no one chooses to be gay.
last night, I chose captain crunch over rice chex cereal.
gays don't choose the same sex over the opposite sex.
learn about science sometime.
Homosexuality is a choice
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homosexuality
no one chooses to be gay.
last night, I chose captain crunch over rice chex cereal.
gays don't choose the same sex over the opposite sex.
learn about science sometime.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,583
If homosexuals "choose" to be gay, that would then imply that heterosexuals "choose" to be straight.
Since this is the theory Bishadi is championing, I'd be curious to know how long he/she considered being gay before finally deciding on heterosexuality.
Since this is the theory Bishadi is championing, I'd be curious to know how long he/she considered being gay before finally deciding on heterosexuality.
wrong and proven by reality (science)
sure, it is a preference.
taste
likes and wants
ie... you could survive on what you have in the garbage longer than a bad choice of life
science is of biology which supercedes psychology when descibing 'life'.
your chosen preference to define "sexual orientation" is defined by what a psychologist may have pubslished but of biology, the gender exhibits the sexual orientation of the life (the living organism)
Did that perform a better set of comprehensible FACTS for you?
biology and how life exists within nature succumbs to the personal preferences of a self centered cause. By science, homosexuality is based on many factors within an environment but the life itself, has a direct purpose (to continue living).
homosexuality in the sense of causing your body to function in the fun abnormal bs, is the choice of the person or of the animal world often of non reproductive frustrations
If you cannot prove mother nature as showing the biology of life, then you are simply living in the world of personal preferences and misleading information.
"it's not nice to fool with mother nature"
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Bishadi, Can you or can you not provide empirical evidence for your statements about sexual orientation. Your statements have trespassed into science and are therefore subject to scientific scrutiny. If you want to say that acting on a homosexual impulse is a sin or violates some religious morality that's fine. It's unsophisticated and betrays a certain insecurity but it's not a scientific question. Saying that someone is not born a homosexual is a falsifiable statement. Can you support it with verifiable, repeatable results?
sure....
you can look between your legs and say 'hey i was born this way'
or you can lie to yourself
straight and narrow are true and false
i didnt decide, i comprehended what the parts were for.
Some do some funny stuff with them parts and then try to call it love!
Weirdest thing you even could realize!
homosexuality is a choice?
prove it.
the rest of us made a consciouce "choice" to be straight?
prove it.
I do not recall the moment when I decided I was sexually attracted to women and not men. I simply felt it. No choice was involved. No debate on the matter took place.
sure i can.
what is between your legs? Now go look into a book what genitilia are for.
I am sure you will find out what the life of your mass is sexually orientated too, by fact.
It is easy, most birth certificates have a doctor write it down for each child born.
Then some crazy folks ar trying to redefine biology and make up stuff, like; 'well because he got a chumby from looking at a boy, he must have some gene called happy jeans'.............. and so fools are created by believing that dark matter is why the math is wrong; just create a new defining set of principles.
the sexual orientation of a biological life, is biological not the choice.
sexual preferences can only really be found applicable to a life, making a choice.
i trespass against and over any wall that is build maintaining misleading logic, fact and especially science.
i like to dance
i dont do religious adherance, i know science a weee bit more than you may comprehend just yet
as for religious morality, well heck that is like a red light district
i post up the biological rendition; hemorphridite
that life can be identified genetically and thereby has that back-n-forth capability.
but if any one else claims, they were born 'gay' (actually biology of same sex needs (procreate)), then they will be genetically hemorphridite or simply a liar.
there is no other benchmark to define that same sex people have sex but choice (personal preference).
i could care less what doctor, professor, paper, god or president claims otherwise.
biology renders the sexual orientation; going against the biological life, is of personal choice
deal with it!
Can you support it with verifiable, repeatable results?[/QUOTE]
bikerdruid
Philosopher
bishadi is a lost cause.
he will not even attempt to prove that which he thinks is the truth.
there is no science involved.
proof is found in nature
if you cant see it, then it aint my duty to force you
biology renders everything you live on, breath of, eat, sleep and survive within its grasp; you can choose anything you want, but you cant win against reality.
some people have dogs that hate cops too (is it the uniform, the mannerism, the sounds, what makes a dog react such ways)
that is a bold faced lie.
nature provides the evidence and some people like to believe the papers
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
[/QUOTE]
I'm not making a statement about how someone arrives at their orientation, you are. Your question at the end makes it perfectly obvious you don't understand the scientific method. You made the statement, now support it. You have failed to do so thus far.
Now, what well designed studies are you basing your statements on? Are there any? Who did them? Where were they published? Prove biology renders sexual orientation.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Bishadi, why are you ignoring this simple question?
This is the first time I've used an ignore function in any internet forum. But bishadi earned it fair and square.
