Sexuality

I'd put it like this, people on forums like this never convince each other, they just get tired of arguing, and either they say "everyone has right to his opinion" or someone gets really, really messed and pissed, so he pretends to be convinced. When you look at it my posts didn't convince you, nor could Mars Man with posts that would be befitting of a national geographic article, nor could karlyboo, nor could you convince any of us.
In topics like this people only gather to beat their chests.
And since that is the case, there's one policy everyone keeps:
Everyone's wrong, except for those who agree with me.
 
I'd put it like this, people on forums like this never convince each other, they just get tired of arguing, and either they say "everyone has right to his opinion" or someone gets really, really messed and pissed, so he pretends to be convinced. When you look at it my posts didn't convince you, nor could Mars Man with posts that would be befitting of a national geographic article, nor could karlyboo, nor could you convince any of us.
In topics like this people only gather to beat their chests.
And since that is the case, there's one policy everyone keeps:
Everyone's wrong, except for those who agree with me.

You, sir, have brought light to darkness :122:
 
LOL !! Yet so true does that statement ring... Yet here, if I may say so, for our 'Serious Discussions' section, I wish to encourage all to think beyond and outside the box...to ponder and meditate...yes, even question each and every claim, up-until-now understanding (in whatever realm of information), and assertion for all they are worth.

My objective is not, per se, to convince, but to educate. For that reason, there would surely reach a point at which I would say, 'ok. . . if one does not follow, it is not my duty to cause that one to be of such conviction, nor is it my duty to be responsible for the errancy of that person.

I will thus go on....
 
LOL !! Yet so true does that statement ring... Yet here, if I may say so, for our 'Serious Discussions' section, I wish to encourage all to think beyond and outside the box...to ponder and meditate...yes, even question each and every claim, up-until-now understanding (in whatever realm of information), and assertion for all they are worth.
My objective is not, per se, to convince, but to educate. For that reason, there would surely reach a point at which I would say, 'ok. . . if one does not follow, it is not my duty to cause that one to be of such conviction, nor is it my duty to be responsible for the errancy of that person.
I will thus go on....

I wish I were that patient. Next time I'm in your neck of the woods I think I owe you a beer :)
 
:eek:
misunderstood again..
i am not labeling people here mars man san..
if you re-read what i had to say you would understand...

i am not against any one...what i meant was : " only normal people are blamed for having a different sexual orientations....while mutated people are not blamed for their biological needs."
only normal people are put under consideration by religion when speaking about the taboo of homosexuality..

plus i am not stating whether i personally am with that debate that religion gives or not...that fact that i am from a faith that considers homosexuality taboo doesn't make me hate homosexuality...
that is why i am digging into this debate..so that i will get the full picture and then judge whether to accept that idea or not...
and unlike you said Derfel san...
if i was proven wrong, i would gladly change my thought about the matter...

is it wrong to ask question?
 
and unlike you said Derfel san...
if i was proven wrong, i would gladly change my thought about the matter...
is it wrong to ask question?

Are you an on/off switch than? Every second time you're proven wrong you return to being right again?
 
derfel; why do you twist ones words man??
if i knew i made a mistake in believing one thing wouldn't change it to pursue a right path?
 
I think it's more the contradiction that one minute you have a feeling that its disgusting that you can't change and the next you're open to changing your mind, one moment you support criminal punishment for homosexuals and next moment decide you hate homosexuality. To be honest I'm finding that highly confusing also.
 
Im not twisting your words. Every single time someone proves you wrong scientifically you bring ethics and religion, and say its wrong. Every time some questions your beliefs ethically you bring science to back your statements.
Its like a huge glass mirror that reflects facts.

Its like telling a bard to sing a song for you, listening to it, and in the end not paying saying that he sang too silently.
If you're not gonna pay, don't listen.
It makes it feel like Mars Man, karlyboo, Tsuyoiko, Chi, myself and a whole bunch of others were barking without a voice coming out.
 
I think it comes down to this, you can believe what you want, but you have no right to force your beliefs or judgments on anyone else. It's none of anyones business if you are homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or heterosexual.
 
Thinking about it, contra-homosexuality folks claim that its not normal.
Wait just a bit, what is normal? Something is normal because the majority sides with it?
So cancer is becoming normal because more and more people are suffering from it because of our lifestyle?
Or perhaps latin is the language of Satan himself because there are no native speakers?
After all we're talking about a 0%-100% scale.
Extinct animals were punished by god, and the proof is that they're extinct?
In that case dead people are evil? After all their individual quantity is 0, whereas a living person's is 1, or 100%.
You can't simply find a proof, and prove the first random thing with it. Its not a skeleton key.
If some disease would make everyone homosexual except for one single person, would heterosexuality become wrong?
Whether all this is true, I cannot say, not my task to decide, but I know one thing at least. If too many people start to think about a complicated matter, the outcome is usually something incredibly dumb.
We invented timocracy together, we invented democracy together than. We invented hundreds of other things, states, whatevers. But every single time we decided whether it was good or bad, something nasty happened. Why cannot we simply consider them facts?
 
