Reply With Quote
You think I'm riled up?I already said I have a gay friend and a gay cousin that I'm close with. I'm not phobic at all. I just like to have fun with you. You get riled up so easy that I bet you look cute when you get mad.
tbh that begs a definition of "medicine" as much as anything else.
You think I'm riled up?I already said I have a gay friend and a gay cousin that I'm close with. I'm not phobic at all. I just like to have fun with you. You get riled up so easy that I bet you look cute when you get mad.
Well, as long as you got to all three of 'em.
I'm quite surprised tbh.
and@ natural episode
God, save us all.
Your use of the terms "common" and "deviant" above make me think you're arguing against sexuality being "natural" when you mean to be arguing against it being "normal."
"Natural" implies neither "frequent" nor "typical." Anything that occurs in nature is natural, even if it only ever happens once. It is true that only a small percentage of the population identifies as sexual or bisexual, making a iden y something that exists in opposition to biological and social norms, but that's completely different from it being unnatural.
Unless, of course, you're using "nature" in its definition as the opposite of "nurture." Suggesting, therefore, that sexuality is a choice. If that's the case, based on your comments thus far you're even more confused than I initially thought. Largely because the implication then is that you're confusing/conflating what people do with what people are.
In other words, defining male sexuality (because, as is usually the case with the phobes, lesbians are completely unimportant to the conversation/outrage) as a collection of behaviors, mannerisms, and sexual practices rather than as a collection of underlying motivations, desires, and attractions. Such a definitional error makes the nature/nurture argument difficult because one side is suggesting that people are born gay (and meaning that people are unable to control or determine their attractions), while the other side says that being gay is a choice (and meaning that people with sexual desires are making the conscious choice to act on them). In such an argument, both sides are correct but neither side is responding to the other's position. People who are sexual do consciously choose the degree to which they will act on their sexual desires, just as straight people consciously choose how they will act on their attraction to the opposite sex. Conversely, people who are attracted to the same sex are no more in control of that attraction than you are of your attraction to women.
You didn't make a choice to be attracted to women. You did make a choice to pursue a sex life with the people to whom you are attracted.
Gay male #356 didn't make a choice to be attracted to other men. He did make a choice to pursue a sex life with the people to whom he is attracted.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
I had to be out of the house for some time, but with the little time I had to do a little research on the topic, 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.
By the same token, however.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspxNo, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and sexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been do ented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of sexuality as a mental disorder.
While this is a direct quote from the APA website, I would take this with a grain of salt (perhaps the entire article can be taken lightly, even the post I quoted in my other response). The APA has been widely mentioned to be pro-gay going for the past 20 or so years...so much so that they advocated the existence of a gay gene -- fueling gay activism towards the promotion of the "gay" and genetically "natural" association of terms by the mainstream media. This effort, in a nuts , was to prove sexuality was a biological trait.
Before 2009, the APA website had a brochure on it's front page, much like the article I've provided and it read:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including
genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality."
In 2009, there was a change in tone:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."
University of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonThat's a lot of letters
Medically, not sure.
Biologically, it goes against the very essence of genetic diversity.
I'm pretty sure I may have posted in this thread already, but can I please get the Cliffs Notes version of the goings-on here.
Danke
From the very article you linked:
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
You still don't seem to have a very clear grasp on what you mean by "natural." If you mean it as a subs ute for "innate," that doesn't at all overlap with "normal." Nor is it in any way refuted by your own article. Or any other extant reliable study.
It's going in a couple of different directions, currently, but I'll try.
triggeredexcellence: Ever noticed how women are less phobic than phobic men? S'up with dat?
most everyone else: What a way to go about creating a phobe thread. Ya damned phobe.
triggeredexcellence: I'm not phobic. I just am creeped out when gay people decide to act all gay.
most everyone else: Why?
triggeredexcellence: Because teh gayness is unnatural.
most everyone else: 'Cept it occurs in nature.
triggeredexcellence: But that doesn't make it natural. You guys must be a bunch of s or apologists to think otherwise.
most everyone else: What do you think the word "natural" means?
Answer TBD.
Somewhat tangentially...
Ginobilly: Gay men are icky because they have scary penises. Straight men are inherently threatened by what other men are doing with their penises because something something pit bull analogy. Lesbians are less icky because they don't have scary penises.
most everyone else: You're a ing idiot.
Ginobilly: Just kidding, y'all. I gots gay cousins.
most everyone else: That's pretty obviously bull , but thanks for giving us definitive reason to stop giving a what you say in here.
And also B2B.
Uh, okay?
Natural, and normal...while you have a point, these two words expand in application in the different venues of biology and humanity.Your use of the terms "common" and "deviant" above make me think you're arguing against sexuality being "natural" when you mean to be arguing against it being "normal."
