Fine, then bestiality is natural too because my friends dog is always trying to get with my leg.CameronPoe wrote:
I think it's pretty bloody obvious that homosexuality is genetic. As such it is part of the natural world, just far less common than heterosexuality. There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom for a start: are they making 'lifestyle choices'???
Yeah ... but, not to the extent I wanted to. And, I remember at the time having a pretty big guilt struggle with the Church.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Just for clarification, you did give into your urges right?OrangeHound wrote:
Second, the Church situation with homosexuals is no different than with heterosexuals. Let me put this in perspective. When I was 18, I wanted to hump many girls. Now, I don't know if my desire was a "choice" or a "conditioned response" or a "genetic predisposition" ... but, my desire and my behavior (to have sex with as many girls as I could get to spread their legs) were contrary to the teachings of the Church. At this point, I really did have a "choice". I could either give into my urgings and ignore the Church teachings, or I could be obedient to the Church's teaching on self-discipline..
Right?
In hindsight, I wish I had not given into the hormones. Yeah, partly because of Christian stuff ... but, more personally, I have such a tremendous wife right now that I regret cheating on her. Pure intimacy is a tremendous relationship. But, intimacy is diluted and becomes callous as you sleep with more and more girls.
More like 14-45 ...Kmarion wrote:
@OH 18 seems a bit late for those urges. I demand a brain scan from you.
The only comparison is that they are all congenital. I do not regard homosexuality as a disability, merely a congenital condition. My comparison was an attempt to draw attention to the fact that a person has about as much choice regarding whether or not they are gay as they do regarding whether or not they have Spina Bifida or Down Syndrome i.e none.OrangeHound wrote:
Down syndrome? Spina bifida? You are comparing homosexuality to these?
The fact of the matter is the sexual urge is the strongest and most primal of all animalistic urges. As animals there is little or no chance of us suppressing those urges completely for an entire lifetime. The idea of expecting a homosexual to never engage in a sexual act because it is 'evil' in the eyes of the church is unrealistic. Look at prisons as a perfect example of the human sexual urge, lock a load of guys in a prison together, gay or straight, and a they will eventually start fucking each other.OrangeHound wrote:
First, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, conditioned response, or genetic predisposition that causes a deviation from the norm, the conservative position of the Church is that one should not participate in that behavior (I say "conservative", because obviously there are more liberal sections of the Church that do not see any problem with the behavior).
Second, the Church situation with homosexuals is no different than with heterosexuals. Let me put this in perspective. When I was 18, I wanted to hump many girls. Now, I don't know if my desire was a "choice" or a "conditioned response" or a "genetic predisposition" ... but, my desire and my behavior (to have sex with as many girls as I could get to spread their legs) were contrary to the teachings of the Church. At this point, I really did have a "choice". I could either give into my urgings and ignore the Church teachings, or I could be obedient to the Church's teaching on self-discipline.
Same with a pedophile ...
Heterosexual or homosexual or pedophile, all three groups are wildly disobedient to the Church's teachings - 99 out of 100 are disobedient. And, it really all does boil down to a choice and self-discipline. I have never met anyone who cannot control their participation in sexual activities (that's probably because if someone cannot control themselves, then they are probably in jail).
lol. You seriously think it's a lifestyle choice? Wow. Just... wow. There are men who you can see with your own eyes are more feminine than some women and women who are more masculine than some men. That in itself shows that there is a gradation between masculinity and feminity.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Fine, then bestiality is natural too because my friends dog is always trying to get with my leg.CameronPoe wrote:
I think it's pretty bloody obvious that homosexuality is genetic. As such it is part of the natural world, just far less common than heterosexuality. There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom for a start: are they making 'lifestyle choices'???
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-17 07:54:07)
So I'm guessing you believe gay people wake up one day and decide 'I'm not going to pursue members of the opposite sex, I am going to go against biological and societal norms by pursuing members of my own sex'. Do you believe they do this for attention, because they like having a life that's incredibly difficult in terms of family, friends' and societal attitudes or just because they are flat out perverts?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Fine, then bestiality is natural too because my friends dog is always trying to get with my leg.CameronPoe wrote:
I think it's pretty bloody obvious that homosexuality is genetic. As such it is part of the natural world, just far less common than heterosexuality. There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom for a start: are they making 'lifestyle choices'???
I agree that it is a strong urge, but it is not an uncontrollable urge.Braddock wrote:
The fact of the matter is the sexual urge is the strongest and most primal of all animalistic urges. As animals there is little or no chance of us suppressing those urges completely for an entire lifetime. The idea of expecting a homosexual to never engage in a sexual act because it is 'evil' in the eyes of the church is unrealistic. Look at prisons as a perfect example of the human sexual urge, lock a load of guys in a prison together, gay or straight, and a they will eventually start fucking each other.
