Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You are born that way. I'm just saying that you can drift to other ends of the spectrum as you get older. It isn't set in stone necessarily. For instance, I consider myself slightly bicurious. I never used to, but my mind wonders sometimes and I've thought about it. I probably wouldn't mind fooling around if the situation came up, but I'm by no means looking equally for a relationship with a man as much as I am a woman. These feelings weren't with me when I was a teenager either.

Kinsey scale

The Kinsey scale, also called the Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating Scale,[1] attempts to describe a person's sexual experience or response at a given time. It uses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual. In both the Male and Female volumes of the Kinsey Reports, an additional grade, listed as "X", was used to mean "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions"; in modern times, this represents asexuality.[2][3] The reports were first published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) by Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others, and were also prominent in the complementary work Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).[1]

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Yes. It's called the Kinsey Scale. I just posted a link to it in a previous post.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You are born that way. I'm just saying that you can drift to other ends of the spectrum as you get older. It isn't set in stone necessarily. For instance, I consider myself slightly bicurious. I never used to, but my mind wonders sometimes and I've thought about it. I probably wouldn't mind fooling around if the situation came up, but I'm by no means looking equally for a relationship with a man as much as I am a woman. These feelings weren't with me when I was a teenager either.

Kinsey scale

The Kinsey scale, also called the Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating Scale,[1] attempts to describe a person's sexual experience or response at a given time. It uses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual. In both the Male and Female volumes of the Kinsey Reports, an additional grade, listed as "X", was used to mean "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions"; in modern times, this represents asexuality.[2][3] The reports were first published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) by Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others, and were also prominent in the complementary work Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).[1]

Interesting...I never knew about that. Still learning something new every day. But it makes sense considering that (for example) people who are really into internet porn tend to increase the "level" of their choice of porn as time goes on. Maybe from simply nudity to BDS&M or something. Kinda just fits with our inherent addictive personalities. Those of us who are. As time progresses...us humans always seem to want more (or more extreme) of whatever we are into.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

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.

Pedophile is attraction to young children. It's not about gender.

And yes some researchers believe it is an orientation. That it is inherent in the body/brain makeup.

But, you can't have a victim. A child can not consent to sex.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Yes. It's called the Kinsey Scale. I just posted a link to it in a previous post.

I have been following this subject for 20 years. I am fully aware of the Kinsey scale.

It is a sliding scale of over all sexuality, not orientation.

Measuring orientation within an orientation is a different scale.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

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.

Pedophile is attraction to young children. It's not about gender.

And yes some researchers believe it is an orientation. That it is inherent in the body/brain makeup.

But, you can't have a victim. A child can not consent to sex.

Absolutely! So you agree with Annee that if a man gets an erection that he is attracted to whatever caused the erection? Personally...I couldn't disagree more. So then...are you implying that while it is illegal to act upon, gender should include young-boy, young-girl, animal, etc.? It sounds like, if I'm understanding you correctly...how a person identifies, how they are made up (mind) and therefore should be added to the existing classifications?

And for the record...I don't agree at all. I'm just trying to understand your point.

a reply to: Annee

Look the whole point is that people aren't just totally gay or totally straight.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

Look the whole point is that people aren't just totally gay or totally straight.

Yes they are. Or can be.

Or can be in the middle.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

Look the whole point is that people aren't just totally gay or totally straight.

Yes they are. Or can be.

Or can be in the middle.

I think that would be called a draw

a reply to: Annee

That's what I mean. It's not an either or thing. There are extremes and many options in between that people can be.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Physically men and women are built to procreate together.

So? Not all hetero sex is aimed at procreative methods. Heterosexuals enjoy non-reproductive type sex, like BJs, HandJs, role playing. S & M, back door exploration.....you get my drift?

he 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

Which proves my point, an erection is a signal of physical attraction, not mental or emotional response, whether the man realizes it or not.

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!
---------------------------------
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!!!

Yes, you are comparing homosexual attraction to rape and pedophilia, which are deemed crimes because there is always a victim involved in the execution of a sexual act. Rape and pedophilia were, at certain times in history, not entirely illegal, but they are here and now.

If a man gets an erection from seeing children on the playground, then he's a pedophile, whether or not he acts on it. Child porn, even in the privacy of one's own home is still illegal.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

That's what I mean. It's not an either or thing. There are extremes and many options in between that people can be.

But, it can be either / or.

The Kinsey scale is heterosexual at one end -- homosexual at the other. While I believe most people fall somewhere in the middle (omnisexual/pansexual)--- there still are those who are firmly planted near each end.

Humans are not clones and are extremely complex. When you put "all the ingredients" in a large pot and stir, you are going to get all variations.

