man homosexuality was nothing strange, even sex with children.
Sigh... I tried so hard to stop this... Please forgive me Mods (DBates) , but as the motto goes... Deny Ignorance.
I must congratulate you Thrival on a more civilized reply. Respect.
True. Not that I agree that most hetero people would agree with you. The experience I have with this, is that (hetero) people who have personal connections with homosexual people are much more open minded to and informed about the topic. I guess there is no way for me (or yourself) to get the acknowledgement of being right. Maybe I should get my PhD and in the process get the world authority on the topic and be quoted in discussions like this...
Wow, what a collection of big words. Yet they're all your opinion and based on nothing else.
Yet you see it all around nature.
No. It's an acceptance choice.
And who are you to question what God made? This statement is again based on your opinion with little fact behind it.
The way you speak to me. Your snide remarks. Your vicious attacks. You cannot tell me that you hate my sexuality and not the person in front of it, and hope I'll believe it. Your hatred is transparent.
It is not a perversion. I see my sexuality just as normal as you see your own. I made the choice of accepting who I am. I never made the choice to be who I am, I merely accepted it. I was never molested. I had equal love from my mom and dad. I grew up in a normal home. There is no "nurture reason" why I should be gay thus the only reasonable I'm left with is that it's natural. No amount of "arguments" from anyone could change the fact.
I could very well exist as a "heterosexual" male, but I would be unhappy on every level. My choices was thus to be unhappy for the rest of my life, or to be who I am and live life to the fullest.
You ignore the fact that I do not engage in anal sex or even look lightly on any type of sex. Thus I do not fit your ideas and arguments of "perverted gay", thus in the end there is no reason for you to hate my sexuality or me.
And hating homosexuality (I don't see the resemblance to murderers, thieves, etc.) is a long-term solution?
This theory holds little water. People all over the world, from different cultures and backgrounds and throughout history eat and ate different food. Yet under all circumstances you'll find homosexuals. And throughout a lifetime a person can change his or her diet, yet remains homosexual. It is a theory, but not one of the better ones.
Thrival, I can go on like this forever. I am no "fighter for gay rights". I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about my sexuality because in the end I know the truth. I delivered the facts, and what you and other homophobes (people who fear and hate homosexual people) make of it, is up to you. There is nothing more I can do. I brought the water to the horse. He can remain thirsty if he chooses.
I'm no geneticist, thus I cannot possibly know if homosexuality is genetic. If I had any way of proving it, this whole topic would have been 1 page long, end of story. But I don't thus we can only play with theories and in some cases opinions, and some facts here and there.
I joined this forum not because I want to convince the world that gay is good. I'm interested in the paranormal. That's why you'll notice my lack of PTS points. I don't care about politics. Thus I will no longer reply to this thread. (Or I'll do my best !) Moderators warned us to stop this. I suggest you let it go as well. If you have some wonderful revelation or valid point you would want to share with me about homosexuality you can create a thread in the correct forum and invite me there. Until then. This is Gemwolf. Over and out.
I must congratulate you Thrival on a more civilized reply. Respect.
Originally posted by thrival
Gemwolf:
The issue of right or wrong is never settled in the court of public opinion
(i.e. human ideas.) People hold on to falsehoods all the time. Just because most people are hetero and WOULD agree with me doesn't make me right either.
True. Not that I agree that most hetero people would agree with you. The experience I have with this, is that (hetero) people who have personal connections with homosexual people are much more open minded to and informed about the topic. I guess there is no way for me (or yourself) to get the acknowledgement of being right. Maybe I should get my PhD and in the process get the world authority on the topic and be quoted in discussions like this...
Originally posted by thrival
Again it's the form-follows function issue. Homosexuality is frivolous,
superficial, extraneous, unnecessary, nonsense.
Wow, what a collection of big words. Yet they're all your opinion and based on nothing else.
Originally posted by thrival
Nature has no place or use for it.
Yet you see it all around nature.
Originally posted by thrival
It's a behavioral choice.
No. It's an acceptance choice.
Originally posted by thrival
God didn't 'make you' that way.
And who are you to question what God made? This statement is again based on your opinion with little fact behind it.
Originally posted by thrival
Why do homosexuals continue to confuse hatred of perversion with hatred of their persons?
The way you speak to me. Your snide remarks. Your vicious attacks. You cannot tell me that you hate my sexuality and not the person in front of it, and hope I'll believe it. Your hatred is transparent.
Originally posted by thrival
Do you identify with your perversion so strongly that you think you would cease to exist without it? Some people love vice, others virtue.
It is not a perversion. I see my sexuality just as normal as you see your own. I made the choice of accepting who I am. I never made the choice to be who I am, I merely accepted it. I was never molested. I had equal love from my mom and dad. I grew up in a normal home. There is no "nurture reason" why I should be gay thus the only reasonable I'm left with is that it's natural. No amount of "arguments" from anyone could change the fact.
