Sexual Orientation is Biologically Determined?

[Ender]

I didn't say link...I said "used for"....

so your comment is incorrect.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
Then why are they "Bigoted a$$holes"?...maybe they are the enlightened ones? maybe they have researched the issue and determined the being gay isn't justified?..or at least not as right as others may think.

Thinking that being gay isn't "right" or "justified" does not make a person a bigoted @$$hole. Pay attention to what I wrote. Having that opinion is fine. It is when someone with that opinion wants to force change on someone else, whether through discrimination or force, because they don't agree...that is when they are a bigoted @$$hole. Having the opinion that "gay is wrong" is fine. Wanting to force others to change because of your opinion, even if it is the 'right' opinion, is not only wrong, but is unamerican.

Thats one of the problems I have with the left, when someone disagrees with them they try to "label" them or call them names.

Oh...hear we f**kin' go with this "left" S**t. Aren't you trying to 'label' with that comment. Get with the program...no one is calling anyone anything here ('cept you who likes to label anyone who disagree's with your position as "liberal" or "left").

(homophobes).....maybe gays are "vagina-phobes"?..*L

Heh...maybe certain people are.

the other tactic is to attack the speaker. these two tactics usually come from a weak position.

I agree that labeling and attacking would come from a weak position....um aren't you sort of labeling me and attacking me with this post? I wouldn't consider you "on the attack" too badly here, but you are certianly labeling me and overgeneralizing what I have been saying.

Besides that, I don't think I or anyone has labeled or attacked you here...so I don't know what your talking about. It's almost like your all fired up from a different conversation.

the other thing is when all the "justifications" used for being gay can be used for pedophilia. "maybe it's nurtured, or chemical, or in the genes" take every argument you used for gay and put in the word pedophile. in fact, those argument would prolly work better, because of procreation issues. try it.
*s

Sure. The same justification could be used for us eating our children too. Black widows and sharks eat there children...so why can't we? That doesn't make it "right" however. One major glaring thing that does differentiate "homosexuality" from "pedophelia" is that pedophelia violates the rights and safety of others (namely, the children), and homosexuality does not. What 2 gay people do in the bedroom doesn't violate the safety of others; an adult preying on a child and essentially abusing them sexually does. For you to make the comparison is unreal to me.

But remember too, that we are talking about the science behind it. We can talk about the science behind pedophelia, rape, etc. We can look at the biological, sociological, psychological, physical, environmental factors involved with any of these issues if you'd like...and we can seperate the science from the morallity for discussion purposes on these issues as well.

The subject isn't the morality of homosexuality, however, it is the science. You as well as many others seem to be having difficulites in truly seperating the morality from the science of the issue to look at just the one part. Why is that?

A note on morality...however...since it has been brought up. I am not going to speak religiously, but rather, politically...since you like to label things liberal or conservative a lot. In AMERICA...(you know...that country that is supposed to be free that we live in?) we believe that people have the 'liberty' and 'freedom' to do what they want in life, just as long as they aren't violating the liberty and freedom of the other citizens. Homosexuality isn't violating anyones liberty or freedom....while pedophilia is. I don't think we can parallel the too in a moral/political sense...which is the parallel you were trying to make with your comments.

So...do you understand what I mean when I say "Bigoted @$$holes" now?

 

[Cruentus]

I think the objection, Ender, is that words like "gay," on these forums always get immediatedly linked to other words--like"pedophile," or "pervert," or, "abnormal."

I understand what you are saying here Robert...but I disagree with the "abnormal" part as being a bad thing. I don't think abnormal = bad, so I never saw it as a problem linking the word abnormal with anything that deviates from the typical.

 

[Ender]

Oh...hear we f**kin' go with this "left" S**t. Aren't you trying to 'label' with that comment. Get with the program...no one is calling anyone anything here ('cept you who likes to label anyone who disagree's with your position as "liberal" or "left").

No, because the comment wasn't directed at you. I'm just pointing out tactics usually used...so you can be made aware...besides, refering liberal or left is a position in my opinion.

there is no connection whatsoever between eating children and what this discussion is about. thats a wild stretch by anyone's imagination.*L

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender


No, because the comment wasn't directed at you. I'm just pointing out tactics usually used...so you can be made aware...besides, refering liberal or left is a position in my opinion.