Thanks karlyboo san !! Next time your in this neck of the woods, bring that 6-pack...and I'll light the fire, and we'll have a great BBQ. !!



Here I'd like to quote the words of Jared Diamond, whom, if one does not know, I suggest he be looked up:

"It's tempting to restate this simple fact (that the natural tendency of our bet-hedging primordial gonad is to develop as an ovary if nothing intervenes) in emotionally loaded terms. As the endocrinologist Alfred Jost put it, 'Becoming male is a prolonged, uneasy, and risky venture; it is a kind of stuggle against inherent trends towards femaleness.'​

Ok, so there is the possibilty of the 'skewed X chromosome' ① Which is not necessarily any 'gay gene,' (unless you are non-Japanese, and live in Japan....har, har, har....american joke...) AND...what can be made from the following: ' In this section we review evidence for prenatal androgens as a key biological mechanism. Androgens, including testosterone produced by the testes in fetal and neonatal life, act on the brain to produce sex differences in eural stucture and function.' ②

" In addition to variations in the fetal brain's hormone exposure, another biological basis for average, but not nearly absolute difference between the sexes in many tendencies is that there are some sex-linked genes that are quite unevenly distributed between women and men, but which are not exclusive to one sex." ③

'...the hypothalamus, being the primary factor in regulating hormone production controlling basic behaviours such as eating, drinking, and sex, has a role in that sex hormones (steroids) bathe the fetal brain. It was found by (Goldstein {Harvard Medical School}) that at least some sex differences in cognitive function do not result from cultural influences or hormanal changes associated with pubery--they are from birth. ' ④

In that environment (thus nurture) cannot and do affect the outcome of sex, there are the cases of what has been called 'Kwolu-aatmwol.' These are otherwise termed as 'pseudohermaphroditism.' There are those few cases such as are found in Pauap New Guinea or the Dominican Republic which provide further evidence to the understanding that the biological element plays a greater role than the enviromental element. ⑤ An infant had been raised as a girl due to the genital appearance and what that had implied socially. When the person reached puberty, however, the biological setting took control, and the person who had been raised as a female, somewhat suddenly threw off all things that had been taught, and became just as a male. This is the biological function, rather than the genetic function.

There are yet many other cases and point which all go to show that it's not just a genetic matter, no, but a biological matter as well. What the ancient religious belief-systems do not concede to is exactly that which undermine their authority and claim to know. Therefore even the allusion to such, in presentations which are couched in scientific terms, is an invitation to fallacy.


① NewScientist 6, Nov. '04, p14;
Science VOL 310, 4 Nov. '05, p 821;
Eve's Seed--Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History, by Robert Mc Elavaine, p 81;
Scientific American May, '05, pp 22-24
The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality, by Wendy and Rex S. Rogers, p20
 
Last edited:
I think it comes down to this, you can believe what you want, but you have no right to force your beliefs or judgments on anyone else. It's none of anyones business if you are homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or heterosexual.

While I can appreciate your point here Goldiegirl, I would yet take the stance that what is at heart is much more than just what one 'believes' or 'thinks,' but rather, just what is the deal with all of this.

We can without doubt state that what the founders of a number of ancient religious belief-systems had not had in their setting up of the tenets of such belief-systems, was present knowledge and understandability. If it had not been so, there would never have been any 'divine' statements against homosexuality.

To that degree, while you are surely correct in one sense, in another you may be lacking. It is as much not only my natural right to inform and publically express my strong lean towards 'masculinity' ( as all my lack of hair may attest to) as it is to the benefit of social growth to do so...for the sake of education. In the very same way, and even more so...since in fact there is a minority involved...it is the right and obligation to social growth for those of other orientations to address the public with such. It is an educational process...there is no longer any need, nor should there be, to keep what is as perfectly natural as hetrosexuality, in the closet any more.
 
I think a good attitutde to take towards this sort of thing is: Live and let live.
Unless someone is doing you or your family harm or being a criminal in any way (and by criminal I mean robbing banks and stealing cars, not kissing another man) than does anybody really have a right to complain?

If you're a good, decent citizen, pay taxes and don't get into trouble than why should your personal life be the buisness of anybody else?
 
I don't believe for a minute that you are going to change the minds of certain people. That is why I say they can think what they want, just not force their beliefs on any other person. I would think the best possible case would be tolerance; acceptance would be asking too much from too many people. I think education helps, but many people have closed minds, and nothing is going to change them. You can knock, but you will not get an answer, so peaceful coexistence, tolerance is to me the only real chance for people with different opinions to get along. This isn't just for sexual issues, but religious, political and moral issues as well.
 
Last edited:
If only could really work, it would be great. I agree that one most important factor in helping that state get off the ground, is, as you, Goldiegirl, have highlighted, a good and well-balanced education system.

