This is sooo gay

[Weltall]

I'm going to try this again. I had a nice response all typed up when Nutscrape froze. Fucking Nutscrape :supermad:

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! :)

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.

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.

Is that a promise??? PLEASE SAY YES :love:

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

You want proof? Here's a bunch for you. Most of them are based on the same issue, that issue being that homosexuality is most likely not a genetic flaw, and even if it is, scientists have discovered only one major bit of evidence of it, evidence that was disproven in 1999.

Now, I know you won't return the favor by finding proof to the contrary, both because you are lazy and because there really isn't much out there, but do you at least have the arrogant stupidity to disprove these findings with your faulty opinions? I like a good laugh, but it's getting old.

I found all these on Yahoo by typing in 'gay gene'. I was amazed by how an overwhelming majority of the articles listed were in opposition to homosexual being a genetic thing. And, to be fair, I left out articles posted by Christian and other conservative-themed organizations. Enjoy.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Da...90422.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm
http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/gene.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/.../genetics/
http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/...0genie.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s22814.htm
http://www.apres-coup.org/Papers/ONieren...ayGene.htm
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/geno...aygene.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...E_ID=28505
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/health/99/...ay24.shtml
http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/priva...ality.html

In fact, all that I've been able to find SUPPORTING your theory are the much-maligned studies of Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay, and a few vitriolic hypotheses. As it stands right now, the likelihood of a gay gene is very low, and for you to stand here and claim it as 'fact' only serves to show everyone how wrong your thinking is. The fact is that the chance of there being a gay gene is practically nil, and even on the off-chance it exists, no scientist has ever shown any conclusive proof to it's existence. Therefore, it goes without saying that your entire argument is based on nothing but oft-disproven research from ten years ago that you probably didn't even know about.

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.

It's possible, that I know. It just doesn't happen. It's possible someone may be sexually attracted to a beer can. That doesn't mean it ever happens. Except in the most incredibly unlikely scenarios, you are not going to have sex with someone who you do not find attractive on any level. If you find homosexuality a repulsive idea, you will NOT have gay sex.

Of course, your argument would have to raise the question of how many gays are really gay, and how many are doing it only to fit in with the lifestyle? How many of them are having sex with guys while not being attracted to them, eh?

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!

No sir, my opinion is based on scientific fact, as proven above. It is yours that is based on disproven theories and your own liberal passions.

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.

No, I don't accept your hearsay as proof, because you are very rarely correct on anything. You've offered no proof, no sources of information, nothing. You are simply reciting the tired old homosexual politics, which science does not agree with.

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

Biology is physical, you moron.

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...

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.

No, the second group quite definitely isn't.

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.

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

That's okay, it's probably how you cope with being painfully wrong.

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.

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.

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...

But there's no evidence homosexuality is genetic, so it really doesn't matter what the deal with genetic defects are :)

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 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.

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

Well, you've been completely wrong so far, so no reason to stop, I suppose.

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]

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.