caligula
@caligula
15 Years1,000+ Posts
Comments: 1 · Posts: 4994 · Topics: 99
Genetically Gay (Page 2)
You are on page out of 2 | Reverse Order
I kind of just skimmed through this, so this may have already been addressed ...
Expressing gayism .. correction: expressing ANY sexual desire outside of norm is offensive to me, or maybe disturbing is a better word, IF it is limited selectively.
Norm would have to be the majority, I should think .. which is hetro, right?
If homo is ok simply because the desire exists, so therefore it should be acceptable as a choice .. then so should ANY form of sexuality ... if it isn't normal, to mean the majority.
For a 25 year old man to sleep with a 12 year old isn't harmful to her in any way. In fact, 100 years ago, it was normal. she didn't suffer any consequences at all. He married her and they lived happily ever after. It's only considered harmful to her NOW because people have programmed into these young women that it's wrong. But, naturally speaking, which is what this thread is asking ..... as soon as she menstruates (which could be 10) is a woman in natures eyes.
so, if two men are allowed to fuck each other, and have a right to it by saying he chooses it ... then to have this right to choose your sexuality should be for every person, every desire .... or it's discrimination.
To me, every person is BORN with a sexual orientation, a sexual inclination ... and if anyone outside of the norm is allowed to express it, than ALL people should be allowed to express theirs.
Expressing gayism .. correction: expressing ANY sexual desire outside of norm is offensive to me, or maybe disturbing is a better word, IF it is limited selectively.
Norm would have to be the majority, I should think .. which is hetro, right?
If homo is ok simply because the desire exists, so therefore it should be acceptable as a choice .. then so should ANY form of sexuality ... if it isn't normal, to mean the majority.
For a 25 year old man to sleep with a 12 year old isn't harmful to her in any way. In fact, 100 years ago, it was normal. she didn't suffer any consequences at all. He married her and they lived happily ever after. It's only considered harmful to her NOW because people have programmed into these young women that it's wrong. But, naturally speaking, which is what this thread is asking ..... as soon as she menstruates (which could be 10) is a woman in natures eyes.
so, if two men are allowed to fuck each other, and have a right to it by saying he chooses it ... then to have this right to choose your sexuality should be for every person, every desire .... or it's discrimination.
To me, every person is BORN with a sexual orientation, a sexual inclination ... and if anyone outside of the norm is allowed to express it, than ALL people should be allowed to express theirs.
* heterosexual
I think this thread addresses a very narrow mind-set .... is homo a choice, or are you born with it .... as homosexuality is being compared to just ONE other desire = heterosexual, and in so doing, this question assumes that there is only those two to choose from, and without taking into consideration that numerous people who fall under the heterosexual category aren't "normal", and hide under this disguise.
Just because have come out of the closet doesn't mean those were the only residents of the closet. Before they ventured out, they wore a disguise of heterosexuals.
Are people born with animalistic desires to ravage sexually .. yes, indeed. It's simply a matter of self control, isn't it.
Secondly, I'd bet that 50% of people who masturbate have very disturbing sexual images in their heads, deviant ... of course, they will never admit it because it's not acceptable ....... yet.
But, it's the same thing as actually doing it. If you fuck your wife, while fantasizing rubbing a dead squirrel on your dick ... you're still the fucking that squirrel in your heart and mind, so it makes no difference what you put on for show. What you show doesn't change the instinct you were born with.
Again, just because gays are allowed to express thier desires, doesn't make it right .. if nobody else is allowed to.
Just because have come out of the closet doesn't mean those were the only residents of the closet. Before they ventured out, they wore a disguise of heterosexuals.
Are people born with animalistic desires to ravage sexually .. yes, indeed. It's simply a matter of self control, isn't it.
Secondly, I'd bet that 50% of people who masturbate have very disturbing sexual images in their heads, deviant ... of course, they will never admit it because it's not acceptable ....... yet.
But, it's the same thing as actually doing it. If you fuck your wife, while fantasizing rubbing a dead squirrel on your dick ... you're still the fucking that squirrel in your heart and mind, so it makes no difference what you put on for show. What you show doesn't change the instinct you were born with.