What I am working on is not the convincing or trying to win over, per se, but rather the correction of misinformation. A claim has been made stating a certain matter to be an actual and true external reality. 'grand picture' of sorts on what the external reality related to that claim shows us, it has been shown that the claim is misinformed. This is more than just an opinion, in this case.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ② In the simplest terms, there would have had to have been a fairly well supported view in order for this to have taken place (also posts on the previous page for similar changes in charters)

The claim that neural plasticity has some play in some cases is of course evidently correct, and to that degree some cases of those with homosexual orientations of a lighter or practically non-biological result, can change to a heterosexual orientation. ③

It is otherwise clear that the odds are against such, however, and such efforts by those who have such an orientation yet wish to loose it, do not always pay off. The average of homosexual orientation does not allow it, and the 'right' of the bell curve medium have strong pressure to apt for surgery--a man in a woman's body, a woman in a man's body...and all of it is just as real, just as much an external reality as a man in a man's body or a woman in a woman's body.

I therefore intend to continue with my presentation in order to correct misinformation, not to try to bring about any change of mind...although that is often a natural content of presentation and argumentation anyway.







① Again, by 'external reality' I mean a reality in the universe that is not only in the brain of a being. I can picture myself as having certain looks, or being of a certain character, or as reacting a certain way in a certain situation, yet if those do not fully coincide with the results of testing the external reality (say looking in the mirror, or being in that situation) then that reality was internal only. Of course the flying spaghetti monster is a reality, a true reality of the universe...but, it is only an internal reality, not an external one;
The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality by W. and R. Rogers, 2001;
The Brain That Changes Itself, by N. Doidge, 2007; NewScientist, 11, Oct, '03, p19--also see Human Sexuality by S. LeVay and S. Valente, 2002
 
derfel and karlyboo..when did i mention that when i argue about religion or science ; i am stating my opinion??

i clearly said no matter what i read i personally have a problem towards homosexuality...
but when i am arguing i tend to ask questions and post information i know from a believe system or scientific facts i have read.
not that i adopt that thought or not...i am just asking questions for the sake of learning and getting the whole picture...
other wise how can i judge what is right from wrong?

cheap try in making me be in the defending stance
 
derfel and karlyboo..when did i mention that when i argue about religion or science ; i am stating my opinion??

i clearly said no matter what i read i personally have a problem towards homosexuality...
but when i am arguing i tend to ask questions and post information i know from a believe system or scientific facts i have read.
not that i adopt that thought or not...i am just asking questions for the sake of learning and getting the whole picture...
other wise how can i judge what is right from wrong?

cheap try in making me be in the defending stance

And I clearly said that you appear to contradict yourself every other post and its confusing. I still have a hard time grasping exactly where you stand on half of this because your view seems to permute depending on what you're responding to.

Tell you what, I'll get you some wood and we'll knock a cross up for you to nail yourself to.
 
how do i contradict with my self...???

quote some of my sentences and show me....

i said i am against homosexuality because of the ill feeling i have when i imagine that in my mind..it has nothing to do with science or religion...
now ...the more i learn about this, the better understanding i have to what homosexuality is...
i am not a bitter person...i can still accept some else's opinion but that depends on how much i learn about the matter...
i have a trust problem...i dig into any subject deeply before i judge upon it!
 
For openers (this is after 30 seconds searching since I'm at work):

i have no problem in being called a bad person about this particular matter for not accpeting homos....
because my view will not change.


contradicts:

plus guys stop refering to me as a fascist ...

which in turn contradicts:

i would better call it anti-homosexuality...or fascism against homos...
i can live with these names.


aaand for seconds:


being gay is against nature, religion, and the original way life is made...



homosexuality mars man san is a mental state of mind, not biological!
anything mental can be changed....


How can being homosexual be against the original way life is made if it's not biological?
 
and where does that condradict??

i stated that i am against homosexuality and you just backed me up with my previous posts...
what you need to do is prove that i actually used religion to back my believe up ..which i didnt!!!

until...i have a proper understanding to homosexuality ...i will stick to my view
 
how do i contradict with my self...???
Basically its like this:

You made a statement, which happened to be too, too harsh.
People replied to the statement in a similar harsh manner and questioned it.
You did a riposte, and wrote something that would back your previous or previous few posts.
Now this would work normally, but not after 7 pages.

karlyboo did a great job there compiling the frame for the theory. Its all there.
 
oooooooooohhhhhh

so the change of my tone from harsh to less harsh is a contradiction in my speech??

i call that civilized way of dealing with things...i no longer wanted to hurt people with my radical view so i said my view in a kinder way...

it is like the difference between saying " i will chop you to pieces " and " I will regretfully have to defend my self by taking your life"
 
...I showed you that you have said things which don't make sense, you've tried to caveat the discussion to something about my proving you said something about religion (which I don't remember saying) as a counter to that, and now you've lost the plot completely with some random tangent about the tone of your views.

In conclusion I can only say thus: SdaB, seriously, what are you going on about?
 
Last edited:
oooooooooohhhhhh
so the change of my tone from harsh to less harsh is a contradiction in my speech??
i call that civilized way of dealing with things...i no longer wanted to hurt people with my radical view so i said my view in a kinder way...
it is like the difference between saying " i will chop you to pieces " and " I will regretfully have to defend my self by taking your life"
Its not the tone, but what you actually say.
 
Back
Top Bottom