But I am trying to make two points.
(1) Heterosexuals are just as guilty of Christian disobedience as homosexuals. Yet, the homosexuals are singled out as the evil ones. Phht ... that's just the majority kicking the minority to take the light off their own problems.
(2) Christianity, at its fundamental level, is the acceptance and living out of a new life that is distinctively different from a life that follows the patterns of the world. Necessarily, this means the abandonment of certain things of the world and the adoption of other things of God.
Thus if someone is perfectly content with the values and behavioral patterns of the world, then Christianity has nothing to offer and they need to get out. However, if one is wishing to live this "new life", then necessarily they will be giving up (sacrificing) some behaviors and "urges" that are common in the world.
I like humping 18 year old girls too
I was just making a joke. Mostly.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You seriously think it's a lifestyle choice? Wow. Just... wow. There are men who you can see with your own eyes are more feminine than some women and women who are more masculine than some men. That in itself shows that there is a gradation between masculinity and feminity.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Fine, then bestiality is natural too because my friends dog is always trying to get with my leg.CameronPoe wrote:
I think it's pretty bloody obvious that homosexuality is genetic. As such it is part of the natural world, just far less common than heterosexuality. There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom for a start: are they making 'lifestyle choices'???
I don't think the "some animals are gay in nature" arguement is a very good one though. Like I said, dogs hump human legs all the time. I've seen my friends tiny female weiner dog try to hump her much larger male dog from behind. It's quite amusing to watch. Sometimes they just have a bone to burry and don't care which hole it goes in. Maybe you could show me something on exclusively gay animals in nature.
As far as the OP is concerned, no, I don't think it's a lifestyle choice. I think it's a combination of genetics and socialization.
I can see where you're coming from but being a former catholic myself I have left all of that dogma behind me. I recognise the fact that humans are animals but also that we are capable of much greater things than the animal kingdom. We can control our urges and operate within a much more complex societal framework. As an atheist I believe that abstinence, or sublimation as Freud would describe it, has benefits that are not of an otherworldly or religious nature. Even Nietzsche outlines the benefits of abstinence in his writings on the Superman. However, I believe the level of guilt the Church attaches to sex is disgraceful. Sex is one of life's truly great, beautiful things; obviously it has to be treated responsibly but engaging in it should not instill a feeling of guilt or shame.OrangeHound wrote:
I agree that it is a strong urge, but it is not an uncontrollable urge.Braddock wrote:
The fact of the matter is the sexual urge is the strongest and most primal of all animalistic urges. As animals there is little or no chance of us suppressing those urges completely for an entire lifetime. The idea of expecting a homosexual to never engage in a sexual act because it is 'evil' in the eyes of the church is unrealistic. Look at prisons as a perfect example of the human sexual urge, lock a load of guys in a prison together, gay or straight, and a they will eventually start fucking each other.
But I am trying to make two points.
(1) Heterosexuals are just as guilty of Christian disobedience as homosexuals. Yet, the homosexuals are singled out as the evil ones. Phht ... that's just the majority kicking the minority to take the light off their own problems.
(2) Christianity, at its fundamental level, is the acceptance and living out of a new life that is distinctively different from a life that follows the patterns of the world. Necessarily, this means the abandonment of certain things of the world and the adoption of other things of God.
Thus if someone is perfectly content with the values and behavioral patterns of the world, then Christianity has nothing to offer and they need to get out. However, if one is wishing to live this "new life", then necessarily they will be giving up (sacrificing) some behaviors and "urges" that are common in the world.
Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I was just making a joke. Mostly.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You seriously think it's a lifestyle choice? Wow. Just... wow. There are men who you can see with your own eyes are more feminine than some women and women who are more masculine than some men. That in itself shows that there is a gradation between masculinity and feminity.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Fine, then bestiality is natural too because my friends dog is always trying to get with my leg.
I don't think the "some animals are gay in nature" arguement is a very good one though. Like I said, dogs hump human legs all the time. I've seen my friends tiny female weiner dog try to hump her much larger male dog from behind. It's quite amusing to watch. Sometimes they just have a bone to burry and don't care which hole it goes in. Maybe you could show me something on exclusively gay animals in nature.
As far as the OP is concerned, no, I don't think it's a lifestyle choice. I think it's a combination of genetics and socialization.
it's becoming 'cool' to be gay however. just like it's cool to be perceived as a gangsta even if you are white and from the suburbs. this is an identity thing and unfortunately the media is telling young impressionable people how to be.
when i look at nature though, shouldn't 10% of the animal kingdom be gay? why are humans the only ones with such a high percentage? if man was meant to be gay gentically, how come they can't reproduce that way? this could mean it is a genetic defect, if we are talking about genetics. otherwise, it must be a learned response in which case the media and our perverse (do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone) society is to blame.
honestly i could give a rats azz as to who's gay or not. the things that upset me are cases like the recent Folsom Street parade in San Francisco where they took cheap shots at the Last Supper painting by depicting the apostles in bondage gear and had dildos on the table. WTF is that? it just supports the divisiveness when they do that. Also, the gay pride parades have people performing actual sex acts in the street - where kids are walking. this is just so inappropriate. if it was a heterosexual doing this - i'd still be offended so don't even go there.
Now, in CA, the judicial branch passed a judgement supporting gay marriage. i thought the voters spoke and said this should not be passed. so much for our right to voice our opinions and govt by the people.
when i look at nature though, shouldn't 10% of the animal kingdom be gay? why are humans the only ones with such a high percentage? if man was meant to be gay gentically, how come they can't reproduce that way? this could mean it is a genetic defect, if we are talking about genetics. otherwise, it must be a learned response in which case the media and our perverse (do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone) society is to blame.
honestly i could give a rats azz as to who's gay or not. the things that upset me are cases like the recent Folsom Street parade in San Francisco where they took cheap shots at the Last Supper painting by depicting the apostles in bondage gear and had dildos on the table. WTF is that? it just supports the divisiveness when they do that. Also, the gay pride parades have people performing actual sex acts in the street - where kids are walking. this is just so inappropriate. if it was a heterosexual doing this - i'd still be offended so don't even go there.
Now, in CA, the judicial branch passed a judgement supporting gay marriage. i thought the voters spoke and said this should not be passed. so much for our right to voice our opinions and govt by the people.
I'm not an atheist. I was at one point until I experienced some substantial things of God that reversed my opinion.Braddock wrote:
However, I believe the level of guilt the Church attaches to sex is disgraceful. Sex is one of life's truly great, beautiful things; obviously it has to be treated responsibly but engaging in it should not instill a feeling of guilt or shame.
But, your point is absolutely correct. The vast majority of the Church is nothing more than a collection of self-serving, middle-class country clubs who are trying to homogenize their society to conform to their self-generated menu of views. They grab a verse from scripture here and a verse from scripture there, mix it with their political agenda and then spew guilt and shame on society.
And, the problem is, that different churches have different social agendas ... so those outside of the church see scores of different and conflicting "truths" being communicated under the supposed authority of a unified, single truth, almighty God.
It's laughable.
And addressing your point, these self-serving, middle-class country clubs (aka churches) completely ignore MAJOR directions of Scripture so that they can focus on whatever is the contemporary sexual sin of the day. In the 1950's the churches in America were all up in arms about divorce ... then in the 60's and the 70's it was sex outside of marriage ... now it is homosexuality.
God exists. He has a truth. You probably won't be hearing that truth from your local church ...
Mardi Gras offends you?
Although i am an atheist and don't have very much time for religion I do have a lot more respect for someone that arrives at religion as opposed to someone born into it and brainwashed into conforming. Someone who arrives at religion often has a more comprehensive approach to the faith in question when compared with those that, as you put it, choose what they like from the 'menu'.OrangeHound wrote:
I'm not an atheist. I was at one point until I experienced some substantial things of God that reversed my opinion.Braddock wrote:
However, I believe the level of guilt the Church attaches to sex is disgraceful. Sex is one of life's truly great, beautiful things; obviously it has to be treated responsibly but engaging in it should not instill a feeling of guilt or shame.
But, your point is absolutely correct. The vast majority of the Church is nothing more than a collection of self-serving, middle-class country clubs who are trying to homogenize their society to conform to their self-generated menu of views. They grab a verse from scripture here and a verse from scripture there, mix it with their political agenda and then spew guilt and shame on society.
And, the problem is, that different churches have different social agendas ... so those outside of the church see scores of different and conflicting "truths" being communicated under the supposed authority of a unified, single truth, almighty God.
It's laughable.
And addressing your point, these self-serving, middle-class country clubs (aka churches) completely ignore MAJOR directions of Scripture so that they can focus on whatever is the contemporary sexual sin of the day. In the 1950's the churches in America were all up in arms about divorce ... then in the 60's and the 70's it was sex outside of marriage ... now it is homosexuality.
God exists. He has a truth. You probably won't be hearing that truth from your local church ...
But back to the core topic at hand i firmly believe this new study is another nail in the coffin for the argument that people decide to be gay, for reasons only known to them.