Again, just because gays are allowed to express thier desires, doesn't make it right .. if nobody else is allowed to.
FINALLY!
i was trying not to go full-hilt with it because i wanted to see if someone was as sick as i 🙂
^that is exactly what led to the heated debate that inspired this thread.
the discussion i was having started harmlessly, but when i mentioned Rick Santorum, it went to hell. i argued that if one believes in liberty, Santorum was right. what was he right about?
"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing -- that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships, in every society, the definition of marriage has not ever, to my knowledge, included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know. Man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be, it is one thing."
ok, yes, he's an asshole and it's not the marriage aspect that i argued, but rather, individual liberty. if we say that people have the RIGHT to fuck who they want to fuck, that RIGHT should be extended to ALL people, in ALL cases and to disallow that right to ANY would enable a restriction of rights on ALL...including homosexuals...and yes, even heteros. i mean hell, Lawrence v. Texas was adjudicated in 2003!
thus, is homosexuality just about sex? if it's just about sex, then hey, why would Santorum's "man on child, man on dog" comments be wrong? because it's not PC to equate homosexuality to "depraved" acts? well, many people believe homosexuality is "depraved," so who sets the bar on depravity?
LEGALLY, granting sexual rights outside of the norm to one faction, LGBT, requires that you grant the same sexual rights to other groups, NAMBLA. this is MERICUH! life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. our individual moral objections should not be put into law and if you believe that, if you value it, then yes, you are saying that "man on child, man on dog" is a-ok!
i was trying not to go full-hilt with it because i wanted to see if someone was as sick as i 🙂
^that is exactly what led to the heated debate that inspired this thread.
the discussion i was having started harmlessly, but when i mentioned Rick Santorum, it went to hell. i argued that if one believes in liberty, Santorum was right. what was he right about?
"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing -- that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships, in every society, the definition of marriage has not ever, to my knowledge, included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know. Man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be, it is one thing."
ok, yes, he's an asshole and it's not the marriage aspect that i argued, but rather, individual liberty. if we say that people have the RIGHT to fuck who they want to fuck, that RIGHT should be extended to ALL people, in ALL cases and to disallow that right to ANY would enable a restriction of rights on ALL...including homosexuals...and yes, even heteros. i mean hell, Lawrence v. Texas was adjudicated in 2003!
thus, is homosexuality just about sex? if it's just about sex, then hey, why would Santorum's "man on child, man on dog" comments be wrong? because it's not PC to equate homosexuality to "depraved" acts? well, many people believe homosexuality is "depraved," so who sets the bar on depravity?
LEGALLY, granting sexual rights outside of the norm to one faction, LGBT, requires that you grant the same sexual rights to other groups, NAMBLA. this is MERICUH! life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. our individual moral objections should not be put into law and if you believe that, if you value it, then yes, you are saying that "man on child, man on dog" is a-ok!
UGH!
*really angry face*
*really angry face*
Posted by Sizzurp
It was harmful to the child. They didn't have the anatomical understanding of the body then, as we do now. It's already been proven that a child's brain at that age is still developing and not fully capable of logical and rational thinking.
That's absurdity !!
As each generation passes, people become more evolved and more knowledgeable ... to measure how people understood compared to now, and to say that they weren't as advanced in their understanding and then use that as a tool to judge whether they were capable of their life is absolutely ridiculous.
If you have proof of a 12 year olds brain not fully developed .. then by all means ... link away ... because I know for a a fact that during the formative years, ALL people develop their learning aptitudes, to include reasoning and logic .. from that point on it's simlpy a matter of being exposed to new information.
yep
Of course, in what you described above, it was completely from your own perspective, which is to say .... exclusively YOUR OWN judgement ... which has nothing to do with anyone except you.
Unless of course you are suggesting you are standard, to mean how you feel is right ... considering 25 years ago it was these same standards that kept queers in the closet.
So, it's ok for some to be hypocrites so long as they think they are right, right?
Unless of course you are suggesting you are standard, to mean how you feel is right ... considering 25 years ago it was these same standards that kept queers in the closet.
So, it's ok for some to be hypocrites so long as they think they are right, right?
