Quote:Well, of course! That's the very definition of homosexuality. That was never my stance. My stance varied on the levels of enjoyment. It's well known that a lot of prisoners have sex. Now, are you suggesting that there's something in prison food that makes them gay? Obviously, they don't have a life-altering experience...they can have sex, and try to get past it being a guy's ass. Like some dudes would fuck an ugly chick with a bag over her head...they don't have to be attracted to her...they can pretend. Same with prisoners. One doesn't have to be arroused by whatever it's fucking to be sexually oriented towards it.

Quote:Does that account for lesbians?

Does that mean your mom was gay when she laid your dad, OB1?

Quote:Well, of course! That's the very definition of homosexuality. That was never my stance. My stance varied on the levels of enjoyment. It's well known that a lot of prisoners have sex. Now, are you suggesting that there's something in prison food that makes them gay? Obviously, they don't have a life-altering experience...they can have sex, and try to get past it being a guy's ass. Like some dudes would fuck an ugly chick with a bag over her head...they don't have to be attracted to her...they can pretend. Same with prisoners. One doesn't have to be arroused by whatever it's fucking to be sexually oriented towards it.

Quote: but that if they're in a desperate situation (like prison) and are attracted to members of the same sex, they're not gay.

Quote:What ABF is saying is that a person can have all the gay sex they want and still not be considered gay.

Quote:No, that is quite definitely not what we are saying, if you'd bother to read the arguments.

Quote:Its technichally possible, but other than in prison I somewhat doubt that its the case much at all... most people who do that would probably be either gay or bisexual.

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
I think it is perfectly possible for peole to have gay sex who aren't gay. Are you gonna be a dickweed and call me gay now, like you just did to ABF?

Quote:Anyway, the latter claims that no one can choose to be straight if they're 'born' gay. The former counters with the fact of homosexuality in prisons, and how it's very existence is invincible proof of homosexuality being a choice. Suddenly, the latter claim homosexuality is no longer sexuality at all, now it's merely a state of mind.

Quote:The point of this thread was to determine whether homosexuality was a choice or not. Since it has been proven beyond doubt that it is a choice, I don't feel there's any need to continue, because the point has been made and in six pages there has been no proof to refute it.

Quote:You guys claim it's your attraction that signifies your sexual preference, be it gay, straight or bi, yet you say the actual act of sex does not. Keeping that statement in mind, I'd like to know how many times you have sex, or even think about having sex, with someone who you are not attracted to, even remotely.

Sex usually doesn't take place without some level of attraction. I'm not attracted to men, therefore I'll never have sex with one, nor will I ever have sex with a woman who I do not find attractive.

Quote:ABF, while I usually side with you on this issue, I think it's getting a bit silly, but I know what you mean. I think what he's trying to say is: (assuming the male perspective)

Quote:There are several instances of men who sleep around with girls all throughout high school and end up finding that they have more urges directed toward males. This person is gay. Because of the slant of society, a person that sleeps with guys for a while and finds that he is more attracted to females is also considered gay.

Is it a double standard? Absolutely. The second person should be considered straight. But is that ever going to happen? No.

Quote:So where does sexual attraction fit on this scale? Personally, I'd put it around 10% (maybe less). It's all pretty much subconscious/hormonal. You don't really choose when you get an erection.

Sexual action, on the other hand, I'd put up around 85%. While people can rarely effect what arouses them, they can control what they do about it. But as many teenagers can attest to, there are many times when you just HAVE to get off. This of course varies person-to-person, gets lower if you're drunk/high, and gets higher as you age.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I'd never "conceed defeat" to someone as obviously wrong about the issue as you are, Weltall... if you honestly think that you have "proven" anything and that we lack any proof you are doing your usual and ... creatively ... interpreting the facts as seen here.

Quote:Er, can you show how I've changed my position in any way?

Didn't think so. I haven't. I don't understand how homosexuality in prisons proves anything other than bad people in a desperate situation will do anything, and that sure doesn't alter any of MY opinions... but as I said earlier, it puts yours into serious doubt.

Quote:I mean, if it were really "choice" wouldn't those people still be "gay" when they get out of prison?

