The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on May 14, 2008, 08:28:36 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3285977
Oh my.
The crooked tale primitive:
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-14-08 08:45 PM
Original message
Black University Employee Fired for Stating Homosexuality Not the Same as Colour
TOLEDO, May 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Crystal Dixon, associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo, was first suspended then fired after writing a letter to a local newspaper. In it she responded to a previous article released by the paper that compared the discrimination of homosexuals to that of African-Americans. Dixon, an African-American, challenged the civil rights comparison of race with homosexual behavior, saying that science has never found a genetic cause or DNA for homosexuality. She said many gay people have overcome unwanted homosexual feelings as evidenced by the growing population of PFOX and ex-gay organizations.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) says the University of Toledo's firing of administrator Crystal Dixon for speaking out about PFOX and the ex-gay community is an act of bigotry.
"African-Americans like Dixon have the right to defend their race without being subjected to punishment," said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of PFOX. Dixon was responding to an article by Toledo Free Press Editor Michael Miller, who had compared gay rights to the African-American civil rights movement. Miller also wrote that three women he had dated subsequently declared themselves gay.
The University of Toledo reportedly has a "Safe Places Program" designating space for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning individuals." According to Lloyd Jacobs, president of the university, there is a Safe Places sticker on his door of the president's office. "Mr. Jacobs needs to add ex-gays and African-Americans to that list of campus 'safe spaces," said Griggs. "His firing of Dixon creates an unsafe environment for minorities."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051405.html
"African-Americans like Dixon have the right to defend their race without being subjected to punishment," said Regina Griggs
Ummmm....It wasn't the race defending part that caused the issue.
Jeebus..
angstlessk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-14-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. if she had not been in human resources just some job in the cafeteria fine, but she has access to personel records and if she has that type of attitude I don't think she needs to work in that job. That would be like working in a welfare office and writting op eds about how poor people are lazy bums! Not good for your resume, dear!
Hidey (81 posts) Wed May-14-08 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. She's got a point..
If there's no scientific evidence that homosexuality is anything more than a behavior, then it would be insulting to blacks to compare their plight to that of gays.
I know it's not going to be a popular point, and she's going to get barbecued for it.. But the fact remains that behaviors are choices and can be influenced. Race is not.
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-14-08 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You think homosexuality is a choice?
Are you kidding me?
One of my best friends is gay and there is NO doubt whatsoever that he was born gay. It was not a choice for him. He's not ashamed of it like he used to be, but it doesn't change the fact that he is gay by design and not by choice.
Hidey (81 posts) Wed May-14-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I never said that..
What I said was, from a policy perspective, there's no evidence that this isn't a behavior.
This proof does exist for Race, however,
Her point is a valid one. Why punish her for telling the truth?
And I think it's horribly insulting to blacks.
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed May-14-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. What coriolis said downthread.
coriolis Donating Member (608 posts) Wed May-14-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. **** off, asshole
ES&D
MNBrewer (143 posts) Wed May-14-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. There's proof for race?
Race is an artificial construct, it's not a discrete character, it's a continuous variable.
There is no evidence that races exist.
It's a medium-sized bonfire, but then and again, it's still a pretty new bonfire.
It gets pretty acrimonious; the primitives probably being subconsciously upset that they're about to field the weakest candidate for the presidency since Walter Mundane or George McGovern, or because they dined on non-fibrous cuisine all day long.
-
Oh now, this whole article is damn funny. Blacks, women, gays...the left is twisting themselves in knots these days! Ah the joys of identity politics!
"African-Americans like Dixon have the right to defend their race without being subjected to punishment," said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of PFOX. Dixon was responding to an article by Toledo Free Press Editor Michael Miller, who had compared gay rights to the African-American civil rights movement. Miller also wrote that three women he had dated subsequently declared themselves gay.
Wow...what a charmer he must be!
The University of Toledo reportedly has a "Safe Places Program" designating space for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning individuals." According to Lloyd Jacobs, president of the university, there is a Safe Places sticker on his door of the president's office. "Mr. Jacobs needs to add ex-gays and African-Americans to that list of campus 'safe spaces," said Griggs. "His firing of Dixon creates an unsafe environment for minorities."
Questioning inidividuals? What the heck is that? You can't just be bi? I mean how do you solve that dilemma...let's go have sex so I can see if I like it?
Cindie
-
Oh now, this whole article is damn funny. Blacks, women, gays...the left is twisting themselves in knots these days! Ah the joys of identity politics!
"African-Americans like Dixon have the right to defend their race without being subjected to punishment," said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of PFOX. Dixon was responding to an article by Toledo Free Press Editor Michael Miller, who had compared gay rights to the African-American civil rights movement. Miller also wrote that three women he had dated subsequently declared themselves gay.
Wow...what a charmer he must be!
You took the words out of my mouth. :-) H5!
