Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

let's talk about ******Follow

#1 Dec 27 2006 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
I believe that the percentage of homosexuals on the planet Earth has always been the same throughout history.
That means that there is a certain percent of the human population that is going to be gay, period.. regardless of environment, culture, religion, or wahtever...
It's simply the way some people are... Otherwise why would 50 year old men live their lives with wives and children and fight with being gay everyday of their lives... I've seen it.

Others say that it's just a societal thing... As in.. once a society starts to degrade in morals that some members of the population are prone to debauchery and excess... examples cited are usually Rome and GreeceSmiley: rolleyes
In other words.. gayness is a bi-product of failing culture..

This is based on a smoke filled 4 hour debate I had with a Christian friend of mine.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Dec 27 2006 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

A society 'degrading in morals' would perhaps lead to more homosexual activity, but would it really lead to more homosexuals? Perhaps in some that never knew such a thing existed while it had been laying dormant in their subconscious.


#3 Dec 27 2006 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
I would ask why homosexual activity must be tied to an amoral society though...
although to be fair... I would personally chalk it up with any other form of pleasurable excess.... drinking.. smoking.. gaming....
But would you attribute an actual dengration of society to an excess of those things as well? surely excess of those go on either way.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Dec 27 2006 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
also.. I think that during "barbarian times" most people thought nothing of rolling around in the animal skin with some fellow warriors during the long marches.


It's been documented that the Celts were like that... However it is also documented that the ancient Germans concidered it scandalous to have ANy sex at all before the age of 25...
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#5 Dec 27 2006 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Interesting question.

I've noticed that a lot (not all) of homosexuals tend to dress, talk and generally act out of the ordinary. I've often asked myself why this is, because being homosexual, even in these modern times, is pretty, well, provocative in itself, if you know what I mean.

Perhaps their anomalistic behaviour is the cause of their deviant sexual preferance. Perhaps they were born with a gene that causes them to provoke and shock, which is why they became homosexuals. Or perhaps they're just provocative because they're insecure about their place in society.

Forgive me if I'm rambling. It's 5:30 in the morning, I'm a little tipsy and my English vocabulary isn't what my English teacher would've wanted it to be.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#6 Dec 27 2006 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
I would ask why homosexual activity must be tied to an amoral society though...

It doesn't, but a perceived "moral" society has historically meant a religious one, more specifically a Christian one.

Remove the religous opression of homosexuality, and it is allowed to flourish, hence the tie.

#7 Dec 27 2006 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
****
4,396 posts
I personally believe that Homosexuality is a learned behavior and not innate. Of course I am a bible thumping, right wing conservative so take that as you see fit.

My first run through college though I was a theater major, so while I detest homosexuality, I was good friends with most of the **** on campus.
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.
#8 Dec 27 2006 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Mazra wrote:

I've noticed that a lot (not all) of homosexuals tend to dress, talk and generally act out of the ordinary. I've often asked myself why this is, because being homosexual, even in these modern times, is pretty, well, provocative in itself, if you know what I mean.

Perhaps their anomalistic behaviour is the cause of their deviant sexual preferance. Perhaps they were born with a gene that causes them to provoke and shock, which is why they became homosexuals. Or perhaps they're just provocative because they're insecure about their place in society.


A lot of people tied to a recognized class or caste of some sort will embrace and flaunt it. Gays become more recognized-->people begin to embrace gay pride.



Edited, Dec 27th 2006 11:24pm by EliteBeatAgent
#9 Dec 27 2006 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Which would be the whole "insecure about their place in society" thing, right?

Craptastic, I can't focus anymore. I'll be back later.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10 Dec 27 2006 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Remove the religous opression of homosexuality, and it is allowed to flourish


but did it actually flourish in non-christian times? can't really know, I know.. all we really know about is Greece and Rome.... and the fact that they have records that are still around would mean that they may have already reached the point of societal degradation long before they began keeping records..
I wonder about everywhere else in the world.

It would seem to make sense that it has always been frowned upon because of my biased view...
but if not.. then WHY would be looked down upon? other than Judaic scriptures....

unless it really is just an Abrahamic kinda thing
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#11 Dec 27 2006 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Quote:
Remove the religous opression of homosexuality, and it is allowed to flourish


but did it actually flourish in non-christian times?

