The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[afbarnes]

Given his general attitude, I think his use of the word "cute" was sarcastic and thus his concern for appearing homophobic.

ohh..


how rude..

 

[Famine]

When someone is screaming for help that he's being strangled by a Chinese guy, you go help the guy instead of spending an hour telling him he's actually Japanese

Relevance?

About that part yes. I told you I won't discuss it. Erase the latter part, consider the "yes" only. Ok?

You're... bringing things you won't discuss into discussion to tell us you won't discuss it? What?

Just as everyone should know by now the difference between hypothesis and theory, right? It doesn't matter what people's education are, what the right thing is. I'm all for trying to spread the accurate terminology, but ignoring a point in a discussion for the sake of it is extremely annoying.

Indeed, so stop doing it.

Your point was that the average age for puberty is 9 (it's not) and so telling a girl about it at 8 is too young. If 9 is the average, 8 isn't too young because 8 is within standard deviation of the average.

Again, you're dissembling. You said that and now you're trying to talk round in circles so much that we'll all forget it. Not going to happen.

In the planet I live in, it's 1 in 100. Actually it's 0 in 100, but I put a 1 case for the odd case.

No, it's 1 in 6. It's nearer 1 in 100 for precocious puberty (before 5).

That's the problem. I never said that. Even @Imari acknowledged that I CLEARLY SAID I WOULD GIVE THEM THE TALK IF THEY EVER ASK QUESTIONS.

Prior to that you said you wouldn't give them the talk until they reached puberty - which you've already conceded over and over again that you have absolutely no clue about when that is. Giving them the talk only when they've either got breasts or their voice has broken is too late. Waiting for them to approach you is also too late - particularly if these things coincide.

Having the talk with the kids prematurely, may cause harm. Thus, I'd like to minimize the external influence that may prompt the kids to ask me to do the talk. Is that clear? Please tell me it's clear.

Not having the talk with kids before is happens actually does cause harm, thus you being too embarrassed to do it is more harmful.

Have you heard of The Samaritans? They're a suicide prevention charity - you phone them and they have advisers to talk to you about your problems. Would you like to know their origins? They were founded by a vicar named Chad Varah who found himself grief-stricken at the graveside of a girl who had killed herself entirely avoidably. She'd started bleeding and, figuring she was seriously ill, took her own life before the illness took her. She was actually menstruating, but no-one had ever told her and there was no-one for her to talk to. Chad Varah set up the service so that everyone had someone to talk to.

This girl killed herself because she started her period and the responsible adults in her life had never told her about it. I guess she never approached them, so they didn't bother. That's not an ideal you should be holding up.

Do you have to say it directly? You can just apologize for accidentally hinting at it

I didn't hint at anything, I didn't insinuate anything, I've no idea what you're talking about and I am in no way beholden to apologise for the contents of your head. Perhaps you want to enlighten me what the hell you're going on about?

It isn't.

Yes it is. Foolkiller said absolutely nothing about you at all so how you got the implication that he thinks you're a paedophile parent from his post is known to you and you alone.

You really justify that? Two soldiers, not on duty, racially profiling a local for having a beard. Wow.

Have soldiers never been killed by terrorist acts off duty?

Racial profiling keeps them alive. Had they beaten you up for looking a bit arab and having a beard, that would be racism.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Given his general attitude, I think his use of the word "cute" was sarcastic and thus his concern for appearing homophobic.

Keep dreaming.

ohh..


how rude..

Don't believe his lies. I genuinely thought it was cute. I wanted to know if you were going to do what Azuremen did and assume I'm a homophobe being sarcastic. I'm glad you didn't.

Relevance?

This thread. You focus on being accurate and ignore the point until it dies.

You're... bringing things you won't discuss into discussion to tell us you won't discuss it? What?

This was started by an off topic bit. A little comment I made on the side that you should not have replied to because I said I wasn't going further with it.

Your point was that the average age for puberty is 9 (it's not) and so telling a girl about it at 8 is too young. If 9 is the average, 8 isn't too young because 8 is within standard deviation of the average.

Again, you're dissembling. You said that and now you're trying to talk round in circles so much that we'll all forget it. Not going to happen.

Oh my god is this how people feel when I argue with them?