Let me know if we ever have a best troll award . . .
as i comprehend from both points of view
I use empathy. (you can too)
i could care less about being accepted. I did not post here to make the scientific community happy, nor you.
If the METHOD within the system was as credible as you believe, then ww3 will not occur with the use of nuclear weapons.
like wise, each child born would be able to comprehend what is the live of their mass is, versus believing they can choose to change, their very sexual orientation simply by choice.
just because artists can look like another and doctors can create a women from a man, does not mean their physiological existence changed from being a man. It means mankind can do far more with science than just 'good'.
Honesty!
Yes
we all can
Dont need to be published, each can learn themselves versus trying to be accepted in a scientific journal.
You like the approach that 'if they accept it, then i will'
which is like most religious adherants too.
you may have confidence is the 'systems', i dont after watching the hydrogen technology, not to mention what thomas edison himself did to styme knowledge for the purpose of business.
Heck the gay marriage issue in itself is rude as the homo asect of gay directly contradicts the intent of term "marriage" (lineage protection by male and female for copulation; historically speaking of course (no religion involved)).
that whole issue is an oxymoron based on terms itself (homosexual marriage).
i will bet that is going to bug you too?
it is the gender
So from weeee little birds to the weeee little bees, each are born with their gender/sexual orientation upon conception unless hemorphridite (and some are)
ALLLLLLLLL the rest do it by choice.
ie... there is no biology within mammels to prove anything other than what nature shares unless you choose the psychological approach and since the sickman freud beginnings, when he said "its' moms fault" he meant the environment affects many 'preferences'
So from science (biology) to psychology, the majority of facts and truth can be ascertained with HONESTY.
screw the 'system' or being accepted...................If i cared about that, i would just publish the last word.
ie..... if i said i finished the math of newton thru einstein, feynman, and hawkings himself, would you believe me? NO i dont believe you would unless someone else told you it was true.
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
...that homosexuality is widespread amongst the animal kingdom (i.e. humans and other fauna).
Here's just one newspaper report on a study of 1,000 species:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...spread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html
See what I did there: I cited a source. That's what helps to reinforce an argument.
bookitty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 5,732
Wait, so now you are saying that reproduction is necessary narcissism? While that does explain nearly all of your posts, it is utterly ridiculous. My specific self would not be replicated even if I did have a child. That child would be a unique individual, (as per your own argument, btw.) So the parents of ANY child are not important.
And with that, I am out. Anyone who tries to mix new age garbage with blind bigotry is incapable of reason.
what ever ism you are trying to include is your own doing.
What does EXPLAIN all of my post is the adherance to truth over belief.
you like isms, apparently i like integrityism not the rants of the self-centered
but the contribution of self (cell; sperm/egg) would in fact have a portion of your life, upon that cell that will combine with another life to make a new shade.
(reality, not magic or the selfish identity of an 'i' thinking they are so great)
the life is the importance, not the self.
and i know a child is far more perfect in capability than a selfish old timer who cares nothing for any but themselves (loss to the common)
them are words, rendering a complete lack of appreciating for even being alive
thanks as no one needs selfishness to be the approach to observe anything of truth.
Or anyone that maintains bigotry for their own needs, desires and selfish pursuits are a 'loss to the common' (bad) by choice.
i am honest enough to represent my sexual orientation is based on the gender of my birth (biology) as it is easy to provide the evidence; by looking between my legs.
the selfish will try to hide what they are because it has been accepted that acting a part is just OK (false witness).
ThermionicScott
An Excellent Heat Source
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 142
Apparently you've never heard of Louise Brown. She was kind of a big deal.
Also, the correct spelling is "hermaphrodite".
Also, thanks for the sig material. It's truer than you realize.
- Scott
"these are the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality." -- Bishadi
Last edited:
have you ever read up on how the strong survive, while the weak dont? Something about the fittest of the species?
I would bet the honest are far more capable as human beings than liars!
OJ simpson was not convicted of murder because the defense offered doubt too, but anyone with any common sense, knows the police did not place goldmans blood in OJ's vehicle.
ie.... just because you post an exception does not mean it overules what is normal.
i know reality may hurt but try and find you wil like yourself a bunch more.
just as PERHAPS you didnt read the clip you grabbed
i always leave and opening. (its called objective science, as it is kind of a philosophy to me)
ie... you have ONE example.................... how many others?
can anyone show me a butt baby (born by 2 men)?
i am leaving it open to a maybe, to the extent, of maybe 'a god' did it
any post that people claim that sexual orientation is divergent from the gender of the biological life is what i call the kind of moronic posts that twist up reality.
although to be scientific i am open that hermaphradite (i r smaught and learning) is/are the exception(s)
but all others that do the same sexual things, are of choice!!!!!! (ooops, unless forced........... (another disclosure).
Last edited: