One more > for Family Values???

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
diamond said:


Also with the derogatory and personal attacks on my faith by you and others, -it also breaks another forum rule:

-Anything that is defamatory towards another site, person, or organization.

Yes and straights should marshall their overt public sexual tendencies.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of irony as well.:|





























Honestly, your hypocricy is reaching new heights.
 
diamond said:


On your first question-she should, according to forum rules:

-Cross-posting your topic in multiple forums (threads) is not allowed.

Also with the derogatory and personal attacks on my faith by you and others, -it also breaks another forum rule:

-Anything that is defamatory towards another site, person, or organization.

Yes and straights should marshall their overt public sexual tendencies.

dbs
Click to expand...

If that's what she meant (maybe it's just my thoughts projected, I will absolutely admit to that) then martha is still not violating any rules-that is not cross posting a topic.

And I have never ONCE made any personal or derogatory attack on your faith-that is complete fabricated bs. I don't do that here, even if anyone attacks mine. You conveniently ignore your own words and actions here.
 
diamond said:
On your first question-she should, according to forum rules:

-Cross-posting your topic in multiple forums (threads) is not allowed.

Also with the derogatory and personal attacks on my faith by you and others, -it also breaks another forum rule:

-Anything that is defamatory towards another site, person, or organization.

Yes and straights should marshall their overt public sexual tendencies.

dbs
Click to expand...

You're unbelievable.

Why don't you drop the BS, just for one day, and really debate the issues. Stop with getting defensive every time someone calls you out for your hypocrisy and offensiveness. Stop breaking out the rule book on minor, minor technicalities that don't mean anything and that you know are huge stretches, just because you don't want to respond to the posts. Stop ignoring my posts and other people's posts because you don't "feel they have merit." Come here to debate. So far, in a year and a half, all I've seen from you is a pattern that either ends with you ignoring posts, dismissing everyone, or waving the rule book around and running away at the sight of an argument. You don't debate. I feel bad for real conservatives, because you give them a terrible summary. Hit-and-run posting. Picture posting. Irrelevant, offensive insults of homosexuals and women. And every time people call you on it, you run away or cry foul. As much as you copy and paste rules and forum descriptions, the bottom line is that this is a debate forum. And you don't do that. You make a mockery of every poster here, and every conservative. I'm glad that there are conservatives here like AEON that can at least articulate and defend their positions, because then people here at least know that every conservative isn't running away. Do you ever wonder why you get so many people replying to your posts with questions and shock? Maybe it's not just liberals with their "silly agendas." Maybe it's not "personal attacks." Maybe, just maybe, it's the way you hold yourself in here. You preach and preach about how people should behave, yet never once do you seem to follow through on your standards yourself. When people say you are offensive, you never apologize or recognize the fact that you are offensive. You just continue the irrelevant posts.

So what am I asking? I'm asking you to please, finally, for all of us, drop this whole act. Come here and debate the issues. Come here and have intelligent conversation, defending your positions, making arguments, and making sense. That way, every time you post, we don't have to sidetrack ourselves with ten different replies pointing out offensiveness, irrelevant points, and hypocrisy. We can get back to debating again.
 
diamond said:


So you admit it's not completely genetic, correct?

dbs
Click to expand...



it's 100% involuntary and unchosen, that much is certain. the point, as always, there's nothing you can do about it.
 
Irvine511 said:




it's 100% involuntary and unchosen, that much is certain. the point, as always, there's nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

Not according to some reseach:

DO STUDIES SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A GAY GENE?

The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results.

Hamer’s group examined DNA samples from self-identified gay men and other gay male family members. The researchers claim they have found a DNA segment, called a "marker," on the X chromosome, the chromosome men inherit only from their mother and not from their father. They say that most, though not all, gay men within a family share such a marker. (In a more recent study, they conclude that lesbian sisters do not share this marker.) They now hope that by defining this marker more closely, they will be able to identify a "gene for gayness" on the X chromosome.

One of the problems with their approach is that Hamer and his colleagues did not feel it necessary to check whether any of the straight men in these families share the marker in question. If even only a few of them do, it calls into question what the gene or the self-identification signifies. More recently, Hamer has tested this out, and the results do not change his interpretation.

But even more significant for Hamer’s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results. The reason Hamer gives for his unusually low estimate is that he wants to work only with "real" gay men, that is, men who have essentially never veered from their preference for men in their sexual fantasies or activities. His definition does not take into account the large population of men who have sexual relations with men, but who do not identify as gay, or men who have had sexual relationships or marriages with women, or have fathered children, but now do identify as gay. If research on sexual orientation does not consider this diversity of sexual identities, the social relevance of this research is limited.

