This is sooo gay

[A Black Falcon]

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.

No, we actually like covering subjects in depth. Bye.

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.

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! :)

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 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.

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?

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

It doesn't.

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.

can we spell
b-i-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l-.-.-.
?

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!

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...

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

No, the second group quite definitely isn't.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.