-
Oh now, this whole article is damn funny. Blacks, women, gays...the left is twisting themselves in knots these days! Ah the joys of identity politics!
"African-Americans like Dixon have the right to defend their race without being subjected to punishment," said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of PFOX. Dixon was responding to an article by Toledo Free Press Editor Michael Miller, who had compared gay rights to the African-American civil rights movement. Miller also wrote that three women he had dated subsequently declared themselves gay.
Wow...what a charmer he must be!
You took the words out of my mouth. :-) H5!
I may not have been the biggest stud in town but at least I didn't drive any women to lesbianism ........although I did date a lesbian for awhile right after my divorce, I knew what she was going in ..........or not going in, if you get my drift...... :-)
-
(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WKWV3RHNL.jpg)
-
I've come to the conclusion that "Normal" is the new minority and should be afforded safe areas.
-
Oh now, this whole article is damn funny. Blacks, women, gays...the left is twisting themselves in knots these days! Ah the joys of identity politics!
"African-Americans like Dixon have the right to defend their race without being subjected to punishment," said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of PFOX. Dixon was responding to an article by Toledo Free Press Editor Michael Miller, who had compared gay rights to the African-American civil rights movement. Miller also wrote that three women he had dated subsequently declared themselves gay.
Wow...what a charmer he must be!
You took the words out of my mouth. :-) H5!
I may not have been the biggest stud in town but at least I didn't drive any women to lesbianism ........although I did date a lesbian for awhile right after my divorce, I knew what she was going in ..........or not going in, if you get my drift...... :-)
That was so bad I HAD to laugh! :rotf:
-
How crazy can you get. There's no comparing race to sexual preference.
Let's say you got 3 men sitting on the subway train all dressed in similar business attire; one is a straight white guy, the other is a white twinkie, and the other is a straight black guy. Some nut gets on the train and says he's going to shoot anyone who's black and/or a twinkie. The twinkie can act straight, the black guy isn't gonna turn white. No comparison, DUmmies.
.
-
How crazy can you get. There's no comparing race to sexual preference.
Let's say you got 3 men sitting on the subway train all dressed in similar business attire; one is a straight white guy, the other is a white twinkie, and the other is a straight black guy. Some nut gets on the train and says he's going to shoot anyone who's black and/or a twinkie. The twinkie can act straight, the black guy isn't gonna turn white. No comparison, DUmmies.
.
The gay guy will have shoes that match his shirt.
-
[Depends on the size of the gun.
You owe me a keyboard....
doc
-
How crazy can you get. There's no comparing race to sexual preference.
Let's say you got 3 men sitting on the subway train all dressed in similar business attire; one is a straight white guy, the other is a white twinkie, and the other is a straight black guy. Some nut gets on the train and says he's going to shoot anyone who's black and/or a twinkie. The twinkie can act straight, the black guy isn't gonna turn white. No comparison, DUmmies.
.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not preferences. They are orientations.
-
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Race and gender are not easily hidden. Sexual preference need never be discussed or mentioned when conducting yourself in public or the workplace. A woman or minority doesn't have that luxury when in public or the workplace. I really wish these asshats would quit riding on the coattails of people who fought for civil rights. It's damned insulting.
-
How crazy can you get. There's no comparing race to sexual preference.
Let's say you got 3 men sitting on the subway train all dressed in similar business attire; one is a straight white guy, the other is a white twinkie, and the other is a straight black guy. Some nut gets on the train and says he's going to shoot anyone who's black and/or a twinkie. The twinkie can act straight, the black guy isn't gonna turn white. No comparison, DUmmies.
.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not preferences. They are orientations.
Gay is all about pursuing and having sex with as many same sex partners as possible. That explains you.
-
How crazy can you get. There's no comparing race to sexual preference.
Let's say you got 3 men sitting on the subway train all dressed in similar business attire; one is a straight white guy, the other is a white twinkie, and the other is a straight black guy. Some nut gets on the train and says he's going to shoot anyone who's black and/or a twinkie. The twinkie can act straight, the black guy isn't gonna turn white. No comparison, DUmmies.
.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not preferences. They are orientations.
Define orientation.
-
Gay is all about pursuing and having sex with as many same sex partners as possible. That explains you.
Not all gay people are like that. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.....a good analogy. All gays aren't like the ones in the San Fran festival.
-
Define orientation.
The natural direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes.
-
Define orientation.
The natural direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes.
Natural according to whom? Animals engage in same-sex behavior, so there's nothing wrong with humans doing it, is that what you're saying?
-
Natural according to whom? Animals engage in same-sex behavior, so there's nothing wrong with humans doing it, is that what you're saying?
I don't know enough about the sexuality of animals to know if it is comparable to the sexuality of humans. Also, keep in mind that sexuality is manifested in attraction as well as behavior.
-
Define orientation.
The natural direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes.