Oh...O.K. You addressed me, then went into "That's the problem I have with the left...", so I naturually thought you were generalizing about me and saying I was using the tactics you mentioned. I am glad that wasn't the case. Thank you.

there is no connection whatsoever between eating children and what this discussion is about. thats a wild stretch by anyone's imagination.*L

LOL...I know it's a stretch, but that is why I used the example. To me....homosexuality and pedophilia is as much of a stretch as hetrosexuality and male to female gang rape. Obviously gang rape and hetro-sex are not the same, and the only connection between the 2 is that they are sexual in nature. Nobody thinks that hetro-sex and gang raping are connected in any way other then that. However...that is strangely not always the case with homo-sex. Because the subject is "sex," I far too often here anything outside of the "normal hetrosexual worldview" of sex lumped together; thus Necrophelia (sex with dead people), Beastiality (sex with animals), pedophelia (sex with children), as well as other "odities", and homosexuality all seemed to get lumped into the same category. I feel that the comparison is unfair just like linking hetrosex and gang rape would be unfair.
Hetro-sexual behavior doesn't jeprodize anyones safety (beyond any emotional and physical consequence between consenting partners) and rights, while gang rape does. Homosexual behavior similarly doesn't jeprodize anyones safety (beyond any emotional and physical consequence between consenting partners) and rights, while pedophelia does.

So...eating children and sexuality is an off the wall comparison? Well, I think the same is true with the pedophelia/homosexuality comparison.....or at the very least, the comparison is 'unfair.'

 

[Ender]

Well I think there can be a link beween pedophilia, bestiality, narcophelia etc, if you use the"explanations" you gave.

My position is that it is a chemical imbalance that causes these behaviors and therefor there can be a treatment. Much as psychosis or schizophrenia etc are all chemical imbalances that cause those behaviors. in fact, rapists can now be treated with chemical castration.

your position is (my understanding) is that it's a nature/nurture/genetic (genetic may be the other guys' position)/psychological/social issue. I think you can use that position for pedophilia, bestiality, narcophelia. this position can further state the we must "accept" these pedohiles, rapists, narcopheliacs, and homsexuals beacuse they have no choice and we must pity them. my position is that they can be treated.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Guys,

Keep it civil.

Thank you.

 

[Cruentus]

I agree in the sense that if homosexuality is in part chemical/biological, then yes, in theory it could be treated if one were to choose to have it treated. The same would be true in the case of pedophelia, rape, etc.

I don't agree with the "pity" part, though. We all make our own decisions. For instance, I am a hetrosexual male, and I definatily have urges to have sex with hot women. However, I don't expect my Fiancee' to say, "We'll, it's just his natural urge, so he can go out and cheat on me." I wouldn't expect her acceptance or pity regarding the issue. Dispite my urges, I have the ability to make my choices, no matter how difficult those may be at times.

Same is true with a rapist, for example. A rapist might have the urge to rape over the average person due to treatable factors. But they still have a choice. And...if they choose to hurt another person, which is what rape is, then this becomes a punishable crime.

But again...we come to a major difference here, and where environmental factors come into play. If you decide to live the lifestyle of a rapist or pedophile, you are deciding to hurt another human being, or many other human beings, which is a punishable offense. If you are deciding to have a gay lifestyle, you are not deciding to hurt another human being; no punishable offense. This is a major difference...so I don't agree with the "pity" aspect because of this difference.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Guys,

Keep it civil.

Thank you.

I think we're pretty civil still....aren't we...?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Originally posted by PAUL
I think we're pretty civil still....aren't we...?

Had a couple concerns about certain directions/etc...

no worries. Tis just a 'nudge'.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Had a couple concerns about certain directions/etc...

no worries. Tis just a 'nudge'.

Ahh....understood.

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by PAUL
I agree in the sense that if homosexuality is in part chemical/biological, then yes, in theory it could be treated if one were to choose to have it treated. The same would be true in the case of pedophelia, rape, etc.