Posted by Sizzurp
http://www.wccf.org/pdf/dahl.pdf
The child's brain is still developing and is incapable of fully logical and rational thinking. At this age, the body/mind are in a transitioning period and and relations of a sexual kind with an adult could be extremely negative.
Marrying a 12yr old one hundred years ago was acceptable because of both a lack of anatomical understand and because of economical needs. More kids and early you get them means more working hands bringing home the bacon. Times have changed and there is no rational argument to be made in favor granting legal adulthood to a 12yr old.
Of course, this comes from your standards, in your culture, right?
which is for everyone, right?
According to you.
I wrote a thread some several years ago on the religious forum about cults, and how it is acceptable for the members to copulate with each other of all ages .... even now in this day and age ... and there's no harm done to those children in any way because it is normal to them.
Not you
Them. It is every day living in their society, and in so doing, those people aren't harmed according to their standards.
Posted by Sizzurp
The child's brain is still developing and is incapable of fully logical and rational thinking. At this age, the body/mind are in a transitioning period and and relations of a sexual kind with an adult could be extremely negative.
A 12 year olds brain is perfectly capable of logic and rational thinking, and has absolutely no problem assessing sexual relations of any kind ..... so long as a parent, society or peers hasn't programmed them to believe they are too young.
If you took a child and put him in a society where children were regarded as adults and capable ... then this child would develop mature, rational and logical thoughts at an extremely young age, and be an adult before the current American kids have managed to get up off the couch to carry thier own garbage to the trash can.
If you program your kids to lay around and do nothing and not be capable until they are 37, then on your couch is exactly where they will stay, incapable.
If you program your kids to be adults at 8 years old and treat them like they are mature, then they will be .... and capable of rational thinking.
It's not the age that makes them immature ...
in regard to brain development, it has more to do with impulse control and reasoning...or lack thereof.
with that said, a crackhead has poor impulse control and inadequate reasoning, but i guess a long as they're 18+, that would make them a better parent and make better sexual decisions than a 15 year old? keep in mind, a crackhead will suck a thousand dicks for a hit and although their are some whorish teenagers, i'd still put my money on the kid.
with that said, a crackhead has poor impulse control and inadequate reasoning, but i guess a long as they're 18+, that would make them a better parent and make better sexual decisions than a 15 year old? keep in mind, a crackhead will suck a thousand dicks for a hit and although their are some whorish teenagers, i'd still put my money on the kid.
Posted by Sizzurp
Read the material I linked! It's pretty interesting!
you're saying that cause you just started reading it yourself 😛
Posted by size zero superhero
Two or more consenting adults knocking boots is no comparison to the act of manipulating animals/children/comatose patients for personal sexual gratification.
There are glaring power imbalances at play in the latter instance, given one of the participants isn't in a position to establish consent. The initiator in this picture uses their upper hand to ensure their desire(s)are fulfilled and usually at the expense of the other party.
how does one define "child?"
in the states, we have these things called statutory rape laws. they vary by state. in some states, an 18 y/o who has sexual relations with a consenting 15years364days old minor is guilty of rape and can be sentenced to life.
given that statutory rape laws vary by state, we do not have consistency as to what a "child" truly is. what's wholly illegal in iowa, is ok in cali. the inconsistencies in state laws and the arbitrary restrictions on sexual activity are indicative of the fact that mandating/restricting sexual activity is relative.
so hey, you find having sex with horses objectionable, but there's a whole porn industry dedicated to bestiality. is the horse truly being harmed? hell, KFC bangs chicken heads into walls on a daily basis and that's not considered a capital crime, but a man loving a horse...HOW DARE HE?
somewhere in each and every one of our histories there is someone turning over in their grave. guaranteed, one of your foremothers popped out a kicked, raised that kid and did so successfully and surprise, surprise, all her adult teeth hadn't even come in yet.
soooo, what if a 12 y/o has sex with a 12 y/o? would it be ok then? you seem to take issue with young people having sex, but young folks are having sex all day, every day. the age really isn't an issue then, is it?
soooo, what if a 12 y/o has sex with a 12 y/o? would it be ok then? you seem to take issue with young people having sex, but young folks are having sex all day, every day. the age really isn't an issue then, is it?
kicked...wtf?
im not supposed to be addressing u directly anyway so back to the news.
im not supposed to be addressing u directly anyway so back to the news.