Dude, get over it. When I said "average" I didn't mean the scientific term. I've already acknowledged that what I said wasn't mathematically accurate or significant to my point. Get over it, really.

No, it's 1 in 6. It's nearer 1 in 100 for precocious puberty (before 5).

I've asked 100 girls(and I could ask more) and 0 of them had their first menstrual bleeding before the age of 10. Explain.

Prior to that you said you wouldn't give them the talk until they reached puberty

- which you've already conceded over and over again that you have absolutely no clue about when that is. Giving them the talk only when they've either got breasts or their voice has broken is too late.

I MIGHT see where the confusion is, and what your excuse may be for trying to me, so I'll...ugh.

Is this this:
"I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty."

What you mean by me I said I wouldn't give them the talk until they've reached puberty? Allow me to nitpick. I didn't say that, I said I'd RATHER not. The point of saying that was emphasizing how important prolonging the child's "innocence" to me. When you specifically asked, I said I'd consider it at 8-10(which is before).

The whole signs thing wasn't directly related, forget about it.

you being too embarrassed to do it is more harmful.

When, on earth did I say I'm too embarrassed? Quote me.

Have you heard of The Samaritans? They're a suicide prevention charity - you phone them and they have advisers to talk to you about your problems. Would you like to know their origins? They were founded by a vicar named Chad Varah who found himself grief-stricken at the graveside of a girl who had killed herself entirely avoidably. She'd started bleeding and, figuring she was seriously ill, took her own life before the illness took her. She was actually menstruating, but no-one had ever told her and there was no-one for her to talk to. Chad Varah set up the service so that everyone had someone to talk to.

Here you are again pretending I don't know how bad it can get. If you're doing this as a favour to me, because you care about my (future) kids, thanks. If you're doing it just to argue, stop.

Perhaps you want to enlighten me what the hell you're going on about?

No. I forgive you anyway.

Have soldiers never been killed by terrorist acts off duty?

Have black people never been enslaved by white people? That doesn't justify a black guy racial profiling to keep out of capture.

Racial profiling keeps them alive.

In combat. Not in a civilian environment. If I wanted to blow them up I could, their racial profiling wouldn't be able to save them.

Had they beaten you up for looking a bit arab and having a beard, that would be racism.

It really has to go that far? So calling a black guy by the N word isn't racist, as long as I don't beat the **** out of him? Those aren't rhetorical questions btw.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Just to be clear, I've not got a problem with your chosen sexuality or anything, I just wanted to pick up a couple of points here...

But I think that homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing. A quote from someone I saw gave an interesting point in regards to this

"Being hetrosexual isn't normal, it's just more common."

Surely most life has naturally evolved to be heterosexual? How does a homosexual resolve the typically in-built need to procreate and continue the species, with the fact that through the missing biological requirements of either themselves, or their mate, this basic human urge cannot be fulfilled? On a contemporary social level I would guess this question might pose a personal dilemma for many gay/lesbian couples - but thanks to society and science, it's not an insurmountable problem... In nature surely the driving force is mainly for heterosexuality?

.. just to be clear, I agree that acting on your physical impulses is a natural thing to do, I'm just not sure 'natural' is the word I'd use to describe homosexuality - at least in humans, since we are not an asexual species and require 'one of each' to continue our existence.

This is a statement that I fully believe in, sexuality and gender has the potential to be a very fluid thing in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity, there are famous cases of men being heterosexuals their entire lives many with wives and children, but will wake up one day and suddenly no longer feel a sexual attraction to their wives. There is nothing saying that that no longer love them anymore it's just that they do not find them sexually appealing.

If you take sexual attraction to be a biological lust, I think it's generally accepted (and I think proven) that sexual attraction only lasts a for a relatively short amount of time anyway, with the long-term relationship sustained by common needs, goals and shared experiences. In this respect I can see how a homosexual relationship may be more natural long-term, since it's easier to co-exist with someone who has the same capacity for reasoning and logic as you (slightly tongue in cheek on that last bit).

 

[Encyclopedia]

Slightly tongue in cheek?

 

[PeterJB]

I'm guessing he means the differences between the workings of each gender's brain.

 

[Imari]

I think it's becoming clear from this and other threads that at best this man is misguided, at worst he's an active troll who is eager to jump on the most minute of imagined slights.

