Most homosexuality is a choice

a reply to: pompel9

Did the matrix just glitched? I am seeing the same response from you.

Oh whew never mind. Most of your reply was a copy.

But anyway...

Yes they can.

I never said they can't. You said that a gay person researching has an agenda behind it.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: pompel9

That person is not a scientist. He is a biologist that is trying to make some money.

Biology is a scientific field. Biologists are scientists. Why exactly are you assuming all this sinister stuff about him?? Where is that coming from?..

Why didn't he make a scientific paper on this, if he had the proof?

The book cites numerous studies. You'd know that if you read it. Of course you're not going to know that because you said you won't read it.

Yes it is. But this biologist did not make a scientific paper, instead he wrote a book. I don't know about you, but that says a lot to me. Since he opted out of making a scientific paper, then he is no a scientist. You do know that scientist make scientific papers? And that it usually takes years to make and get it peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community.
This person chose not to do this.

Sorry about the post. Can't find the wrong code to fix the quote.

a reply to: pompel9

No it doesn't.... do you read anyone's post or just see it and respond with the same thing?

If i was attracted to Woman i would be Bisexual, i am not, i never was. but if i had to have Sex with a Woman for the Sake of Mankind and Reproduction, i Could.. meaning it would Work.. the whole Guy and Girls thing... but that would NOT Make me bisexual. you are once again confusing a Sex act with Sexual-Orientation

a reply to: pompel9

instead he wrote a book.

I don't understand how that signifies something negative. I've read plenty of books from authors that are scientists.

Since he opted out of making a scientific paper

Again. Numerous studies are cited within its pages.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: pompel9

No it doesn't.... do you read anyone's post or just see it and respond with the same thing?

If i was attracted to Woman i would be Bisexual, i am not, i never was. but if i had to have Sex with a Woman for the Sake of Mankind and Reproduction, i Could.. meaning it would Work.. the whole Guy and Girls thing... but that would NOT Make me bisexual. you are once again confusing a Sex act with Sexual-Orientation

Yes I do.

Seems we have to agree to disagree. In my opinion that makes you bisexual, because you can have sex with a woman.
I can't have sex with a man. Which makes me straight. If you have read my other posts, then you have already read what I have to say about that.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: pompel9

instead he wrote a book.

I don't understand how that signifies something negative. I've read plenty of books from authors that are scientists.

Since he opted out of making a scientific paper

Again. Numerous studies are cited within its pages.

He can make as many books as he like. I do not view a book as scientific. Neither does any scientist. Has he written an approved scientific paper on the subject?

And I asked you to link them, but you either missed that part or won't.

a reply to: pompel9

The only thing we do agree with is that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

The rest is just an act.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: pompel9

The only thing we do agree with is that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

The rest is just an act.

At the moment there are no definitive answers to that. But the scientific studies so far indicates that is the case.

Then why make a big number out of it?

Thank you for an entertaining discussion. Now I have to get some sleep, will answer any posts directed at me when I get the time to do so.

a reply to: pompel9

I can't have sex with a man. Which makes me straight.

Sexual orientation is about the underlying attraction, not one's ability to maintain an erection.

a reply to: pompel9

You don't seem understand the Difference between a Sex Act and Sexual Orientation, or what makes someone a Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Pansexual Etc. also your "definitions" don't get to decide what Orientation someone is

you can agree to disagree if you want

a reply to: pompel9

And I asked you to link them, but you either missed that part or won't.

I offered to send you the damn book. That is me offering to send them. You'll see the citations and can then explore them further. I'm not going to do the heavy lifting for you. Spinning this to make it seem like I am unwilling to share them is ridiculous.

a reply to: pompel9

For starters you are saying that being gay isn't normal. Would you say that to a disabled person? Synonyms:: degenerative, subhuman, abnormal, weird, queer and then the bullying starts. So no, you can't have an opinion that is the tip of the persecution iceberg. I've seen and experienced queer bashing first hand. I've had friends hospitalised. People in my community are being attacked or murdered regularly. And who is doing it? It's those who think being gay isn't normal. And they are not gay. When it comes to homosexuality straight men hsave an aptitude for torment. I would call that evil. You would call it having a bit of fun.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

Ok, but in all your post you talk about how "Gays" Think, and what "Gays" like to do. and you don't think being Homosexual is Natural or how we are born... so you don't see us as Equal Humans

Yes, but "Gays" defined themselves this way by their behavior, and then claim their behavior is not a choice. It's not my claim.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Sexual orientation is about the underlying attraction, not one's ability to maintain an erection.