Posted by Prince_Pisces
If you treetrunk your wife, while fantasizing rubbing a dead squirrel on your dick ...
lol
Lol.
Posted by size zero superhero
Most states' age-of-consent laws include provisions regarding the participant's age respective to that of the minor involved. Where I live the legal age of consent is 15. Under the condition the partner does not exceed 4 years their senior, sexual activity cannot be legally deemed statutory rape. If anything, such inclusions echo the relevance of power-imbalance as a factor.
Two 14-year-olds engaging in consensual sex? No discernable power imbalance present.
Man and horse? Clearly horses cannot establish verbal willingness nor comprehend the nature of this event, whereas a human has reasoning skills. And yes, there's been evidence to suggest domesticated animals suffer after such incidences, based on subsequent behavioral changes which indicate psychological and physical aggravation. The human is obligated to know better.
KFC and the meat industry is another ballpark. As a vegetarian of 10 years, I'm not one to advocate/support KFC's game.
http://age-of-consent.findthedata.org/
in some states, an 18 year old senior dating a 16 year old sophomore is guilty of statutory rape. as i said, the age at which a person is considered a "child" differs by state and because it differs, what constitutes "child rape" is subjective. maybe an 18 and 16 year old having intercourse offends your sensibilities. for others, it does not. maybe for you, a man having relations with a horse is vile, to that man, it is not.
also, just because some horses have traumatic relationships with their human partners, doesn't mean they all do. human relationships aren't perfect. for every horse spousal abuse case, there is a horse and man who are happily riding each other into the sunset.
Posted by Sizzurp
Read the material I linked! It's pretty interesting!
I want to, it won't open for me.
The science of attraction is very complicated...
There are just too many factors involved in who/what someone is attracted to to single out one factor, like a "gay gene" imo.
There are just too many factors involved in who/what someone is attracted to to single out one factor, like a "gay gene" imo.
Posted by P-AngelPosted by Sizzurp
Read the material I linked! It's pretty interesting!
I want to, it won't open for me.click to expand
PDF files and links require Adobe Reader.
Posted by P-AngelPosted by Amandus
In time I believe that homosexuality will not matter and that gray asexuality (including demisexuality) and panromance will become more prevalent.
Without doubt .... I can personally attest to the actuality of asexuality.click to expand
I feel I am digressing too far from topic...
But I remember you saying something a long time ago about everyone being bisexual in some thread I no longer remember. And since I believe that sexuality and love are complimentary and are never far from each other I began wondering about myself—specifically, my inherent belief in love and how blind and wonderful it is. I asked myself, "do I really believe in love or am I just an emotionally, mentally damaged, young naive, pining for the love of strangers whereas I could not love myself?"
I didn't want to be like that so I reassessed myself, letting go of everything I held on to concerning love and sexuality—and even God, the supposed epitome of love—and began anew, starting only from, "Love is blind. Love is wonderful. And through it we will realize our potential."
Piece by piece, dream after dream...I want to say I was surprised but it honestly felt like I already knew all of it and was just remembering and accepting it...I was incredibly happily and who I was eventually became clear.
And so I thought that if more people are being born with a mindset much like my own but perhaps better—ones who already know who they are and hopefully won't live through a stunting childhood like I did—then the likelihood of sexuality becoming trivial will definitely be high.
Posted by AmandusPosted by P-AngelPosted by Amandus
In time I believe that homosexuality will not matter and that gray asexuality (including demisexuality) and panromance will become more prevalent.
Without doubt .... I can personally attest to the actuality of asexuality.
I feel I am digressing too far from topic...
But I remember you saying something a long time ago about everyone being bisexual in some thread I no longer remember. And since I believe that sexuality and love are complimentary and are never far from each other I began wondering about myself—specifically, my inherent belief in love and how blind and wonderful it is. I asked myself, "do I really believe in love or am I just an emotionally, mentally damaged, young naive, pining for the love of strangers whereas I could not love myself?"