As much as I'm all for discussion in the hope that at least one side will learn something new and the world will be a better place, there's a point at which you realise that the other party is incapable of presenting their opinion rationally.

@BHRxRacer, I sincerely hope you never have children, and if you do have the misfortune to, I sincerely hope that they grow up into fine, intelligent, kind and loving human beings despite all your efforts to the contrary.

You are the reason why parenthood should be considered a privilege and a burden, not a right. All children everywhere deserve better than your mumbled apologia for your ill-considered actions.

Ignore list +1.

In nature surely the driving force is mainly for heterosexuality?

You'd think so, but consider that homosexuality hasn't disappeared from humanity in however many thousands of years of evolution. It must have some evolutionary advantage. Whether that be to the society as a whole, in that it's advantageous to have a certain amount of individuals be homosexual to fulfill some societal niche, or whether it's due to the scale of sexuality.

People are not strictly het or homo, there's a bit of a scale going on, as we can see with bisexuals and people who are mostly for one sex but a bit bi in the right situation. If the optimum were to be hetero with a bit of homo thrown in, then "pure" homos are still going to turn up fairly regularly as a result of statistics, along with the rest of the spectrum. If the optimum were pure hetero you'd expect everything else to become very rare in short order.

Such is my theory, that the most attractive people for mating have some homosexual characteristics, and thus these characteristics are kept alive in the population even though all children are created through heterosexual partnerings.

 

[Famine]

This thread. You focus on being accurate and ignore the point until it dies

As I said, accuracy is important in discussion. Why does the nationality of a man beating someone else up enter into it?

This was started by an off topic bit. A little comment I made on the side that you should not have replied to because I said I wasn't going further with it.

It's my fault for replying to something that you said but didn't want anyone replying to?

What?

Oh my god is this how people feel when I argue with them?

Dude, get over it. When I said "average" I didn't mean the scientific term. I've already acknowledged that what I said wasn't mathematically accurate or significant to my point. Get over it, really.

Ah, it was a rectal origin statistic.

I've asked 100 girls(and I could ask more) and 0 of them had their first menstrual bleeding before the age of 10. Explain.

And you say you don't need any lesson in mathematics?

Statistically, the 100 girls you asked represent 0.0000025% of the population. In your terms, that would be 0 in 100. Try a relevant sample size in the future.

I MIGHT see where the confusion is, and what your excuse may be for trying to me, so I'll...ugh.

Is this this:
"I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty."

What you mean by me I said I wouldn't give them the talk until they've reached puberty? Allow me to nitpick. I didn't say that, I said I'd RATHER not. The point of saying that was emphasizing how important prolonging the child's "innocence" to me. When you specifically asked, I said I'd consider it at 8-10(which is before).

It's not before... they hit the first stage of puberty - the adrenarche - at a median age of 6. I did a big paragraph explaining this to you.

When, on earth did I say I'm too embarrassed? Quote me.

I gave you two options for not explaining it any earlier. The first was you thinking it's harmful, but I then explained how it's harmful not to with very real examples of deaths caused by not explaining it. The second was embarrassment. Now, given that you acknowledge how harmful it is to not explain it before they experience it in the next paragraph I'm going to assume you don't think it's because it's harmful to explain it any more. Which leaves embarrassment.

Which is nothing to be ashamed of particularly. In Britain we're a bit reserved about the sex thing and I can only imagine what it's like in a non-secular state which still bans premarital sex - but I'd rather have a bit of a red face than a bit of a dead child.

No. I forgive you anyway.

For?

I'm still at a loss how you got an accusation of paedophilic parenthood out of Foolkiller's post. How you got an insinuation of being a child molester from me saying that parents should explain sex to their kids, but not by a practical lesson... mindblowing.

Have black people never been enslaved by white people? That doesn't justify a black guy racial profiling to keep out of capture.

That's not racial profiling. Racial profiling is the technique of determining likely behaviours based on ethnological origin. The threat of black enslavement is more or less gone now, so "slaver" is not a likely behaviour for a white guy.

In combat. Not in a civilian environment.

If I wanted to blow them up I could, their racial profiling wouldn't be able to save them.

Actually it would. Racial profiling governs the profilers' behaviour too.

It really has to go that far?

Yes.

Let's be fair, it's racist to see someone of another race and think ill of them on that basis alone, but if you don't behave any differently towards them, how will anyone know? The key to racism isn't being thought police, but managing behaviour. A racist is a guy who treats people of different races differently - typically badly, but not always - because of their race.

So calling a black guy by the N word isn't racist, as long as I don't beat the **** out of him?

Apparently the N-word is only racist now if you're of a different race - which seems curiously racist, as it applies different standards to people of different races.

But let's look at it. If I call someone a nobhead, a numpty, a nincompoop or a nutsack it's pretty insulting. If I call them a "the N word" is it more insulting or is it just another insulting word? What if I'm also black? What if they aren't - what if I call a white guy "the N word"? What if a white guy calls a black guy a numpty just because he's black?

It seems like it's not the word that's racist, it's the guy using it - and he doesn't need to use that word or any other to be a racist. He's just unpleasant because he's insulting people.

When he starts to treat them differently - deliberately walking into them on the pavement, refusing to give them a light (even though he has one and has given it to a white guy) because they're black, refusing them service - he's a racist.


Being racially profiled isn't nice - but an awful lot of guys have been killed by an awful lot of "insurgents" that just so happen to match your ethnological background (one assumes). They're treating you with a little wariness that is also unpleasant, but it's not because you're of that background alone. In fact the reason they're there at all is to help the civilian population that are all of that background.

If they were racist, they'd leave you to your own problems or, resenting being there, just kick the crap out of you when no-one's looking. This also happens, because soldiers are not precluded from being racists.

 

[afbarnes]

Just to be clear, I've not got a problem with your chosen sexuality or anything, I just wanted to pick up a couple of points here...

My sexuality isn't chosen. I didn't choose to be gay. I am gay. You didn't choose to be straight? (I am only assuming you are straight)

Surely most life has naturally evolved to be heterosexual? How does a homosexual resolve the typically in-built need to procreate and continue the species, with the fact that through the missing biological requirements of either themselves, or their mate, this basic human urge cannot be fulfilled? On a contemporary social level I would guess this question might pose a personal dilemma for many gay/lesbian couples - but thanks to society and science, it's not an insurmountable problem... In nature surely the driving force is mainly for heterosexuality?

.. just to be clear, I agree that acting on your physical impulses is a natural thing to do, I'm just not sure 'natural' is the word I'd use to describe homosexuality - at least in humans, since we are not an asexual species and require 'one of each' to continue our existence.

I completely understand where you are coming from, but homosexuality has been found in many other species including insects, monkey's and lions. I know that the biological function of sex is to procreate, but being homosexual just eliminates the genes being passed on. Like the quote I posted, It's not normal to be heterosexual, it's just more common hence why they human race can continue, there are far more heterosexual people on the planet that allow for the race to continue, then homosexual people who are cut from the gene pool.

But then there is also the possibility of infertility. Either partner may be infertile or have trouble conceiving (weak sperm, low sperm count, the vagina being too acidic) this goes back to your point about homosexuality not filling the urge to procreate, infertility must come under a similar area no? Before modern science this would have cause genes to no be passed on and now it can be catered for with medicine and in some cases IVF.

If you take sexual attraction to be a biological lust, I think it's generally accepted (and I think proven) that sexual attraction only lasts a for a relatively short amount of time anyway, with the long-term relationship sustained by common needs, goals and shared experiences.

Again your point rings true, biological lust is what keeps species going, that's why men can continue to produce sperm while women only have a set number of eggs. Men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible to pass on their genes. Now obviously in our society that generally isn't the case, as we have many services to cater for many different people, this idea of impregnating as many females as possible is seen more frequently in nature. It is now societies constructs that keep people together, such as family, jobs etc.

In this respect I can see how a homosexual relationship may be more natural long-term, since it's easier to co-exist with someone who has the same capacity for reasoning and logic as you (slightly tongue in cheek on that last bit).

Could you expand on this? What would a capacity for reasoning and logic, similar to myself, have an impact on a homosexual realationship?

 

[kennylmao]

**** six, having it at the age of 8 is an anomaly. When I said the average is 9 here, I had ignored what my female friends told me about themselves and went with what my sister told me years ago from her observation. Basing it on my own, and judging it strictly by the dozens of women I've talked to, the lowest number I got was 10. Actually, yesterday I asked a 3# year old American chick(lives there, never moved, so it's not just Middle eastern girls) that said she got it at 12 and never heard of anybody getting it before 10. 8 being too late? **** that, it's too early.
I've developed a theory (or hypothesis, if you'll nitpick that and dodge the argument as usual) regarding how/when you hit puberty. Given how you guys do things here though, I'd rather not share it.
Just answer this, preferably with a source: What's the percentage of females that hit puberty before the age of 8?