Yet I don't hear of them being any more a homosexual when they leave than when they go in. Hmm... wonder why?

Quote:As I've said since the beginning, its a genetic thing, mostly. Maybe there is some environmental things related to it (lots of things affect the mind) but like most mind-related things its probably either genetic or some deformity or alteration or something... not sure of course but its something like that. That means that the only people who are that are the ones in that group... no matter how they or anyone else act.

Quote:I said all along that actions are irrelevant in the issue of homosexuality. How is it that when I say that for like the five hundredth time I'm suddenly contradicting myself? Huh? I just don't understand where this "sudden change" happened, in any way, related to any aspect of this issue.

Quote:And its not a "state of mind!" unless you mean a 'state of mind' like any mental thing you have no control over as opposed to something you choose... but "state of mind" sounds like your definition of homosexuality, and makes no sense. But you probably meant it that way...

Quote:It is very, very sad that you actually think that your complete lack of "proof" has proved anything.

Quote:You can do whatever you want physically... and yes for most people they will act on things they like more, and wouldn't have sex with someone they don't find attractive. I said that five times.

But that's not the point!

PHYSICALLY YOU COULD. ITS POSSIBLE. Its not like because you aren't attracted to them you can't do it... as Darunia crudely explained. Its certainly physically possible... but if you aren't attracted to them in any way YOU ARE NOT A HOMOSEXUAL! JUST like you still wouldn't be attracted to a woman you aren't attracted to after having sex with them... no difference at all.

It just means you had sex... which physically means a lot, but mentally? It only effects your state of mind... not anything wired into your brain chemistry...

Quote:And as I've also said multiple times, there is a difference between someone living a homosexual lifestyle and someone who is, physically, a homosexual. The former could convince themselves they are gay, but in the right cirumstances would realize that they aren't... and if that is the case then they aren't really gay, they just either think they are or are acting like one. I make a difference there, You don't, but I do...

Quote:Oh, I give up... this is pointless. If explaining my opinion, in detail, multiple times fails to get anything other than you saying "but you said x" when I said that x is not the case... :( [/B]

Quote:When we left off...

Weltall states that everyone has varying levels of homosexual and heterosexual urges.

To which I pointed out that it seems we are going toward some kind of population distribution curve. If so, is it so hard to believe that at the extremes of this curve are people that have a majority of homosexual urges?

Quote:In addition, I asked why it is better or more natural to follow one type of urge while repressing the other. Weltall responded, "Because acting on them is acting against your nature. Homosexual urges are a sign of sexual immaturity." To which I said, "huh?" Due to Weltall's previous posts, I assume that by nature he means that it is natural to have sex to make babies. If the "naturalness" or "goodness" of sex is judged upon its ability to create children, what makes homosexual sex any different from, say, heterosexual sex with contraception?

Quote:Finally, I wish to question the black and whiteness of choice. Aren't there different levels of choice in life? For example:

(guesstimates, with each varying for different people)

0 choice-genetics. You're African American or you're not. You have blue eyes or you don't. There's no choice.

20% choice-throwing up. Your body is pretty sure when it wants to throw up, but there is a small amount of psychological control.

30% (maybe less) chemical dependencies- drugs actually mess with the chemicals and mechanics in your brain. When you're missing the chemical, you get incredibly sick and crave the chemical. However, people have been able to get off drugs (usually not without help) so I put it in the 30% range.

40% breathing- your body controls breathing automatically unless you happen to think about it. In this case, you can affect your breathing, and even try to stop breathing altogether. But try as you may, you cannot suffocate yourself simply by thinking hard. You'd pass out and your body would regain 100% control of breathing.

50% choice- eating-Yes, your body tells you that you should eat, but you will survive much after your stomach begins to gurgle. As you go from hunger to starvation, this number drops significantly.

80%(maybe higher) choice- starting to use a drug. You are psychologically attracted to do things with your friends, but there is no biologically compelling factor. This number goes down if you're drunk/high.

90% choice- Ice cream flavor. It's basically choice, but sometimes you're craving your favorite flavor. What makes one flavor better than the other? Taste buds/subconscious memory. That's the ten percent that's out of your hands.

