My views on homosexuality

[thebigpicture]

why did you use a deviant trait to make your point? can you see how offensive this comes off as?

Okay. Question #2

Why is the situation I wrote considered offensive?

 

[Darkness]

Okay. Question #2

Why is the situation I wrote considered offensive?

Anyone else want to make a case against incest. I already have.

 

[thebigpicture]

Originally Posted by Darkness
It is worse if the kids are of different sex, since the results of incestuous pregnancy have a decent chance of being disastrous.

And why do you think that is?

Beyond that, I am highly sceptical of incestous relationships for a number of reason. One is that they usually coincide with a host of other psychological problems, which is not the case with homosexuality. For parent-to-child incest Dr. Ken Eisold sums it up pretty well: "Freud argued that the reason we prohibit incest is that we are so powerfully tempted by it. That's why it's taboo, not just illegal. We have to erect barriers of horror and disgust to prevent ourselves from succumbing to temptation. That has to be part of the argument. Children need to be protected from sexual exploitation by parents, because it is all too easy for them to be abused. Parents are strong and lustful, but children are weak and vulnerable. And we know all too well the life-long damaging effects on children who are exploited by those on whom they are dependent. Their capacity to trust others is impaired if not destroyed. So we need laws and customs and taboos - whatever it takes -- to preserve the trust that children need to have in their caregivers. That trust is not only the basis for their future relationships with others. It's the basis for the confidence they need to be responsible adults and citizens." Beyond that psychologists such as Mark Erickson have argued that "the lives of both the perpetrators and victims of incest are marked by rejection and emotional deprivation during childhood."

I don't think people teach vehemently against incest simply because "parents are strong and lustful" and "children are weak and vulnerable." There is another underlying reason as well.

Anyone else want to make a case against incest. I already have.

You know I had to laugh because I knew that that question would produce the equivalent of crickets on this thread. And I was right. There is a fear to answer that question and I (as well as they) know why. Yep! Theeeeeey know why they don't wanna answer.

 

[gnomon]

I predict that within fifty years from now neuroscientists and behavioral psychologists will finally understand that the notion of a dichotomous human sexual progression and the subsequent gender concepts that derive from that concept will be empirically wrong.

In other words it will be finally recognized that human beings are not created dimorphically sexual and that the concept of gender identity is wholly wrong.

Which means that refusal to understand these concepts will be solely related to outdated religious concepts that no longer have meaning in a progressive society.

But considering how hard it has been to relieve civilizations of BS ethnic identities I don't hold much hope for those individuals who are born into a non-defined and hardly accepted ideal placed upon them from defunct religious views.

 

[Father Heathen]

You know I had to laugh because I knew that that question would produce the equivalent of crickets on this thread. And I was right. There is a fear to answer that question and I (as well as they) know why. Yep! Theeeeeey know why they don't wanna answer.

I've already answered it pages ago.

 

[waitasec]

Okay. Question #2

Why is the situation I wrote considered offensive?

why don't you equate incest with being a heterosexual?

 

[Darkness]

And why do you think that is?

Not sure. Ask a biologist.

And why do you think that is?

I don't think people teach vehemently against incest simply because "parents are strong and lustful" and "children are weak and vulnerable." There is another underlying reason as well.[/quote]

The Westermarck Effect is a pretty good theory for explaining the incest prohibition.

You know I had to laugh because I knew that that question would produce the equivalent of crickets on this thread. And I was right. There is a fear to answer that question and I (as well as they) know why. Yep! Theeeeeey know why they don't wanna answer.

Opposite direction mate. People do not want talk about it, because they are afraid the answer they will reach is that incest is not immoral in all instances.

 

[McBell]

You know I had to laugh because I knew that that question would produce the equivalent of crickets on this thread. And I was right. There is a fear to answer that question and I (as well as they) know why. Yep! Theeeeeey know why they don't wanna answer.

What a load of bull ****.
The case has been made and you merely dismissed it because you disagree with it.
you have already shown your immunity to facts and truth.
You have thoroughly shown your exceptional ability to protect your box at all cost.
So the real question is: Why bother?

 

[waitasec]

hello... heeelllooooooo... is anyone there?
i think i hear crickets...

If your adult kids came and told you that they were having an incestuous affair with each other, would you give them your blessing and say, “Hey! You’re not hurting anyone, so go for it! You should sleep with whomever you want to sleep with.” Furthermore, if they told you that they always had that “special” bond with one another and just never told you about it, would you say, “That’s perfectly fine! If that’s the natural way you’ve always felt for each other then there’s nothing wrong with it. You can’t help that you feel that way. Get married if you want. You have my blessing!” Is that how you would feel?

why did you use a deviant trait to make your point? can you see how offensive this comes off as?

Okay. Question #2

Why is the situation I wrote considered offensive?