It's gotta be the McDonalds man, I'm tellin ya!

 

[mister dog]

I work in HR so my floor is mostly crowded with women and we have a lot of gay men working there. We can already form a football team of 11 with all the gay men present on my floor. Many colleagues and some of my direct bosses are gay men so over the years i've gotten to know a bit more about the subject than i normally would have working construction or something

As far as i see it, in my opinion it's a switch around in the brain. For gay men they were born with female brains in male bodies, and for lesbians they possess male brains in female bodies. I know my explanation is a bit simple and rudimentary, but after all these years being around them that's my view on the matter.

And because gay people feel this way, and now have the chance to finally be open about it, they will go a bit further than your average man/woman to show that they are in touch with their inner sexuality, but that's a natural consequence of having to conseal it to the outside world for so many centuries i think.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

 

[BHRxRacer]

As I said, accuracy is important in discussion. Why does the nationality of a man beating someone else up enter into it?

Right, because accuracy is only important in a discussion.

You're doing it again you know, it's not funny and it doesn't make you appear smarter. If you're trying to troll me, I applaud you. You have done well. I tried to take you seriously, so it worked really well.

And you say you don't need any lesson in mathematics?

You need a lesson in growing up and arguing people's point instead of jumping at every chance you get to try to correct something being inaccurate.

I won't give you the pleasure of telling you my IQ, education or even use the "accurate" terminology here, if that's what you're trying to get out of me.

Try a relevant sample size in the future.

You try, and show me that it's 1 in 6.

gave you two options for not explaining it any earlier. The first was you thinking it's harmful, but I then explained how it's harmful not to with very real examples of deaths caused by not explaining it.

It can be harmful explaining it early. Deal with it. Just because it can be harmful not to all, which I've said was not going to happen, doesn't mean they're going to kill themselves. I'll tell them when I think they're ready, and it'll be before it can cause damage. Until then, I'd like to keep away intimacy.

The second was embarrassment. Now, given that you acknowledge how harmful it is to not explain it before they experience it in the next paragraph I'm going to assume you don't think it's because it's harmful to explain it any more. Which leaves embarrassment.

Which is nothing to be ashamed of particularly. In Britain we're a bit reserved about the sex thing and I can only imagine what it's like in a non-secular state which still bans premarital sex - but I'd rather have a bit of a red face than a bit of a dead child.For?

I'm probably the last guy to be embarrassed into talking about that. Even by your own people's standards, let alone Bahrain's.

That's not racial profiling. Racial profiling is the technique of determining likely behaviours based on ethnological origin. The threat of black enslavement is more or less gone now, so "slaver" is not a likely behaviour for a white guy.

The threat of being blown up by a guy that looks like me, in Bahrain, 0. Not more or less, not slim, ****ing zero. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan.

A racist is a guy who treats people of different races differently - typically badly, but not always - because of their race.

Like those soldiers treated me because of my race? Thanks for proving my point.


To be continued. BTW I agree with the N word thing.

 

[afbarnes]

As far as i see it, in my opinion it's a switch around in the brain. For gay men they were born with female brains in male bodies, and for lesbians they possess male brains in female bodies. I know my explanation is a bit simple and rudimentary, but after all these years being around them that's my view on the matter.

It's slightly more complex then that i believe haha but in short it does kinda make sense

however to say that i have a female brain isn't quite true, yes i may like clothes and fashion a bit more than many other men, but i also enjoy playing computer games, cars, tinkering with machinery and doing technical drawing which i can only assume many women wouldn't enjoy, if you were to stand me next to my friend, (who works for an architectural firm) he does all this, he play's games religiously, tinkers with his motorbike relentlessly and has rough drafts that have been given to him from work for him to do, the only difference between us is who we go to bed with haha 👍

 

[mister dog]