99% choice- Adult Political belief. I say "Adult" because children's opinions are highly influenced by their parents. By the time someone is an adult, they've thought quite a bit about politics. Yet upbringing is out of your hands, which accounts for the .1%

So where does sexual attraction fit on this scale? Personally, I'd put it around 10% (maybe less). It's all pretty much subconscious/hormonal. You don't really choose when you get an erection.

Sexual action, on the other hand, I'd put up around 85%. While people can rarely effect what arouses them, they can control what they do about it. But as many teenagers can attest to, there are many times when you just HAVE to get off. This of course varies person-to-person, gets lower if you're drunk/high, and gets higher as you age.

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
At the risk of being deemed many bad names, I would like to suggest that people SHORTEN THEIR FUCKING POSTS! I for one won't read a goddamn novel like that. You must've spent over an hour on that piece of work, Welty.

Quote: At the risk of being deemed many bad names, I would like to suggest that people SHORTEN THEIR FUCKING POSTS! I for one won't read a goddamn novel like that. You must've spent over an hour on that piece of work, Welty.

Quote:Because of this, I do believe that particular sexual attraction is a definite choice, not always conscious, but often is. Raw sexual urges, absolutely not. But if you add any particulars to the equation, it dramatically shifts toward choice.

Quote:Where you truly slipped was on the prison issue. You started off by saying that homosexuality is a strictly rigid genetic affair that people had practically no control over. When I pointed out prison sex to you, which proved beyond doubt that there in fact was control over it, you start trying to tell me that sexuality has nothing to do with homosexuality, and that straight men can be gay for a minute if they use their imagination... which is even more laughably ridiculous than everything else you've stumbled through in this topic. To cover that one, you then completely redefine homosexuality, telling me that sexuality has nothing to do with it because your sexual preference was determined only by your attraction to someone, and a straight man can be gay if circumstances permit, which is true because it completely disproves the myth that genetics have anything to do with homosexuality.

Game, set, match.

Quote:

Quote:There are several instances of men who sleep around with girls all throughout high school and end up finding that they have more urges directed toward males. This person is gay. Because of the slant of society, a person that sleeps with guys for a while and finds that he is more attracted to females is also considered gay.

Is it a double standard? Absolutely. The second person should be considered straight. But is that ever going to happen? No.

That is exactly what I've been trying to say, with no success.

I don't think you'll have any more, unfortunately... when you are closed to looking at facts, I'd never expect you (the other side...) to suddenly look at them.

Its really odd. Normally in these discussions I can see twisted logic behind their positions, but on this one I see none at all... nonsensical or not. It just makes no sense whatsoever... until of course you change the definition of 'gay' to the one Weltall uses. But that one is biologically incorrect, so it would be stupid to do that... and using reality, its impossible for me to say how anyone could say that you are gay by any other means than who you find attractive... and it is possible to sleep with people who you don't find attractive, as Nintendarse says here. But I don't expect you to ever understand... you have proven to be remarkably closeminded.

Quote:I know you've been saying that since the beginning. You've offered no proof to it except your own opinions, and most of them have been negated by simple psychology and biology.

Quote:I can't believe you expect anyone to believe that sexuality has nothing to do with homosexuality. Please, tell me I'm reading this right. Tell me that I'm mistaking you and that you aren't a world-class moron.

"Sex has nothing to do with sex". Now you see why I say this debate is over? You're resorting to sheer stupidity now, and it's becoming a chore to even read it.

Quote:Okay now. Sexual preference isn't a matter of physical action, and it's not a state of mind. What is it then? If it's not physical or mental, it doesn't exist. Again, come back from the realm of the ridiculous, you're making an ass of yourself.

Quote:It's possible, that I never denied. BUT WHO THE HELL EVER HAS SEX WITH SOMEONE THEY FIND REPULSIVE!? Who is going to be SO desperate for an orgasm that they will forgo simple and easy masturbation in order to go against both their own attractions, preferences and morals and get a nut off by having sex with someone they would normally not touch with a ten-foot pole? If that even happens, it's such an extreme rarity that it is irrelevant! Those that participate in such activities are doing it either because they outright enjoy it or it doesn't bother them enough to NOT do it, and either method of thinking combined with gay sex makes a person gay, ESPECIALLY if they do it more than once!