You know I had to laugh because I knew that that question would produce the equivalent of crickets on this thread. And I was right. There is a fear to answer that question and I (as well as they) know why. Yep! Theeeeeey know why they don't wanna answer.

i think you just threw out a few red herrings here...
you fail to persuade because you succeeded in your self defeat...
good job :beach:

 

[bain-druie]

First let me say that my post was supposed to include both your quote and the the quote (which was left out) you were responding to. Sorry, if the omission confused you. But in any case,

Why is there a problem with me quoting you to make the point I made? Your topic was about whether or not someone chooses to be gay, bi or whatever. And, if I'm not mistaking, you wrote this in the middle of a conversation I was having with other posters. So naturally I decided to respond to your post because it brought about a point I, myself wanted to make at that time about choice. So I wrote:



I don't see why this caused a problem for you or why you were offended by it. It's not like I jumped in and attacked you in any way.

*sigh* First, I'm not 'offended'. I was honestly confused by how you thought my response to someone else entirely, much earlier in the thread, had anything to do with you. There are plenty of others on the thread who quite ably handled the discussion with you. If you assume I must be offended because I used the word 'hell', I can assure you that in normal conversation around my house I regularly use words and phrases that are far more blood-curdling.

I was further confused by the fact that nothing you said had any link but the most tenuous with what I was saying. That no longer confuses me because I have realized that you pretty much carry on entire conversations in your head with no reference to anyone else's remarks whatsoever; it is unfortunate that you couch these internal conversations in the form of a forum discussion with other people, but that is obviously convenient for you, because when people get tired of trying to get you to *actually* interact in discussion, you can then triumphantly make entomological references which also have nothing to do with the point at issue.

Further, this is *not*, in fact, a private discussion, so your assumption that my remark directed at someone else earlier in the thread is something you need to 'respond' to (and I use 'respond' in the loosest possible sense, to mean you quote me and then say something completely unrelated) is presumptuous. So is your implication that I was being somehow intrusive.

However, in the spirit of compassion, I realize you must be accustomed to being a vital part of every aspect of the conversations in which you participate, based on the very apparent phenomenon of your internal holding-forth, in which you in all your aspects are no doubt fascinating and utterly persuasive to yourself.

Try to adjust to the fact that you are outside your own head, and there are people who have actual things to say that are not what you imagine or anticipate them to be saying.

 

[thebigpicture]

I've already answered it pages ago.

And if I recall correctly, I responded to your response.

 

[thebigpicture]

why don't you equate incest with being a heterosexual?

The answer to your question above may be found in your answer to my question, which you have not answered yet. Why don't you answer the question about the incestuous relationship? What would you do if you encountered it?

 

[thebigpicture]

Originally Posted by Darkness

Opposite direction mate. People do not want talk about it, because they are afraid the answer they will reach is that incest is not immoral in all instances.

Ahhh, but that is my point, Darkness. I think they know that if they can say that about homosexuality being "natural", then they'll be forced to say that the same could be said about certain instances of incest. And the thought of incest being right on any level is disgusting to them (just as both incest and homosexuality is to me). So, instead, they'll just avoid the question altogether.

I understand both your stance and Father Heathen's stance on incest. I think you understand mine. The rest are afraid to answer the question. And that's clear as day to see.

 

[McBell]

Originally Posted by Darkness


Ahhh, but that is my point, Darkness. I think they know that if they can say that about homosexuality being "natural", then they'll be forced to say that the same could be said about certain instances of incest. And the thought of incest being right on any level is disgusting to them (just as both incest and homosexuality is to me). So, instead, they'll just avoid the question altogether.

I understand both your stance and Father Heathen's stance on incest. I think you understand mine. The rest are afraid to answer the question. And that's clear as day to see.

So it is your thought that it is fine to justify your bigotry towards homosexuality because you harbor the same bigotry towards incest?

Your ego aside, how does the idea that incest causes the offspring of said unions to be unhealthy, which is something, as you keep repeating ad nauseum, that same sex couples do not have to worry about?

In fact, other than the "ick" factor, what reason do you have against homosexuality that does not also apply to heterosexuality?

And no, merely jumping up and down screaming "It Is Immoral" is not a "reason".

 

[The Wizard]

Mostly choice, environment.. other factors of early childhood and whatnot. I covered a lot on the "homosexuality disproves evolution" thread. With regards..

 

[McBell]

Mostly choice, environment.. other factors of early childhood and whatnot. I covered a lot on the "homosexuality disproves evolution" thread. With regards..

 

[The Wizard]

What? Go ahead and take the quick fix born gay faith pill if it makes you feel better it make no difference to me you strange lurking phantom menace, lol.

 

[McBell]

What? Go ahead and take the quick fix born gay faith pill if it makes you feel better it make no difference to me you strange lurking phantom menace, lol.

 

[thebigpicture]

*sigh* First, I'm not 'offended'. I was honestly confused by how you thought my response to someone else entirely, much earlier in the thread, had anything to do with you. There are plenty of others on the thread who quite ably handled the discussion with you. If you assume I must be offended because I used the word 'hell', I can assure you that in normal conversation around my house I regularly use words and phrases that are far more blood-curdling.