It's slightly more complex then that i believe haha but in short it does kinda make sense

however to say that i have a female brain isn't quite true, yes i may like clothes and fashion a bit more than many other men, but i also enjoy playing computer games, cars, tinkering with machinery and doing technical drawing which i can only assume many women wouldn't enjoy, if you were to stand me next to my friend, (who works for an architectural firm) he does all this, he play's games religiously, tinkers with his motorbike relentlessly and has rough drafts that have been given to him from work for him to do, the only difference between us is who we go to bed with haha 👍

True, of course not the whole brain of a gay person is feminine/ male and there's other factors like hormones (levels of testosteron/ oestrogen), complicating the mix up there. But i still believe there's a bases of truth in my rudimentary caveman explanation

 

[afbarnes]

True, of course not the whole brain of a gay person is feminine/ male and there's other factors like hormones (levels of testosteron/ oestrogen), complicating the mix up there. But i still believe there's a bases of truth in my rudimentary caveman explanation

But of course!

 

[Famine]

Right, because accuracy is only important in a discussion.

Actually I'm fond of accuracy in most parts of my life. Weird logical fallacy aside, I still don't really know why being beaten up by a Chinese man is relevant.

You need a lesson in growing up and arguing people's point instead of jumping at every chance you get to try to correct something being inaccurate.

Uhhh-huh.

So when you make the point that 0% of girls on the planet go through puberty before 9 because none of the 100 girls you asked told you that they had and I mention that this isn't a statistically significant sample size (I didn't even mention the facts that you're using poor scientific method [your study isn't even blind, never mind double-blind] and you're recording heresay rather than objective fact)... I'm not arguing the point?

Cool.

I won't give you the pleasure of telling you my IQ, education or even use the "accurate" terminology here, if that's what you're trying to get out of me.

I don't care about any of those things apart from the accuracy - who you are matters so much less than what you say. I guess you don't care about the accuracy either, which explains why you're having a lot of trouble.

You try, and show me that it's 1 in 6.

It's actually quite difficult to do, but readily available statistics in the US put the age at first menstruation at nearly 1 in 2 before they are 11 (with a median age at 12.4 - it seems that latecomers are rarer and much, much later). It's a higher rate at a younger age in particularly black populations in developed western countries and it seems to be a lower rate at an older age in Asian ones.

It can be harmful explaining it early. Deal with it.

Explain how. Best you've managed so far is "innocence". Kids don't function that way - if you tell them that the penis goes in the vagina to make babies, they laugh about it. They don't instantly try to find something to screw.

Just because it can be harmful not to all, which I've said was not going to happen, doesn't mean they're going to kill themselves. I'll tell them when I think they're ready, and it'll be before it can cause damage.

And you risk being so late that you've caused damage.

Until then, I'd like to keep away intimacy

Yeah, you're not telling them about the benefits of the wheelbarrow vs. missionary... You're telling them about things that arm them.

The threat of being blown up by a guy that looks like me, in Bahrain, 0. Not more or less, not slim, ****ing zero. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan

It's non-zero. The same as it is in Britain.

Like those soldiers treated me because of my race? Thanks for proving my point.

They didn't treat you differently - unless there's something you're not telling us? Did they yell "Oi, raghead? Piss off!" or subject you to an unreasonable search? Or did they change their own behaviour?

Being wary due to racial profiling saves lives (theirs). Being a nob because of racism doesn't.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I work in HR so my floor is mostly crowded with women and we have a lot of gay men working there. We can already form a football team of 11 with all the gay men present on my floor. Many colleagues and some of my direct bosses are gay men so over the years i've gotten to know a bit more about the subject than i normally would have working construction or something

As far as i see it, in my opinion it's a switch around in the brain. For gay men they were born with female brains in male bodies, and for lesbians they possess male brains in female bodies. I know my explanation is a bit simple and rudimentary, but after all these years being around them that's my view on the matter.

And because gay people feel this way, and now have the chance to finally be open about it, they will go a bit further than your average man/woman to show that they are in touch with their inner sexuality, but that's a natural consequence of having to conseal it to the outside world for so many centuries i think.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

I know where you're coming from, but that sounds more like transsexuality.

 

[LeMansAid]

Many colleagues and some of my direct bosses are gay men so over the years i've gotten to know a bit more about the subject than i normally would have working construction or something

Ahhhh???

 

[afbarnes]

Ahhhh???

