hourheroyes: you can create a gay. But you offer no actual proof.

You said "a gay"

Besides, it's true you can make people gay. I make chicks gay all the time.

Squidgilum: If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be.

You're picking a singular example that doesn't extend out to any more general point you're trying to make. And given that plenty of men who have experienced what you describe have gone on to marry women, it's not even really a example relevant to the point.

hourheroyes: Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Disregarding the notion that a social stigma can be removed so easily and that an ingrained problem becomes a puff of smoke, I still say "Nope." If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be. It's not social stigma that causes the problem. His own proclivity creates an inner personal stigma. His own concept of himself has been invaded and vandalized.

Moreover, all you're doing is finding a situation (anyone you can create) to 'show' you can create a gay. But you offer no actual proof.

Of course there are tons of examples of people driven to suicide because of their forbidden sexuality, people who were never 'repeatedly raped'.

Nope. I'm not saying a gay can be created. I'm saying a confused person can be created. And I didn't create the scenario for my own purposes. It actually occurred and it did so many times. I've read about boys who were used in porn as very small kids. They generally grow up not knowing which way to go. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I find it rather sad.

You're still tap-dancing around my notion that if there are gay men living straight lives then perhaps there are straight men living gay lives, and both varieties need therapy.

Squidgilum: hourheroyes: Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Disregarding the notion that a social stigma can be removed so easily and that an ingrained problem becomes a puff of smoke, I still say "Nope." If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be. It's not social stigma that causes the problem. His own proclivity creates an inner personal stigma. His own concept of himself has been invaded and vandalized.

Moreover, all you're doing is finding a situation (anyone you can create) to 'show' you can create a gay. But you offer no actual proof.

Of course there are tons of examples of people driven to suicide because of their forbidden sexuality, people who were never 'repeatedly raped'.

Nope. I'm not saying a gay can be created. I'm saying a confused person can be created. And I didn't create the scenario for my own purposes. It actually occurred and it did so many times. I've read about boys who were used in porn as very small kids. They generally grow up not knowing which way to go. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I find it rather sad.

You're still tap-dancing around my notion that if there are gay men living straight lives then perhaps there are straight men living gay lives, and both varieties need therapy.

And both can receive therapy. But NO ONE would protest a victim of child rape receiving therapy. You have no point.

WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be.

You're picking a singular example that doesn't extend out to any more general point you're trying to make. And given that plenty of men who have experienced what you describe have gone on to marry women, it's not even really a example relevant to the point.

People come out of similar circumstances differently. That really is my point. It's a big world with lots of people. I offered up the notion that perhaps not all gays are gay due to the same single cause. I was (largely as predicted) hit with "straight up retarded" and "think of the political implications!"

Homofag threads sure are a great place to populate your ignore list.

Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be.

You're picking a singular example that doesn't extend out to any more general point you're trying to make. And given that plenty of men who have experienced what you describe have gone on to marry women, it's not even really a example relevant to the point.

People come out of similar circumstances differently. That really is my point. It's a big world with lots of people. I offered up the notion that perhaps not all gays are gay due to the same single cause. I was (largely as predicted) hit with "straight up retarded" and "think of the political implications!"

"If two men want to get married, they get married. If a man says, "I'd like some thearapy to help me stop being gay," that's his free choice to do so... unless some activists shut down his therapist for being a hater."

That is your point.

Squidgilum: I'm saying a confused person can be created

Social stigma can create a confused person too. What's more, for the person in your example there is always ready help available. There is no shortage of people lining up to help someone in their situation.

WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I'm saying a confused person can be created

Social stigma can create a confused person too. What's more, for the person in your example there is always ready help available. There is no shortage of people lining up to help someone in their situation.

There's no point. The 'activists' and 'gay marriage proponents' are always out there to demonize and attack victims of child rape.

olddinosaur: Got 'em all stirred up again, I see.

Always fun to cause so much trouble.

Fark to me has always been a place to educate a few people while simultaneously pissing off huge numbers of them; looks like it pays off today.

Well, fool. What do you think is gonna happen when you try to address about a book's worth of shiat in like, five paragraphs?
Kinda forces you, to, oh I don't know, gloss over a few things?
Don't be disingenuous. You wanted to whup up the peanut gallery, and you did. Now don't whine about it. Or gloat, either.
You're lazy. And it shows.