I didn't want to be like that so I reassessed myself, letting go of everything I held on to concerning love and sexuality—and even God, the supposed epitome of love—and began anew, starting only from, "Love is blind. Love is wonderful. And through it we will realize our potential."
Piece by piece, dream after dream...I want to say I was surprised but it honestly felt like I already knew all of it and was just remembering and accepting it...I was incredibly happily and who I was eventually became clear.
And so I thought that if more people are being born with a mindset much like my own but perhaps better—ones who already know who they are and hopefully won't live through a stunting childhood like I did—then the likelihood of sexuality becoming trivial will definitely be high.
click to expand
wow, that's an amazing story of self examination ... I wish everyone could have the courage to look at themselves in such honesty.
Sex is more than trivial, it is damaging to the soul. It takes an excessive amount of your power, and expells this energy from your body.
Look here at dxp at the amount of people who are so desperate at being loved that belittle themselves and their honor.
If those people had love within them, then they wouldn't need it from an outside source .. they don't have it, that's why they are desperate to get it.
These people think they are full of love .. but, these actions prove otherwise.
Through sex they are expelling more and more of their love energy, but, think that through sex they are gaining.
sad, really
forgive them, they know not what they do
If those people had love within them, then they wouldn't need it from an outside source .. they don't have it, that's why they are desperate to get it.
These people think they are full of love .. but, these actions prove otherwise.
Through sex they are expelling more and more of their love energy, but, think that through sex they are gaining.
sad, really
forgive them, they know not what they do
Posted by P-Angel
Look here at dxp at the amount of people who are so desperate at being loved that belittle themselves and their honor.
If those people had love within them, then they wouldn't need it from an outside source .. they don't have it, that's why they are desperate to get it.
These people think they are full of love .. but, these actions prove otherwise.
Oh, so true. But I won't drift off too much, since this isn't the topic of this thread, but your words are definitely true. But society doesn't help this either. In respect to this thread, if people were just allowed to love whomever they wanted too, a topic like this wouldn't even be relevant, because all people would see is two people who love one another; versus just that it's two people of the same sex. I don't know if homosexuality is nature or nurture, but quite honestly, I don't care.
i think it's sad and sick to be ambivalent. the reality is, there are people fighting for rights that they feel are due them. they claim that their civil liberties are being infringed upon and that there is a personal assault upon them based on their sexuality.
you don't care? hmm...it's no wonder that slavery lasted so long in the US and Jim Crow laws made it easier to disenfranchise blacks. from South African apartheid, Darfur, child prostitution throughout Asia, slavery in the Sudan and yes, even white servitude, there are folks who just "don't care" and proudly proclaim their lack of concern.
congrats on not giving a shit! the door is uh, thataway -->
you don't care? hmm...it's no wonder that slavery lasted so long in the US and Jim Crow laws made it easier to disenfranchise blacks. from South African apartheid, Darfur, child prostitution throughout Asia, slavery in the Sudan and yes, even white servitude, there are folks who just "don't care" and proudly proclaim their lack of concern.
congrats on not giving a shit! the door is uh, thataway -->
Posted by Amandus
I feel I am digressing too far from topic...
But I remember you saying something a long time ago about everyone being bisexual in some thread I no longer remember. And since I believe that sexuality and love are complimentary and are never far from each other I began wondering about myself—specifically, my inherent belief in love and how blind and wonderful it is. I asked myself, "do I really believe in love or am I just an emotionally, mentally damaged, young naive, pining for the love of strangers whereas I could not love myself?"
I didn't want to be like that so I reassessed myself, letting go of everything I held on to concerning love and sexuality—and even God, the supposed epitome of love—and began anew, starting only from, "Love is blind. Love is wonderful. And through it we will realize our potential."
Piece by piece, dream after dream...I want to say I was surprised but it honestly felt like I already knew all of it and was just remembering and accepting it...I was incredibly happily and who I was eventually became clear.