{PICTURE}

im weeping a little :')

 

[MatskiMonk]

My sexuality isn't chosen. I didn't choose to be gay. I am gay. You didn't choose to be straight? (I am only assuming you are straight)

Fair point, bad word to use. And yes, I'm straight.

I completely understand where you are coming from, but homosexuality has been found in many other species including insects, monkey's and lions. I know that the biological function of sex is to procreate, but being homosexual just eliminates the genes being passed on. Like the quote I posted, It's not normal to be heterosexual, it's just more common hence why they human race can continue, there are far more heterosexual people on the planet that allow for the race to continue, then homosexual people who are cut from the gene pool.

But then there is also the possibility of infertility. Either partner may be infertile or have trouble conceiving (weak sperm, low sperm count, the vagina being too acidic) this goes back to your point about homosexuality not filling the urge to procreate, infertility must come under a similar area no? Before modern science this would have cause genes to no be passed on and now it can be catered for with medicine and in some cases IVF.

I just think that the required default position for most species to survive is hetero, and whilst a can appreciate that homosexuals want to avoid any negative labels being applied to them, I can't help but feel that 'Normal' is a perfectly adequate way to describe a significant majority, especially given that in nature it seems to be the more sensible option (for continuation of the species). Unfortunately, I doubt I can suggest that being straight is normal, without people taking it to mean I'm homophobic - which I'm not.

Could you expand on this? What would a capacity for reasoning and logic, similar to myself, have an impact on a homosexual realationship?

Well, it was a slightly tongue in cheek statement, along the lines that a good portion of the time Men and Women just don't seem to understand each other at times, and therefore a same sex relationship may well be more harmonious.

Slightly tongue in cheek?

See above...

Such is my theory, that the most attractive people for mating have some homosexual characteristics, and thus these characteristics are kept alive in the population even though all children are created through heterosexual partnerings.

I'm not down with the genetics of it all, but that could be the case, certainly the gay guys I know are normally the best dressed I think it's also possible, that in the past, many gay people have just gone along with a heterosexual lifestyle, to avoid persecution, to fit in, because of denial, or any other reason, and as such, have still passed on an element of their genetically dictated sexual orientation, or perhaps they just 'grin and bare it' for the sake of having a child. Looking forward, I'm sure science will enable gay couples to continue to pass on their genes also.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ahhhh???

A friend of mine is doubly blessed; not only is he a firefighter but at the weekends he helps in a Native American "fancy dress" shop. Or something.

Incidentally, the above model's "danglers" (for want of a better word) could become trapped in machinery, not cool. But what a note he'd hit.

(slightly tongue in cheek on that last bit).

Easy tiger...

 

[MatskiMonk]

Again your point rings true, biological lust is what keeps species going, that's why men can continue to produce sperm while women only have a set number of eggs. Men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible to pass on their genes. Now obviously in our society that generally isn't the case, as we have many services to cater for many different people, this idea of impregnating as many females as possible is seen more frequently in nature. It is now societies constructs that keep people together, such as family, jobs etc.

Just wanted to come back to this, I thought this was a good place to start looking into the "why's" of human relationships... http://www.livescience.com/18430-falling-love-brain.html

 

[Danoff]

I've given up on this forum. I did notice a pattern when I first signed up here, and I tried avoiding serious discussions but oh well. Homophobephobia is not uncommon in today's world, I should've expected it.

Phobia implies a fear of, not an intolerance toward. Disliking homophobes is not a phobia (fear), it's a dislike. I dislike all kinds of things I don't fear, like cabbage for example... What you're attempting to do here is to put the intolerant response towards homophobia on the same level as homophobia itself. You think that by categorizing it similarly as a "phobia", that you can impeach the credibility of the stance. In debate, this is a slight of hand, not really a substantive argument.

The thing is, intolerance is not automatically unjustified or inappropriate. There are lots of things that people are absolutely justified at being intolerant of, the easiest one to point to being murder. Almost nobody will claim that being intolerant of murder is a bad thing (for very sound reasons too). So claiming that someone is being intolerant or having a "closed mind" does not actually win you any points. On some subjects my mind is pretty solidly closed - murder being a good example.

Here's an exaggeration of your argument... and just to be clear, I know this is not what you're arguing. This is the logic you are using taken to absurd extremes not for the purpose of illustrating your own point, but for the purpose of illustrating to you just how bad your reasoning is.

