Reply With Quote
That's you.
Everyone has their own story.
They can't at least be informed about it?
You know what I mean by outed chump. It means calling someone out. If it means anything more than that, you're too smart to believe I mean what it shouldn't.Not if he is, in fact, all of those things. Outed is an interesting choice of words, semantically speaking. You continue to hang yourself with your own words.
Oh god, here we go again.It's a conditional apology because you put a condition on it. You can't get out of that with a semantic argument.
That's you.
Everyone has their own story.
If their opinion of your victimhood is that important to you....
You really don't know the definition of a lot of words.You know what I mean by outed chump. It means calling someone out. If it means anything more than that, you're too smart to believe I mean what it shouldn't.
I'll allow that you really don't know what you're doing most of the time in these posts. Explains a whole lot.Oh god, here we go again.
I'd be very surprised if many posters here had the same experience you did.
What does it matter to you?
Because the definition of natural as applied to other venues gets a little murky I don't know the basic definition as put out in basic dictionaries? Okay, I got that point (semantic), you should have got that point a long time ago, move on.You really don't know the definition of a lot of words.
I use outed a lot, I didn't know what it's precise definition was. Learn something new everyday, tbh.
You're arguing semantics. We're not going anywhere with that unless you choose to understand how I'm not conditionally apologizing.I'll allow that you really don't know what you're doing most of the time in these posts. Explains a whole lot.
That's your opinion and anticipation.
To each his own.
Pointing out posters' playing the victim is fun for me.
Nah, you don't get to claim ignorance on that one. We explicitly spelled out the definition we were using for you.Because the definition of natural as applied to other venues gets a little murky I don't know the basic definition as put out in basic dictionaries? Okay, I got that point (semantic), you should have got that point a long time ago, move on.
You're welcome.I use outed a lot, I didn't know what it's precise definition was. Learn something new everyday, tbh.
I would understand that, had you not placed a condition on your apology. There is no way you can argue you didn't.You're arguing semantics. We're not going anywhere with that unless you choose to understand how I'm not conditionally apologizing.
In all my years I have never heard of someone who decided to be straight in the fourth grade. If you have seen some other examples in your research, I'd be keen to read them.
I can tell.
And I was continually posting on a different definition of it. You guys explicitly put out the definition of natural when I was generating posts with a different definition of natural. It was only until I put out what I meant by natural that you and all other posters understood.Nah, you don't get to claim ignorance on that one. We explicitly spelled out the definition we were using for you.
You're welcome.
So it's conditional because I somehow (in your assumptions) suddenly felt bad about my opinions? Get the out of here man.I would understand that, had you not placed a condition on your apology. There is no way you can argue you didn't.
There are a lot of people currently living on this earth, currently 300,000,000+ actually. You'll tend to get a variety of stories if you seek. I don't see how mine is any special. I knowingly and consciously decided to be with a women (making me straight).
My research doesn't involve sexuality and the like. My research involves BT and it's promising anti-cancer possibilities, boring after a few years tbh.
I predicted your semantic argument. You never did anything to refute our argument, however. That's a big strike against you.
No, as I plainly stated before, it's conditional because you put a condition on it. No one has to assume anything -- your condition is clear and explicit. I'm not going to help you with any more definitions because a doctor should be able to figure stuff like that on his own tbh.So it's conditional because I somehow (in your assumptions) suddenly felt bad about my opinions? Get the out of here man.
Just say you don't know of anyone else with the same story. I sure don't.
I never did anything initially to refute the semantic argument because I was investing my time in warding off a constant verbal outcry from backstobasics. In hindsight, I should have just ignored her and refuted you, we would have saved a lot of time.
I've refuted the argument already by elaborating on what I meant by the word natural I was using. CF was the only one out of all you posters to offer a reply somewhat devoid of personal attacks.
It's conditional to you because you want to keep this thing going. I've already apologized. Move on.No, as I plainly stated before, it's conditional because you put a condition on it. No one has to assume anything -- your condition is clear and explicit. I'm not going to help you with any more definitions because a doctor should be able to figure stuff like that on his own tbh.