Good point. All I can think of is that the concept never really entered into people's heads. Sort of like children before they get sex ed, the concept of sex, let alone gay sex, isn't really present.

#12 Dec 27 2006 at 9:13 PM Rating: Decent
I think many homosexuals are ridiculed in childhood for being feminine/masculine (for boys/girls respectively) and that causes them to think that way. But then it's just a chicken vs. egg thing.
#13 Dec 27 2006 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Good point. All I can think of is that the concept never really entered into people's heads. Sort of like children before they get sex ed, the concept of sex, let alone gay sex, isn't really present.



no way.
I look at it this way.

A few cave men sitting around.... They know that "certain things" feel good. Waht's to stop them from just going at it wehn the women aren't around? or ARE around?

i don't think it's as much a concept of "gay" was present.. but the concept of "feels good" definatly was.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#14 Dec 27 2006 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Probably didn't feel good for the first recipient.

#15 Dec 28 2006 at 3:42 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Tacosid wrote:
I personally believe that Homosexuality is a learned behavior and not innate. Of course I am a bible thumping, right wing conservative so take that as you see fit.

For a very small percentage I'd agree. But for the overwhelming majority it is genetic. I'm sorry to say this isn't based so much on concrete data, but more on a good assortment of imperical experiences and some logical reasoning.

First their are my gay and bi friends who have told me that thhey have been gay/bi for as long as they can remember.

Second that is the appalling failure of many "sexual orientation fix" programs religious groups sponsor where they attempt to make a gay person straight. Usually the "ex-gay" ends with depression (likely at trying to live a life they don't want to please their friends and family) for the candidate or them "reverting" back to being gay.

Third I sort of just thought about my own sexuality. I don't remember choosing at all. I can't really imagine changing it at all either. Tacosid did you choose to be straight? Can you imagine someone choosing to another sexuality?



As to the question of the relative population of homosexuals on teh planet since we stopped throwing **** at each other and started setting things on fire I'm sure it has fluctuated, and I'd be surprised it the first derivative hasn't changed signs more than one hundred times.
#16 Dec 28 2006 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
Findings from studies published this year support your argument, Kel.

LINKY

Homosexuality is common in vertabrate animals, not unique to human society, and therefore "degradation of a culture" has little impact.

Edited, Dec 28th 2006 9:17am by bloodywilliam
#17 Dec 28 2006 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
I have a hard time understanding why people think that homosexuality is a choice. I'm one of those "been gay as long as I can remember" people, and I just don't understand how sexuality is a choice. Sure, there are people that like the dames as well as the dudes, but I can see how even bisexuality can be more than a choice.

Even if sexuality isn't a choice, It may have something to do with your early development? But if you open that line of discussion up, then a vast majority of the people who believe that homosexuality is a choice, will chime in with ****** being molested by males in their youth as to the cause of their gayness.

I had a perfectly normal childhood. No molestations, no dysfunction, the longer I'm alive, the more I realize just how awesome my parents are. The only extraordinary part of my childhood was being placed into "gifted" classes, where we sat around and actually used paste to glue things together before we ate it. Smiley: laugh

So if there isn't anything in my developmental history that points to a cause, and I never sat down one day and decided "you know what? I want a ***** in my ***, that would be great!" how do you explain why I'm gay? Why can't it be biology and not psychology?
#18 Dec 28 2006 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
both arguments are correct...to a point.

homosexuality has been here since man has been here. it is even present in the animal world. just like some of us are pre-programed to like certain smells and taste others dont, some of us get sexually stimulated more by people of the same sex vs the opposite sex.

its a naturaly occuring event. argument one.

if you are the religious type, you are taught that we are put here to overcome our sins. to rise above ourselves to believe in a greater good and strive to achieve that greater good. one of those sins is Desire. sex is Desire. infatuation is Desire. lust is Desire.

the mechanical purpose of sex is reproduction. and the hetero types hide the sin associated with having sex for the sex and not reproduction under the guise that it is sanctioned, even by God, because without it we would perish as a spieces.