Hamer’s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did not reproduce his results, though the Hamer group now reports a second study which supports the role of a gene on the X chromosome in male homosexuality. But none of the results, including Hamer’s, support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.

Another study claiming that there is a connection between homosexuality and biology, by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, claims that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay than in straight men. The size of this structure in gay men, he claims, is more like that seen in heterosexual women – though in fact, he has no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. All of LeVay’s observations were made on the brains of cadavers, and his evidence about the sexual orientation and practices of the people in life is entirely circumstantial. Furthermore, the "gay men" all died of AIDS, which is known sometimes to affect brain structures. Another criticism of this study is that in some of LeVay’s "gay" samples, the structure was larger than in the "straight" ones, so that upon inspection, there is no basis for deciding whether a given person in life had been "gay" or "straight."

WHAT ROLE DO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PLAY?

Arguments for a biological basis of sexual orientation have also been offered, based on questionable studies of twins and other siblings. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, measured sexual orientation in brothers of gay men. They found that for adoptive and non-twin brothers of gay men, about 10% were also gay, a rate often attributed to the general population. The rate of "double" homosexuality for fraternal twins was 22%, and for identical twins, 52%.

The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were found to be roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors play a role, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. In light of these results, it does not seem surprising that an even larger proportion of identical twins would have similar behaviors since the world thinks of them as "the same" and treats them accordingly, and they often share such feelings of sameness.

Homophobia – another clearly environmental factor – may also have affected the study’s results by distorting the sample. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of gay and bisexual men. The study’s participants "were recruited through advertisements placed in gay publications in several Midwest and Southwest cities." Thus all the respondents read gay periodicals and probably were, to some degree, public about their sexuality. In addition, they responded to ads asking them about their brothers. Although the ads asked gay men to "call regardless of the sexual orientation of [their] brother," men with gay brothers might well have been more likely to participate than men with straight brothers, especially if the straight brothers were homophobic or the gay ones were not "out" to their families. Since many people believe that homosexuality is genetic, a straight man who has a gay twin, and especially a gay "identical" twin, might well feel that his own sexual orientation was "suspect," and refuse to participate in the study, finding the subject threatening. Conversely, if identical twins are both gay, they might find the subject interesting and be eager to volunteer for a study.
 
unico said:


did i say that or did i ask a yes or no question that you did not answer?
Click to expand...

By the inference of your question you seem to hold the APA as infallible.

I don't know the answer to your original question, nor do I think it matters much as and I do not view the APA as having absolute, correct, complete and irrefutable knowledge on this subject.

I hope they do not claim that they do, and to the best of my knowledge they don't.

dbs
 
i never said anything about infallibility. i asked a simple question and you are making judgments. nobody is infallible, we all know that. i can't tell if you're trying to make fun of me or if you are serious. if you honest don't know then fine, that's all you had to say.

the apa doesn't even claim to be infallible. but there are certain studies which they will support.

would you trust medication that was not approved by the fda? and if you don't, does that necessarily mean that the fda is infallible? sheesh.
 
unico said:
nobody is infallible, we all know that. i can't tell if you're trying to make fun of me or if you are serious.

the apa doesn't even claim to be infallible.


would you trust medication that was not approved by the fda?

and if you don't, does that necessarily mean that the fda is infallible? sheesh.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't making fun of you.

Yes I'm glad we agree that APA isn't infallible, we may differ on this subject though-and most Americans may differ with the APA on this subject (if that were the case).

Yes even the FDA is fallible-agreed.

dbs
 
What's the source for that research? I don't get what whoever wrote that means by "homophobia". That's a different meaning than what I understand that word to mean.
 
diamond said:
Yes I'm glad we agree that APA isn't infallible, we may differ on this subject though-and most Americans may differ with the APA on this subject (if that were the case).
Click to expand...



does the opinion of the American public matter at all? what matters is what science says and what psychiatry says.

all evidence points to a very strong link between biology and seuxal orientation. is there a "gay" gene? probably not, but this has nothing to do with the biological basis for sexual orientation. it's akin to people saying, "yeah, well prove to me that Jesus DIDN'T walk on water."

