You didn't ask him about his sexuality; you asked him about someone else's (alleged) sexuality. He told you that he had been gay since before he hit puberty, and your response was to say that some other gay person supposedly claimed to have chosen to be gay, and then asked if animals choose. What's the point of such a question ? Why not ask this other person, if they exist, how it is they made the choice? I notice you're getting very defensive, and ignoring the bulk of my post. Why is that?
Meh. Took some time off, but I doubt my participation will be the same as it was. I've learned that the inmates are officially running the asylum, and there's no winning. So, fuck em.
No. Because belief in a deity is by choice. You even choose which deity and which religious organisation you wish to belong to, if any, and you also choose what you choose to believe and follow from your religious text. One's sexuality is not a choice. Within the political context that surrounds homosexuality from the OP and the rest of your posts in this thread, you are approaching it from a political standpoint and not from a scientific one. Your argument about homosexuality, sir, is wholly political. So if and when you ask questions about a person's sexual orientation within the context of how you are presenting your argument in this thread, it is wholly and intentionally provocative. Do you often ask random people if they choose to be homosexual or heterosexual? Do you tell them that you are asking them for clarification? Clarification for what? 1) It is none of your business. 2) Why should their sexual orientation even matter? 3) It is none of your business. 4) One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything or anyone. 5) It is none of your business. Do you see the pattern there? Just post the link as is, we can copy and paste it to check the link. So please cite your sources.
All human behavior is attributed to a mix of genetic, epigenetic and various other environmental factors. These factors determine the nature of the incubator, which in turn influence the nature of the incubatee, and then further conspire to dictate the developmental course of the offspring for the remainder of its existence. Since the essential factors necessary to produce an individual of given qualities lie to some degree outside the individual’s genotype, the individual’s heredity is not essential to the quality's propagation. Take masturbation for example, it’s a form of homosexuality that has no reproductive value (unless you’re making a deposit at the sperm bank), yet is practiced with regularity by the vast majority of human males. You and I both possess the innate abilities and motivations to engage in such behavior when prompted by particular environmental cues. Given your personal experience with this form of homosexuality, can you see a genetic component in the sexual relationship between your hand and penis?
Read my post again, very slowly. This man is a homosexual, it's necessary I get knowledge like this from him so I can have a better view on homosexuality. This research has no ill-intent so if I have provoked you during this I apologies. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/21/whats-wrong-with-choosing-to-be-gay I assume that some homosexuals confuse " coming out " and " choosing ". During the course of this research I'm starting to believe more and more that homosexuality is innate somehow to the point it's engrained in my view on the world. Now, fellow man. Would you be so kind as to provide small theories on why you think homosexuality is, before we get to the closure of this research. Thank you.
Taking time off from this contraption is definitely a good thing. Maybe I'll do the same. Summer's flying by like a race car. Before I know it it'll be grey and rainy again up here in Portland. As for the forum, yeah, I wish it were more liberal in its tolerance of brash comments. There's only so many polite ways to tell someone to fuck off.
Wearing clothes is not natural. Cooking food is not natural. Driving cars is not natural. I don't see how declaring homosexuality natural or unnatural will help you understand the causes of homosexuality.
Behavior, like addiction, show that it is possible for a child to go from a clean slate that is not addicted, to fully addicted, where the dynamics of the behavior appears to be ingrained in their genes, like second nature. Sex has the pleasure of the best of drugs and can be a source of addition. Homosexuality allows access to more sex, for the community, making it a self feeding loop. In therapy, discussions often go back to early childhood where sometimes singular decisions and/or events can start the ball rolling toward neurotic behavior. This is true regardless of sexual orientation. This shows how even a single event, in the early formative years, can set the foundation for future subroutines, that require effort on the part to individual to overcome. If it is not important to overcome and/or one is told this is good, it can remain a subroutine that seems to be trademark of the person. In my opinion, the set up, is connected to the impact of the mother and unconditional love. If a mother is giving unconditional love to her baby, normal connections to cause and effect will be ignored, if these can get in the way of her feeling of love. Her child can be deficient, in some standardized way (sickly) but she will not give any weight/importance to this data, since it would impact her unconditional love. She will see what she wants to see, so she can be true to her feelings of love. The feeling will filter the data. Unconditional love can also be perpetuated, further into life, using subjectivity in the weighed data average. The mother of Adolf Hitler would still love him, but would need to look at him in a way that is detached from all his evil empire years. If this evil cause and effect of her little Adolf was acknowledged, it would create conflict in terms of being to express unconditional love. But if she can ignore this data and think of her baby Adolf; revisionist history, the feeling of love will not be shaken. Women often remain in an abusive relationships, since unconditional love will filter out some reality data. A slap off the side of the head needs to say I love you to maintain the ambiance of love. It is not about him hating her or unconditional love gets shaken. If the mother wanted to maintain the unconditional love she feels for her favorite child, for the entire life of the child, she may have to ignore all the developmental changes of the child which led to personal choices and autonomy apart from her. She might insist they pretend a younger days reality and treat him or her as her baby that still needs her; when the feeling were strongest. Homosexuality not being acceptable to religion, is because religions are more masculine; conditional love. This can lead to a different love trap based on social selection processes. In nature, not all behavior will win or be selected. History needs to be objective and all data weighed side by side to figure out the path that will be selected. Whereas unconditional love needs all to be selected (we are all winners). It is hard to criticize unconditional love since it transcends all differences and social selection processes. But nature, according to science and Darwin, is based on differences and selection processes. One would need to create an artificial world, that is no longer natural, to make unconditional possible. If life was a foot race, the fastest will win in nature thereby setting up a selection hierarchy. To make all winners, you need to trick the system with rules, laws and handicaps. But one is not allowed to infer these as the conditions for selection, since unconditional says this is the same as no rules; liberalism. Although there is no direct procedure for mom making a homosexual, unconditional allows one to depart from cause and effect. As feminism gained more control in culture, tricking the system becomes the way of the system. It departs from natural selection in favor of artificial selection.