Sexuality is not black and white --- it's all shades of gray. And not just anatomic.

In the last 5 to 10 years a lot has been learned about how the brain (and all its components) directly affects who we are sexually.

Social and belief constraints have interfered with natural human sexuality.

EDIT: and from your Kinsey link. Scale within the sexual orientation.

Kinsey, Storm, and Klein are only three of more than 200 scales to measure and describe sexual orientation. For example, there are scales that rate homosexual behaviors from 1 to 14, and measures for gender, masculinity, femininity, and transsexualism.

Interesting info: bisexual.org...

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE


Interesting...I never knew about that. Still learning something new every day.

If you're just learning about Alfred Kinsey - be sure to do your research into his pedophilia.

In addition to most of his 'research' being widely viewed as garbage, his legacy is that of a perverted sex criminal.

What a freaking SHOCK that deviants use Kinsey to promote their agenda....SHOCKING!!!

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE


Interesting...I never knew about that. Still learning something new every day.

If you're just learning about Alfred Kinsey - be sure to do your research into his pedophilia.

In addition to most of his 'research' being widely viewed as garbage, his legacy is that of a perverted sex criminal.

What a freaking SHOCK that deviants use Kinsey to promote their agenda....SHOCKING!!!

So what.

Anything to derail the thread.

Kinsey did not report who his interview subjects were. And he would interview anyone to get information on all areas of sexuality.

If you are claiming more ----- you will have to prove it.

originally posted by: Annee

So what.

Anything to derail the thread.

Kinsey did not report who his interview subjects were. And he would interview anyone to get information on all areas if sexuality.

So what?

Of all the ridiculous statements, this is the worst.

So what? So what if children were sexually abused and exploited for his research? So what?

This is terribly telling of you and your ilk - ANYTHING GOES as long as it promotes your agenda.

Perhaps if your autistic grandchild were one of the subjects, you'd feel differently - but if it is other's children - SO FREAKING WHAT!

Dr. Judith Reisman, Sex, Lies and Kinsey:


"Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.

For example, “Table 34” on page 180 of Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” claims to be a “scientific” record of “multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.” Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for “orgasm” by Kinsey’s “technically trained” aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 “orgasms.” Sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates commonly quote these child “data” to prove children’s need for homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual satisfaction via “safe-sex” education. These data are also regularly used to “prove” children are sexual from birth.

Both of Kinsey’s most recent admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and the staff’s wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, had ‘front’ Marriages that concealed their strategies to supplant what they say as a narrow pro-creational Judeo-Christian era with a promiscuous ‘anything goes’ bi/gay pedophile paradise.

Hey Annee - if the shoe fits, wear it!


"The man heralded with enthusiasm by mainstream publications such as Time and Life Magazine was nothing less than a monstrous facilitator of child-rape. In fact, he even went so far as to record children shrieking and thrashing in pain, passing out and convulsing as the result of the hellish abuse he was putting them through, as evidence of “orgasm”—especially for children who could not yet speak."


I'm going to go vomit now. Heaps and heaps of shame and scorn upon you.

a reply to: Seamrog

Kinsey gathered info and made a report on it. That's all I have to say about him.

I am aware of Dr.Reisman's opinion. Others have opinions about her.

Her Kinsey Obsession Judith Reisman believes sex researcher Alfred Kinsey is responsible for all the cultural decay and sexual permissiveness that she sees. And she's got the ear of the Christian right and the White House.www.alternet.org...

Reisman’s obsession with Alfred Kinsey is presumably related to the molestation of her daughter, who later died from brain aneurysm. Her accusations against Kinsey lack any foundation in reality, however. Reisman has, for instance, accused Kinsey of being a fraud who employed and relied on pedophiles for his research, and even that he himself sexually abused children, an accusation that Kinsey biographer James H. Jones has dismissed as “groundless”. rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Seamrog

I am aware of Dr.Reisman's opinion.

And that's all you have --- opinion.

It is unbelievable how deliberately false you can be. The information is pulled directly from his studies.

Reisman is only one source - there are MANY more the give evidence to the fact that you are a slave to your opinion, and you have blinded yourself to reality.

Kinsey was a monster, and you are lock, stop and barrel in league with him.

But PLEASE, by all means, keep citing Kinsey as a legitimate claim for all things deviant. It is especially appropriate when citing 'proof' for men and women being born 'gay.'

Those towers are built on a foundation of perversion / lies / distortions and CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.

You perverts keep it up!

DP

I do not care to discuss Kinsey. Go make a thread.

Homosexuality is loosely related to topic. Kinsey is not --- except in context.