Quote:There are differences between those two categories, but the major similarity, the one thing linking them is that they are BOTH homosexual.

Quote:I agree, your contribution to this thread has been largely pointless, because you have an opinion that is scientifically wrong, and you resort to comically ridiculous explanations to back them up. Arguing is pointless because your opinion is wrong.

Quote:ABF believes that you are born with this choice made for you. I do not believe that because it just makes no sense. If it were genetic such mental anguish would not occur like it does. You would always like either guys or women, there would be no deviation in that attraction, and thus no internal mental conflict.

Quote:The similarities between homo and hetero sex are the orgasm. It's true that contraceptives eliminate the reproduction factor in heterosexuality, however, the reason men are instinctively attracted to women is the reproductive factor. Even if you circumvent the actual reproductive process, you still have that attraction, and reproduction is the reason that attraction exists in nature.

Then of course, there's the fact that while no homosexual sex act can produce children, many heterosexual acts do, and the intent to have a child is always a factor as well. Therefore, one is definitely more natural than the other.

Quote:If you mean the simple act of having sexual attraction, then yes, I agree completely, and would score that a definite 100%. People have sexual urges and no one can really deny them. However, I do believe that we choose who we are attracted to. I can say with complete certainty that there are no guys who attract me. I can say with equal certainty that certain women attract me and certain women do not. I can also say that I've been attracted to some women and later lost that attraction for varied reasons. Sexual attraction is something that I think is quite narrow at any given point but I also think it's subject to rapid change over the course of time. Some girls I found attractive in high school I wouldn't even give the time of day to now. You can lose sexual interest in someone for any number of reasons, just like you can suddenly become attracted to a person who you knew for years and never gave a second thought about. It's not a matter of mere uncontrollable animal instinct. It's also, and I believe primarily, a matter of preference, and I know from experience that my preference in women has shifted wildly ever since I can remember.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[quote]Uh, this undermines your entire case... given that to homosexuals, those 'raw sexual urges?' that are 'absolutely not' a choice are towards the other gender. :)

That was a great quote, Weltall... I agree with it! :)

Quote:I cannot even begin to understand how you even remotely think this proves your case. I've said, in depth, about three times now, how your position makes no sense at all... all you do, though, is restate it and not actually talk about any points I made. So I won't bother rewriting the same thing with new words for a fourth time.

Quote:Oh, fine. I NEVER CHANGED ANY OPINIONS. NOT ONE. Why do you insist that anything changed? It is truly bizarre... because I know what I think, and I've thought this way from the beginning. I've always said that its genetics. And that who you have sexual relations with doesn't affect that at all. This is just saying that again. So where did my opinion change at all?

Quote:And as for saying that it is impossible for a straight man to have sexual relations with other men...

Quote:I don't think you'll have any more, unfortunately... when you are closed to looking at facts, I'd never expect you (the other side...) to suddenly look at them.

Quote:Its really odd. Normally in these discussions I can see twisted logic behind their positions, but on this one I see none at all... nonsensical or not. It just makes no sense whatsoever... until of course you change the definition of 'gay' to the one Weltall uses. But that one is biologically incorrect, so it would be stupid to do that... and using reality, its impossible for me to say how anyone could say that you are gay by any other means than who you find attractive... and it is possible to sleep with people who you don't find attractive, as Nintendarse says here. But I don't expect you to ever understand... you have proven to be remarkably closeminded.

Quote:Though I expect you to laugh it off again, since you do not understand the fundamentals of the issue, and don't want to. You are just basing your arguments on a fundamentally flawed thesis, which you will absolutely stick to forever... so this argument is quite pointless. You will never even begin to think of looking at "reality". Its too scary for you to consider, that's for sure!

Quote:Since you don't consider everything I've ever heard from homosexuals from whatever source (TV, article, etc...) as proof. They are just deluded that they know (and in most cases always have known, from puberty) that they could never love women, of course. But based on previous arguments I expect that from you... calling lack of proof and ignoring proof as lies... like usual.