ReverendJasen: So it's morally wrong to have sex for any reason other than to make babies.

I didn't say that at all. What you quoted me saying is a basic fact of life. Sexual behavior in any form came about in order to create future generations of life with a diversified genetic base. It works that way in trees, bees, snakes, whales, mice, frogs, flies, marmots, grasses and on and on and on. Because in higher mammals it has evolved a pleasure factor as well has nothing to do with its original purpose. Sexual intercourse is for procreation. When frogs have sex, they don't do it to get off. They do it to make more frogs. In humans it is also fun, but it is really there to make more people, hence the term "reproductive".

WhyteRaven74: By your logic if someone can't reproduce then they shouldn't be having sex. Also, plenty of gays have reproduced and do reproduce. Thanks to modern medicine they no longer even need to have sex with someone they'd rather not have sex with to do it.

For your first statement, no. We all have basic rights, and that is what my original post was about. If you are unable to procreate but can still go through the motions, you are simply sexually inviable. That does not mean you can't have sex. It means you cannot reproduce sexually.

For your second point, no child has ever been born from a homosexual relationship. For a child to come about, there must be a man and a woman involved. The ability of a person to reproduce without the constraints of a sexual relationship with the other parent of the child is based off of our robust population, one facet of which I mentioned earlier. We, as humans, have invented billions upon billions of ways to cheat nature out of her natural course. We cure diseases and fix broken bones. We ship food thousands of miles to feed the hungry. We develop fertility methods to help those that cannot normally have children. Homosexuals cannot "normally" have children. If you park 2 men or 2 women on a desert island with all the supplies they need to live lengthy, healthy lives, no matter how long they live or how hard they try, there will never be a second generation on that island without the intervention of a member of the opposite sex in some form or another.

Agarista: But seriously, let's focus on having sex with animals. Which is obviously where homosexuality leads.

/end sarcasm
//Fido consents

Of course it does.
Because sex with ducks and gay marriage are one and the same:
Link (possibly NSFW)

Al!: That does not mean you can't have sex

You said that makes it immoral. Maybe you have a different idea of what that word means to me, but it is generally held to convey the fact that something happening is wrong. That doing it is violating the rights of others.
I can see how non reproductive behaviour is not useful but you've thrown everybody off by saying that it is immoral and that you do not agree with it (unless by that you just mean you wouldn't want to do it).

olddinosaur:
... a fundamental inability to form any type of lasting relationship with any person, whether hetero or homo.

My partner of 16 years and I would like to have a few words with you. None of our son's friends straight parents have ever had a relationship last that long.

Al!: Because in higher mammals it has evolved a pleasure factor as well has nothing to do with its original purpose.

Are you insane? The reason animals have sex is because it's pleasurable. Do you really think they sit down before intercourse and ponder the necessity of propagating the species?

Al!: So they changed the name to "pleasure organs" to reflect your belief that sex is not for procreation first? Oh, they didn't? So testicles are still "reproductive organs"? I guess that makes everything else secondary.

I really don't see why a name change would make any difference to a person with intelligence. They are what they are. My point was the primary function does not invalidate whatever secondary functions people may implement. To suggest there is one function only - the primary one assigned by nature - when clearly people have found other uses that you may not particularly like is rather myopic. That's like saying do it for children only, and don't enjoy it. Sorry, I like the taste of a smooth beaver regardless of what plans nature had for it and will continue to do my thing.

Personally I think piercing is stupid, but people can knock themselves out if they want to look like a tacklebox. If it's not physically harming any one else and there is no danger there is no need to legislate it.

Mind you, I don't care what other people do. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to tell some consenting adult he can't play with another consenting adults penis. It's none of my business as long as it stays out of my business. I wouldn't like a straight pride parade anymore than I like gay pride parades. What's next, BJ pride parades? Foot Fetish pride parade? Keep your business to yourself.

Agreed on all points except I'm neither for or against homosexuality - I just don't believe the excuses I've heard for the persecution of those with that lifestyle are insufficient. But I definitely don't like like in-your-face attention whores of any stripe no matter what they're promoting, or parades of any kind ;)

eraser8: Are you insane? The reason animals have sex is because it's pleasurable. Do you really think they sit down before intercourse and ponder the necessity of propagating the species?

LOL. I suppose the orgasm is just dreadful in the lower-mammal, no pleasure factor animal kingdom - since it you know, increases the odds of conception for them like it does for us.

Yeah make it suck, that's how to encourage the extra effort.

eraser8
Are you insane? The reason animals have sex is because it's pleasurable. Do you really think they sit down before intercourse and ponder the necessity of propagating the species?

Holy crap, I'm now stupider from having read this.

You do realize that most of the animal world have baculum

skinned: I suppose the orgasm is just dreadful in the lower-mammal, no pleasure factor animal kingdom

Um, what?

natas6.0: You do realize that most of the animal world have baculum

Your point being?

natas6.0: You do realize that most of the animal world have baculum


Is currently unavailable for wild kingdom copulation.

eraser8: Um, what?

Forget it.

skinned: Forget it.

No, really, I want to know what you mean.

Animals don't reproduce because they have an urge to reproduce. They have sex because they have an urge to copulate. And positive sensations encourage that urge. If sex were unpleasant, it would be a less likely occurrence.

Edd17: You said that makes it immoral. Maybe you have a different idea of what that word means to me, but it is generally held to convey the fact that something happening is wrong. That doing it is violating the rights of others.
I can see how non reproductive behaviour is not useful but you've thrown everybody off by saying that it is immoral and that you do not agree with it (unless by that you just mean you wouldn't want to do it).

I meant what I said. I believe that homosexuality is immoral. From dictionary.com, so there is no more confusion as to what I may have meant by immoral:

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

It says nothing about violating the rights of others, and I would say that immoral behavior generally does not violate the rights of others. If it did, I would be whole-heartedly against it, as I hold the freedoms of this nation sacred.

I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

But why is it "wrong"?

eraser8: skinned: Forget it.

No, really, I want to know what you mean.

Very well. I was agreeing with you on that point and gave my point about the orgasm that nature has various "hooks" to encourage animals to do it. There are other things at work too.

My point of it being unpleasant was the exact point you made - if it was unpleasant for animal species they wouldn't get very far. But the same thing would be true if it was boring or laborious with no "pay off". The "pay off" is actually better for the species. And the the ride is the pleasure to get there.

Yeah, I know I didn't make it very well. Probably still haven't. Screw it, I'm running on 4 hours sleep here after a 18 hour work day with no end in sight.

skinned: Yeah, I know I didn't make it very well. Probably still haven't.

Well, it makes a lot more sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification.

Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality.

Then stop swallowing it.

Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

I believe that the existence of cardboard is immoral.

mtudo: Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality.

Then stop swallowing it.

Melgania: Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

I believe that the existence of cardboard is immoral.

Give it up, guys. you can't reason with someone suffering from "center of the universe" syndrome.

I do yoga.

Downward Facing Dog is a pretty gay-looking position.

Just saying.

Al!: If you park 2 men or 2 women on a desert island with all the supplies they need to live lengthy, healthy lives, no matter how long they live or how hard they try, there will never be a second generation on that island without the intervention of a member of the opposite sex in some form or another.

THIS in conjunction with:
anyone ever consider that homosexuality is evolution's version of population control? this is given the assumption that homosexuality is in fact a biological condition. Why would nature/evolution come up with any organism, by a mutation or whatever means, that the moment it's conceived would not procreate and pass on genes to the next generation? It's the only thing evolution knows how to do! it would almost stand to reason that the growing number of gheys means nothing more than the planet is starting to feel overburdened.

all the same: So what if they enjoy anal, scissoring, vocal lisps, lilting wrists and penchants for plaid button downs with no discerning gender features? leave em be, i say, and let em adopt. probably way better parents than would be present in the black hole(teehee) that is the foster care system...

/new here
//hello
///flame on
/hic!

Melgania: Everything is natural.

I'm not!

ReverendJasen: Al!: Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond.

So it's morally wrong to have sex for any reason other than to make babies.
Gotcha.

Didn't you read the Bible? God smitten what's-his-face because he didn't want to impregnate his sister. Or had better morals than God. It's somewhere in the old Testament, but I forgot which, because God kills lots of people for being all just and stuff.

/I think he had better morals, that's why God got POed, and then smitten him.
//I love that word, smitten. Teehee.

rudcrudludprechwdfuddud: leave em be, i say!