I don't know if homosexuality is a choice or not but I tend to think it's not. (from my limited readings) You however, perhaps ironicly, are talking out of your a$$. You can't define something as a "natural direction" if in the same definition you claim it has no "direction" whatsoever.
Direction inplies movement toward a specific goal. "Natural direction" even more so.
-
People, it may pain you to hear this, but some people aren't attracted to the opposite sex. They're attracted to the same sex. It happens. Even in the animal world. I'm not saying it's not freakish, but it happens. Homosexuals are, well, freaks of nature, but other than that "most" just want to live their lives. I have no problem with it. I believe in civil unions. Marriage? **** no. I mean HELL no. That's a religious institution and has been from the beginning of time. What they did in California? Is bullshit. Gays already HAD all rights. They decided to push this to force their viewpoint on everyone else. They're trying their damndest to alienate the few conservatives that believe they should be allowed to be together. I.e, ME.
-
People, it may pain you to hear this, but some people aren't attracted to the opposite sex. They're attracted to the same sex. It happens. Even in the animal world. I'm not saying it's not freakish, but it happens. Homosexuals are, well, freaks of nature, but other than that "most" just want to live their lives. I have no problem with it. I believe in civil unions. Marriage? **** no. I mean HELL no. That's a religious institution and has been from the beginning of time. What they did in California? Is bullshit. Gays already HAD all rights. They decided to push this to force their viewpoint on everyone else. They're trying their damndest to alienate the few conservatives that believe they should be allowed to be together. I.e, ME.
H5. Well said.
I prefer "defect" to "freaks" fwiw. LOL Nature is not perfect and who would want it to be anyway? People are born w/o sight, w/o hearing, with 11 toes, with mental defects and so on and so on. But first and formost, they are people. And all people are entitled to the same rights (not "special" rights) and deserve respect and dignity. That is, until they do something, of their own volition, that deserves otherwise. (like rob a bank or stare at my woman in a bar)
-
Natural according to whom? Animals engage in same-sex behavior, so there's nothing wrong with humans doing it, is that what you're saying?
I don't know enough about the sexuality of animals to know if it is comparable to the sexuality of humans. Also, keep in mind that sexuality is manifested in attraction as well as behavior.
Look down at your hand, see that opposing thumb?
There is a reason for that - do you know why?
-
I don't know if homosexuality is a choice or not but I tend to think it's not. (from my limited readings) You however, perhaps ironicly, are talking out of your a$$. You can't define something as a "natural direction" if in the same definition you claim it has no "direction" whatsoever.
Direction inplies movement toward a specific goal. "Natural direction" even more so.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but what I'm saying is that the term "sexual preference" wrongly implies that people choose to be attracted to either the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes.
-
Wow... just wow. Professional victims arguing over who is the most victimized.
-
Wow... just wow. Professional victims arguing over who is the most victimized.
A great existence if you can get it.
-
Wow... just wow. Professional victims arguing over who is the most victimized.
A great existence if you can get it.
You're guaranteed to end up on the Springer/Montel/Judge Judy TV circuit.
-
I don't know if homosexuality is a choice or not but I tend to think it's not. (from my limited readings) You however, perhaps ironicly, are talking out of your a$$. You can't define something as a "natural direction" if in the same definition you claim it has no "direction" whatsoever.
Direction inplies movement toward a specific goal. "Natural direction" even more so.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but what I'm saying is that the term "sexual preference" wrongly implies that people choose to be attracted to either the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes.
TNO.... if I can name one case that contradicts what you just said, then are you wrong?
-
TNO.... if I can name one case that contradicts what you just said, then are you wrong?
One case? I don't know. If the case is the rule, then perhaps I'm wrong. If the case is the exception, then perhaps I'm not wrong.
-
TNO.... if I can name one case that contradicts what you just said, then are you wrong?
One case? I don't know. If the case is the rule, then perhaps I'm wrong. If the case is the exception, then perhaps I'm not wrong.
I think there are many cases, to tell the truth. I'm talking about people who are homosexual and then turn heterosexual or vice versa. And what of bi-sexuals, doesn't that prove that there is a preference involved or at least proof that there is no physiological reason why you wouldn't be able to have sex with a man or woman?
-
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not preferences. They are orientations.
I don't know enough about the sexuality of animals to know if it is comparable to the sexuality of humans. Also, keep in mind that sexuality is manifested in attraction as well as behavior.
Those two statements are in opposition, since unless we're talking about conditioned behaviors or autonomic responses, behavior is predicated on preference.
-
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not preferences. They are orientations.
I don't know enough about the sexuality of animals to know if it is comparable to the sexuality of humans. Also, keep in mind that sexuality is manifested in attraction as well as behavior.
Those two statements are in opposition, since unless we're talking about conditioned behaviors or autonomic responses, behavior is predicated on preference.