And so I thought that if more people are being born with a mindset much like my own but perhaps better—ones who already know who they are and hopefully won't live through a stunting childhood like I did—then the likelihood of sexuality becoming trivial will definitely be high.
for someone who claims to have come to terms with himself, you have difficulty describing yourself in simplistic terms. flowery words are great, but as much as you talk, you really didn't say shit...and rarely do.
Posted by caligula
for someone who claims to have come to terms with himself, you have difficulty describing yourself in simplistic terms. flowery words are great, but as much as you talk, you really didn't say shit...and rarely do.
Oh, my orientation.
I'm a demisexual. I was never home schooled.
Posted by xygeneration
Caligula- Is there a limit to express a sexual desire?
I've been giving this topic a lot of thought and it's mostly concerning children.
-.- Sorry for the question, but i've been thinking of the movie Trust. It's about a teenager who meets a guy online. He kept lying about his age until the day they actually met in person, when he tells her that he still the same guy who she talked to online/phone. He tells her that the age difference shouldn't matter. They have sex and he doesn't contact her after that. She's left devastated, because she thought he had real feelings for her. He simply wanted sex and did whatever it took to get it. On the other, she wanted sex AND a relationship (based on how he presented himself, seemed like he wanted her).
don't understand the question, soooo...
do you like bagels? i like bagels.
Posted by Amandus
Oh, my orientation.
I'm a demisexual. I was never home schooled.
and i'm not black. i'm mocha. thus, i understand your pain 😛
Posted by domz
Lol, I'm hiding those. I don't want to be apart of this discussion.
thank JESUS!
shoo!
Posted by caligula
i think it's sad and sick to be ambivalent. the reality is, there are people fighting for rights that they feel are due them. they claim that their civil liberties are being infringed upon and that there is a personal assault upon them based on their sexuality.
you don't care? hmm...it's no wonder that slavery lasted so long in the US and Jim Crow laws made it easier to disenfranchise blacks. from South African apartheid, Darfur, child prostitution throughout Asia, slavery in the Sudan and yes, even white servitude, there are folks who just "don't care" and proudly proclaim their lack of concern.
congrats on not giving a shit! the door is uh, thataway -->
When I said I didn't care, it was in respect to if someone was gay or not; not that I don't care about their plight. I don't think that anyone's sexuality should be grounds for discrimination, but with that being said, I know the realities, and I think it's awful, and since I have quite a few gay friends, I have been with them and supported them through a lot of shit.
All people are born with sexual inclinations.
If a two-year old walks around with his/her hands down his pants holding his parts ... what does the parent program him to do?
he is programmed to "stop", dont' do that. The instinct was there to hold, squeeze his junk.
People act according to program.
All kids play with themselves, and often with each other. The first time I had a desire to play doctor and touch each other's (another girl) parts, I was extremely young, and I never witnessed an adult touching each other (at that point) .... yet, the instinct was there to touch boobs and crotch. Because I never say adults do it, I was programmed to keep it secret.
So, it's not a question of gay people, we only look at gay people because those are the people who have been allowed to come out .... it's a question of all people, and being born as sexual beings.
If a two-year old walks around with his/her hands down his pants holding his parts ... what does the parent program him to do?
he is programmed to "stop", dont' do that. The instinct was there to hold, squeeze his junk.
People act according to program.
All kids play with themselves, and often with each other. The first time I had a desire to play doctor and touch each other's (another girl) parts, I was extremely young, and I never witnessed an adult touching each other (at that point) .... yet, the instinct was there to touch boobs and crotch. Because I never say adults do it, I was programmed to keep it secret.
So, it's not a question of gay people, we only look at gay people because those are the people who have been allowed to come out .... it's a question of all people, and being born as sexual beings.