I could very well exist as a "heterosexual" male, but I would be unhappy on every level. My choices was thus to be unhappy for the rest of my life, or to be who I am and live life to the fullest.
You ignore the fact that I do not engage in anal sex or even look lightly on any type of sex. Thus I do not fit your ideas and arguments of "perverted gay", thus in the end there is no reason for you to hate my sexuality or me.
Originally posted by thrival
People will forever try to justify their vices; thieves, murderers, members of
NAMBLA, persons who practice bestiality, etc. Everyone is redeemable, once they stop violating the laws of life/creation. Creating a planet where spirits can act out their perversion and learn from their experiences, might be an act of compassion but not a long-term solution.
And hating homosexuality (I don't see the resemblance to murderers, thieves, etc.) is a long-term solution?
Originally posted by thrival
Now you may not take this seriously, but it's an idea as worthy of exploring as any other; homosexuality could be caused from a confused hormonal system from too much cooked and processed food, chemicals/hormones added to meat, excessive animal protein consumption, junk food, etc. While diet is also largely a matter of choice, the KNOWLEDGE of how food affects brain chemistry isn't commonly known or taught. That is why I suggest you make your experiments conscious and objective, rather than merely subjective and/or social. "The reasons why miracles aren't more common is that while much praying is done, no fasting is adhered to." (Quote: Prof. Arnold Ehret)
This theory holds little water. People all over the world, from different cultures and backgrounds and throughout history eat and ate different food. Yet under all circumstances you'll find homosexuals. And throughout a lifetime a person can change his or her diet, yet remains homosexual. It is a theory, but not one of the better ones.
Thrival, I can go on like this forever. I am no "fighter for gay rights". I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about my sexuality because in the end I know the truth. I delivered the facts, and what you and other homophobes (people who fear and hate homosexual people) make of it, is up to you. There is nothing more I can do. I brought the water to the horse. He can remain thirsty if he chooses.
I'm no geneticist, thus I cannot possibly know if homosexuality is genetic. If I had any way of proving it, this whole topic would have been 1 page long, end of story. But I don't thus we can only play with theories and in some cases opinions, and some facts here and there.
I joined this forum not because I want to convince the world that gay is good. I'm interested in the paranormal. That's why you'll notice my lack of PTS points. I don't care about politics. Thus I will no longer reply to this thread. (Or I'll do my best !) Moderators warned us to stop this. I suggest you let it go as well. If you have some wonderful revelation or valid point you would want to share with me about homosexuality you can create a thread in the correct forum and invite me there. Until then. This is Gemwolf. Over and out.
"It is not a perversion. I see my sexuality just as normal as you see your own.
I made the choice of accepting who I am. I never made the choice to be who I
am, I merely accepted it. " (living life to the fullest, exercising all your
'options.')
What a load of crap. Of course you've made choices to be who you are.
Everyone makes the choices to be who they are, how they process reality,
how they will react to situations, what they will focus attention upon, how
they will feel, etc. etc. No one makes you think or feel anything. Those are the
responsibilities of being sentient. You sound like someone sleepwalking,
semi-comatose or a mental incompetent who can't take responsibility for
himself. You admit you chose homosexuality ("accepted yourself") then deny
choosing! Make up your mind (what little seems to be functioning.)
[The ancient Hawaiian religion as written by Max Freedom Long in his
Secret Science Behind Miracles & The Secret Science at Work, discusses the
low "self" or soul, is described as an ANIMAL SPIRIT that interpenetrates the
physical body, occupying the same space as the middle self (rational
faculties); point being they are two SEPARATE spirits that make up the man.
The low self handles functions of feeling, memory and autonomic processes
but cannot THINK and depends upon the middle self to interpret reality for it.
The job of the middle self is to TRAIN the low self to civil behaviour, to the
point where the low self can then contact the High Self (which resides outside
and ABOVE the individual) to the point where the High Self can then work
miracles in the person's life and surroundings. Obviously if the low self isn't
properly trained because of MISSINFORMATION fed to it by the middle-self,
then the great event cannot happen. To allow the low self to run the man is
to abandon the reigns. The low self without controls or oversight, runs the
man to destruction by indulgence in animal passions. The High Self has
corollary to the Over-soul or 'Father' demonstrated by Jesus.]
Of course its a perversion, perfectly UNnatural as serves no purpose in nature
(nature is very purposeful.) You made the choice to accept your perversion.
So have members of NAMBLA. You're perfectly at ease with that. Many people
without conscience are perfectly at ease, able to justify them "selves." (i.e.
animal passions.) Your smileys are perfectly idiotic, superficial, frivolous, as is
the gay condition. Sure people hate perversion and perverts because they
drag down moral standards of decency and health, but it's not even personal.
While gay priests might be pedophiles, they are first of all, gay, which is
spiritual crime enough. No one is holding a gun to your head or requires you
to behave in degrading ways. It's a choice you've admitted making. That it's a
choice your happy with isn't the point. That's why homosexuality isn't genetic.