That's a perfect response, I knew there was a way to 'splain it in psycho-babble. ;)
-
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not preferences. They are orientations.
I don't know enough about the sexuality of animals to know if it is comparable to the sexuality of humans. Also, keep in mind that sexuality is manifested in attraction as well as behavior.
Those two statements are in opposition, since unless we're talking about conditioned behaviors or autonomic responses, behavior is predicated on preference.
That's a perfect response, I knew there was a way to 'splain it in psycho-babble. ;)
Babble is what I do best. :-)
-
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not preferences. They are orientations.
I don't know enough about the sexuality of animals to know if it is comparable to the sexuality of humans. Also, keep in mind that sexuality is manifested in attraction as well as behavior.
Those two statements are in opposition, since unless we're talking about conditioned behaviors or autonomic responses, behavior is predicated on preference.
That's a perfect response, I knew there was a way to 'splain it in psycho-babble. ;)
Babble is what I do best. :-)
Actually that is my specialty.... I spend a lot of time talking about nothing. It pays the bills though. :-)
-
People, it may pain you to hear this, but some people aren't attracted to the opposite sex. They're attracted to the same sex. It happens. Even in the animal world. I'm not saying it's not freakish, but it happens. Homosexuals are, well, freaks of nature, but other than that "most" just want to live their lives. I have no problem with it. I believe in civil unions. Marriage? **** no. I mean HELL no. That's a religious institution and has been from the beginning of time. What they did in California? Is bullshit. Gays already HAD all rights. They decided to push this to force their viewpoint on everyone else. They're trying their damndest to alienate the few conservatives that believe they should be allowed to be together. I.e, ME.
I consider myself one of those fundies they hate so much at DU. I'm well aware that there are people not attracted to the opposite sex and personally what you do in your own bedroom with a concenting adult is your business. It should remain your business. It's not for me, and I see no benefit whatsoever to myself or society to support the same-sex marriage of others.
-
Those two statements are in opposition, since unless we're talking about conditioned behaviors or autonomic responses, behavior is predicated on preference.
Well, some behaviors are predicated on preference, but other behaviors are predicated on physiological factors.
If sexuality were nothing more than a preference, then heterosexuals would settle for having sex with members of the same sex if no members of the opposite sex were available to them and homosexuals would settle for having sex with members of the opposite sex if no members of the same sex were available to them.
Would you have sex with a member of the same sex if no members of the opposite sex were available to you?
-
I think there are many cases, to tell the truth. I'm talking about people who are homosexual and then turn heterosexual or vice versa.
There is very little scientific evidence that conversion therapy works.
Tell me... Do you think that undergoing conversion therapy could convert you to being homosexual?
-
Those two statements are in opposition, since unless we're talking about conditioned behaviors or autonomic responses, behavior is predicated on preference.
Well, some behaviors are predicated on preference, but other behaviors are predicated on physiological factors.
If sexuality were nothing more than a preference, then heterosexuals would settle for having sex with members of the same sex if no members of the opposite sex were available to them and homosexuals would settle for having sex with members of the opposite sex if no members of the same sex were available to them.
Would you have sex with a member of the same sex if no members of the opposite sex were available to you?
Please explain to me what a member of my gender can do for me, that I cannot do for myself. And she certainly wouldn't be able to impregnate me. :mental:
-
I think there are many cases, to tell the truth. I'm talking about people who are homosexual and then turn heterosexual or vice versa.
There is very little scientific evidence that conversion therapy works.
How about shock therapy? :tazeme: :stirpot:
-
Please explain to me what a member of my gender can do for me, that I cannot do for myself.
How creative can I get? :-)
-
I think there are many cases, to tell the truth. I'm talking about people who are homosexual and then turn heterosexual or vice versa.
There is very little scientific evidence that conversion therapy works.
Tell me... Do you think that undergoing conversion therapy could convert you to being homosexual?
I'll answer that when you can apply your theory to bi-sexuality. You know, the part of the quote you snipped.
-
Please explain to me what a member of my gender can do for me, that I cannot do for myself.
How creative can I get? :-)
m-m-m-m-m... :naughty:
-
I think there are many cases, to tell the truth. I'm talking about people who are homosexual and then turn heterosexual or vice versa.
There is very little scientific evidence that conversion therapy works.
Tell me... Do you think that undergoing conversion therapy could convert you to being homosexual?
Conversion is how homosexuality happens, but I wouldn't call it therapy. It is more of an unintentional surrender of id through conditioning and taking advantage of existing character weakness. There is even less scientific evidence that it cannot be reversed. We know there is no scientific evidence to support the propaganda that homosexuality is normal and just an accident of birth.
-
OK, here's my thoughts. Some people are attracted to the same sex. Fine. You either act on it, or you don't. Either way, it's YOUR business, and YOU reap whatever consequences there might be.