And you would be agreeing with my original post. I don't care what free people do with their time. I don't care if they spend their lives masturbating over pictures of dinosaurs or raising a family of 18. To each their own. I don't agree with the lifestyle they have chosen, but I will defend their right to choose with my life, if need be.

eraser8: Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

But why is it "wrong"?

You didn't read anything I posted, did you? I'll say it one last time, for your clarity, if nothing else. From a (apparently my particular and no one elses) moral standpoint, sexual intercourse is for procreation. It is fun, and it is fun because if it was arduous we would not be here, but at the bottom line, it is fun because we need to procreate. On the basis that we need to procreate, sexually deviant behaviors, such as oral- or anal- or homo- sexual encounters, would be immoral. Going back to the definition that I posted above, from dictionary.com, homosexuality is immoral because it cannot in any way result in a viable offspring. It is, in this light, the same as masturbation or beastiality. Human emotions aside, homosexuality is purely sexual gratification.

Bringing in human emotions changes the entire picture, which is why I am accepting of homosexuality as a lifestyle. I do not persecute or harass anyone based on the way they live their lives, as long as their way does not infringe on others' way. It doesn't mean I would be the least bit tolerant of it in my particular lifestyle, but other people are not me. If we were all me, life would suck. Who would I argue with on the internet? Who am I kidding? I'd argue with myself.

T.rex: hell, if someone wants to call alcoholism a disease, why not gayism? Hell,... based on that, even NOT being gay could be considered a disease.

It would somewhat defeat the purpose of calling a condition a "disease" if not having the condition could be categorized the same way, wouldn't it?

Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Okay, I see the the problem. You appear to be confusing "personal unease" with "immorality". Common mistake.

Rule of thumb: Anybody titled Swami or Guru (or Father, Rabbi etc) is a charlatan and a fraud.

I was sitting out the end of a yoga class in the studio's 2nd story hallway, when I saw a man across the street accurately gaydar the the class's gay teacher thru the window, across the street, two stories down--and from a rear view, I might add.

The man then came up to the studio and showed everyone how into yoga he was by flashing the giant "OM" tattoo across his chest.

Says something for the the Universal Mind & undifferentiated Ground of Being, that's for certain.

Biological Ali: Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Okay, I see the the problem. You appear to be confusing "personal unease" with "immorality". Common mistake.

Ok, so enlighten me. What is moral about homosexuality. Tell me why it is right, and don't use human emotion as a reason, as I have stated that emotion is why I am completely accepting of homosexuality in modern society. Why do you feel that behavior that is absolutely at odds with success as a species is "right"?

Al!: Biological Ali: Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Okay, I see the the problem. You appear to be confusing "personal unease" with "immorality". Common mistake.

Ok, so enlighten me. What is moral about homosexuality. Tell me why it is right, and don't use human emotion as a reason, as I have stated that emotion is why I am completely accepting of homosexuality in modern society. Why do you feel that behavior that is absolutely at odds with success as a species is "right"?

Well, the evolutionary utility of biological traits is another thing that's essentially amoral, and it's fairly silly to try and shoehorn it into categories of 'right' or 'wrong'. The development of opposable thumbs, for example, is another thing that was tremendously important to our success as a species, but it would be pretty ludicrous to term the lack of a thumb as 'wrong' or 'immoral'.

That said, if you wish to persist with this argument anyway, there's ample evidence to suggest that homosexuality biologically determined (for males in particular), and in fact, possessing a certain proportion of homosexual members appears to be the natural state for several species, humans being one of them. This would suggest that homosexuality is not in and of itself a threat to the 'success' of a species insofar as its prorogation goes, and there are powerful arguments to be made that it may actually be useful, particularly in cases where overpopulation is possible.

Ultimately, the appropriate way to deal with the issue is not to start with the assumption that a trait is 'wrong' or 'immoral' and then demand that someone show that it is 'right' - that's just backwards. The question that needs to be asked is "Is this trait wrong?", and if a logical case cannot be made, then one must accept that the trait is, in fact, right.

Al!: For your second point, no child has ever been born from a homosexual relationship. For a child to come about, there must be a man and a woman involved.

What sort of backing and filling are you going to do when you're eventually proven wrong?

Al!: What is moral about homosexuality. Tell me why it is right, and don't use human emotion as a reason, as I have stated that emotion is why I am completely accepting of homosexuality in modern society. Why do you feel that behavior that is absolutely at odds with success as a species is "right"?

