You would suggest that every single gay man in existence lies and says it is not a choice, but secretly they are just as sexually attracted and romantically attracted to women, and that secretly they are just as disgusted about men as you are, but they would choose to have sex, they would somehow choose to be sexually aroused, choose to pay attention to men, without any more conscious effort than a straight person to women?
First off, your question is misleading, and fallacious. When have I stated or implied that every single gay man would do such a thing? Again, you said, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice", and I'm simply saying that is 100%
FALSE.
Funny, when shown erotic pictures of men, many extremely homophobic men who 'identify' as heterosexuals experience increased bloodflow to their penis (aka an erection), why and HOW would they CHOOSE to have that response?
What study did this come from? If you are referring to the Journal of Abnormal Psychology you are once again misquoting and misinterpreting the data and source. The study divided the hetero sexual men into TWO groups. One being HOMOPHOBE and the other being NON-HOMOPHOBE. Here are findings from the report:
"In their study of 64 exclusively heterosexual men (self-identified), 66 percent of the non-homophobic group showed no significant arousal while watching a male homosexual video, while only 20 percent of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal."
So the answer why they would choose to have this response? According to the report the men
are latent homosexuals OR the following is applicable:
"viewing homosexual stimuli causes
negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in non-homophobic men.
Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict
increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a
response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se."
Your argument will continue to be flushed.
The only person with enough motive to spew as much poison with as much zeal as Heresy does about homosexuals is typically someone who is desperate and wishes they were straight, pretends to be straight, and does not admits to themselves that they are in fact gay. Or maybe he just doesn't have a soul.
Please, lay off the fallicies. It seems as if the only way people can attempt to break me down is if they resort to fallacies (personal attacks, poisoning the well, red-herrings etc.) You are simply being called on your gayness (I don't know if that pun is intended or not), and you will continue to be called on it. I haven't said much about gays in this thread (especially in a negative way), and most of my comments, besides the ones directed at hemp, involve religion and science. So, you can continue to play the "he's scared to come out the closet" and the "he is actually gay himself" card, but it doesn't work with me. :dead:
I did not realize this discussion would degenerate into that of semantics either.
Everyone here gives an account of the things they type -- get used to it.
You very well know what I meant by 'human nature.'
I don't know you from a can of paint, and I am not going to assume you meant anything aside from what you posted (or from what I learn by critical analysis). You said, "Plus, it's practically human nature to hate." I said, NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS PLANET IS ASCRIBED HATE (at birth.) It is a product of agents of socialization, economics, history etc", and any person with a
NORMAL brain (pay attention to the word normal) would agree with me. If it is human nature to hate is it also human nature to forgive?
There is no such thing as human nature except to live and die because that is the only thing a human can always do, otherwise there are no guarantees.
(emphasis mine)
But previously you said:
Plus, it's practically human nature to hate
Why the exception now? Are we to form assessments based on your statements or do you want us to jump to conclusions?
What was obvious, maybe not to you, is that I suggest many people will seek out or simply end up hating something because hatred is an emotional response that is made capable by our unique genetics and capacity for emotion.
Human nature = something you are predisposed to do. You made NO REFERENCE to genetics, and the only thing you did was go on a rampage about how Jesus couldn't judge (which is
NOT biblical), and how people are immoral monsters and too proud to change their mind. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you are to suggest otherwise, idiotic as it is, and it seems you do, then you would suppose that hatred is possible without the capability for that emotion, and that the environment itself supplies the hatred. Reductio ad absurdum, or maybe reductio ad your unbased beliefs which are not part of this discussion.
Once again, you are using fallacies to promote your position. No one has implied that hatred is possible without the capability for that emotion. People hate, love, are judgmental, etc because of EXPERIENCE and the way they are SOCIALIZED. Also, my beliefs ARE part of the discussion because I am comparing my beliefs, which are logical, to your beliefs which are illogical. You made the claim and plopped your beliefs for all to see. I don't agree with them, stated mine and proceeded to butcher your post. Welcome to the G.O.M :dead:
What LeVay said is indeed very true, something you might not have picked up on without reading that first. But thank you for nitpicking with your blatant ignorance, now you may be edified.
I love edification, more please!!! YOU listed Lavey as a source, and I simply DESTROYED the way you cited the source in hopes of promulgating a homosexual agenda. You were taking his words and implying that he meant all men are born gay. Proof of this may be found in the following:
All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice
Again, you said
ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD, and this implies ALL, an absolute number, or a relative all comprising the majority (or most significant.)
You followed that with:
there are numerous studies that have noticed chemical and neurological differences among straight and gay men, such as "a report in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay that a small region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in straight men as in women or gay"
Here you are establishing the link between the brain size and the choice of being gay. In addition, you FAIL to quote him in entirety, and this is why your argument is down the crapper (I shouldn't use that word with homosexuals huh???)
Most things such as these are combinations of genetics and environment.
Agreed, and so does the study from Denmark which states, "...childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."