Posted by xygeneration
How do you protect a child from sexual exploitation, that the child is not being tricked by the adult?
first you have to consistently define what a "child" and "adult" are. as with homosexuality, the lack of consistency and incongruity with the past is at the root of this issue. is society evolving or devolving and what/who determines that? if it's based on feelings/morals...fuck your feelings. people felt a lot of things in the past and those feelings resulted in women and minorities, for example, being second class citizens. so overall, there has to be a better barometer and until there is, there will always be confusion.
i brought up the greeks earlier because the reality is, homosexuality was more readily accepted in ancient greece - http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/19a_p1.html. in ancient greece, these relationships were often between an adult male and a male child. thus, for those of you who proclaim that it has always existed, well, perverts have always existed too and yet, they weren't defined as such back then.
thus, is it any wonder that a NAMBLA member could legitimately argue their case? you say monkeys do it. they say, the greeks did it. at least they're equating their actions to people and on that level alone, they have a better point.
ok, so you're outraged by man-boy love, but what about polygamy? king david had how many wives? mitt romney's granddaddy had how many wives? SOME muslims, to this day, have how many wives?
the point is, right/wrong are relative and to say that something falls on one spectrum or the other is subjective. it's that subjective perspective that makes us all full of shit...including those who champion gay rights.
Posted by USCTaurusGal
When I said I didn't care, it was in respect to if someone was gay or not; not that I don't care about their plight. I don't think that anyone's sexuality should be grounds for discrimination, but with that being said, I know the realities, and I think it's awful, and since I have quite a few gay friends, I have been with them and supported them through a lot of shit.
i support the people of Darfur, but I have yet to adopt a black baby.
gay civil liberties in the US is something that one can directly impact or will be able to directly impact by matter of law. by virtue of that, you can be an agent of change, outside of your friends and for that reason and for their sake, saying "i don't care"/not having an opinion means passively accepting the status quo.
Posted by curious2know
I do believe that people are born gay.
I have not read past the first few posts so don`t know if this discussion has moved on.I will look at other posts when i have more time.
This is a very interesting topic and could go in so many directions.
The OP talks a lot about science and things being proven with science etc so this is what i will respond to as it peaked my interest.
Science and things being proved by science is all well and good but does this mean that if science has not found an answer/reason for certain things in life (in this case homosexuality)that being born gay is a ridiculous concept to you?
The fact that science can not prove it yet means nothing.
There are many things in life that people couldn`t grasp and wouldn`t be swayed on their views unless they had proof.
i.e. scientific proof
The truth is that science is a work in progress and just because they can not say that homosexuality is due to x,y and z does not mean that there is not an x,y and z.
It just means that they have yet to find it
read the thread.
is that block feature still active?
considering it despite having not read the last two pages as for some reason, there's a large dildo on my thread 😢
considering it despite having not read the last two pages as for some reason, there's a large dildo on my thread 😢
Posted by xygeneration
OH sorry this is your thread. Damn I wish there was a feature where you can select who you want in the thread. Here let me just block what I wrote the last two pages.
She wasn't referring to you.
She was talking about the dildo who entered on page 9
people are genetically gay. between 9-12 weeks is when an embryo is genetically defined. there are a certain number of female hormones which need to be present for a foetus to be born female, and a certain number of male hormones to make the foetus male.
in some cases, a male embryo will have enough female hormones present to influence sexuality, it works on a scale. which is why some men are more 'feminine', but not necessarily gay. the embryo may still have enough male hormones to physically be male, but be attracted to other males. right down to feeling trapped in the wrong body, which is how you get transsexuals.
the same works in reverse for females. you'd have a female embryo with alot of male hormones, which would make the female more prone to tomboyism. then lesbian, then transgender.
i don't know the sciene for bisexuality, but have read somewhere most humans have dual sexuality and are therefore prone to being bisexual
in some cases, a male embryo will have enough female hormones present to influence sexuality, it works on a scale. which is why some men are more 'feminine', but not necessarily gay. the embryo may still have enough male hormones to physically be male, but be attracted to other males. right down to feeling trapped in the wrong body, which is how you get transsexuals.
the same works in reverse for females. you'd have a female embryo with alot of male hormones, which would make the female more prone to tomboyism. then lesbian, then transgender.
i don't know the sciene for bisexuality, but have read somewhere most humans have dual sexuality and are therefore prone to being bisexual
^if that were true, it could be measured and proven. thanks for the bullshit though.
it can be proven. look it up
its funny though, alot of homophobics dismiss that knowledge
its funny though, alot of homophobics dismiss that knowledge
^yes. if you lie to yourself, anything is true.