I'm attracted to sweets. I either act on it, or I don't, and I accept the consequences.
I don't get special consideration because it's not fair that those who just "naturally" like food that's better for them are healthy.
Be gay, or no. I really don't care. But don't tell me that it makes life full of butterflies and flowers if homosexuality was as acceptable as heterosexual. It won't. It isn't. It never will be.
-
I think there are many cases, to tell the truth. I'm talking about people who are homosexual and then turn heterosexual or vice versa.
There is very little scientific evidence that conversion therapy works.
Tell me... Do you think that undergoing conversion therapy could convert you to being homosexual?
Conversion is how homosexuality happens, but I wouldn't call it therapy. It is more of an unintentional surrender of id through conditioning and taking advantage of existing character weakness. There is even less scientific evidence that it cannot be reversed. We know there is no scientific evidence to support the propaganda that homosexuality is normal and just an accident of birth.
oh YESHHHHH!!!!! Hi five!
-
I think there are many cases, to tell the truth. I'm talking about people who are homosexual and then turn heterosexual or vice versa.
There is very little scientific evidence that conversion therapy works.
Tell me... Do you think that undergoing conversion therapy could convert you to being homosexual?
Conversion is how homosexuality happens, but I wouldn't call it therapy. It is more of an unintentional surrender of id through conditioning and taking advantage of existing character weakness. There is even less scientific evidence that it cannot be reversed. We know there is no scientific evidence to support the propaganda that homosexuality is normal and just an accident of birth.
H5!!!
They are just trying to normalize their deviation. That's what it's always been about. It's payback for when homosexuals were jailed and shunned years ago. Many gay rights activists will even admit it.
-
Conversion is how homosexuality happens, but I wouldn't call it therapy. It is more of an unintentional surrender of id through conditioning and taking advantage of existing character weakness. There is even less scientific evidence that it cannot be reversed. We know there is no scientific evidence to support the propaganda that homosexuality is normal and just an accident of birth.
Quackery.
-
I'll answer that when you can apply your theory to bi-sexuality. You know, the part of the quote you snipped.
What is there to explain? Some people are sexually oriented in such a way that makes them attracted to both sexes.
-
Conversion is how homosexuality happens, but I wouldn't call it therapy. It is more of an unintentional surrender of id through conditioning and taking advantage of existing character weakness. There is even less scientific evidence that it cannot be reversed. We know there is no scientific evidence to support the propaganda that homosexuality is normal and just an accident of birth.
Quackery.
Says the King of Ducking. :lmao:
-
Please explain to me what a member of my gender can do for me, that I cannot do for myself. And she certainly wouldn't be able to impregnate me. :mental:
So, there you have it. You would rather not have sex than have sex with a member of the same sex. Your sexuality, like that of most persons, is not a matter of preference but a matter of orientation.
Let me give you an analogy...
If you were to say that you prefer nectarines over peaches, I could reasonably assume that you like both but prefer one. If you were to say that you prefer having sex with members of the opposite sex, I could reasonably assume that you like to have sex with members of both sexes but prefer one... but I would probably be wrong. The fact of the matter is most people want sexual relations with members of only one of sexes because sexuality is not a preference but an orientation.
-
There is very little scientific evidence that conversion therapy works.
There is very little scientific evidence that Alcoholics Anonymous works, yet it thrives as a method of treatment.
That smoking pile of rubble on the floor? That's your point shot down in flames.
:tongue:
-
Tell me... Do you think that undergoing conversion therapy could convert you to being homosexual?
It is quite common for men to engage in homosexual behavior in prison.
-
It is quite common for men to engage in homosexual behavior in prison.
And your point is?
-
It is quite common for men to engage in homosexual behavior in prison.
And your point is?
You asked if conversion therapy could convert someone to being a homosexual. I gave you an example of a form of conversion therapy where it happens. Not the sort of therapy that many would seek willingly, but you get the jist.
-
It is quite common for men to engage in homosexual behavior in prison.
And your point is?
You asked if conversion therapy could convert someone to being a homosexual. I gave you an example of a form of conversion therapy where it happens. Not the sort of therapy that many would seek willingly, but you get the jist.
H5 to CC!
-
H5 to CC!
Thank ya kindly! :-)
-
Please explain to me what a member of my gender can do for me, that I cannot do for myself. And she certainly wouldn't be able to impregnate me. :mental:
So, there you have it. You would rather not have sex than have sex with a member of the same sex. Your sexuality, like that of most persons, is not a matter of preference but a matter of orientation.
Let me give you an analogy...
If you were to say that you prefer nectarines over peaches, I could reasonably assume that you like both but prefer one. If you were to say that you prefer having sex with members of the opposite sex, I could reasonably assume that you like to have sex with members of both sexes but prefer one... but I would probably be wrong. The fact of the matter is most people want sexual relations with members of only one of sexes because sexuality is not a preference but an orientation.
