Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: windword

The vast majority of 16 year old boys are attracted to girls.

Not other boys. Those who are attracted to boys are disordered.

Sorry.

Either way, it does not change the facts that a man cannot marry another man, and homosexual acts are deviant behavior that are counterproductive to societal well being.

a reply to: Seamrog

why do you say that they cannot marry? is it because the christian culture believes this? because there were other cultures throughout history that allowed it? or is becuase they cannot reproduce?? okay they can't reproduce (not that that is something that we at the present time should be concerned with) but if a man marries a women and they find out that one of them is impotent, then well the same can be said of that couple, they can't reproduce, so are they married?

and why is the acts deviant behavior? because you say so, because the christian culture taught you to believe this and just how is it conterproductive to society's well being? at least they ain't breeding kids and abandoning them to fend for themselves like many tend to do in today's heterosexual society!

a reply to: Seamrog

NEWSFLASH! Erections are a natural biological signal of a deep sexual urge that has nothing to do with logic or reason.

People are naturally attracted to the gender that they're physically oriented to be attracted to. Sometimes, that's the same sex, naturally. Just because it doesn't fit into your mental norm doesn't make it a mental disorder any more than a woman being attracted to a crippled man, that can never sexually satisfy her, is a disorder.

It's all part of survival. Not all survival urges require altruism to be natural. Having offspring may be important to the survival of the species in the long run, but it may be detrimental to the parents. The survival of the species is also dependent on thriving, and the ability to thrive comes from selfish, not altruistic, urges, that species benefits from, in the long run.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Seamrog

NEWSFLASH! Erections are a natural biological signal of a deep sexual urge that has nothing to do with logic or reason.

You don't have a penis do you?

Erections in teenage boys have nothing to do with 'deep sexual urges.' The wind could blow sideways and a teenage boy could get an erection. It is part of adolescence. That's all I'll say about that because it's creepy discussing it in the context of 'you.'

originally posted by: windword

People are naturally attracted to the gender that they're physically oriented to be attracted to.

Thank you for making my point for me - you have it EXACTLY right here. Man is naturally attracted to woman because he is physically ordered to her. This a part of the natural law.

a reply to: Seamrog

but obviously not all men are or we wouldn't be having such a grand discussion on the prospects of allowing gay marriage!!

you say such behavior is counter productive for society but how is it not just as counterproductive to have people live a lie, pressure them into marrying someone of the opposite sex that they really aren't that attracted to?? deny what they are??

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: windword

The vast majority of 16 year old boys are attracted to girls.

Not other boys. Those who are attracted to boys are disordered.

Sorry.

Basically you're promoting Procreation as proper order.

For you, even though sexual orientation is inherent, you claim it is out of order because same sex can't procreate.

a reply to: Seamrog

Man is naturally attracted to woman because he is physically ordered to her.

Man is not naturally ordered to stay with her, and provide for her and her offspring, though. That has been traditionally forced on men.

Apparently, nature has also ordered homosexuality, since it occurs regularly in humans as well as in nature. Apparently, homosexuality is intrinsic and necessary to the survival of the species.

You're fighting a losing argument.

originally posted by: windword

Man is not naturally ordered to stay with her, and provide for her and her offspring, though. That has been traditionally forced on men.

Of course man is naturally ordered to be a father to his children, and a husband to his wife.

This is precisely what has sustained human existence and protected our society.

Otherwise, we would be murdering our young, like the animals do.

[wait - don't use that as an example - human mothers have killed 60 million plus children in abortion clinics]

To state that a man is inclined to spread his seed is to firmly shore up each and every argument FOR marriage.

I appreciate you acknowledging that indisputable fact.

Thank you.

a reply to: Seamrog

Of course man is naturally ordered to be a father to his children, and a husband to his wife.

Nope. That's not natural. Not natural at all. Man has always had to have been coerced and forced into sticking around. All throughout history men have found excuses to leave their wives, usually for the love of war. If men weren't off, out and about, and were forced to settle into a community, then they found excuses to find a second or third wife, emotionally and physically abandoning his first wife.

Men have found reasons to enact laws allowing them to divorce their wives and cut off their daughters from any inheritance. They've found reasons to enact laws allowing them to sell their daughters, and even their wives, if it behooved them. Men have found reason to convince their own women to kill their female babies, in order to keep their secure place within a man's household.