"Gay Astrology (How to tell if someone is gay)"
Posted by caligula
by that logic, there's a "sane" gene and in order for someone to be bi-polar, you must find the "sane" gene first. gtfoh!
as i said, it's not genetic and claiming it to be such is not MY issue, but evidence of your delusion.
Eh don't even get me started on the bi polar topic.. I am prettymuch of the belief most of these mental illnesses are bullshit excuses to be twats and or to udnermine the person diagnosed.
I don't know what relevance this may or may not have to humans but scientists have found a gay gene in fruit flies that they can turn on and off at will.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html
Posted by Acrab
there may even be homosexual animals.
may be?
come on, everyone knows there's tons and tons of fag animals.
Posted by xygenerationPosted by P-Angel
All people are born with sexual inclinations.
All kids play with themselves, and often with each other. The first time I had a desire to play doctor and touch each other's (another girl) parts, I was extremely young, and I never witnessed an adult touching each other (at that point) .... yet, the instinct was there to touch boobs and crotch. Because I never say adults do it, I was programmed to keep it secret.
So, it's not a question of gay people, we only look at gay people because those are the people who have been allowed to come out .... it's a question of all people, and being born as sexual beings.
That's true, we are born as sexual beings.
click to expand
haha this reminds me of a time when I was, oh probably 15 or 16 and I "came out" to my mom as a lesbo. She just laughed at me and said "You're not a homosexual, you're just sexual"
I was really offended.
Because she was right.
I now identify as very heterosexual by the by.
Time out.
cali, do you by any chance have a juris doctorate or are you in pursuit of one? while skimming, i noticed some mention of logic, necessary and sufficient conditions, assertions...you appear to be using a legal dialect. just curious.
Time in.
cali, do you by any chance have a juris doctorate or are you in pursuit of one? while skimming, i noticed some mention of logic, necessary and sufficient conditions, assertions...you appear to be using a legal dialect. just curious.
Time in.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
Scotty doesnt know that Fiona & me Do it in my van every sunday She tells him she is in church but doesnt go Still sh
BLING AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING WELL SORT OF TALKING YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO TALK WITH A MONKEY. SO WHATS YOUR ALTIME F
I'm bored so let's talk about sex. 1. Where is the weirdest place that you've had sex? 2. Where is the most public
Due to an increase in the cost of ammunition... There will be no warning shot. Thank you for your understanding.
VVVVVVV Please play video below to build up rebellious hype level.VVVVVVVV Yo. The other day i was thinking about h
WHO HAS THE BALLS TO TELL EVERYONE WHO THEY HAVE BLOCKED? I'LL START NO ONE NOT EVEN THE RAT OR SPICA OR ANY OF THE
Creepy did her C R E E P Y thread and the first thing that came to my mind that gives me the hebbie jebies did not reall
get in the spirit ...indulge what creeps you out ;)
Thought I should share. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/here-comes-the-single-bridezilla-20121016-27ozd.html
That thing you did for the 1st time, happened for the 1st time- how did you feel? This is inspired by a friend of mine,
Save Money : Live in Your Van and Become a Van-dweller When you see the word Van what comes to mind? Do you see, a pl
that come in the form of PM's. So don't be alarmed. These golden juicy nuggets could contain anything from a joke, to a
Has anyone ever wondered about living outside society in the solitude of mother nature? I kinda always imagined my dream
http://www.redbullstratos.com/live/ weeeeeee
from your ex ? I know that it can be considered as an offensive question but I have to ask. Is your girlfriend hotter
Have you ever cared about a person to the point that you beat yourself up for every dumb thing you do in front of them e
How far would u go/take loving someone? I just saw a youtube video of Brett and Cat- both are in their 20s but Brett wan
Whats the configuration of your natal chart (chart shape)? I have a bundle/wedge shape, planets within 120 degrees from
nah, sometimes i look at a chick's boobs because they're touching her knees and i find that disturbing. i also can honestly say i've never looked at another woman's crotch, so no no and no.
in addition, in US culture, looking at boobies may indeed be sexual, but one cant say the same for some europeans and tribal cultures. that's why eurotrash enjoy topless beaches. they don't view their boobies in the same way we do.