Hey now, you're saying that there's no choice involved when one deviates from heterosexuality and thus there is equal likelihood that you might be gay or hetero. If that's true, why are there not equal numbers of gay and heteros in the population?
I'll tell you why, it's because we are talking about a sexual behavior (homosexuality) not a physiological design (heterosexuality). Therefore, sexual orientation may deviate from the norm (the norm being defined as hetero in case you had any doubt). Go back and re-read the posts of Undies, Carlos, and Dandi. When you have a good understanding of what was said, then come back and we'll chat.
-
Any sexuality is a choice. I choose what I put my 'organ' in. I can choose to put it into nothing. What would that make me? Asexual? Until you can prove that freewill does not exist, you cannot prove that you can choose whom (or what) you have sex with.
-
Hey now, you're saying that there's no choice involved when one deviates from heterosexuality and thus there is equal likelihood that you might be gay or hetero. If that's true, why are there not equal numbers of gay and heteros in the population?
I'll tell you why, it's because we are talking about a sexual behavior (homosexuality) not a physiological design (heterosexuality). Therefore, sexual orientation may deviate from the norm (the norm being defined as hetero in case you had any doubt). Go back and re-read the posts of Undies, Carlos, and Dandi. When you have a good understanding of what was said, then come back and we'll chat.
:clap: and H5
Your elegance in word is only exceeded by your beauty.
-
Any sexuality is a choice. I choose what I put my 'organ' in. I can choose to put it into nothing. What would that make me?
Lonely on a Saturday night.
-
Any sexuality is a choice. I choose what I put my 'organ' in. I can choose to put it into nothing. What would that make me? Asexual? Until you can prove that freewill does not exist, you cannot prove that you can choose whom (or what) you have sex with.
As I wrote earlier, sexual orientation is not manifested only in behavior. Sexual orientation is manifested in behavior and attraction.
Do you honestly believe that you choose which sex you're attracted to? Assuming that you're a straight male, could you choose to be attracted to another male? I couldn't. As a straight male, I can't imagine any sort of mental conditioning which would cause me to be attracted to a member of the same sex.
Let me put it this way... If the only thing keeping you from being attracted to men is a choice you make, then guess what... you are probably a gay man... or perhaps a bisexual man... not that there is anything wrong with that.
-
Hey now, you're saying that there's no choice involved when one deviates from heterosexuality and thus there is equal likelihood that you might be gay or hetero. If that's true, why are there not equal numbers of gay and heteros in the population?
Huh? So, using your reasoning, one can conclude that because redheads do not choose to have red hair, then redheads should exist in equal proportion to people with other hair colors. That makes no sense whatsoever.
-
You asked if conversion therapy could convert someone to being a homosexual. I gave you an example of a form of conversion therapy where it happens. Not the sort of therapy that many would seek willingly, but you get the jist.
Getting raped in prison does not make the person who is raped gay.
-
Oh my.
Oh oh my.
And my stomach hurts.
This thread looks like a good candidate for the "Fight Club," but I'll let DixieBelle decide whether or not it should go there; after all we're a team. My 50% of this "team" says, yeah, put it there, but I'll pass the buck to her.
-
Any sexuality is a choice. I choose what I put my 'organ' in. I can choose to put it into nothing. What would that make me? Asexual? Until you can prove that freewill does not exist, you cannot prove that you can choose whom (or what) you have sex with.
As I wrote earlier, sexual orientation is not manifested only in behavior. Sexual orientation is manifested in behavior and attraction.
Do you honestly believe that you choose which sex you're attracted to? Assuming that you're a straight male, could you choose to be attracted to another male? I couldn't. As a straight male, I can't imagine any sort of mental conditioning which would cause me to be attracted to a member of the same sex.
Let me put it this way... If the only thing keeping you from being attracted to men is a choice you make, then guess what... you are probably a gay man... or perhaps a bisexual man... not that there is anything wrong with that.
I can still have sex with people I am not attacted too. If I exclusively have sex with the same gender, what does that make me? If I exclusively have sex with the opposite gender, what does that make me? What arouses me is irrelevant. One can arouse a human being with all kinds of non-gender oriented stimuli. You aren't homosexual unless you have sex with someone of the same gender, in my book. If you go your whole life without crossing that line, then you are not homosexual.
-
Hey now, you're saying that there's no choice involved when one deviates from heterosexuality and thus there is equal likelihood that you might be gay or hetero. If that's true, why are there not equal numbers of gay and heteros in the population?
Huh? So, using your reasoning, one can conclude that because redheads do not choose to have red hair, then redheads should exist in equal proportion to people with other hair colors. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Don't be a fool. There is no hair color that enhances survival of the species.
-
What arouses me is irrelevant. One can arouse a human being with all kinds of non-gender oriented stimuli. You aren't homosexual unless you have sex with someone of the same gender, in my book. If you go your whole life without crossing that line, then you are not homosexual.