I was further confused by the fact that nothing you said had any link but the most tenuous with what I was saying. That no longer confuses me because I have realized that you pretty much carry on entire conversations in your head with no reference to anyone else's remarks whatsoever; it is unfortunate that you couch these internal conversations in the form of a forum discussion with other people, but that is obviously convenient for you, because when people get tired of trying to get you to *actually* interact in discussion, you can then triumphantly make entomological references which also have nothing to do with the point at issue.

Further, this is *not*, in fact, a private discussion, so your assumption that my remark directed at someone else earlier in the thread is something you need to 'respond' to (and I use 'respond' in the loosest possible sense, to mean you quote me and then say something completely unrelated) is presumptuous. So is your implication that I was being somehow intrusive.

Try to adjust to the fact that you are outside your own head, and there are people who have actual things to say that are not what you imagine or anticipate them to be saying.

My, my, my, oh my! What am I gonna do with you people? It’s almost as if I don’t explain the most minute things in detail to you, you won’t get the whole picture. Okay, let me try to explain this to you in the sim-plest terms I possibly can so you’ll get it.

Let me start by saying that you are completely overestimating the importance of that original post of yours I responded to. Your post, as I already stated in my last post to you, made me think of a point I’d wanted to make at that time and that’s why I used it. It’s the equivalent of me having a conversation with someone with the t.v. on in the background and then something pops up on the television that reminds me of something I’d wanted to tell the person I’m conversing with and then I tell them, “Oh you know what I wanted to tell you...?” That’s what your post was to me. Nothing more. Nothing less. I used it to make a point to the other posters I was debating with at the time. Still don’t get how or why your post triggered my post?

Okay, take a looky at your post:

Bisexuality is no different from hetero- or homosexuality; you still do not choose to whom you're attracted, because it is still a matter of hormonal interaction within the endocrine system. No one has control over that. The only difference is the potential for attraction is universal instead of gender-predictable.

Just sayin'. And I haven't read the *whole* thread yet, so if I'm echoing someone else I apologize.

Okay, you got that part of it right? See how you spoke of “choosing to be bi- or not?”

Now take a good look-see at what I wrote:

I don't believe that all homosexuals are gay by choice because I've seen so many gay people explain how they knew they were gay at a very young age. That they even exhibited traits of homosexuality at a young age.

See how that worked? We both talked about whether or not someone chooses to be bi or homosexual.

See the correlation. It was as simple as that. Now do we get it? Sure you got it? Goooooooood! Good, good, good. I knew with a little nudging, you’d get it...sooner or later.

As for the rest of your post...

You calling me crazy? Cause it kiiiinda sounded like you might be calling me crazy. (Laughs!) I’m sorry, but you have no idea how funny that was because that was truly a first for me. I mean I’ve gotten into some pretty heated debates on different forums, but no one’s ever implied I was crazy. (Laughs) I guess there really is a first time for everything. But, hey, let me give you a little advice for the next time you have to load that one up to fire off. If you’re going to try to paint a person as, um, needing help --? You miiiight not wanna go on a hysterical rant that makes you seem like the exact person you are trying to paint that person as being. (Laughs) I mean, if that wasn’t some irony, I don’t know what is. You came off exactly as the very person you were trying to paint me as. The more I read, the more ridiculous you sounded. For most of it, I was like, “What -- on -- Earth is this person even talking about?!” It was random as hell! You were just pulling rabbits out of hats. For example, you said I implied that you were being intrusive. Huh? What? (laughs) When did I ever imply that you were being intrusive? Absolutely nowhere.

I don’t know. I could be wrong but, I think you might be spending a little toooo much time hugging trees. (laughs) Just saying.

Originally Posted by brain-druie
However, in the spirit of compassion, I realize you must be accustomed to being a vital part of every aspect of the conversations in which you participate, based on the very apparent phenomenon of your internal holding-forth, in which you in all your aspects are no doubt fascinating and utterly persuasive to yourself.

No, actually, it’s the complete opposite. I’m used to everyone in the conversation be vital. I’m used to having stimulating conversations with people who can actually hold their own on a pure point by point basis without all the immaturity and rubbish being spewed as it is on this forum.

Try to adjust to the fact that you are outside your own head, and there are people who have actual things to say that are not what you imagine or anticipate them to be saying.

I realize you have something to say..it’s just that what you’re saying doesn’t make a lick of sense.

 

[thebigpicture]

Mostly choice, environment.. other factors of early childhood and whatnot. I covered a lot on the "homosexuality disproves evolution" thread. With regards..

I wasn't around for that conversation. Could you give me a quick summation of your views on homosexuality disproving evolution?

I actually just had yet another conversation with a group of people the day before yesterday about the circumstances involving homosexuality and the topic of "choice" came up. It seems the question of whether people are gay by choice or not is inextricable from the topic of homosexuality in general.