You guys say that you're open minded about gays, but when someone wants to round all of the gays up and execute them suddenly you're not very open minded. Rounding-up-gays-and-executing-them-phobia is extremely common, I should have expected it. ​

 

[FoolKiller]

Grow an e-pair and say it. Don't worry, I'm not the type that likes reporting posts. Don't worry about the administrator here either, looks like he'd agree with you.

Without the me being a genius bit.

He added that joke implying I'm that kind of father(and I'm not even a father).

Oooooohhhhh.

Here. I bought you something.

If he didn't mean to, he would've thought my post through and realized that I was referring to boys finding out from other kids.

It's called a joke. It didn't even refer to what I thought of you, but more about the idea.

And learning masturbation from other kids? I don't know if I know of a single case of that. I know of numerous cases of infantile masturbation aka gratification disorder.

I hate to tell you, but most kids figure it out long before they understand sex.

It isn't.

It is.

 

[Exorcet]

but i also enjoy playing computer games, cars, tinkering with machinery and doing technical drawing which i can only assume many women wouldn't enjoy

Let's not forgot cultural considerations. There's no need for a male brain to appreciate cars for instance. However it doesn't help that in a lot of cases males me be raised to hate pink and play with plastic tools while females are taught to raise plastic kids above all else and if they see anything more complex than a stick in mud, that must be meant for men.

I took great notice of gender roles from a young age through watching my parents. My mom especially. I decided it was all nonsense and that I wanted nothing to do with that.

 

[Azuremen]

Keep dreaming.

If by dreaming you mean reading the words you've posted in this thread and taken a similar meaning as everyone else reading them, then yes. But if it makes you feel better, good job, you've tricked us all!!!!11!

Now, if you could go back to that whole "suppressing everyone's sexuality entirely, for the children" bit again, would be neat. Instead you've continually dodged the topic with round about answers. Bahrain is not a great example of human rights so using it as justification fails. And apparently sexuality is out and about their if sex workers are plainly visible (which you've stated) so really wondering how it manages it "just" fine.

 

[afbarnes]

Just wanted to come back to this, I thought this was a good place to start looking into the "why's" of human relationships... http://www.livescience.com/18430-falling-love-brain.html

That's an interesting article, looks at different time spans and such, however i should have made it clear i was coming from the view of just procreation and not including relationships haha

Let's not forgot cultural considerations. There's no need for a male brain to appreciate cars for instance. However it doesn't help that in a lot of cases males me be raised to hate pink and play with plastic tools while females are taught to raise plastic kids above all else and if they see anything more complex than a stick in mud, that must be meant for men.

I took great notice of gender roles from a young age through watching my parents. My mom especially. I decided it was all nonsense and that I wanted nothing to do with that.

Oh I know that, I was just coming from my own angle. I think that forcing gender roles onto a young child is a questionable thing to do. I for one have always been interested in cars since I was a toddler, I wasn't forced to like cars, my parents were very surprised at the fact I could recognise cars manufactures before I was even able to walk.

 

[Danoff]

Let's not forgot cultural considerations. There's no need for a male brain to appreciate cars for instance. However it doesn't help that in a lot of cases males me be raised to hate pink and play with plastic tools while females are taught to raise plastic kids above all else and if they see anything more complex than a stick in mud, that must be meant for men.

I took great notice of gender roles from a young age through watching my parents. My mom especially. I decided it was all nonsense and that I wanted nothing to do with that.

...and yet... some of this is very biological. Gender roles and interests are not just arbitrary things that are forced onto us. Men and women are wired differently.

 

[Exorcet]

...and yet... some of this is very biological. Gender roles and interests are not just arbitrary things that are forced onto us. Men and women are wired differently.

I should clarify and say I'm aware of that and won't attempt to dispute it. There is no denying differences between genders, but it can be taken too far, and I think it was when it comes to what I saw from my family at times. What I referred to as nonsense was not that male and female roles differed, but the some of specific self imposed "limitations" I'd pick out. The man of the house doesn't have to be the handy man even if he's physically stronger and is better able to visualize objects in 3D mentally 95% of the time. On the other hand, the male might take on that job more often than not partially for those reasons.

 

[Danoff]

To be honest, I don't really like it when heterosexual people do this either.