That underlying attraction is motivated by a spirit. It's not a physical, anatomical, genetic, or biological thing.

That's why straight men are not attracted to "all women". Straight men find many women unappealing. But, some women turn them on. What guides this selective attraction? Can you explain it by brain size? No. There's nothing in the physical body that determines this. People have looked for all sorts of explanations. But, there are none to be found in the body.

It's all in the mind.

The only question is, how do these ideas get into the mind?

Who put them there?

Did a friend "suggest" the idea? Did something in a person's environment "motivate" the idea? Did an invisible "spirit" put the thought there?

The reason for the holy blessing in a Church marriage is the belief that the holy spirit brought this man and this woman together in holy matrimony.

But, the holy spirit isn't the only spirit operating in the world.

a reply to: AMPTAH

a reply to: pompel9


The funniest thing about this entire conversation is that the first sexual organisms were technically homosexual. Originally you had asexual reproduction. Then eventually you had organisms capable of doing it both ways, yet they were not separate sexes yet. Eventually male and female genders evolved around this ability. Good thing they "chose" to be gay rather than strictly asexual, or we likely would not exist.

So yeah, we are all the product of homosexuality in our earliest roots. This is why I find the whole argument about homosexuality in the stone age so funny. You have to go back way further than that.

/thread

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Why wouldn't a gay man want children?

Indeed that's a good question. MOST of people want children. It's inherent.

I'm straight and I definitely do not want kids. I guess that makes me not normal according to the other guy's definition of it.

originally posted by: pompel9
That person is not a scientist. He is a biologist

Tell me I didn't just read that?

Yes it is. But this biologist did not make a scientific paper, instead he wrote a book. I don't know about you, but that says a lot to me. Since he opted out of making a scientific paper, then he is no a scientist. You do know that scientist make scientific papers?

Um. Not every scientist has peer reviewed published papers out there. That doesn't take away from him being a scientist. Does his book cite facts? Are you really suggesting that homosexuality has not been observed in animals? I don't get the argument. It has been directly witnessed and recorded in videos in countless animals, but that's not proof for you?

Seems we have to agree to disagree. In my opinion that makes you bisexual, because you can have sex with a woman.
I can't have sex with a man. Which makes me straight. If you have read my other posts, then you have already read what I have to say about that.

It's not about can or can't. It's about whether the attraction is there or not. A gay man could surely have sex with a woman if it meant saving the human race or at the very least could try procreating without the direct sexual contact. It's about the sperm fertilizing the egg, after all, you can do that in other ways beside direct sex.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Bicent76

I'm hell-bent on saying it's normal? Okay. Sure. I guess. I literally just showed it's normal using an official definition of the word.

You keep repeating it's not normal. We understand that's your position. I'm merely asking for elaboration because much of it is very unclear.

Anyways. This is tedious so I'm officially no longer interested.

He's saying that it is uncommon, he's just doing a really bad job of explaining it. That is what he means by normal, probably close to this definition:

the usual, average, or typical state or condition.

If 15% of humans are homosexual, then it is a relatively small percentage of humans, which makes it uncommon (or not normal depending on which definition you use). Obviously we don't really know those numbers for a fact, but I believe that is his point.

The problem with that point is that it can apply to a whole myriad of different races or traits of humans.

I am a 5'1" male. This is well below average for male height, based on statistics it's too low to even register. I think I've met 1 male in my life that was shorter than I am. This makes me not normal (uncommon).

So if we keep going based on this:

Black folks are not normal
Anybody over 6'6 is not normal
Redheads are not normal
Atheists are not normal
Agnostics are not normal
Vegans are not normal
People that don't listen to pop music are not normal
People that support 3rd party candidates are not normal

The list goes on and on. Based on the definition above, these things are not normal. But that doesn't mean they are wrong. I'm happy being not normal. Normal people bore me. Chances are everybody has something about them that deviates from the norm, it's just when you say somebody is not normal, it can be interpreted as offensive, which is why I think it is a poor word to use. Just say it's uncommon and nobody will argue.

normal is completely overrated. its "safe" but its also "predictable" and that means you aint going anywhere but where you already been.

originally posted by: Barcs

He's saying that it is uncommon, he's just doing a really bad job of explaining it. That is what he means by normal, . . .

IMO - - those who use this thinking do it intentionally, with intent to degrade.

While it may be technically correct to use "not normal" to mean uncommon, it certainly isn't necessary.