It's natural for a human to be in love... being in love to the opposite sex enables the spreading of genes and blah blah blah (pretty sure you've heard that argument before and you'll brush it off). If you really think about it, at the very fundamental reality of man and women, this argument holds biological credibility.
So you would say sexuality and bisexuality is abnormal?"Natural" implies neither "frequent" nor "typical." Anything that occurs in nature is natural, even if it only ever happens once. It is true that only a small percentage of the population identifies as sexual or bisexual, making a iden y something that exists in opposition to biological and social norms, but that's completely different from it being unnatural.
Firstly:Unless, of course, you're using "nature" in its definition as the opposite of "nurture." Suggesting, therefore, that sexuality is a choice. If that's the case, based on your comments thus far you're even more confused than I initially thought. Largely because the implication then is that you're confusing/conflating what people do with what people are.
Read my first reply to Shasta...
Secondly:
So I'm confusing the category of what a sexual person does with the category of what a sexual person is?
Nice try, tbh. You are witty.
So you're gay by choice or do you think you were born gay?In other words, defining male sexuality (because, as is usually the case with the phobes, lesbians are completely unimportant to the conversation/outrage) as a collection of behaviors, mannerisms, and sexual practices rather than as a collection of underlying motivations, desires, and attractions. Such a definitional error makes the nature/nurture argument difficult because one side is suggesting that people are born gay (and meaning that people are unable to control or determine their attractions), while the other side says that being gay is a choice (and meaning that people with sexual desires are making the conscious choice to act on them).
You got that right...some posters on here like backtobasics are too stupid and hormonally affected to process this.In such an argument, both sides are correct but neither side is responding to the other's position.
No, I consciously chose to be attracted to women, not to the having sex part (although I don't mind that, let me tell you). You've basically argued that the degree of sexual attraction determines what type of relationships me and you have engaged in... while that does hold some truth, it's not entirely correct in it's saliency. This is more of matter of opinion than it is fact, tbh.People who are sexual do consciously choose the degree to which they will act on their sexual desires, just as straight people consciously choose how they will act on their attraction to the opposite sex. Conversely, people who are attracted to the same sex are no more in control of that attraction than you are of your attraction to women.
You didn't make a choice to be attracted to women. You did make a choice to pursue a sex life with the people to whom you are attracted.
Doesn't the word "deviant" basically just mean that something deviates away from the norms of society? Why do gay people get so bent out of shape and pissy when someone says that sexuality is deviant behavior? Deviant does not mean bad, dumbasses. In America and around the world, most people are straight and being straight is considered the norm.
Natural, as it's applied in the field of biology (more so in genetics).
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.
Ahh, I see...thanks for saving me 13 pages, although morbid curiosity might have me check out Ginobily's takes--b/c he's been to known to have special opinions.
Don't even pay attention to this DD, you can clearly tell CF is somewhat pist off because I'm questioning the authenticity of being gay and how it relates to the natural order of things.
According to her, it's natural to be gay because it occurs naturally (in nature, semantics much
Can a man and a man have a baby? Can a woman and a woman have a baby? Can a man and a woman have a baby?
It's funny to see the circle jerking in here with more popular posters. Pretty much details the entirety of how ST functions when one poster holds a differing opinion or ever so slightly questions the norm.
When it comes to this topic, we've learned a couple of things regarding this topic and spurstalk: If you don't agree and accept all of sexuality you are outed as a phobe, hater, bigot.
This topic is very touchy and quite the controversial. If I've offended any posters here for questioning sexuality and it's acceptance, I'm sorry.
Like I said man, I haven't read through this thread but I don't look at sexuality in such black and white terms. I grew up most of my life around Miami and South Beach so it was always accepted and understood when you saw it. The usually inherent prejudices towards the subject weren't present down there and i never really gave much thought to it.
That is, until I started living in other parts of the country--particularly, Phoenix, Boise, and NW Louisiana--where it was viewed as unnatural and hedonistic.
To tell you the truth broski, I just don't give a .
What's the point of these questions? Where you trying to get at with this?
To mean what? You still haven't provided a coherent and/or consistent definition for how you are using "natural."
As does the argument that, being one of the few animal species in the world that has sex for pleasure, we may be naturally motivated to for reasons other than procreation.
And if you are hitching your argument to the procreation/spreading our seed wagon, is it similarly unnatural for straight men and women to continue to have a sex drive after they've lost the ability to reproduce?
In the sense that they are a deviation from the norm, yes. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals still make up a very small percentage of the population.
I've read this entire thread as it's gone along. If it didn't make an impression on me the first time, it ain't going to grab me as brilliant on a second pass. Reassert your argument if you think it's valid or important to the discussion.
Yes. It's the only part of your argument that has been consistent.
Non sequitur, but props for getting something right. Broken clock, and all that.