Quote:Can we spell
b-i-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l-.-.-.
?

Quote:Repulsive? Unless that's just about ugly people, I'd say that that's your homophobia talking... There's a diffrence between "not attracted to" and "find repulsive". Of course its POSSIBLE for you to do it with repulsive people, but I don't see why anyone would...

Quote:No, the second group quite definitely isn't.

Quote:I find it comical that you you actually think that you have the slightest shred of scientific proof on your side.

Quote:If not for society being as it is, that's exactly how it would be. No question. But society ... doesn't work that way .... So its the way it is... which is too bad.

Quote:So "natural" means "only the most normal form of anything"? So no variation in genetics is "natural"? I'd say that anything in genetics is natural as long as we haven't modified it... not as common, often, but no less natural. Unless by natural you mean 'normal', but that's not how I'd define the word. Natural means its by nature, and not by nurture -- ie from genes. So genetic diseases are natural, but rare and unpleasant. Same with genetic or other alterations that lead to other things, like homosexuality and (maybe) left-handedness, etc, etc...

Quote:Its a genetic change. Obviously its not normal -- it wouldn't help a species if lots of people saw the same gender as attractive, for sure. But that doesn't mean that they have control over it... no more than people with genetic diseases have control over their hemophelia, or whatever.

Quote:You choose who you are attracted to? Really? I'd say that genetics choose it for you...

Quote:Or is that what you meant? I'm really not sure... 100% sexual attraction? On that scale that means that sexual attraction is 100% choice and 0% instinct or whatever... that's clearly wrong. [/B]

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Fat people can't help being fat? That's not true.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Wha? You look thin in that second pic.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
....dur

Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
You're looking for proof in one direction when you fail to realize that there is no proof to support your opinion. I read 5 of those reports and none of them undoubtedly supported your claim that gayness is not genetically linked. In fact, I will quote one of your "sources."

[B]Rice himself doesn’t discount the idea of a genetic link to homosexuality. He just doesn’t think Xq28 is the spot. “The search for genetic factors in homosexuality should continue,” he says, adding that he’s currently searching for other genes that could be linked to sexuality.

But where do these traits come from? Aren't they inherited?

We do not know yet. Some may be. Or rather, we do not know how much is inherited, and which elements are direct and which merely further associated and linked with other yet more fundamental traits. But you are getting the picture. That is how the research ought to proceed. It
is not necessarily that the traits that facilitate homosexuality are themselves bad; perhaps many are gifts. Athleticism is a generally good thing, and we think highly of people who satisfy their athletic impulses as, say, outstanding BBPs. Not so the fellow who merely becomes a thug.

None of the sources you point out seem to make any claim that, "The fact is that the chance of there being a gay gene is practically nil."

So, let's assume that being gay is genetic. What makes being gay any more of a defect than having brown hair? Or having blue eyes? Having darker skin tone? With obesity, it's clear. Obesity directly causes the individual to have adverse health consequences. With gayness, it's not clear. Nothing about gayness makes one biologically unhealthy. There is the "natural" argument, that it is the inherent nature of males to screw females for the survival of the species, but what makes animal homosexual behavior unnatural? Does God punish these animals? I mean, this is the same argument that slave owners had: being born black means that God hates you, it is a defect, and so you don't deserve the same rights as white people.

But there are some inherent questions that Weltall mentions. Regardless of how much it is a choice, should gay people have the same rights as straight people? To marry? To have consentual intercourse? To fight for the country? These are not "special" rights. These are simply rights that people take for granted. [/B]

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Hey you edited that post. Originally it just said "Nope, it's impossible. Fat guys can't change :( ".

Quote:“The vast majority of gay people will tell you that same-sex orientation is an innate part of who you are and is not changeable,

Quote:that it is the inherent nature of males to screw females for the survival of the species, but what makes animal homosexual behavior unnatural?

Quote:You agree with your own misinterpretation of it. Raw sexual urges are the type that you're born with, I.E. the very urge to have sex. That's all you're born with. You acquire the urge to have sex with whatever later in life, and that's when sexual urge is no longer raw.