Check the world population number, and think again. There has to be someone who has a similar story.
Do you usually talk out of your ass and then do research on the subject? Why not do the second thing first!
I found this rather lengthy article on sexual orientation and sexuality. I quoted the above from the article.......
So sexual orientation (associated with sexuality, of course) is not considered a natural (natural as in innate, this word is used rather loosely and may overlap with the term normal, CF is somewhat right in her post) trait like a person's gender, age, or even race if you want to enter that word into this topic. Thus, sexuality is not a natural characteristic trait of a human being.So your definition of natural is basically innate then? You sound Amish. Are any of the following "natural" as defined by you:
Driving a car
Cooking food
Using tools
Using money as currency
Here's one. Is oral sex natural?
So...physiologic.
It's also natural for a human being to want to hold a sexual relation. Why? BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN NATURE.It's natural for a human being to want to hold a heterosexual relation with the opposite gender, in doing so, conceive offspring containing genetically different DNA.
it's still a bit abnormal for people of different skin color to marry each other...
...which would, in essence, go against the very essence of genetic diversity.
Are you not aware of gay people all around you making the exact decision for themselves? Many carry it out very successfully and yet, they are still gay.
No you didn't.
You don't magically refute an argument by trying to ignore the perfectly valid definition of natural that we used. Our argument stands, blissfully unrefuted.
Not until you realize and admit its conditional and therefore disingenuous. For all your whining about semantics, its all you really rely upon in a discussion -- which is sad because you are so ill-informed about the simple, broad definitions being used here. You're trying to use your ignorance as a shield and it's an abject failure.It's conditional to you because you want to keep this thing going. I've already apologized. Move on.
An unnecessarily strained hypothetical, but, sure. If you were sexually turned on by trees, you might want to them. But that wasn't really my argument. My argument was that we are a species who naturally has sex for pleasure (and for countless other reasons besides procreation) and that it is therefore pointless to argue that sexual sex is unnatural simply because it cannot lead to procreation. On a purely biological level, procreation is not our species' only motivation for sexual activity, so its lack alone is not enough to make something unnatural.
Every time you've ever had sex in your entire life it's been related to fathering? EVERY time?
When did neon become a unit of measurement?
Except that it occurs in nature. A lot.
You still haven't given a concrete/consistent definition of natural as you're using it in this thread. When you say it's not natural, do you mean that it is artificial? Or do you mean that it is contrary to our biological need to reproduce?
If the former, you're just wrong. Because sexuality occurs in nature, often, and all on its own. If the latter, you're assuming that reproduction is the sole motivator for human sexual interaction AND natural is not the word you should be using for that argument.
Sorry, but no. You don't get to throw this out as fact for 13 pages and then pull the double whammy of calling it opinion and bemoaning your persecution for said.
I don't doubt that it is your opinion. Since its first post, this thread has pretty much existed to showcase your phobia and the fact you personally find sexuality to be icky and unnatural. But at some point you switched away from opinion and toward an argument that sexuality was unnatural according to human biology. You can at this point admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about and that your medical mumbo jumbo was intended as nothing other than a subject change away from your own phobia, but it's too late to pretend you didn't make this an argument of fact.
You're still confused. The sexual bit is the attraction, not the activity.
So, then, you didn't choose to be heterosexual.
Being attracted to other men is what makes a man sexual.
what kind of med student doesnt know the definition of natural?
I'm calling bs, this guy has had plenty of re ed opinions in multiple threads iirc tbh imho
It's conditional to everyone because "if I've offended any posters here for questioning sexuality and its acceptance" is a condition.
A med student going into Psychiatry
No, take it as you will.
My definition of natural relates to the order of things in biology, more so in genetics. You give examples of things that exist in nature (reality), and that function as they do in nature.
Driving a car
Cooking food
Using tools
Using money as currency
Here's one. Is oral sex natural?
Physiologic does not equal genetics man.So...physiologic.
That's already been posted, the whole it happens in nature part. Is it the natural order of things? No. It isn't.It's also natural for a human being to want to hold a sexual relation. Why? BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN NATURE.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