I don't agree with the "pity" part, though. We all make our own decisions. For instance, I am a hetrosexual male, and I definatily have urges to have sex with hot women. However, I don't expect my Fiancee' to say, "We'll, it's just his natural urge, so he can go out and cheat on me." I wouldn't expect her acceptance or pity regarding the issue. Dispite my urges, I have the ability to make my choices, no matter how difficult those may be at times.

Same is true with a rapist, for example. A rapist might have the urge to rape over the average person due to treatable factors. But they still have a choice. And...if they choose to hurt another person, which is what rape is, then this becomes a punishable crime.

But again...we come to a major difference here, and where environmental factors come into play. If you decide to live the lifestyle of a rapist or pedophile, you are deciding to hurt another human being, or many other human beings, which is a punishable offense. If you are deciding to have a gay lifestyle, you are not deciding to hurt another human being; no punishable offense. This is a major difference...so I don't agree with the "pity" aspect because of this difference.

what about Homosexuals who DELIBERATeLY pass on the AIDS virus?

 

[Nightingale]

ANYONE who deliberately passes on the HIV virus should be prosecuted. it falls under the category of "reckless endangerment"

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/chat_990217edwards.html

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
what about Homosexuals who DELIBERATeLY pass on the AIDS virus?

But that is more of a crime associated with HIV carriers with malicious intent....could be straight or gay. Homosexuality and AIDs patients with Malicious intent are mutually exclusive.

 

[Ender]

mutually exclusive?...hmmm....they may be mutually inclusive, or exclusively excluded,or mutually included...but not mutually exclusive.

1+1=1 mutually inclusive
1-1=1 exclusively inclusive
0-1=1 exclusivley inclusive
1-0=1 exclusivley inclusive

1-1=0 exclusively excluded
1+1=0 mutually exclusive

you said : If you are deciding to have a gay lifestyle, you are not deciding to hurt another human being.

that may not be true, because you may be an unwitting carrier.

 

[Cruentus]

you cought me red- handed..."mutually exclusive" is not what I ment to say, really, even though I said it. I know what it means, and it doesn't adequetly describe what I am saying.

What I am saying is that there is no direct correlation between "homosexuality" and "aids patent with malicious intent"...although they could be one in the same, the aids patient could be hetero just the same, so there is no direct correlation.

you said : If you are deciding to have a gay lifestyle, you are not deciding to hurt another human being.

that may not be true, because you may be an unwitting carrier.

Yes...but you may be an unwitting carrier and hetrosexual also. Whether you are gay or not, if your an unwitting carrier you DON'T KNOW your a carrier, thus your not CHOOSING harm on another human being.

Thus...I am not sure what your trying to say exactly here.

Choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is not the same as choosing to harm someone, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Ender]

Well I couldn't exactly say that. There have been many cases where a homosexual engaged in high risk behavior,caught aids, figured society was against him and purposely infected others or the blood supply. There is a correlation there.

 

[Nightingale]

there are actually more hetero folks with HIV.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok..I gotta add my 2.5 cents here....

On homosexuality:
I've seen studies that claim its 'choice', that its' genetics', etc. Each study seemed to be funded or otherwise influenced by a particular viewpoints supporters.

My -opinion- is that its all and none. In some cases its choice, in others its genetics, in others something else.

I see nothing wrong with the whole thing, though its not for me.
I've also seen a large amount of hypocracy amongst certain individuals. 2 guys are discusting, but 2 gals are 'really hot'.

When it comes to the 'rightness' of same-gender relationships, it seems the ones that complain the most are conservative Xians. Historically, most cultures haven't cared much either way. In Japan today, same gender relationships aren't anywhere near as taboo as in the US. Matter of fact, huge industries support it.

Actually, the anime crowd has a lot of interesting and diverse things.

http://www.yaoicon.com/
Quote:
What is yaoi? Yaoi is a woman's genre of manga (comic books) and short stories, produced by female artists and writers for the enjoyment of female readers. It's a fantasy form which focuses on the romantic, emotional — and above all — sexual relationships of guys together.