I'm not condemning anyone, but to call one's self a 'christian homosexual' is
an oxymoron who can't read. (Why doesn't that surprise me.) And the root
word to homosexuality is still sex, which is what 'acting up' is all about, i.e.
defending, promoting, expanding the perversion. You see Gemwolf, purity is a
principle of creation, and perversion isn't supported. You will be recycled.
[edit on 7-12-2005 by thrival]
[edit on 7-12-2005 by thrival]
I made the choice of accepting who I am. I never made the choice to be who I
am, I merely accepted it. " (living life to the fullest, exercising all your
'options.')
What a load of crap. Of course you've made choices to be who you are.
Everyone makes the choices to be who they are, how they process reality,
how they will react to situations, what they will focus attention upon, how
they will feel, etc. etc. No one makes you think or feel anything. Those are the
responsibilities of being sentient. You sound like someone sleepwalking,
semi-comatose or a mental incompetent who can't take responsibility for
himself. You admit you chose homosexuality ("accepted yourself") then deny
choosing! Make up your mind (what little seems to be functioning.)
[The ancient Hawaiian religion as written by Max Freedom Long in his
Secret Science Behind Miracles & The Secret Science at Work, discusses the
low "self" or soul, is described as an ANIMAL SPIRIT that interpenetrates the
physical body, occupying the same space as the middle self (rational
faculties); point being they are two SEPARATE spirits that make up the man.
The low self handles functions of feeling, memory and autonomic processes
but cannot THINK and depends upon the middle self to interpret reality for it.
The job of the middle self is to TRAIN the low self to civil behaviour, to the
point where the low self can then contact the High Self (which resides outside
and ABOVE the individual) to the point where the High Self can then work
miracles in the person's life and surroundings. Obviously if the low self isn't
properly trained because of MISSINFORMATION fed to it by the middle-self,
then the great event cannot happen. To allow the low self to run the man is
to abandon the reigns. The low self without controls or oversight, runs the
man to destruction by indulgence in animal passions. The High Self has
corollary to the Over-soul or 'Father' demonstrated by Jesus.]
Of course its a perversion, perfectly UNnatural as serves no purpose in nature
(nature is very purposeful.) You made the choice to accept your perversion.
So have members of NAMBLA. You're perfectly at ease with that. Many people
without conscience are perfectly at ease, able to justify them "selves." (i.e.
animal passions.) Your smileys are perfectly idiotic, superficial, frivolous, as is
the gay condition. Sure people hate perversion and perverts because they
drag down moral standards of decency and health, but it's not even personal.
While gay priests might be pedophiles, they are first of all, gay, which is
spiritual crime enough. No one is holding a gun to your head or requires you
to behave in degrading ways. It's a choice you've admitted making. That it's a
choice your happy with isn't the point. That's why homosexuality isn't genetic.
I'm not condemning anyone, but to call one's self a 'christian homosexual' is
an oxymoron who can't read. (Why doesn't that surprise me.) And the root
word to homosexuality is still sex, which is what 'acting up' is all about, i.e.
defending, promoting, expanding the perversion. You see Gemwolf, purity is a
principle of creation, and perversion isn't supported. You will be recycled.
[edit on 7-12-2005 by thrival]
[edit on 7-12-2005 by thrival]
new topics
-
New Disney Star Wars Films Failing Test of Time?
Movies: 5 hours ago -
The Cost of True Discipleship—Count the Cost
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 10 hours ago -
population madness
New World Order: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Unidentified Flying Objects Over U.S. Military Bases in Northeast UK, as of roughly 11 a.m. CST.
Aliens and UFOs: 16 hours ago, 11 flags -
Mass UAP events. DC. Machester Airport, UFOs over sub base in CT, Nuke bases.
Aliens and UFOs: 12 hours ago, 11 flags -
Thanking a rosemary plant
General Chit Chat: 15 hours ago, 6 flags -
population madness
New World Order: 11 hours ago, 4 flags -
New Disney Star Wars Films Failing Test of Time?
Movies: 5 hours ago, 2 flags -
The Cost of True Discipleship—Count the Cost
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 10 hours ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Unidentified Flying Objects Over U.S. Military Bases in Northeast UK, as of roughly 11 a.m. CST.
Aliens and UFOs • 29 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
population madness
New World Order • 17 • : Irishhaf -
Mass UAP events. DC. Machester Airport, UFOs over sub base in CT, Nuke bases.
Aliens and UFOs • 13 • : Boomer1947 -
Why isn't Psychiatry involved?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 19 • : lilzazz -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 250 • : Cvastar -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7849 • : underpass61 -
Interesting Video-UFO?
Aliens and UFOs • 22 • : Cvastar -
Holy Cow! Erm...Six Legged Turkey!!
World Sports • 9 • : JJproductions -
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three • 122 • : cherokeetroy -
V.P. Kamala Harris releases a video and nobody understands why
US Political Madness • 99 • : xuenchen