Homosexuality is a choice

[JFrankA]

This is an extreme case. They would be heterosexuals engaging in sex out of the circumstances. It would more than likely not change their sexual identities at all. But remember that sexuality isn't THIS or THAT. While I have a deeper attraction to males, I am also attracted to females. What? You mean, 'sexuality' isn't a dichotomy!? Are you attracted to the boobs and twat or to the person? I don't see a guy and say, "Wow, he must have a huge c-ck! That's why I'm gay! I'm gonna go have sex with every man!" You think that, don't you? That is your simplistic view of homosexuality: hetero is love, homo is sex. You must be Christian, maybe Protestant, since they are typically very focused on genitalia. I could care less. I'm interested in the person and not what is between their thighs...

Bingo! Very well put.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You mean I actually MISSED all those explanations I gave you ?

No, I did not missed. The explanations were poor and without evidence.

 

[SnakeTongue]

So animals in nature can do things that are unnatural ? That's an odd twist to that word.

I do not know. That is what I am trying to discovery, since the dispute against my definitions is: everything which happens in nature is natural. So unnatural would be nothing which happens in nature. What is nothing which happens in nature?

And who are you to determine what's the appropriate way to use genitals ?

I am SnakeTongue.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I was only doing what you are doing.

All right.

I gave you three. I'm sorry if you can't defend your examples nor see what was unnatural about mine....

No, you gave definitions. It is difficult to you to present an example? So far I had now two examples:

Depends upon the definition of 'unnatural' in use. If we are using the strict definition (see below) then there are no concrete examples to be given. Heaven, god, hell, fairies, Jabberwockies, people walking through brick walls, and any other non-existent thing could be considered 'unnatural'.

Also, Artificial Insemination (which couldn't me a more unnatural way of reproduction) does lead to reproduction

 

[Emet]

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

Heterosexuals:
1. Engage in the very same 'inappropriate' use of their genitals. Every. Single. Day.
2. None of the conduct implied in #1 has the purpose of natural fertilization--whether homosexual or heterosexual.
3. Disease transmission depends on the number of partners one has, and what, if any precautions one may take (in the case of humans)
4. Many males of multiple species (in the wild) will participate in sex with many females. They can and do transmit diseases. Is this unnatural?

What do you expect me to do with the list above?

Okay then. Let me spell it out for you.


1. You posted a list explaining your POV--why homosexuality is unnatural.
2. I posted a list that mostly counter argued by showing you examples that both heterosexual people and heterosexual animals do the exact same things you listed. Did you notice the "?" at the end of #4?
3. You did not reply, other than ask what you are supposed to do with the list.
4. What you should do: either disprove that I have shown you that your list of why homosexuality is unnatural is hogwash--since heterosexuals do the exact same things--or accept that you don't have a leg to stand on.

My expectation: you will not even reply to this post. You are very selective about responding to others. You cherry pick when you can find something to say, or seemingly feign confusion or ask for clarification. No language barriers can account for this, IMO.

Your posts suggest that you find homosexuality icky; your posts seem to show an inability to employ empathy, compassion, and understanding of others who think or feel differently than you.

My posting history (especially in community), has convinced many that I possess these qualities, even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue. (I have received many pms from members telling me just that)

The world is changing, whether you like it or not. Progress is inevitable, regardless of what you think or feel. I expect you will never change your POV, even if someone close to you is homosexual.

That saddens me. But such is life.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I'm sorry. I don't think I could become gay. Could you ?

If you mean homosexual, no, I would not adopt such behaviour.

 

[Belz...]

No, I did not missed. The explanations were poor and without evidence.

Really ? So when I said that non-reproductive members of societies like ants and bees can be very beneficial to their society not in spite of their inability to reproduce but because of it, it just flew over your head ?

And what's unconvincing about the bonding effect I mentionned ?

And if you want links:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

[bikerdruid]

If you mean homosexual, no, I would not adopt such behaviour.

that is not the question.
you were asked if you could choose to be homosexual.
that is the crux of the matter.
for example, i could not choose to be straight. it would be an unnatural thing for me, since i was born queer.

 

[Belz...]

I am SnakeTongue.

Yes. Now please explain how that helps you determine the "appropriate" way to use one's genitals, please.

Remember that "designed to do X" is not an argument, since you can't determine what something is designed to do except by looking at how it's used; and also that animals use genitals in ways that you deem appropriate.

If you mean homosexual, no, I would not adopt such behaviour.

What do you mean "can't" ? I thought it was a choice ?

 

[SnakeTongue]

This is an extreme case. They would be heterosexuals engaging in sex out of the circumstances. It would more than likely not change their sexual identities at all.

I disagree with your argument.

Why more likely to not change? The change can happens, a male can have an sexual experience with another male and repeat it many times if please him. The presence of power of choice to repeat the experience is what changes the social behaviour.

How people become bisexuals? It is not a change of behaviour?

But remember that sexuality isn't THIS or THAT.

What is this and that?

While I have a deeper attraction to males, I am also attracted to females.

Are that a definition of bisexual?