Huh? That's right. M/M. Men in Love. Homosexuality, homoeroticism, platonic love. Whatever you want to call it. Two Guys.



http://www.yuricon.org/
Quote:
Yuri is usually, but not exclusively, used to represent explicit sexual relations between women - mostly drawn by men for other men - this is the part of the definition we're trying to change, here at Yuricon. In the same sense that yaoi (sexual relationships between men) is typically part of the shoujo (girls) or josei (womens) manga sections of Comiket, yuri is pretty much sold in the shounen (boys) and seinen (mens) part of the con. The fact that so much yuri is also hentai, or overtly explicit - what we would call pornographic - adds to the assumption that it's all sex, all the time.

Shoujoai (girls love) is a pretty new term, for all that it's a pretty old concept...for instance, Oniisama E, one of the very first shoujo manga with shoujoai relationships, is *old* in manga terms. See the Shoujo Yuri Manga Guide for more on this.) The term shoujoai was created as an analog for shounenai (boys love) and, like its partner term, is assumed to be part and parcel of, again, shoujo manga. Interestingly, it was probably created by an American fan and isn't really used in Japan - although they know what we mean when we use it. Shoujoai typically represents romantic love between girls - sometimes with a physical component, sometimes not. The emphasis tends to be on the romantic over the sexual.



http://www.shoujocon.com/
Quote:
Shoujo, along with josei (pronounced "joe-say-ee") and redizu (pronounced "ray-dee-zoo"), refer to manga and anime products created mostly by women, targeting a female audience.

Recent studied have indicated that Alexander the Great had a long term relationship with Hephaistion.

Jewish, Christian, and Moslem scholars have been horrified at tales of Alexander's homosexual affairs. The social stigmatization of homosexual activity is a relatively recent phenomenon. It began in Judaism and was adopted early in the history of The Christian Church and later in Islam. This socio religious taboo was undreamed of in the Macedonia of the 4th century B.C..

Still Christian moralist scholars have spent lifetimes denying to Alexander that which his culture did not.The modern word, "homosexual", has no place in 4th century B.C. Macedonia. It is inapplicable to a culture where bisexuality was extremely common, if not the norm. In the culture of that time and place homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual are not nouns.People were not grouped by sexual preference.

That Alexander was exclusively homosexual is impossible; he had two wives and a least one, possibly two sons. That he was exclusively heterosexual is unlikely. His father was not, his grandfather was not and he had no reason to be.

On Aids:
Its not a 'gay' disease, its a 'disease' period. It attacks everyone regardles of race, gender, religion, or sexual practices. Its been around since the 30's according to a recent study.

Purposefully infecting or trying to infect someone is a criminal offence. Accidental can be procecuted as well under neglegence and liability laws.

If you lead a promiscous lifestyle, it is -your- responsibility to protect yourself and your partner, as well as get tested regularly. If you are more monogamous in your practices, you should still get tested every few years as part of your normal physical. Many STDs are also transmited in non-intercoursal manners...AIDS being 1 of them. (transfusions, tatoos, drug use and dentalwork are a few of the non-sexual transmision means for STDs)


On Rape:
Rape is not a 'sex' crime, but a 'power' crime. It is dominence more often than it is sexual in nature. In some cultures, it was accepted that the conquered warriors would be raped by the victors. It was both a 'dominence' and a 'stripping of power'. I believe that studies have shown that 'lust' is present in a small percentage of rapes. Arrousel is also an issue. In 1 particular case, a man was restrained and mounted repeatedly by a pair of women. The female judge decided that "since he got it up, he was willing.". It was later overturned.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
Well I couldn't exactly say that. There have been many cases where a homosexual engaged in high risk behavior,caught aids, figured society was against him and purposely infected others or the blood supply. There is a correlation there.

But there have been cases of hetro's doing the same thing. "High Risk behavior" in this case could be unprotected promiscuity or needle sharing, which is a behavior that could be exhibited by both homo's AND hetro's....therefore no correlation between specifically homosexuals and malicious intent to infect someone with aids. There may be a correlation between "people who are sociopathic and who engage in high risk behavior" to "aids patents who maliciously infect others".... but this correlation would be completely seperate from sexual preference.