Since the dawn of time, men have had the right to beat and even kill their wives and children, if they were offended by them.

All that happened and continues to happen, because of, and when men and women are forced to pair up unnaturally.

when you are taking your moral code from a god who was trying to make a great nation from just two people, well, kind of seems reasonable that those moral codes would have the words "Be fruitful and multiply" in them somewhere..
but, when the number of people are so great and they are going through the natural resources so fast there's a chance that they will be leaving there children very little, well is it really a good idea to be fruitful and multiply?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Seamrog

NEWSFLASH! Erections are a natural biological signal of a deep sexual urge that has nothing to do with logic or reason.

People are naturally attracted to the gender that they're physically oriented to be attracted to. Sometimes, that's the same sex, naturally. Just because it doesn't fit into your mental norm doesn't make it a mental disorder any more than a woman being attracted to a crippled man, that can never sexually satisfy her, is a disorder.

It's all part of survival. Not all survival urges require altruism to be natural. Having offspring may be important to the survival of the species in the long run, but it may be detrimental to the parents. The survival of the species is also dependent on thriving, and the ability to thrive comes from selfish, not altruistic, urges, that species benefits from, in the long run.

Umm...your choice of the words "physically oriented" sunk that part of your argument. Maybe mentally oriented would have worked better. Physically, men have one single unique organ and woman have one single unique organ that only work together. Without one, humans can't have children naturally. Therefore, if you say "physically oriented" you are saying that a man can only be attracted to a woman and visa versa.

And in fact...physically that is true. So is it mentally or emotionally or what when a man is attracted sexually to a man? I seriously don't know not being oriented in that way. But I am truly curious what your opinion is on the question. Is it mentally, emotionally or something else because biologically and physically doesn't work.

Then...and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with anyone who is gay...if it is a mental or emotional orientation I would suggest the opinion that anything mental is a choice. I know people who are afraid of spiders. Mentally they know the ones that scare them can't hurt them, but emotionally they can't control themselves from being scared. So I guess I would have to suggest that male/male attraction is emotional, not physical or mental. And then if it is emotional...emotions can change. That same person that jumps when they see a spider can get past it with time or therapy. So would the same apply to being gay?

Not arguing...not saying I have an answer, just looking at your comments logically and scientifically. Since being gay can not be physical and I don't see how it can be mental unless you believe it is a choice...doesn't it have to be emotional. And if it is emotional, doesn't that mean that it can change and/or be changed? Not that it should...but can it?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Umm...your choice of the words "physically oriented" sunk that part of your argument. Maybe mentally oriented would have worked better. Physically, men have one single unique organ and woman have one single unique organ that only work together. Without one, humans can't have children naturally. Therefore, if you say "physically oriented" you are saying that a man can only be attracted to a woman and visa versa.

No, not at all. What I was trying to say is that men's erections are what signal where their attractions lie, and mentality really has nothing to do with it. It's all physical. This is especially true with adolescent males. These kinds of signals aren't as obvious in women.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Umm...your choice of the words "physically oriented" sunk that part of your argument. Maybe mentally oriented would have worked better. Physically, men have one single unique organ and woman have one single unique organ that only work together. Without one, humans can't have children naturally. Therefore, if you say "physically oriented" you are saying that a man can only be attracted to a woman and visa versa.

No, not at all. What I was trying to say is that men's erections are what signal where their attractions lie, and mentality really has nothing to do with it. It's all physical. This is especially true with adolescent males. These kinds of signals aren't as obvious in women.

This is not to argue...just to correct. Physically men and women are built to procreate together. I assume we would all agree that by how we are built (penis...vagina, etc.) that is a fact. There are reports of hetrosexual men (prison for example) that when raped actually got an erection. It wasn't because they enjoyed it...it was a physical response regardless of what they like or prefer. Saying an erection is a sign of sexual preference is almost close to saying that if a woman gets raped but orgasms, she must have wanted it (which has happened). Which is OBVIOUSLY WRONG!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Umm...your choice of the words "physically oriented" sunk that part of your argument. Maybe mentally oriented would have worked better. Physically, men have one single unique organ and woman have one single unique organ that only work together. Without one, humans can't have children naturally. Therefore, if you say "physically oriented" you are saying that a man can only be attracted to a woman and visa versa.