Considering the end result is that your genetics are expressed in a certain way (homosexuality - and this probably needs defining for you, because you still, hilariously, question the evidence: involuntary sexual attraction to the same sex, and involuntary romantic attraction to the same sex).
You have presented tainted evidence. You cited someone and attempted to use his research on brain size as proof for no choice. LMAO@the definition.
Now, considering your hypothalamus is mostly developed by the time you have any sexual urges at all, it would seem that the evidence of the different hypothalamus is there before what you presume (with no logical evidence) is a choice. There's also the evidence that 75% of children who exhibit extremely feminine behavior (if they're male), known as "childhood gender noncomformity" end up being gay or bisexual.
Source please.
Childhood gender nonconformity is a
result of socialization, so wouldn't that mean the child is
not BORN GAY but a product of the environment?
This is especially strong evidence when it manifests in twins, and the twins are obviously different to the parents in a profound difference of dispositions from the very beginning. Now, genetics may just lend the propensity for homosexuality, just like genetics don't give you cancer or not but they may make it more or less likely, but I never said it was purely genetic (for a nitpicker you aren't very thorough).
Sources please.
I am not saying genetics do NOT play a role, and I've often said it could be a "glitch" or something on the level of retardation or
abnormal development. I did not imply that you said it was purely genetic. For a new member, who only has four posts, I find it odd that your first posts have been in this topic...
But let's consider for a moment that it is a choice, at what point does they brain change, instantly when they choose to be gay? Or is it just a correlation for 'immoral, dishonest' people with a hypothalamus that is more similar to most womens', and also they just happen to not like women as much and men more?
You just don't "happen to not like women as much as men" if you are a man. Something else is going on that may not have been identified in some and may have been identified in others, but you just don't happen to to do that. If it is NOT a choice (for some) why do people stop being homosexual? If it is not a choice why is it that some people become homosexual only after they have had homosexual relations?
Many of the theories include something happening in the womb that helps express this propensity, or the simple fact that environments can never be exactly the same so if there was for example a 50% chance for each to be gay, one could be gay and one not.
Source please.
But besides all this evidence that suggests being gay has a lot more to do with environment and genetics instead of some personal choice to be immoral, if we are to believe what you suggest, then...
But you attempted to pass off evidence as if the person was saying that people ARE born gay. Being gay does have something to do with the way you are socialized, and it does have something to do with genetics, but you made the claim that, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice", and this is INCORRECT.
Either every gay man in history has lied, and the studies have all somehow let gay men get away with voluntary responses instead of the measured involuntary responses, or you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that it IS indeed a choice (contrary to reports and the evidence psychological studies have led to the majority opinion among experts) by studying every variable of genetics and environment and concluding that free will, and more specifically, a choice, is the only possible way someone could "pretend to be homosexual."
First off, you are implying that all gay men hold the belief that homosexuality is NOT a choice and you have NOTHING to validate it. In addition, you are also implying that all studies have yielded the same results which somehow proves homosexuality is not a choice (again no data to validate the implied claim). No, DON'T try to spin this off on me as if I have the burden of proof here.
YOU are the one who said, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice", and you cited a source in hopes of validating that claim. I have shown how you have misinterpreted that source and how socialization leads to choice. Also, I have previously asked, "if I cite five credible sources stating it IS a choice, what will you do?"
Your argument thus far has been: "how can evolution allow for the continued existence of a behavior that significantly decreases the chances of procreation?" HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, there's never been anything like that in the gene pool over the years. HAHAHAHAHA.
No, that hasn't been my argument thus far. That is what YOU want it to be. In fact, I don't recall saying
ANYTHING about evolution and how it can allow for the existence of a behavior that significantly decreases the chances of procreation. I believe the only time I mentioned procreation is when I used your own argument against you.
Your entire argument has been: "I'm gay, here is the proof that people are born gay, I damn near commited suicide and resorted to drugs because I'm gay, here is more proof that people are born gay and by the way my proof doesn't endorse my claim, and Jesus was most likely gay"
Another horrible attempt at a point at...
Like I've already established, it's not entirely genetic or environmental, and if it was mostly genetic, it could still easily be a useful trait to the survival of the genes themselves and social behaviors themselves, but there does not have to be a conscious choice and effort to substantially rewire and effect the structure of your brain
You just defeated yourself. First you present evidence to show how the brain is a certain way and homosexuality is not a choice. After I knocked that argument down and trampled over it, you come back with how it is based on environment and genetics. Now you're saying "it's not entirely genetic", and you're searching for some loop hole. Elaborate on the statement, "it could still easily be a useful trait to the survival of the genes themselves and social behaviors themselves".
You may have your own interpretation of bible passages, but they are your opinion.
Actually, my interpretation comes from reading and studying the texts such as the Textus Receptus Major, Vulgate and Torah. Your interpretation comes from reading an english bible, anyone who has studied MOSAIC and LEVITICAL law will come to the LOGICAL conclusion as to what actually occured and what the sin actually was.
He said nobody else can judge properly.