the church wants us to have sex only for the purpose of creating more life. period. sex for any other purpose is sin. period. homosexuality is a blatant sin. a huge billboard saying "sin is here". and for the homosexual community to try and get the church to "accept" sin, is in itself unacceptable. it is counter to every thing the church stands for. some denominations have "accepted" homosexuality under the basis that we are all sinners, and we are, and that even sinners should be allowed to gather to hear the word of God. that is infact the way it has always been.

they are not accepting the "sin" of homosexuality, but the concept that we are all sinners, every one, even those leading the church.

so yes, if you are religious, homosexuality is a living testiment to a failing society.....IF.....you judge a societies success on how it embraces and adheres to religion. IF. argument two.

both arguments are correct.

now lets deal with the prejudice. not the religious type. the underlying subconscious type that WE ALL share. creating God in our own immage. the kind that says if you are not like me, beleive as i do, act as i do, look as i do, you are flawed and wrong.

we all have it in there. we fight it to some point, but it still lurks there. yet another sin we need to rise above.

to hetero types, having someone of the same sex touch you in a sexual way isnt just undesirable, its repulsive. you **** types want the other 95 percent of the human population to rise above those feelings of repulsion and accept what is a naturally occuring event. and for a large part, we have, especially in this country.

here is the irony lost on most. the ****,s want us to rise above our sins of prejudice, but dont want to rise above their own sins of desire.

the fire wants to call the kettle black.

that said, i have to say, im a sinner. i really really like sex for the sex. i recognize that and accept that. and as such, i wont point a finger at homos and yell "sinner". but dont expect me to cry you a river about homos being persecuted by people or the church. we are all sinners, but if you want to blatently wave it in every ones face, deal with the consequences and stop crying about it.

Edited, Dec 28th 2006 10:46am by shadowrelm
#19 Dec 28 2006 at 7:59 AM Rating: Decent
[For a very small percentage I'd agree. But for the overwhelming majority it is genetic.]

I think that some of the gay agendaists(sp)? are attempting to change that direction since the mapping of the human genome. The best defense had always been "born that way - can't do anything about it". Now, with a not to distant certainty of gene manipulation on the horizon for humans, they probably have realized it is not to smart to have your eggs in the basket of people who for the most part have only given a lip service approval of homosexuality due to political correctness.

As an atheist I still change the channel on the tube and shudder if I see 2 men making out....just as fast as christians (and I suspect a huge percentage of males and females no matter religious or atheist bent, do as well). If I was a new parent to be and I had an option to "alter" a gay determined fetus, I know I would, PCness be damned. I believe some have speculated that it would be little more than $2,000 US.

It will certainly make some interesting alliances between usually at odds lobbyists in the future regarding fetal rights.
#20 Dec 28 2006 at 8:08 AM Rating: Decent
shadowrelm wrote:
both arguments are correct...to a point.


This post started off all nice and reasonable and compelling. And then this happened:

shadowrelm wrote:
i wont point a finger at homos and yell "sinner". but dont expect me to cry you a river about homos being persecuted by people or the church. we are all sinners, but if you want to blatently wave it in every ones face, deal with the consequences and stop crying about it.


And I laughed really hard. The utter brainlessness of this last sentiment washed away all the goodwill garnered before.

If there's a "How to Make a Good Post on Alla" FAQ anywhere, this should be in the "Don't Let This Happen to You" subcategory.

And as for you shadowrelm:

I think religion is offensive. Your blind adherence to nonsense is repulsive to my sense of logic and reason. And I wish you religos would stop blatantly waving it in everyone's face.



#21 Dec 28 2006 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Mazra the Meaningless wrote:
Interesting question.

I've noticed that a lot (not all) of homosexuals tend to dress, talk and generally act out of the ordinary. I've often asked myself why this is, because being homosexual, even in these modern times, is pretty, well, provocative in itself, if you know what I mean.


They are called 'signifiers' or indicators to other people of sexuality which was even more pervasive when there was comparably less acceptance. It becomes entrenched after a while. There is also something to be said about gender f*cking and criticizing societies view of gender and sexuality as a whole which can be much more self-affirming than being a log cabin republican.

Edited, Dec 28th 2006 11:13am by annabellaonalexander
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#22 Dec 28 2006 at 8:16 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Meh we have this kind of debate because the media plays up religious concerns as a legitimate argument. In actuality all attacks on homosexuality are a joke, they're all just elaborate variations of "eww it's icky!"
#23 Dec 28 2006 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
John Calhoun's famous rat experiment in 1962 showed that social pathology increased geometrically with population density. Included in this social pathology that increased the negative feedback to population density was homosexuality. Homosexuality increased geometrically with population density, which would not occur if the trait was purely genetic. The idea that any herding mammal is born homosexual would defeat the purpose of the evolved homosexuality trait which is to help slow an increase of population density. Instead all individual herding mammals are born with the potential to become homosexual as part of the innate population controls in their species. The percentage of the population that exhibits this pathology increases with population density, as it does with other negative feedbacks like sterility.

This does not mean Homosexuality is a choice, but it also does not mean it is something genetic, whichi is what people are usually refering to when they say "born with." Sterility is an obvious parallel; you can easily understand that sterility is not a genetic trait you can pass on, and is also not a choice (outside of surgery). This does not rule out stress impacts on a developing fetus as a possible cause before birth, but this is unlikely due to other population density studies.

It would also be logical to assume that if there ever was any genetic trait that increased the likely hood of becoming homosexual, it would have been bred out by natural selection due the fact that homosexuals have less children than heterosexuals. Just a small percentage difference in the ability to produce offspring will result in the eventual extinction of that genetic line.


Edited, Dec 28th 2006 11:32am by fhrugby
#24 Dec 28 2006 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
fhrugby the Sly wrote:
John Calhoun's famous rat experiment in 1962 showed that social pathology increased geometrically with population density. Included in this social pathology that increased the negative feedback to population density was homosexuality. Homosexuality increased geometrically with population density, which would not occur if the trait was purely genetic. The idea that any mammal is born homosexual would defeat the purpose of the evolved homosexuality trait which is to help slow an increase of population density. Instead all herding mammals have the potential to become homosexual as part of the innate population controls in their species. The percentage of the population that exhibits this pathology increases with population density; as it does with other negative feedbacks like sterility.


The question I would have is whether you'd consider this pathology or whether it is relatively neutral--or an adaptation-- given the fact that it serves the population to decrease reproduction.

Quote:

and yet, 90 percent of the people in this country are self proclaimed "Christians". i would go into logic and reason with you, but just like trying to explain to a single person the joy children bring you, it would be pointless. you simply could not comprehend. even as intelligent as you feel you may be.


90% includes "cultural Christians" who may not be particularly observant. It also includes people who widely vary from your belief system--including people who are gay or bisexual or other variations and people who are do not view homosexuality as an issue. It's a moot statistic that is not relevant in discussing religious views of homosexuality.

Edited, Dec 28th 2006 11:35am by annabellaonalexander
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#25 Dec 28 2006 at 8:33 AM Rating: Default
I think religion is offensive. Your blind adherence to nonsense is repulsive to my sense of logic and reason. And I wish you religos would stop blatantly waving it in everyone's face.
-------------------------------------------------------------

most sinners do. im sure hitler thought as much. and one dictator even called it "the opiate of the masses".

and yet, 90 percent of the people in this country are self proclaimed "Christians". i would go into logic and reason with you, but just like trying to explain to a single person the joy children bring you, it would be pointless. you simply could not comprehend. even as intelligent as you feel you may be.

90 percent. even a large chunk of the gay population. 90 percent makes it revelant.

personally, i agree with the above poster. its just icky. that, im sure, is the underlying feeling of the other 95 percent of the population and they just use religion to justify feeling ....icky....about it.

as far as "blind adherance" and "logic and reason" consider this....

if your right and religion is a farce, what do i loose? nothing.
if your wrong, and it is not a farce, what do you loose?......

how is that for "reason and logic"?
#26 Dec 28 2006 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
**
559 posts
There is order among chaos, the world is alive, and homosexuality is a natural biological reaction to overpopulation.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 356 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (356)