No, not at all. What I was trying to say is that men's erections are what signal where their attractions lie, and mentality really has nothing to do with it. It's all physical. This is especially true with adolescent males. These kinds of signals aren't as obvious in women.

Yep! In sexual studies they monitor the penis response.

Not surprisingly, some men who consider themselves hetero involuntarily respond to pictures of naked men instead of women.

Suppression can't hide true nature.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Umm...your choice of the words "physically oriented" sunk that part of your argument. Maybe mentally oriented would have worked better. Physically, men have one single unique organ and woman have one single unique organ that only work together. Without one, humans can't have children naturally. Therefore, if you say "physically oriented" you are saying that a man can only be attracted to a woman and visa versa.

No, not at all. What I was trying to say is that men's erections are what signal where their attractions lie, and mentality really has nothing to do with it. It's all physical. This is especially true with adolescent males. These kinds of signals aren't as obvious in women.

Please accept this with humor to help lighten the mood. But if you are a woman...let me tell you that men get erections for no apparent reason sometimes. The other poster was correct. Sometimes the wind blows, sometimes you just wake up that way. Our "parts" seem to have a mind of their own sometimes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Umm...your choice of the words "physically oriented" sunk that part of your argument. Maybe mentally oriented would have worked better. Physically, men have one single unique organ and woman have one single unique organ that only work together. Without one, humans can't have children naturally. Therefore, if you say "physically oriented" you are saying that a man can only be attracted to a woman and visa versa.

No, not at all. What I was trying to say is that men's erections are what signal where their attractions lie, and mentality really has nothing to do with it. It's all physical. This is especially true with adolescent males. These kinds of signals aren't as obvious in women.

Yep! In sexual studies they monitor the penis response.

Not surprisingly, some men who consider themselves hetero involuntarily respond to pictures of naked men instead of women.

Suppression can't hide true nature.

I hope you are not implying that a man raped in prison that physically gets an erection in the process is gay regardless of what he says, his history or his desires. Are you? If you are a guy, you know that is BS.

a reply to: Annee

It should be noted that "gayness" isn't like a switch that is flipped on or off in your head. It is actually considered a sliding scale ranging from totally gay to slightly gay to bisexual to bicurious to completely straight. It is also considered to slide to different parts of the scale as you get older. A straight person could get older and become gay or vice-versa.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

It should be noted that "gayness" isn't like a switch that is flipped on or off in your head. It is actually considered a sliding scale ranging from totally gay to slightly gay to bisexual to bicurious to completely straight. It is also considered to slide to different parts of the scale as you get older. A straight person could get older and become gay or vice-versa.

I never actually thought about that...or knew that. But it makes sense. So you are saying that someone that is gay can change and someone who is straight can also? I thought that was one of the arguments of the gay community that "you are born that way"? But I ask because I haven't researched the subject.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

It should be noted that "gayness" isn't like a switch that is flipped on or off in your head. It is actually considered a sliding scale ranging from totally gay to slightly gay to bisexual to bicurious to completely straight. It is also considered to slide to different parts of the scale as you get older. A straight person could get older and become gay or vice-versa.

"Gayness" is not considered a sliding scale.

Overall sexuality is considered a sliding scale.

If your orientation is attraction to same sex --- then you are homosexual. What type you are attracted to is not about the orientation.

It's no different then a hetero man being attracted to big boobs or an athletic body.

Being attracted to different types within your orientation is not a sliding scale of orientation.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Umm...your choice of the words "physically oriented" sunk that part of your argument. Maybe mentally oriented would have worked better. Physically, men have one single unique organ and woman have one single unique organ that only work together. Without one, humans can't have children naturally. Therefore, if you say "physically oriented" you are saying that a man can only be attracted to a woman and visa versa.

No, not at all. What I was trying to say is that men's erections are what signal where their attractions lie, and mentality really has nothing to do with it. It's all physical. This is especially true with adolescent males. These kinds of signals aren't as obvious in women.

PS: If you truly believe it is all physical, using an erection as a "gauge"...then what does that mean for a peodiphile? If someone only get an erection thinking of little boys (BUT NEVER ACTS UPON IT) then aren't you saying that is who they physically are? And then...that would mean they are just the same as someone who is gay?

NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING GAY TO PEDOPHILE!!! I'm comparing the gauge of an erection to what physically attracts you. Which I TOTALLY disagree with.