Please, show me a verse where Yeshia said, "no one can judge properly" LOL! If I show you 5 verses where people are COMMANDED or INSTRUCTED to JUDGE what will you do?
He said that they should condemn her if they are without SIN, not without adherence to the LAW.
They were WITH SIN because of the way they HANDLED the situation, NOT because of the judgement they cast on her. It was a SIN to VIOLATE the law, and in trying to condemn her, they violated the law. Please, research Mosaic and Levitical law before you continue to insult your own intelligence.
They were NOT "sinful" because they had skeletons in the closet. They were sinful because they VIOLATED the law.
think he knew the distinction, and clearly you did not.
LMAO! Sure, he also knew the distinction between heterosexuals and homos which is why you find MANY verses in the bible pertaining to MARRIAGE INSTRUCTIONS and NONE devoted to how to maintain a homosexual union.
Maybe you should not quote bible passages you don't understand, you arrogant moron.
LMAO!! The man who is offended because of the way immoral people mock gays has CONSTANTLY restorted to insulting me. All because I quoted him and and rebuked him. LMAO!
And besides that, the point is that most people who use the bible for cherry picking passages tend to ignore the more tolerant perspectives, to Christians who use the bible to justify their judgmental and irrational hatred. You may not even be the target audience even if you are judgmental and hateful.
YOU ARE USING THE BIBLE FOR CHERRY PICKING PASSAGES AND IGNORING THE TOLERANT PERSPECTIVES!! LMAO!
As for original sin, it is INHERITED, thus you are in a sinful state, and SIN because you were born, which was due to procreation which was not possible before they defied God and learned of good and evil.
No, you are INCORRECT. Orginal sin = Rebellion by disobeying the commandment of Ha-Shem. Here I'll destroy another one of your positions. You made the claim that
procreation was not possible before they defied God and learned of good and evil
So, lets have sunday school!
Gensis 1:28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful,
multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
The hebrew word used for MULTIPLY in that verse is RABAH. It means, to be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous. The fall of mankind does not occur until chapter 3, and if you are implying Gods punishment and words specifically to EVE are proof of your claim a simple crash course in hebrew will clear up your misconceptions.
The instuctions to procreate and grow in numbers was given
BEFORE the fall of mankind.
Yes, original sin itself is defiance of God, but the knowledge of sex came from it and it is continues to exist because of that sex. It is very much chicken or the egg, but sex causes more sin and so by choosing to participate it you cause more sin.
Your point has been dismantled, and you previously said, "Original Sin is SEX (i.e. procreation)", but now you are back-peddling, saying it came from defying God, and that the knowledge of it came from it...LMAO!
I noticed you have difficulty evaluating relevance and importance. Letsee, maybe it has something to do with parallels, like, it is possible to justify ANY sort of discrimination with the proper rhetoric but it does not make judging right or beneficial to the whole of society or even your own personal agenda (unless you are incapable of achieving your morality-ignorant goal another way, which appears to be the case).
And this is important because of? The fact that people DO say what you said they DON'T say is proof that YOU have difficulty evaluatiing relevance/importance. What you said people don't say is often found on this board, and it is often said by racists and those who are usually conservative and the DIRECT beneficiaries of capitalism. Next time, compare and contrast something else.
It is clear to almost anyone with half a brain that you can choose to have sex and a relationship with somebody of any sex but the limits of attraction and love are dictated by sexual orientation. I'm afraid your half doesn't work.
And how is my non-functioning half relevant to this topic?
And just to humor you some more.. what are some of the cons of homosexuality:increased risk of suicide, increased risk of physical harm from othersBut since you cannot possibly understand the weight of every variable from the pros and cons, whatever point you were trying to make is not only moot, but ridiculous and stupid. Congrats.
I don't find humor in your stupidity. Here it is you were making it seem as if homosexuality offers all these benefits, yet you say gays have an increased risk in suicide and an increase in getting stomped out. Please list some more, surely there are more than two cons of being homosexual.
Heresy, you are quite clearly not a scientist or an intellectual.
By your own admission you're gay, deranged, suicidal and a drug abuser.
NOTHING, and I repeat
NOTHING you say will offend me. I'm POSITIVE
you've heard worse than "you are quite clearly not a scientist or an intellectual", so I'll leave it at that. :dead:
You exhibit the deconstructive ability of a mongoloid child in a coma, incapable of meaningful deliberation or logical coherence.
I've already used a similar line on someone else.
Your points are dead-ends which are easily opened to the conclusion but you do not see them. Sadly, you obviously know little to nothing about the philosophy of science or knowedge, your opinions are not based in scientific evidence, rather, personal biases and assumptions you most likely hold as evidence for your arbitrary opinion.
But you're gay...and surely you know nothing of self esteem which is why you resorted to heavy drug use and attempted to blow your brains out.
Honestly, you are a poison-spewing, souless primitive and you should never have children let alone teach brainwash them like you most likely were brainwashed by your parents or peers.
LMAO! Now THATS a compliment!!!!