What? You mean, 'sexuality' isn't a dichotomy!? Are you attracted to the boobs and twat or to the person? I don't see a guy and say, "Wow, he must have a huge c-ck! That's why I'm gay! I'm gonna go have sex with every man!" You think that, don't you?

No, I do not think that.

That is your simplistic view of homosexuality: hetero is love, homo is sex.

No, it is not.

You must be Christian, maybe Protestant, since they are typically very focused on genitalia.

I am not. What a fallacious argument...

I could care less. I'm interested in the person and not what is between their thighs...

Do you mean that when you are sexually attracted?

 

[AnnoyingPony]

No, it is not.

Just the perverted human species use sex to "many other things besides reproduction."

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years exclusively to reproduce.



-



-

Dolphins have been seen engaging in homosexual and/or bisexual relationships for pleasure. I don't have the link, but I do remember reading it somewhere.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Really ? So when I said that non-reproductive members of societies like ants and bees can be very beneficial to their society not in spite of their inability to reproduce but because of it, it just flew over your head ?

And what's unconvincing about the bonding effect I mentionned ?

And if you want links:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

You just post two links with not reliable references. You did not made your argument and presented the parts of a research which supports your claim.

Wikipedia is not reliable source of reference and New Scientist is not an official reference for objective science.

Please, provide link to researches and web pages without commercial bias.

Yes. Now please explain how that helps you determine the "appropriate" way to use one's genitals, please.

I observe nature.

What do you mean "can't" ? I thought it was a choice ?

Where did I said "can't"?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Okay then. Let me spell it out for you.


1. You posted a list explaining your POV--why homosexuality is unnatural.
2. I posted a list that mostly counter argued by showing you examples that both heterosexual people and heterosexual animals do the exact same things you listed. Did you notice the "?" at the end of #4?
3. You did not reply, other than ask what you are supposed to do with the list.
4. What you should do: either disprove that I have shown you that your list of why homosexuality is unnatural is hogwash--since heterosexuals do the exact same things--or accept that you don't have a leg to stand on.

My expectation: you will not even reply to this post. You are very selective about responding to others. You cherry pick when you can find something to say, or seemingly feign confusion or ask for clarification. No language barriers can account for this, IMO.

Your posts suggest that you find homosexuality icky; your posts seem to show an inability to employ empathy, compassion, and understanding of others who think or feel differently than you.

I asked what to do with the list, not a psychological examination of my character.

My posting history (especially in community), has convinced many that I possess these qualities, even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue. (I have received many pms from members telling me just that)

Are you conspiring against me with members of this community?

The world is changing, whether you like it or not. Progress is inevitable, regardless of what you think or feel. I expect you will never change your POV, even if someone close to you is homosexual.

That saddens me. But such is life.

What you mean by POV?

 

[SnakeTongue]

that is not the question.
you were asked if you could choose to be homosexual.
that is the crux of the matter.

No, I think I could not choose adopt the homosexual orientation.

for example, i could not choose to be straight. it would be an unnatural thing for me, since i was born queer.

You did not born queer. You born a male which developed a queer behaviour. "Queer" is not a gender identity.

 

[Alan]

I am not here to be correct. This is not a classroom. This is a forum in the cyberspace to debate.

Is this an admission that you just want to be argumentative, and do not care about whether what you write is factual?

We should use facts to reach the positions that we hold, and debates should be based not on contrarianism but the desire see which position is better supported by the facts.

I will happily change my point of view when in a debate with somebody who has a convincing argument. I like being right, and think that you do too. For me, that involves letting go of beliefs that I find out were wrong.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Dolphins have been seen engaging in homosexual and/or bisexual relationships for pleasure. I don't have the link, but I do remember reading it somewhere.

How do you know that was for pleasure?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Is this an admission that you just want to be argumentative, and do not care about whether what you write is factual?

We should use facts to reach the positions that we hold, and debates should be based not on contrarianism but the desire see which position is better supported by the facts.

I will happily change my point of view when in a debate with somebody who has a convincing argument. I like being right, and think that you do too. For me, that involves letting go of beliefs that I find out were wrong.

If you mean that:

argumentative

adjective
1 given to arguing:
2 using or characterized by systematic reasoning:

Yes, with much care to facts.

 

[Emet]

I asked what to do with the list, not a psychological examination of my character.

I did nothing of the sort. I drew conclusions from your posts about your posts. You perceive it as personal. It is not.

Are you conspiring against me with another members of this community?

Are you serious? CT------------------------->

I specifically stated it had to do with community posts. The community sub-forum. Have you even posted there? It had absolutely, positively, nothing at all to do with you. The evidence is there for you to see--and draw your own conclusions. I have only interacted with you in this thread, to the best of my recollection.

What you mean by POV?

Point of view.

But as expected, you did not answer my question--you know the one with the question mark. Nor did you refute that your view of what is unnatural is exactly what heterosexuals do. As I pointed out in #4.

So once again, evasion noted, and nice derail.

 

[Alan]

No, I mean that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, without caring about whether what you are saying is correct or not. That is what you wrote looks like.

I am not here to be correct. This is not a classroom. This is a forum in the cyberspace to debate.

 

[Nichiro]

Methinks that HS is a rebellion against Normal.