secondly, environmental factors are both important, yet utterly irrelevant. either way, it all remains UNCHOSEN. homosexuality is not a choice, nor is heterosexuality. the oft-repeated lies about overbearing mothers/distant fathers is demonstrably false, and it also seems likely that a gay male child is arguably going to draw his mother closer ("oh! you want to play piano?") and his father farther away ("why don't you care that the redskins are playing?"), but, firstly, none of this is anybody's fault, none of this can be improved by parenting "techniques" as espoused by Dobson, and besides, there's nothing about being gay that should make someone want to *correct* this.

this is the thing -- it's no different than the thread about the DNA guy who said that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. you're positing that something has gone "wrong" when a gay person identifies as such, that the reality of same-sex attraction is an error, that it's correctable, and thusly that it is a matter of choice. and while all of that is demonstrably false, some people need to cling to these lies in order to justify their own homophobia and their continued support to politicians who deny the civil rights of gay people.
 
When did you actively, by the full control of your own, decide to be straight?

Does there have to be a gene that you are hetero or homo to make it something you don't chose, and don't control yourself?

Does there have to be a gene that I am a huge U2 fan?
With U2 for example it would be hard to argue that it's the environment that makes me like it, as with my age group U2 isn't that hugely popular in Germany, and all of my environment that time wasn't into U2 at all. Still it's my absolute favorite.

Will they find a gene in my body that makes me a fan?

Will they necessarily have to find a gene with a gay person to say it's not an active decision, or may this be determined by other factors, without being consious? Is genes all we have got?

Maybe some biologist could say something here, but I'm afraid we don't have any.
 
Vincent Vega said:
When did you actively, by the full control of your own, decide to be straight?

.
Click to expand...

My brother and I were both courted by older Gay men in our youth who encouraged us to be Gay-they lavished us with gifts, paticularily my brother.

We both made decisions not to be Gay. If we were raised differently we might of made different choices. So you can't rule out enviornment in one's sexual choices.

If you take a 6 year old boy going to a pro gay therapist because he doesn't like sports, that boy in search or quest of his idenity, might later identify himself as Gay- to please the people around him.

I think some people do make decisions to be Gay, granted some may be emotionally more predisposed to being Gay (gay guys always insist I'm gay-only gay guys and a very few women have suggested or asked but most think I'm an overly sensitive male) and I don't lose any sleep over it, however in the end , I think it is up to the indivual-this is why I think there are so many bi-sexual people.

In my observation and friendships with Bi Sexual people, I have concluded for the most part that: they have raging libios that they have refused to marshall and keep in check (free spirits-free thinkers) thereby increasing their closing ratios for conquests.:sexywink:

There you have my opinion kids, and this isn't senseless babble- having witnessed the Gay culture first hand and having grown up in and around the Gay and openly sexual lifestyles and culture of Southern Calif.

Got it?


thanks,

dbs
 
Last edited:
You're making progress in discussing, that's nice.

I wouldn't ever say environment can't be a factor in each and every case, simply because I don't know, and because I'm not in that black&white kind of thinking. However, this is exactly the reason why I'm opposed to any anti-gay policies or attacks or the implication that either hetero- or homosexuality is choice. I would say for some people it can be, at least to some degree, be choice, and for others not.
But I've also heard of people entering relationships, even marriages, who then discovered that their focus was always on men, and their fantasies on how to approach any other man in that way. Eventually, they split up. Same with women.

It's similar with fetishes, I would say. Some people develop fetishes and you will probably won't find any "environmental factors" determining that fetish, and in other cases you will have some incident that can be pointed out as the key moment in that person's development.

And that's probably even stronger with gays, reinforced by what I read from e.g. Irvine and melon. Or do you think they just tell you something?

So you decided to be straight, and if you had any feelings toward men you probably would blame the both guys who approached you. But that doesn't go with everyone, as you can see here in the forum, for example.

I'm really curious who here is a kid.
 
i disagree. there are various stages in homosexual identity development. life is a long process of learning more about yourself as you go. it could take many years before an individual acknowledges who s/he is. that doesn't mean it is a choice. the same goes for ethnic/racial identity development, and all other psychosocial behaviors.
 
diamond said:


My brother and I were both courted by older Gay men in our youth who encouraged us to be Gay-they lavished us with gifts, paticularily my brother.

We both made decisions not to be Gay. If we were raised differently we might of made different choices. So you can't rule out enviornment in one's sexual choices.
Click to expand...


i see. so you looked at these swarthy men, beautiful bodies, and thought you'd just love to have sex with them and develop relationships. you wanted to kiss them, to feel their scratchy beards up against your chin. you wanted to fall into bed with them and rest your head on his heaving, hairy chest. you wanted him to kiss you and hold you and to lube himself up and slide himself inside you and take you, over and over again, and then you'd shower and take a ride up to the vineyard where you'd spend the afternoon sampling wine, cheese and olives.

but then you decided, nah, i don't want to be gay.