Read your own post again...very slowly. You're asking a man who says he did not choose how it is that someone else allegedly did. What makes you think he has any insight into this? As such, it reads like a challenge, not a genuine attempt to better understand his sexuality. As in, "This one says he did choose, so what now?" This article, and the research it's based on, seems to think bisexuality isn't a real thing, and instead a sign that sexuality is "fluid." This is obviously nonsense. No, but it does seem obvious that not all gays or bisexuals are comfortable with those designations. And that's totally fair; many people don't like labels. It doesn't mean that they aren't gay or bisexual, however. I grew up with a kid who was overly proud of his Italian heritage, to the point where he refused to be called "white." In truth, he was white as snow, and his protests and self-designation as "Italian" for his race didn't change that. I've already discussed reasons why it's obvious that homosexuality is at least in most cases an an-born trait, and Magical Realist provided an extremely interesting link to hard science being done on the subject. You seem to have ignores all of that, though, which brings me back to questioning your real motive here.
I find your equating my sexual orientation to addiction offensive and homophobic. There's nothing any more addictive about me finding men attractive than a heterosexual man finding women attractive. And such is certainly not a matter of me having "more sex." My falling in love with someone actually promotes monogamy, same as it does with heterosexuals. Gay people, if you didn't know, have long term love relationships just like everybody else. So your disgusting addiction metaphor doesn't even make sense. We are as normal as any other human, and there's nothing wrong with our love for each other. And so we have your basic sexist "it's all mom's fault" myth. Science has disproven that lie many times over, showing homosexuality to be rooted in biological causes. Ofcourse you know this, but carry on with your ugly bigoted propaganda like you are making some original and newly thought-up point. You aren't. All this crap comes from the homophobic right in an ongoing attempt to demonize gay people and marginalize them as subhumans in need of fixing.
My advice would be to ignore him. For whatever reason, the mods are chasing away all the interesting posters and leaving rotten bigots like wellwisher alone to spew their bile. All we can do is pretend he doesn't exist. He feeds off of your responses.
So you are saying I'm sopposed to notify the world everytime I read something? How assumptiuos can you get? I am reviewing all pieces of analyses given to me, I'm simply asking people on their views of things. It's going to take some discussion before it can be engrained in me. So stop trying to cram down your views down my throat. So what I asked him some questions on his sexuality? I do so, so I can genuinely recieve knowledge and you implying that I'm trying to do some other demoralizing agenda is getting on my nerves. Nothings going to get accomplished by pointing fingers, it's pointless. If I wanted to demoralize someone I would of done it by now. How might he have insight on this you say? Because he is a homosexual man. Just like other homosexuals, it's better to ask him than some other person who has no idea what the gay community goes through. My questions were, Do you think they might have held in these feelings their whole life? It's not a challenge, it's a question. If he wasn't comfortable answering these questions he would of told me. If I caused him to feel negatively than I apologize. I conclude.
sex is natural. creatures seek pleasure. pleasure with responsibilties is different. i suppose pleasure cannot be fullfilled ?. life will continue.
the search for pleasure lead us into bonds like relationships. in homosexuality two similar creatures live together, nothing is wrong. their is more understanding also.
homosexuality is bond between two similar people. actually all the relationships and bonds have some 'homosexuality' : search for similar. hetrosexuality is another form of relationship, not so alien . people want to be with other who are like them, share similar thoughts. with similarity there is pleasure and fun. When there is difference there phenomena become expeirence. nd i dont mean to defame any body prefernces, nature. i am not good in english. love is not relationship, it is unknown and above all and this force catches its victim with 101 % preision.
