This is sooo gay

[Weltall]

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.

The problem is, you are not right about this issue. Some of the things you say are so ridiculous that I can't see how you can say them and believe them.

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.

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.

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?

Have there been any studies on this matter? I mean, I don't expect you to actually find any since you seem to hate actually proving anything, but regardless, they're already gay if they've had gay sex.

Here's the little fact that you cannot disprove on the matter. I'll make it very easy to see:

You cannot have sex without some level of attraction to someone. And you definitely cannot suck a dick or have one shoved in your rear-end and imagine that it's a woman behind you. You MUST enjoy this on some level if you are willing to have it done to you. Therefore, anyone who does this is gay. After all, if a man gives a blowjob, he will not experience orgasm at all from that, therefore ANY man who does so is gay because they cannot even use the excuse of having to get off, as sucking a dick will not do that for the one doing the sucking.

The other invariable fact is that if a person has the urge to blow their load, they can masturbate. It does that just as well as intercourse. Those that resort to homosexual intercourse in prisons are homosexuals.

I hope you got all that. I know you're so fucking hard-headed that none of it makes sense to you, but whether you accept it or not doesn't change the fact that it validates my stance and invalidates yours.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

If anything, your asanine statements have proved my points as well as any proof I've offered.

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...

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!

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...

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

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]

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. :(

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?

That may or may not be true. I believe that heterosexual urges make up a majority by simple biology: sex is inherently an act of reproduction and the rest is candy.

I believe that the urges are truly not defined either way personally, and whether they are heterosexual or not is most likely attributed to a person's way of thinking. As I don't believe a person is genetically or biologically either straight or gay, their sexual urges are only interpreted either way, based mostly on environment. I think most people are in a situation where they will have urges of both types, for example a teenage boy might have a homosexual urge while showering in a highschool gym with other guys. I think ANY person can have that. I also think that if that teenage boy were in a shower full of girls, that same urge would be there, though obviously of a different nature. Both biology and societal interaction will likely ensure that this boy would much rather be with Molly McPanties than Joey Jockstrap, but to a teenage boy in the iron grip of puberty, the sight of naked guys will also probably intrigue him as well, and then he'll probably ponder it repeatedly for awhile and convince himself one way or another which he finds more stimulating. He might even have to experiement with both first, but over time he will come to a conclusion, that he's straight or gay.

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.

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]

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.

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.

I agree for the most part, except the sexual attraction. Let me explain why.

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.

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.