OR did you look at the man and say, well, i'm not sexually attracted to men, so how could i possibly be straight?

you see diamond -- you didn't CHOOSE your non-attraction to men.

you've just totally rebutted yoruself.

which sounds kind of sexy. :sexywink:




[q]If you take a 6 year old boy going to a pro gay therapist because he doesn't like sports, that boy in search or quest of his idenity, might later identify himself as Gay- to please the people around him.[/q]


:lmao:

this would be genuinely funny, if we didn't have mountains of evidence of the gay people who've been rejected by their families or the fact that suicide is the #1 killer of gay teens.

really, being gay to please someone?

i could cry.
 
unico said:
i disagree. there are various stages in homosexual identity development. life is a long process of learning more about yourself as you go. it could take many years before an individual acknowledges who s/he is. that doesn't mean it is a choice. the same goes for ethnic/racial identity development, and all other psychosocial behaviors.
Click to expand...



it's true -- i was bisexual for about 14 months back in 2002.
 
Irvine511 said:
this would be genuinely funny, if we didn't have mountains of evidence of the gay people who've been rejected by their families or the fact that suicide is the #1 killer of gay teens.

really, being gay to please someone?

i could cry.
Click to expand...

This is something I think is important to remember. Why would someone choose to be gay? If given the choice, why would someone want to subject themselves to the problems homosexuals face in today's society?
 
Exactly. My line of thinking has always been that your thoughts and feelings can't possibly be controlled-I don't believe people can really choose who they fall in love with. I honestly can't say I ever once was like, "Okay, I'm choosing to like this particular type of man with x qualities." There's just a certain type of guy I've always been attracted to. I can try to force myself to like the types of guys that millions of other girls fall over, that the general public deems to be "the hot ones", all I want, but if the feeling isn't there, it's never gonna be.

No, I believe that only your actions can be controlled. And to allow straight people to act on their love for each other while forcing gays to merely look on-I think that's just downright cruel.

Besides that, again I ask the question that begs to be asked, whether one's sexual orientation is genetic or whether it's a choice, why should it matter either way? People still shouldn't have the right to try and "change" you into what they think you should be. I thought we were done with the days where people forced you into relationships you didn't want to be in.

Angela
 
Irvine511 said:


i see. so you looked at these swarthy men, beautiful bodies, and thought you'd just love to have sex with them and develop relationships. you wanted to kiss them, to feel their scratchy beards up against your chin. you wanted to fall into bed with them and rest your head on his heaving, hairy chest. you wanted him to kiss you and hold you and to lube himself up and slide himself inside you and take you, over and over again, and then you'd shower and take a ride up to the vineyard where you'd spend the afternoon sampling wine, cheese and olives.

.

which sounds kind of sexy. :sexywink:




[q]If you take a 6 year old boy going to a pro gay therapist because he doesn't like sports, that boy in search or quest of his idenity, might later identify himself as Gay- to please the people around him.[/q]



really, being gay to please someone?

i could cry.
Click to expand...

Well that was the first of several appoaches of gay guys solicting, advocating and encouraging me to give it a whirl.

A mulititude of tactics were tried by many different gay men in my life, from friends to bosses to older gay men.

I could have made that choice, it was a choice for me as it is to some.

I chose not to experiment with something that didn't feel right, but I was tempted at times, and coulda even did things that approached the treshold, but in the end I felt it didn't feel right for what ever reason.

dbs
 
diamond said:
I chose not to experiment with something that didn't feel right
Click to expand...

Interesting. So if it didn't feel right, do you really think you were choosing anything instead of just following who you naturally are?

Are you sexually attracted to men? No? Then that wasn't a choice. Sure, I guess technically it could be considered a choice that you chose to do something that didn't agree with who you are, but homosexuals are not straight people who are suddenly faced with an external choice and go against their nature.

Did you choose to find women attractive?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Police Brutality Against 73 Year Old Woman With Dementia
Replies
4
Views
565
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
MrsSpringsteen
SoHo Racist Karen
Replies
5
Views
916
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7
MrsSpringsteen
The Murder Of Ahmaud Arbery
6 7 8
Replies
221
Views
12K
Bluer White
Bluer White
MrsSpringsteen
Fox News, Fake News!
Replies
4
Views
699
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom