Sexuality

[Chi65]

Except for laughter's sake, but who wants to be laughed about instead of laughed at?

If we make this clear. . .

By the way, I don't mind to be laughed about, in a way, and to cite some japanese friends:
We can really laugh about ourselves (thats it!)
Also meaning in the media. I hope, its really true. But I also made such experiences over there and that raised a certain big sympathy in me.
We had some most hilarious and often "anti hero" films coming from Japan, that seemed to prove this. Kitano amongst them too, however serious he can be at times.
Enough people asked openly during after-film -discussions:
"How comes, that the japanese films are so especially hilarious?"
We still have no real answer, but enjoy this beside "english humour".

This does not make japanese men particularly sexy, but they get a lot of sympathy here this way. And believe me, I know some "high" ones, who also confirmed me aboiut this with own behaviour and were fine companies and examples for this (Well, I was the right audience for such a "show", to be honest). They managed to get such ones over to the embassy here too, welldone indeed.

Bamboo-flexibility versus Oaktrees? Works well in the long run. ;-)

It is also interesting and remarkable, that such people were taken much more seriously, when they really had an important issue, not to forget this. ;-)

 

[Mavrek]

I am a guy and likes only to have sex with the girls.For those who are gay or bi sexual I don't care.I have adopt the policy of don't ask and don't tell.

 

[karlyboo]

i was just kidding give it a rest bro
talking about lighting the air a bit.
so homosexuals are more sensetive than other people?

I felt it was an unnecessary contribution to the topic.

 

[Tomii515]

so mars man san that makes me a dinousor old ignorant...since...
i dont like the idea of homosexuality, i dont except it....i will be against ever making it legal in my part of the world ....i dont even except ever having a gay freind...
and i hate when people call that homophobia...what is there to fear in a gay person??
will he drown me using his perfume??
i would better call it anti-homosexuality...or fascism against homos...
i can live with these names.
being gay is against nature, religion, and the original way life is made...

You know, some gay or bisexual people do want to be the way they are, and a lot of them kill themsleves because of it. The ones by birth, I mean. They can't help it, and they can't change it, no matter if they accept it or not, like it or not, whatever. It's not their fault, and you shouldn't discrimnate against them because of this.

i'm bisexual, and most of the time I don't really like it. But lately, I've accepted it and been happier since I told everyone at school and my familt and stuff. Before that, I wanted to kill myself. I hated it and I too thought gay people were nasty; or that being gay was nasty. But, really, it's not.

Saying gay is against nature, that's like saying interracial relationships are bad, too.

It's about love, not race, gender, whatever. ☝

 

[Haruspex]

Lately people are a bit too aware of their sexual orientation. Honestly, just who gives a damn?
When you look at it, what is opposing homosexuality? Religion. What is religion for? To keep the people together for cautions sake, and protect them from external threats such as an opposing religion.
Now, homosexuality can "occur" anytime, in/with any random being. It existed in primordial times, it exists now, and it will continue to exist.
While religion is rather, rather young compared to it.
Religion doesn't even have the smallest insight of the whole question.
Some jerk declared that: "This, this, this and this is bad!" And now the folks follow him blindly, congrats on doing that.
Simply put homosexuality is older than religion, and its older than the definition of it, therefore no one has the right to label it good or bad, evil or divine or whatever.
Honestly, Im not against my own religion, but I still say that one must hold religion's reigns hard and steadily.
While I agree that religion was a good thing in its time, it is ridiculous to follow its teachings 100% correctly.
Take the Qur'an and the Bible for now. There were, and still are loads of lowlifes dedicated to interpret every single word of it. And they're not the first ones, not the hundredth ones, there were bloody thousands and millions before them.
A single human can err on something obvious, but when a single script goes through the hands of thousands, the outcome is guaranteed to be meaningless rubbish.
Although we're living in 21st century, there are still ill-bred morons in every single religion who are just awaiting the opportunity to spread their fundamentalist bullcrap.

 

[Mavrek]

I am a guy and always like to have sex with girls.I never used the other stuff to fulfill my sexual desires.

 

[Haruspex]

I am a guy and always like to have sex with girls.I never used the other stuff to fulfill my sexual desires.

Umm, we're all kinda glad, but that comment deserves the "Randomness Award".
In all honesty, how does it even contribute to the thread?

 

[ninjinsamax3]

In USA--there are those people who do worry. As some of my classmates had tested, did a project on observing gay people, in which these classmates are not, but when they tested out with two Asian guys, holding hands walking through the park, everyone started staring at them. This means that many people still yet do not accept them. It is more like values that people tend to keep.

I have no problem with "gay" people, but I do feel uncomfortable. I am not trying discriminate them, since I can careless if they do exist or not; they do deserve the benefit of being normal and not be accused. I feel uncomfortable around men, so maybe that is why I feel uncomfortable around gay men.

My cousin use to touch me sensitively scaring the lights out of me, since it felt awkward.


Have no idea, Derfel, but he is trying to say that he will never have sex with gay men?

 

[Haruspex]

I tend to avoid some types of physical contact with my own gender as well, but I don't have any problem with shaking hands (not holding hands before someone misunderstands), putting my arm over the shoulder of a mate or slapping them in the shoulder.
On the other hand I don't kiss people's cheeks whether they're male or female, nor do I let them do that to me.

I don't really feel uncomfortable with gay folks either, not that I know many. Simply if someone does something dodgy and rash, I'll just tell him to piss off, should that and threats be insufficient, I'll just smack him. Although Im that I never been in that situation.

 

[scorpion da black]

I felt it was an unnecessary contribution to the topic.

karlyboo san
ok i take my words back...
i dont want to upset anyone...it is not like me...

guess a joke in one area of the world isn't taken the same every where ...
i should have known better...
well you wont see careless comments from me again cross my heart

i just want to remind you that i take a joke lot better than you do karlyboo san

 

[karlyboo]

i just want to remind you that i take a joke lot better than you do karlyboo san

Magnanimous. No, really.

 

[Haruspex]

Lol, I feel the cold hatred

 

[kairu]

Haha, okay so few people have mentioned the habits of homosexuals, and it just kind of made me go "egoaehgoa," so I want to address that, namely.

One quote was:

I so hate it when they dress all fluffy and feminine, well they more like half naked on the streets. They just make themselves a bad reputation and thats why some people look at them as a "bad influence" or a potential source of "bad influence".

I agree, this does create a reputation. Whether it is bad or not, that's a matter of taste. But my point in bringing this up is that it is a reputation that is a generalization. Not all gay men wear perfume and are fashion savvy or can decorate a room and keep a clean house.

I am gay. The other day I went out wearing a striped polo with plaid pants and diamond-patterned shoes. I came back after going to two classes and my roommate, a funny straight Jewish kid, told me that I was the worst gay ever... And then proceeded to explain why I was, since I didn't know what he was talking about (that, apparently, any combination of two of those things don't go together, let alone all three). That's my fashion for you (I do think/hope that sometimes it's better, haha, but whatever). As for tidiness, you should see my room, or at least, the little of it that can be seen .

In the same way, not all lesbians are butch and scary (haha), and the rest of them aren't stupid and slutty, either. As with every demographic, the people within the homosexual demographic vary infinitely.

Now, as for the question of whether or not gay marriage should be legal, consider this: If you don't mind homosexuals, even if you want them to do whatever they do in the privacy of their own homes or whatever (although this is a bit of a hypocritical opinion for those who don't believe that heterosexual pairings should be enacted in the same way-kept in the privacy of the home), then why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry? It doesn't affect you, and if you don't care what they do as long as it doesn't affect you, then you shouldn't care about gay marriages. Right? Or, with a population predicted to be almost 9billion by the year 2050 (I got that little stat from wikipedia, so when it comes to 100% credibility, I'm not sure), is it going to affect you because gay marriages = no more babies = end of humanity?

I personally think that a slight decline in population growth that doesn't involve genocide might be a nice little perk... Anybody else?

Also, this civil union crap gets on my nerves a bit, because eventually it's going to get to the point at which it will be exactly the same as marriage, just with a different name. Now, if that'll make people happy, I don't care, it's fine with me. It just seems a bit silly.

Of course, I fully support same-sex marriages. Why wouldn't I? I actually think it is absurd that it is an issue. We shouldn't be focused on it because it's so trivial. It will get to the point at which it is legalized, unless the world ends in the next few years or something (never know, it could happen).

Well anyway, I don't worry about it too much. I just do my part and put in my two yen every once in a while ;-).

 

[Haruspex]

I personally think that a slight decline in population growth that doesn't involve genocide might be a nice little perk... Anybody else?

Thats a joke, but still I wish it was true, people are just breeding and breeding, we'll bloody suffer cause everyone wants a brat, "ohh they're so cute, I want a human pet too."

Not that I mind homosexuality, but honestly, if it could suppress that rotten demographic explosion I swear I'd go around town telling people to "Be gay! Be gay!"
The world could end? Well although you meant it as a joke, the comfortable world we (the lucky few not living in hundredth world countries) live in sure will end if we keep the pace at which our population grows.

Sorry, went a bit off topic, but still, too many folks, too many folks. Stop having kids people.

 

[karlyboo]

Sorry, went a bit off topic, but still, too many folks, too many folks. Stop having kids people.

But that is the ONLY reason people should be allowed to be together! To Marry and make more children, because there aren't enough! More I say! Nobody who can't make babies should be allowed to marry, including homosexuals, the elderly, the infertile, the none-too-frisky and anybody who votes Democrat!

 

[kairu]

Nobody who can't make babies should be allowed to marry, including homosexuals, the elderly, the infertile, the none-too-frisky and anybody who votes Democrat!

That's absurd! It is neither the fault of the elderly nor the infertile that they are that way! At least they generally represent the positive male-female union that is the foundation for an ideal family! Under other circumstances, having children would be possible for them! And democrats, even though their stance may be disagreeable, should still be able to have children! It would be silly to claim otherwise!

Homosexuals, though... now that's a different story! They could never have children, even those that are fertile and elderly and all the rest... so that shouldn't be allowed.



It's actually sad how many times I've heard this argument.

 

[Haruspex]

But that is the ONLY reason people should be allowed to be together! To Marry and make more children, because there aren't enough! More I say! Nobody who can't make babies should be allowed to marry, including homosexuals, the elderly, the infertile, the none-too-frisky and anybody who votes Democrat!

Are you by any chance a left wing extremist lol?
Building an utopia.

 

[karlyboo]

Are you by any chance a left wing extremist lol?
Building an utopia.

I'm generally a libertarian I find the intrusiveness of left-wing philosophies very worrying

 

[Haruspex]

I'm generally a libertarian I find the intrusiveness of left-wing philosophies very worrying

I generally find every philosophy other than mine very worrying, im a megalomaniac *****.

 

[Mars Man]

Firstly, I'd like to aplogize for not getting back here sooner...I'm sorry. I had taken a bit of a break from my 'desk work' here, and then did some other things first.

There had been a little off topic stuff that I had, at least, read, but though to myself..."Hey, it's the Holiday Season...let it go...."

And with that, I will go into the presentation I had promised. Scorpion da black san, I do hope that you will (if you haven't already) carefully go over some main points that are found in the thread Love, Marriage, and Sex-what is the truth?!. Since the objective is to learn, I strongly suggest that you print out the certain pages with a few major posts. The posts which I reason will be most essential for a proper understanding on this matter as understood by the major players at the moment, are post numbers 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 30, 33, 38, 39. Please do read them, and not only that, but meditate on (study) them, and connect the dots.

POINT NUMBER ONE

homosexuality is a mental state of mind, not biological!
anything mental can be changed....
so why not strait the mental disorder rather than accepting it ​

(from post #99 on page 4 of this thread)

The above is the proposition that we are looking at, and testing here. For that reason, let's first break down the several units of the proposition, in order to see what is being stated:

homosexuality is a mental state of mind, not biological!​

Here we will see that 'mental' and 'mind' merge meanings because 'mental' is of necessity of the 'mind.' We therefore have the clause, 'homosexuality is a state of mind.' We will also find that the words mental state, and mind are interchangeable with that of 'brain,' therefore we could equally reason that the expression state of mind equals 'brain state.' In conclusion, therefore, we have the equivalent statement: Homosexuality is a state of brain.

Homosexuality, though well understood by all, should be looked at too, just to make all terms as clear as can be. 'Homo,' of course, came from the Greek and is rendered by the English 'same.' For the state that sex is genetically, please see posts numbers 30 and 33 in the thread on Love, Sex, and Marriage. (for in the word 'homosexual,' the element 'sex' is referring to the state, rather than the act)

For the state that sex is biologically, part can be seen in those immediately above mentioned posts, and the rest will be brought out on this thread. This is because when we apply the epithet 'homosexual' to an animal we are indicating that the sexual attachment or drive of that animal is directed towards animals of that species (most usually) which are of the same genetical sex state--in that the animal has by the genetical XY, XX (among a few others such as XO, XXY, XYY, and even a rare XXXY, XYYY) mechanism developed the body parts of male or female, or both (in few cases).

We are effectively saying that when we look at the naturally visible body of that animal, we can see a sex state from the organs displayed. This is the genetic discription, and it is this discription alone that the term homosexual was built upon. This fact is due to the lack of understanding of the much finer nuances of the biological (chemical) states the differentiate sexual states biologically and by that very extension, neurologically.

We thus can arrive at the inferred and equivalent statement as being 'Having an attachment or a sex drive nature which focuses on members of the same genetical sex build is a state of brain.'

Homosexuality is. . . not biological.​

This is the next part to look at. Of course, the subject of that clause is homosexuality, and the premise is that it is not biological. It will be found that the common dictionary explanation under that entry (biology, biological) lacks in that it does not go into the detail that will be found through the subdivisions under that general field in the pure and natural sciences.

There is no contest by or from those in the field that what is identified as being a biological matter, can be distinguished from being a genetical matter while all along, in the broadest usage of the term biological, we can say that the whole of any animal is biological. It is important to understand this difference in word usage, and while I wish not to charge the author of the quote we are looking at as not having paid attention to that matter, I would yet like to point out this difference here.

In this field, the matters of hormonal effects and precursors and receptors and all that such entail, are placed under the 'biological' heading, and not under the 'genetical' heading. The portion of the brain that is developed by and built due to these chemical processes in the embryo are also attributed to the biological factor, and the portions of the brain over and against this 'hardwired' portion, and which are controlled by and operate due to the hormonal presence are also placed under the biological sector.

We can then see that the interchangeable clause we are now looking at becomes, 'Having an attachment of sex drive which focuses on members of the same genetical sex build is not biological. Due to the contradiction which then has been brought to light, as a matter of definiton of terms (at least at the moment), we will find that the statement is false.

This is true in that we have seen that brain elements which bring on the mental portion of sex drive and sex thinking is neurological, therefore biological rather than genetical. However, this being true of the statement at the moment, as regards the terms used, it is true as regards the what is actually known in the field too. I will next go into that.

 

[scorpion da black]

really awesome debate mars man san

how ever i have some points to set:

when speaking about homosexuality being wrong, i am speaking about normal (XX & XY ) humans..not at mutations made by nature...
even in religion (at least my religion) doesn't blame those few mutated people for their mutation ..in arabic they are called "shakar" a breed that is not man nor women...a mutated being !
and "shakar" are not blamed for their sexual orientations when normal XX XY humans are!

point two..scientists didnt find any gene related to homosexual desires...( that is what i heard from a study..i will search for it)
as it is known, there is genes related to the tendency to kill ..there is genes related to most of human behavior...
but scientists didn't find any gene related to homosexuality ... perhaps it exists but they still didn't discover it ..
until they do; when i say homosexuality is a mental state then this statement holds.
if there was a possible gene for homosexuality wouldn't religious societies pursue a mean to dlete it off the human genome??

 

[Haruspex]

if there was a possible gene for homosexuality wouldn't religious societies pursue a mean to dlete it off the human genome??

The New Age hardcore retarded sects perhaps, any older religion considers gene surgery taboo, so no, they wouldn't, or at least not officially, as we know, religion often has nothing to do with faith.
Anyone with the smallest economical sense would put those homosexual genes inside folks so they wouldn't breed.

 

[scorpion da black]

Derfel san
you cant call people with specific belief retarded man ...
as well as when people feel offended when th other sides questions western systems lets say

 

[karlyboo]

Derfel san
you cant call people with specific belief retarded man ...

How's that different to saying homosexuals are against nature? It's an entitled opinion, in the final analysis, whether you agree with it or not. I (as you may have gathered) don't care for some of your opinions but I'd never deny that you have a right to them (as I to mine).

 

[Mars Man]

What you have posted in your response, scorpion da black san, very heavily insinuates your desire to ignore for the benefit of some preconcluded unfairly examed opinion !!!

Are you actually aware of just what you are saying? You have given the typical XX, XY pattern of genetical build as being the 'correct' form of amimal build. Yet, you have not explained in any terms at all, other than your belief-system's instilled ideology, as to why it is 'wrong,' and on what grounds we have to argue, from nature itself, that it is wrong.

For example, you use the terminology 'mutated people.' That is in itself a derivative of a prior assumption that there is a correctness in the average, and a not only incorrectness in the non-average, but a fault...a delinquency, in the non-average.

Whatever it is you may have read or may have come across is obviously incorrect in this case--as it has left in your mind, the inability to reconcile the facts of nature against nature itself. In that it has, in your mind, left you with the understanding that a particular socio-cultural religious belief-system built from ignorance is in fact more scientifically correct than the latest knowledge of which the previous authors most obviously had been totally unaware of.

and "shakar" are not blamed for their sexual orientations when normal XX XY humans are!

Take this claim, for example. What on earth are you trying to state? Please, now, think about it !! Are you saying that animals who have the XX chromosome combination are to blame for having that XX chromosome combintion? Are you trying to say that women are by nature to be blamed?

Are you trying to claim that by nature the male animal (XY) is to be blamed? Obviously you have missed the point. There is a difference between the genetical being and the biological being.

If you were to prove true to being of a mind to investigate beyond what you simply may have found via the religious belief-system environment in which you live, then I would fully encourage you. As it is, your claim--whether you realize it or not, has already been shown to be false...and yet you cling to it?

That is evidence against you on the international scientific scene, bro...what's up?