Quote:You changed the definition of sexuality to support your argument. At first you claimed it was a sexual mutation of genetics or whatever, now it's a state of mind that you're born with, which also somehow is genetic. The fact that such a thing is scientifically impossible doesn't stop you from making an ass of yourself.

Quote:Oh sure, homosexuals can have straight sex and vice-versa. I have always believed that and never said anything to the contrary, except when I applied your own argument to it. If sexuality were genetic, there'd be no way to circumvent it. I believe it can be, and is circumvented because there are no genetics to get in the way. It's your own argument you're shooting down here.

Quote:Biology is physical, you moron.

Quote:I do in fact refer to ugly people, but repulsion is on the same tier as unattractive. The difference is that repulsion is very strong unattraction.

And my point is that no one does have sex with people they find repulsive, and I can't think of anyone who has sex with people they find unnattractive unless there's an ulterior motive involved.

Quote:How is physical homosexuality not homosexuality? Why does mental attraction control this when physical attraction have nothing to do with it? Again, I can't see how you could say this without laughing at how retarded it sounds.

Quote:If that were true, even if it were genetic, bisexuality would disprove it. Those people are attracted to either. Genetics don't stop them at all.

Quote:It doesn't happen that way because it's not ingrained in a person to be that way. It's not impossible to change your sexual orientation. Remember Anne Heche, Ellen DeGeneres' lesbian lover? She turned straight and seems to be enjoying it.

Quote:I said that you can't control HAVING sexual urges. You can control who you have them for. If you think it's impossible to convince yourself that a person is unattractive, you are sadly mistaken. Attraction isn't just purely sexual, and though that's just common sense, it's something that apparently has evaded you. You will likely not be attracted to someone who doesn't bathe themselves, or is fat or ugly, even though they are in the gender you're attracted to. I believe gender is not a catalyst, it's just one of those many factors that help determine whether a person is attractive to you. And if you're going to try and tell me that the odd person who is attracted to fat or ugly people is attracted to them because of a genetic trait, I'll tell you not to post in this thread again because you're just wasting my time.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
Yeah... All I did was elaborated. That first line was sarcasm ;)

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
First, Netscape is the best, and doesn't crash much. What did you do?

So, Weltall, you agree with the Catholic Church when it said that a man and woman who said they were not going to have children could not be married as catholics? Same thing as homosexuals!

Quote:Who cares about if they have children? And more to the point... who cares, since in many cases they adopt children? I can't see how they hurt anyone's morals. If they are happily married, and have children (or not, that's a purely personal decision), who are they hurting? How are they destroying world morality?

Quote:Oh yeah, radical rightwingers who are paranoid-homophobic. Right. Can't forget them!

Quote:Even if it wasn't a genetic thing (but was something else that causes it to happen that the affected person has absolutely no control over... since it is very, very obvious based on all the observation anyone has ever had that that's a fact...), I don't see how that would change anything.

Quote:I've brought this up multiple times before. Weltall has no real good answer for it (what is he going to say? That these animals have awareness and are smart enough to decide something like that? Er... NO!), so he pretty much ignores the point.

Quote:As usual I ignore the responses that are purely insults. Why must you spend so much time insulting me?

Quote:I can't see any way you could believe that people can control to that degree who they find attractive. Somewhat... maybe. But not anywhere near the extent you are suggesting.

Quote:I didn't change anything! It IS a genetic change or mutation or something!

Quote: "state of mind" sounds like "i thought about it and my state of mind is now x" which is what YOU are saying, not me... what I'm saying is that its a genetic thing that you just ... realize ... at some point, generall puberty but sometimes later.

Quote:But you said that if any heterosexual ever has sexual relations with any other man ever in their lives they are homosexual or bisexual, period...

Quote:I guess, but you defined 'physical' as something else, which I don't really agree with. Its genetics, with probably some other factors involved as well. No one is sure what, exactly, but environment might play a small role. Not much of one, but maybe a small one. And only to people already predisposed towards it.