Dude. If you are a man and you think that men look hot, then you are a gay man... or perhaps a bisexual man.
-
What arouses me is irrelevant. One can arouse a human being with all kinds of non-gender oriented stimuli. You aren't homosexual unless you have sex with someone of the same gender, in my book. If you go your whole life without crossing that line, then you are not homosexual.
Dude. If you are a man and you think that men look hot, then you are a gay man... or perhaps bisexual.
..and a freak of nature. Sorry, it is what it is.
-
..and a freak of nature. Sorry, it is what it is.
Not really. Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in humans.
-
..and a freak of nature. Sorry, it is what it is.
Not really. Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in humans.
Um, no, it's not. If it were, we wouldn't have 6 billion people inhabiting this ball of rock. Besides, not all homosexuals or bisexuals were born that way. I'll concede many were, but not all.
-
What I meant, was using things like sound and smell, which are not associated with people at all. Human arousal is not bound by any one site. Likewise, the actions of a human being are not bound by that arousal. One can choose to ignore urges and instincts.
-
I don't care what someone claims about the term "sexual preference," it is an accurate description and I will continue to use it because I know that it's an accurate description.
.
-
What I meant, was using things like sound and smell, which are not associated with people at all. Human arousal is not bound by any one site. Likewise, the actions of a human being are not bound by that arousal. One can choose to ignore urges and instincts.
That humans can ignore urges goes without saying, but those urges are, whether humans ignore them or not, part of human sexuality.
-
What I meant, was using things like sound and smell, which are not associated with people at all. Human arousal is not bound by any one site. Likewise, the actions of a human being are not bound by that arousal. One can choose to ignore urges and instincts.
That humans can ignore urges goes without saying, but those urges are, whether humans ignore them or not, part of human sexuality.
Yes, just like cannibalism is part of the human digestive system.
-
Not really. Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in humans.
How common? Give us a number.
-
How common? Give us a number.
Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.
-
How common? Give us a number.
Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.
Since this stigma reads like it is exclusive to the United States, could we not pick any other country on earth and use its population as a gauge?
-
Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult.
Not it isn't, it's been done
"The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994)."
(Lawrence v. Texas, Docket No. 02-102 (U.S. Supreme Court), brief of amici curiae Human Rights Campaign et al., 16 January 2003, p. 16 (footnote 42).)
Now you said
Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in humans.
Does 7% = "quite common"? Do the actual figures = "quite common"?
-
You have 10 apples. 9 red, one orange. Which one's the oddball? You can't redefine "freak" to fit your agenda, TNO. It is what it is.
-
How common? Give us a number.
Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.
In the study of statistics anything with a probability of .05 or less (that's 5% for the mathematically challenged) is considered an unusual or anomalous. In the case of animals, so called "homosexual" behavior is typically done as a display of dominance, which from my own observations of the gay community (my brother is gay) pretty much fits. The only way it can be scientifically said that one is born gay is because of some sort of genetic defect or perhaps some psychological disorder (which I suppose wouldn't fit cause those are usually developed later in life).
-
The only way it can be scientifically said that one is born gay is because of some sort of genetic defect or perhaps some psychological disorder (which I suppose wouldn't fit cause those are usually developed later in life).
The hypothesis that gay people are born gay does not depend on genetic factors being the sole cause of homosexuality. Homosexuality could be the result of genetic factors combined with other factors.
I'm convinced that genetics play a key role in the development of homosexuality. Here is one clue about the nature of homosexuality...
Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf
The fact that a significant majority of gay men have counterclockwise hair-whorl rotations is, I think, a pretty good indication that genetics play a major role in homosexuality.
-
The only way it can be scientifically said that one is born gay is because of some sort of genetic defect or perhaps some psychological disorder (which I suppose wouldn't fit cause those are usually developed later in life).
The hypothesis that people are born gay does not depend on homosexuality being the result of genetic factors only. Homsexuality could be the result of a combination of genetic factors and other factors. I'm convinced, though, that genetics play a key role in the development of homosexuality. Here is one clue that genetics play a role in homosexuality...
Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf
Amazing, isn't it?
Uh-oh, look at the first line in that abstract:
While most men prefer women as their sexual partners, some are bisexual and others are homosexual. It has been debated for a long time whether a person's sexual preference is inate, learned, or due to a combination of both causes.
Well now, if that ain't just a fly in the ointment.
So is the study unreliable because its authors call sexuality a preference?
-
While most men prefer women as their sexual partners, some are bisexual and others are homosexual. It has been debated for a long time whether a person's sexual preference is inate, learned, or due to a combination of both causes.
Well now, if that ain't just a fly in the ointment.
So is the study unreliable because its authors call sexuality a preference?
No. The study is reliable despite the fact that the author uses the term sexual preference to describe sexual orientation.