Different? We, as a species, have socially acceptable boundaries by which we determine what's "normal" and what's "different," what's "right" and what's "wrong." These guidelines are propagated through such all knowing organizations as churches, many of whom see gays as the devil for some reason. But please, think for yourself (not directed specifically at Dilbert), there are many cases where the church got it right (don't steal, don't kill people, adultery sucks.. etc.) and you should probably listen to them. However, when it comes to issues like homosexuality, it's terribly unhealthy for our society to have millions of sheep who can't form an opinion without hearing it first from the priests molesting their children.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't believe its a lifestyle choice, they are definitely 'different'.
Being gay can not be a normal part of biology, its obviously an abnormality. Doesn't mean they should be particularly discriminated against.
I don't think they should get the benefits married heterosexual couples get, and I don't see that as discrimination.
I guess as a society we always need someone to discriminate against someone. The gays are the blacks of this century; unfortunately the protests will probably be a lot gayer though. (and I do realize that comparing gay rights vs black rights in the 1900s is comical, but still...)
Meh ... I've been through this a billion times. On this topic, for every study promoted by the homosexual community somehow proving homosexuality is a natural genetic condition, there is another study promoted by the Christian Coalition that demonstrates it is the result of environmental condition or a mere preference.Braddock wrote:
But back to the core topic at hand i firmly believe this new study is another nail in the coffin for the argument that people decide to be gay, for reasons only known to them.
The contemporary result is still the same: the behavior is not accepted by a large portion of American society.
Well, the Christian Coalition is a pillar of the scientific community! I'm sure in the dark ages people born with physical or behavioural abnormalities were treated and regarded as 'devils' and the treatment and attitudes towards the gay community in today's societies are a hangover of that. All major Religious institutions have one foot firmly in the past and that is why their particular stance is so extreme.OrangeHound wrote:
Meh ... I've been through this a billion times. On this topic, for every study promoted by the homosexual community somehow proving homosexuality is a natural genetic condition, there is another study promoted by the Christian Coalition that demonstrates it is the result of environmental condition or a mere preference.Braddock wrote:
But back to the core topic at hand i firmly believe this new study is another nail in the coffin for the argument that people decide to be gay, for reasons only known to them.
The contemporary result is still the same: the behavior is not accepted by a large portion of American society.
Let's ask anyone who is gay in here. There should be some according to the stats.
I think it really doesn't matter if its nature or nuture.
People are gay.
People are gay.
Yup, some of them very gay indeed.Pug wrote:
I think it really doesn't matter if its nature or nuture.
People are gay.
Absolutely true. I'm fine with gays, I still don't want to see it though, not any moreso than a man and woman making out. I have only a small problem with the (for lack of a better word) marriage just because there is no better word. I would like to preserve marriage as between a man and woman or between peanut butter and jelly.OrangeHound wrote:
The contemporary result is still the same: the behavior is not accepted by a large portion of American society.
The "pride" aspect surely has a negative effect on the acceptance of the group as a whole. Why would you be proud of (as it's been said here) a genetic condition? It's foolish to have straight pride, blue eye pride, white pride but for some reason there are still people willing to go outside of the accepted social norms in order to cram something that being gay isn't about at all down the throats of everyone else (wow, that metaphor sounds so sexual).
I have no problem with them getting married. I have a problem with them making out in public places, since I don't want my kid watching them doing that.DesertFox- wrote:
Absolutely true. I'm fine with gays, I still don't want to see it though, not any moreso than a man and woman making out. I have only a small problem with the (for lack of a better word) marriage just because there is no better word. I would like to preserve marriage as between a man and woman or between peanut butter and jelly.OrangeHound wrote:
The contemporary result is still the same: the behavior is not accepted by a large portion of American society.
The "pride" aspect surely has a negative effect on the acceptance of the group as a whole. Why would you be proud of (as it's been said here) a genetic condition? It's foolish to have straight pride, blue eye pride, white pride but for some reason there are still people willing to go outside of the accepted social norms in order to cram something that being gay isn't about at all down the throats of everyone else (wow, that metaphor sounds so sexual).
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-06-17 09:49:04)
"Once there lived a lovelorn prince whose mother decreed that he must marry by the end of the summer. So began the search to find the prince's perfect match and lo and behold...sergeriver wrote:
I have no problem with them getting married. I have a problem with them making out in public places, since I don't want my kid watching them doing that.
...his name was Lee."
http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=26825 … 1582460612
i actually read somewhere that gayness evolved because it helps resolve tensions in society. Same sex love probably helped resolve conflicts in early human communities, or something like that. Also gay guys provide an insight into males for females, and vice versa.
Lol, King and King, very appropriate book.Pug wrote:
"Once there lived a lovelorn prince whose mother decreed that he must marry by the end of the summer. So began the search to find the prince's perfect match and lo and behold...sergeriver wrote:
I have no problem with them getting married. I have a problem with them making out in public places, since I don't want my kid watching them doing that.
...his name was Lee."
http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=26825 … 1582460612