Quote:Did I ever say lots of heterosexuals do this? NO! I said few would! People generally don't kneep doing things when other ones provide a better alternative... but it is possible. Rare, I'd expect... but possible. I just don't see how you think that heterosexuals can physically not do such a thing.

Quote:Huh? There is only one kind of homosexuality. Its not a thing about action or anything -- its about who you are and all that that I've already said ten times. The act itsself (and people who do it because of whatever category of sexuality they are in) is totally different.

Quote:Since we don't know the cause, its easy to think of all kinds of genetic explanations that allow for bisexuality...

Quote:Maybe its possible, but it'd be ridiculously rare. Its much more likely she's bisexual or something... why would I know?

Quote:Sure, over time you can convince yourself of near anything. That is certainly true. And sometimes when you convince yourself of something funny things happen... its really odd that state of mind affects your health, but it does seem to for some reason. Of course I don't know why some people have strange sexual attractions... and I really don't know how it happens. It might be genetic, but I'd doubt it... but until we map the whole genome (and actually understand what it all means), you can't rule out anything 100%. :)

But I'm talking about how when you look at people and get an instant reaction about how you feel about them sexually. That isn't something you can control... well you can try, but you can't fully control it.

Quote:What? I'm not following.

Quote:They're hurting the children they have. Little Timmy will be so popular when his chums find out he has two daddies. Little Timmy will end up on a shrink's couch by the time he's 20.

Quote:It's so evil to want to preserve morality

Quote:There is very little a person cannot control. Even if a person has homosexual urges, there is nothing forcing a person to act on them.

Quote:Who's to say why animals do that? Why don't you ask one?

Quote:It's very simple. There is no preset attraction code. None. As you go through life, your idea of the perfect mate will change, sometimes radically. And attraction is a pretty selective deal for most people. You're not going to be attracted to every man or every woman, there will be particulars involved, and I believe gender is simply another one of those myriad of particulars. I don't believe anyone is born pre-programmed to only like people of a particular gender anymore than I think people are pre-programmed to like redheads or long legs.

Quote:Wait, I said that homosexuality is a physical thing, you're the one telling me that a person is gay if they think about it but not if they actually do it. You're all about the state of mind.

And what I'm saying is that there's no proof at all that it's genetic and for you to keep saying so is not helping your stance at all. We don't know for sure whether it is genetic or not, but there is no evidence supporting the theory, so please, stop using the argument. It's baseless.

Quote:That's right. But they are NOT homosexual or bisexual if they had the urges and never acted on them.

Quote:Again, you're arguing with completely unsubstantiated hypotheses, and I'm not going to respond to anything else about it.

Quote:I don't see at all how this relates to the portion of my post that you quoted.

Quote:

Quote:I do in fact refer to ugly people, but repulsion is on the same tier as unattractive. The difference is that repulsion is very strong unattraction.

And my point is that no one does have sex with people they find repulsive, and I can't think of anyone who has sex with people they find unnattractive unless there's an ulterior motive involved.

Did I ever say lots of heterosexuals do this? NO! I said few would! People generally don't kneep doing things when other ones provide a better alternative... but it is possible. Rare, I'd expect... but possible. I just don't see how you think that heterosexuals can physically not do such a thing.

Quote:I cannot think of one single plausible theory that could explain how genetics could affect who a person is attracted to. The idea is so nonsensical it blows my mind how anyone could believe it.

Quote:In Europe somewhere. The Catholic church denied marriage between two people because they said that they would not have children (because of the possibility of passing on a genetic disorder), and in the bible it says marriage is for making babies.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[quote]In Europe somewhere. The Catholic church denied marriage between two people because they said that they would not have children (because of the possibility of passing on a genetic disorder), and in the bible it says marriage is for making babies.

Quote:Only if he has "friends" who think like you.

Quote:Proving my point. That's exactly what I'd expect you to say, given that you fit right into that category.

Quote:There is a huge diffrence between how homosexuals feel and how heterosexuals have occasional small 'urges' like you mention. A very, very big difference. You will refuse to admit it, but nothing I've ever heard has said anything else. HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT JUST HAVE "LITTLE URGES" WHICH THEY THEN FOLLOW, WHILE IGNORING HETEROSEXUAL ONES! PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY HOMOSEXUAL DON'T HAVE ANY MORE (and possibly fewer) 'URGES' TOWARDS THE OPPOSITE GENDER AS THE AVERAGE HETEROEXUAL DOES FOR THEIR GENDER!