My complaint against the use of the term sexual preference is purely rhetorical in nature. I just don't think the term is precise.
-
The hypothesis that gay people are born gay does not depend on genetic factors being the sole cause of homosexuality. Homosexuality could be the result of genetic factors combined with other factors.
I'm convinced that genetics play a key role in the development of homosexuality. Here is one clue about the nature of homosexuality...
Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf
The fact that a significant majority of gay men have counterclockwise hair-whorl rotations is, I think, a pretty good indication that genetics play a major role in homosexuality.
While you can observe an excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotations you have no way to truly determine for sure if a person is homosexual or not. You have to trust that the person is telling the truth which makes your attempted correlation moot.
-
My complaint against the use of the term sexual preference is purely rhetorical in nature. I just don't think the term is precise.
The term "Sexual Orientation" is less precise. It implies that a persons sexuality is not influenced by their behavior. Without the means to determine that a person homosexuality is innate, your term is nothing but opinion.
-
How common? Give us a number.
Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.
I dunno.
I remember reading an article in Time or Newsweek magazine, probably from circa the mid-1970s, wherein was described a major anthropological or sociological study that had been done in places accepting of homosexuality, and where homosexuality was taboo; from the Netherlands to the former Netherlands East Indies, the whole gamut from "tolerated" to "not tolerated."
The study showed that apparently invariably 4% of all males are homosexual in orientation (not necessarily in practice); all over the world, throughout all societies and nations and cultures. Four percent, invariably.
I don't want to get into any arguments, human sexuality being as complex as it is, but I suppose this reinforces the idea that homosexuality is a "natural" trait occurring in, invariably, 4% of all males.
And when thinking of all the people--and the diverse people--I've known throughout all my life, 1 in 25 seems about right, if not right on the money.
This of course is a far cry from what the gay interests insist, about "10%" or "25%" or "33%."
Of course, I am talking about the strictly scientific clinical definition of "homosexual," and not as one might describe himself. I've always suspected that many "gays" are "gay" because it's hip, it's trendy, it's cool, it's with it, in self-indulgent decadent places.
-
How common? Give us a number.
Because of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States, determining the size of the gay population in the US is difficult. Given the difficulty in determining the size of the gay population in the US, I think that the best estimate is somewhere between the highest figure, which is 12%, and the lowest figure, which is about 2%. So, I'm guessing that 7% of the US population is gay.
I dunno.
I remember reading an article in Time or Newsweek magazine, probably from circa the mid-1970s, wherein was described a major anthropological or sociological study that had been done in places accepting of homosexuality, and where homosexuality was taboo; from the Netherlands to the former Netherlands East Indies, the whole gamut from "tolerated" to "not tolerated."
The study showed that apparently invariably 4% of all males are homosexual in orientation (not necessarily in practice); all over the world, throughout all societies and nations and cultures. Four percent, invariably.
I don't want to get into any arguments, human sexuality being as complex as it is, but I suppose this reinforces the idea that homosexuality is a "natural" trait occurring in, invariably, 4% of all males.
And when thinking of all the people--and the diverse people--I've known throughout all my life, 1 in 25 seems about right, if not right on the money.
This of course is a far cry from what the gay interests insist, about "10%" or "25%" or "33%."
Of course, I am talking about the strictly scientific clinical definition of "homosexual," and not as one might describe himself. I've always suspected that many "gays" are "gay" because it's hip, it's trendy, it's cool, it's with it, in self-indulgent decadent places.
"Natural", if it is being used in an argument as the reason something must be accepted, is a flawed concept. It has been shown that a certain percentage of every population across the world, and in all cultures, is made up of people predisposed to become serial murderers. That makes it natural, but wholly unacceptable.
(Frank, I am not dumping on your post. I am using it to extend the theory to a part of its logical conclusion.)
-
I know what you're referring to, Demonic Underwear.
If I recall that article correctly, it quoted this 4% figure as being "natural" in the same sense it's "natural" for 51 males to be born, for every 50 females--a phenomenon that cuts across all lines, encompassing all nations, all societies, all cultures.
A natural phenomenon that's occurred since the beginning of mankind, and there's probably a good reason for it.
Now, the nocturnally foul one, who believes that mankind is capable of killing the "planet" before the "planet" kills us (i.e., that man can successfully overrride natural laws), might use China as an example of artificially tampering with nature, where because of man-made policies, far more males than females are given life, but the nocturnally foul one seems to have a problem grasping time, space, and distance; what's going on in China right now--and it surely isn't going to go on forever--is merely a blip in the experience of mankind.
The nocturnally foul one of course comes from a small congested state, and so it's easy to see why the nocturnally foul one doesn't grasp the big picture.
-
And oh, I meant "natural" meaning it's just a blunt fact of life, and one has to accept it.
It does NOT mean one has to endorse or tolerate or promote it.
It's just something that's there.