I was born bisexual. I made a conscious choice to pursue relationships with both men and women, but I've had no control over the fact I'm physically/sexually attracted to both. Didn't wake up one morning and decide to start liking pussy.
So, then, if you were so motivated, you could wake up tomorrow and choose to be attracted to men instead?
No, I haven't argued that.
You're still operating under the assumption that a certain sexuality automatically leads to certain behaviors. That men choose to be attracted to other men, choose to be gay, but then once they make that choice they've got no options other than to start getting rammed in the ass and to act like swishy queens. Which is ridiculous. Sexual proclivities, practices, and preferences are every bit as varied amongst gays, lesbians, and bisexual people as they are amongst straight people. Not all heterosexuals are into the same stuff sexually, so why would all GLBTQ folks be turned on by the same things?
I'm not pist off by anything you've said. I just think it a bit asinine.
ing crazy, I must be.
Aren't bisexual people basically "double dippers"?
When did you do that?
lol ur ghey
It's funny to see you constantly playing the victim.
Nah, you did much more to prove your bigotry.When it comes to this topic, we've learned a couple of things regarding this topic and spurstalk: If you don't agree and accept all of sexuality you are outed as a phobe, hater, bigot.
And a non-apology apology to top it off.This topic is very touchy and quite the controversial. If I've offended any posters here for questioning sexuality and it's acceptance, I'm sorry.
Bravo.
lol natural
lol semantics
Yes, I have, go back and read some of my more recent posts.
So I would want to a tree because I like ing trees? That's a pretty dense argument. If I'm ing something, I'm doing it for a reason (love, having children, becoming a father, raising my kids to be good citizens of society).As does the argument that, being one of the few animal species in the world that has sex for pleasure, we may be naturally motivated to for reasons other than procreation.
And if you are hitching your argument to the procreation/spreading our seed wagon, is it similarly unnatural for straight men and women to continue to have a sex drive after they've lost the ability to reproduce?
It's natural (endocrinologically, that is) for straight men and women to stop ing after they've ed each other neons of times... , I've experience that before with my prior relationships. Does that make me want to drop that relationship and start another? No. Don't know what you're trying to get at here.
Yeah, I anticipated this response.In the sense that they are a deviation from the norm, yes. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals still make up a very small percentage of the population.
It's not natural to my fellow man, and it's not natural for you to your fellow woman. Reasons being spreading the seed and like that. This is a personal opinion of mine, you have your own. It's expected for you, or anyone for that matter, to think something opposite of your perspective is initially stupid.I've read this entire thread as it's gone along. If it didn't make an impression on me the first time, it ain't going to grab me as brilliant on a second pass. Reassert your argument if you think it's valid or important to the discussion.
If it's too hard for you to understand, let me state it specifically, and add a little to that: It's unnatural for a human being to another human being of the same sex. To tie in what you think I'm confused of: Because a man s another man, they conduct sexual activity (does), therefore this makes them equivocally (hate that word, but it has to be used here) unnatural.Yes. It's the only part of your argument that has been consistent.
I tend to be right about a lot of things, I tend to be wrong about things...not a big deal, I'm human. I'm bound to make mistakes. Pretty sure you are in the same ballpark.Non sequitur, but props for getting something right. Broken clock, and all that.
@ the topic of you being witty
This is not meant to be offending, but what do you do for a living? You should try writing plots for shows...
I was born bisexual. I made a conscious choice to pursue relationships with both men and women, but I've had no control over the fact I'm physically/sexually attracted to both. Didn't wake up one morning and decide to start liking pussy.
I was born heterosexual, I made a conscious choice to pursue relationships with women not on the basis of physical/sexual attraction, but of basis on her character/personality. I woke up one morning, and decided I wanted to be a father sometime in the near future (after all my schooling).
No. I would never get myself motivated for such a thing.So, then, if you were so motivated, you could wake up tomorrow and choose to be attracted to men instead?
?No, I haven't argued that.
So it's not behavior? It is behavior (activity). A sexual man has sex with another sexual man = they engage in sexual activity. It is a behavior. It's a behavior just like the thought of me ing my girlfriend.You're still operating under the assumption that a certain sexuality automatically leads to certain behaviors. That men choose to be attracted to other men, choose to be gay, but then once they make that choice they've got no options other than to start getting rammed in the ass and to act like swishy queens. Which is ridiculous. Sexual proclivities, practices, and preferences are every bit as varied amongst gays, lesbians, and bisexual people as they are amongst straight people. Not all heterosexuals are into the same stuff sexually, so why would all GLBTQ folks be turned on by the same things?
To each his/her own.I'm not pist off by anything you've said. I just think it a bit asinine.
ing crazy of me to think otherwise.ing crazy, I must be.
Last edited by TE; 07-06-2012 at 03:35 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