<shrug> What's moral about your dog humping the furniture? You have asked either a meaningless question, or a religiously-loaded one.

Al!: I meant what I said. I believe that homosexuality is immoral. From dictionary.com, so there is no more confusion as to what I may have meant by immoral:

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

It says nothing about violating the rights of others, and I would say that immoral behavior generally does not violate the rights of others. If it did, I would be whole-heartedly against it, as I hold the freedoms of this nation sacred.

I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

So eating liver is immoral? We clearly cannot agree on the meaning of that word as I would have thought that anything immoral shouldn't be done (for example I think stealing is generally pretty immoral).
You've either turned it into meaning anything that you don't want to do (I don't know how that tallies with you saying masturbation and oral sex are immoral but I wont ask). Or you're actually trying to link it with whether it contributes to the continuation of the species, in which case everything you have ever done that was not for the prorogation of humanity is immoral.

mike.thesauce: people of the opinion that homosexuality is a disease really just need to go ahead and farking die already, as they are holding back the progress of the civilized world. they use these antiquated notions of god and religion to foster their hatred, all the while ignoring the mountains and mountains of contradictory evidence no matter how rational and sane the argument may in fact be. the simple fact of the matter is anyone who really, honestly believes this bile about homosexuality being a disease is a detriment to the progress to humanity as a whole and should be ridiculed and shamed into either waking the fark up, or suicide.

/farking bigots.

I would like to subscribe to your news letter, then take you to (insert your favorite bar here) for cocktails.

Is there anything that yoga can't cure ?

BobXXL:
So screwing my post menopausal wife is abnornormal.
Well, she's not going to like getting kicked to the curb.

I think you should take your argument, put it on a placard and wave it in front of all the HomosRevul types. Watch them go...durrrrrr.

hehehe - you used "asinine" with a story about gay sex

Not enough hot yoga chicks.


/Are leotards & legwarmers coming back?
//Hope so.

Sperm cells have one function: if the timing is right, one will fertilize the female egg and create new life. Happens all the time. The testicles produce the sperm. Sperm are carried by semen. Semen is produced by the prostate and other glands. The penis injects the semen.

On the other side,

The flexible, self-lubricating vagina is constructed to allow the penis to be rigorously stimulated unto ejaculation (w/o damage to the vagina), so that, if all is timed right, sperm enter cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes, meet egg, fertilization, etc.

Whether the vaginal sex is timed so that it produces a child or not is irrelevant. Anatomical form still and always follows biological function in this; the parts are clearly meant to go together; they actually "mate."

Likewise, the fact that men and women may enjoy engaging in non-productive sex (oral, anal) is also beside the point of the obvious intent of the male/female reproductive structures.

There's no way homosexuality can be anatomically or biologically justified apart from personal desire for it, or sympathy for such desires of another, resulting in a willingness to pervert [turn away] the normal usage of the body structures toward the abnormal.

Yet HomoFarkers and their sympathizers (and those who just want to argue) say all this counts for nothing...anatomy, biology, it all means nothing; coincidental at best. Sex is primarily about PLEASURE. So in your minds, shoving a cock up another man's anus and dumping a load of sperm therein is just as normal as vaginal sex. Okay, believe what you want, do what you want.

But the facts will always remain:

The anus is not meant to be, nor designed to be, a substitute vagina. The penis is not meant to stimulate and inseminate the anus. Semen is designed to facilitate fertilization, which only happens in the woman. One man's semen has no function when placed inside another man.

The reproductive organs do produce pleasure, but they weren't designed primarily for pleasure, but for reproduction.

Now go bite your pillows, you nancies.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: Yet HomoFarkers and their sympathizers (and those who just want to argue) say all this counts for nothing...anatomy, biology, it all means nothing; coincidental at best. Sex is primarily about PLEASURE. So in your minds, shoving a cock up another man's anus and dumping a load of sperm therein is just as normal as vaginal sex. Okay, believe what you want, do what you want.

You must have missed it, Rev. Pleasure is biology, too. People do all sorts of things for pleasure. Golf, for instance, serves no particular biological purpose and yet people really seem to enjoy it. And you'll find that the overwhelming majority of this planet's sexual encounters take place with only pleasure in mind.