That is fact.

Quote:So you deny that animals are homosexual, even though it has been an observed behavior in some animals? Huh? That makes no sense!

Quote:Sure, everyone has their own idea of who they find attractive. That is true. And no, its probably not genetic... I don't know how that happens. But when you are attracted to someone you know it -- you have absolutely no control over the mere act of being attracted to them. So genetic or not, its not something that people can control... you are either attracted to someone or you aren't. Sure, you can then think it over and with other factors decide what to do (or, more likely, not do), but the attraction? Not under your control. And especially not in puberty, when you are first realizing these things... yet homosexuals (when not repressed) start realizing that they are attracted to the same gender at that early point.

Sure, your opinions will change as you get older... that's to be expected! But this is at a much more fundamental level than that. Its not like just changing between different traits in the gender you find attractive, for sure...

As I said before, your definition of homosexuality is fatally flawed when applied to "reality". It has nothing to do with sex... its not exactly state of mind either. Yes, your state of mind is part of that, but you have that state of mind because of how you realize you are... which goes back to much more basic things then "how you feel now".

Quote:You have such bizzare definitions of those terms...

Quote:Ah, so your unproven hypotheses with no real-world backing are better than my unproven hypotheses with lots of factual proof that says that they are right, at least in part. Got it.

Quote:I can't think of why not... genetics control a very wide variety of things... [/B]

Quote:Now if you are willing to suck another man cock for some booze or weed then you are Gay , Normal Hetrosexuals would rather comit suicide then do that. Clearly these men are either really desperate or Gay.

Quote:On the second note, I do not believe gay people deserve some of those rights by virtue of the choice they make. I do not believe in gay marriage, as marriage is an union between a man and a woman that creates a family, and is a very important thread in the fabric of society, and allowing homosexuals to participate in that tarnishes the morals upon which they were founded. I really do not care if they can fight or not (which is a special right actually, and discriminates based on sex and age, i.e. women cannot become combat soldiers, nor can people over the age limit).

Quote:They're not correct on that point, though I know the Catholic church is stupid like that. My mother had to tell her priest that she was going to raise me Catholic in order for her to get married, though she had no such intention.

Quote:You don't know me. I may disapprove of homosexuality but I do tolerate it, and I don't hate people who choose to do so. I don't hate them anymore than you do, we simply differ in that I believe they do so by choice. There are people out there who disagree with homosexuality FAR more strenuously than myself. You know, people who taunt them, and even worse, those who attack them. I do not advocate either activity. I believe what happens in a person's bedroom is their business, as long as it stays in the bedroom.

Quote:Of course, because I don't believe morals are relative. But it's pointless to discuss morals with a liberal.

Quote:Mmmhmm. You didn't answer my question before, probably because you thought it was an insult, but are you gay or bisexual? I mean, you seem to have an innate knowledge about this sort of thing, you seem to think that even psychology cannot explain this. It's kinda funny that you would take such a question as an insult, but I was being serious.

Quote:I denied it? I believe my words were "Who knows why they do it? Why don't you ask one"? I can't tell how that could be misconstrued for denial, but whatever.

Quote:Homosexuality is most definitely about sex, which is why the term appears in the word Homosexuality. But if it's not sexual, and it's not mental, than what is it? This is the loophole your theory keeps catching on.

Quote:You have such a hard time with real-life application.

Quote:Er, if I remember correctly, your unproven hypotheses were supported by almost no factual proof whatsoever, and one of the two major studies on the topic was subject to investigation by a research ethics committee on grounds that data was left out to skew the results.

My opinions are not truly hypotheses at all. Besides being supported by psychology and biology, the burden of proof is not upon us to disprove a genetic link, it is upon you to prove the genetic link.

Ergo, there is no genetic link until one is found. That is how science works. And as of now there is no genetic link, and little chance of there being one.

Quote:Genetics control nothing behaviorial.