Most homosexuality is a choice

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I am confused. Are you agreeing with us or not? (and for the number 2 yes island duh)

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: boymonkey74

Guys if he isn't willing to tell us and just wants to play games don't give him the satisfaction eh? Just stop responding to him.

You think this person is another troll in this thread? Sighs sometimes I can never tell.

Sure, go ahead and ignore some who is asking you to think critically. Who really wants to debate with someone who has alternate ideas, anyway. Better to stay in your own echo chamber.

I'm about to go to bed. I hope we can continue tomorrow. This is actually pretty interesting, to me anyway.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

No, since we have seen that they can and have reproduced with the opposite sex. That''s what started this conversation.

I guess I am confused. The claim was that the gay people can not reproduce because they are not attracted to the opposite sex.

Perhaps I get confused with this AMPTAH fella.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Sure, go ahead and ignore some who is asking you to think critically. Who really wants to debate with someone who has alternate ideas, anyway. Better to stay in your own echo chamber.

I was asking him.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I am confused. Are you agreeing with us or not? (and for the number 2 yes island duh)

We 100% agree that gay people are as human as straights, that at least some of them want to produce/adopt/raise kids like straight people, and that they have the same biological need to do that, etc.

Yes, we agree on much of it. That's not my question.

The question is, *why* do they have that biological need when they lack the heterosexual attraction to the opposite gender?

And with that, good night.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Sure, go ahead and ignore some who is asking you to think critically. Who really wants to debate with someone who has alternate ideas, anyway. Better to stay in your own echo chamber.

I was asking him.

Sorry, I thought I was replying to monkeyboy.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

GLBTQ+ Children are Born to Heterosexual Parents...

If i'm close, just tell me.. i am actually interested in your answer

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The question is, *why* do they have that biological need when they lack the heterosexual attraction to the opposite gender?

All human beings (most of them anyways) have that biological need. What do you think sex is for? If not for pleasure?

Sorry, I thought I was replying to monkeyboy.

No problem.

And with that, good night.

Good night to you too.

a reply to: AMPTAH
The bible is not definitive proof of what the genes do or how it works in the human body. After all the building blocks can be made in a lab, that already has been done. www.telegraph.co.uk... l

But beyond that, and ATCG, are the only letters in the DNA. However, we can not really know what each position does, as it has to be either on or off. And then there is the other small research going on, currently, though it does open a few doors and shows that perhaps there is something at the genetic level that would indicate that someone being a homosexual or straight or bisexual is really born that way.

www.latimes.com...

www.iflscience.com...

Interesting read, as there is more at the genetic level that is showing that homosexuality in men is more at the genetic level and not exactly a choice.

originally posted by: markosity1973
Then why on earth do you try and force the world to fit into the bible here on ATS?

If the shoe fits...you know the saying, If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

a reply to: AMPTAH

But the Bible is just a Book without the Belief in it, not everyone does.. there are many Religious Books and Text that many people Believe in

a reply to: AMPTAH

The only shoe I see fitting is a religious nut who thinks the bible is the last word on everything in this world and will not even consider that another viewpoint may exist.

ISIS do the same thing with the Qu'ran you know.

Just saying.........

a reply to: markosity1973

I would argue it's an even smaller portion of scripture.

Of those 8 examples:

2 are referring to gang-rape. Rape is about exerting power over another. Not good examples of sexual orientation. Not to mention it's not clear whether they knew the 'men' were angels. Perhaps they knew and that's why they were so adamant about raping these specific 'men'. Those 2 are out.

The 2 Leviticus verses are the least arguable. Still, they are referring to the sex act itself, and not homosexuality specifically. They didn't have language in Biblical times for sexual orientations. The concept was alien to them. So at the very most we can say these 2 verses seem to oppose men having sex with other men.

The other 4 verses are letters from the Apostle Paul. I would strongly argue that in Paul's eyes the sin was not the idea men would be having sex with men, rather the sin was sex outside of wedlock. That might be splitting hairs to some considering sex was only allowed between a married man and a woman, but I think the distinction is critical when determining precisely what the sin was.

As AMPTAH expressed earlier, the importance is on celibacy first and foremost, followed by marriage. Any act of sex outside of marriage is the sin. Paul is mentioning men having sex with other men in reference to a prevalent practice among the people they were usurping known as pederasty. Which was essentially sexual slavery between an older and younger man, and at times examples of pedophilia. Again, not really something akin to what we mean in the modern world when talk about what the homosexual orientation is. They couldn't be married, so they were having sex outside of wedlock. That was the sin.

I feel the notion the Bible contains a lot of anti-homosexuality is ultimately very weak understanding of scripture. However, that doesn't stop churches from teaching their flock it's of utmost spiritual importance to oppose gay people vehemently.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

I guess I am confused. The claim was that the gay people can not reproduce because they are not attracted to the opposite sex.

Perhaps I get confused with this AMPTAH fella.

Well, don't confuse with this AMPTAH fella, you know my position.

Both gays and straights have the same heterosexual body.

But, homosexuals have a gay mind, and heterosexuals have a straight mind.

The body is the same, but the mind is different.

How the mind got to be different is another topic.

Now the body has its own needs. It gets hungry, and we need to eat. It gets thirsty, and we need to drink. It feels like taking a poo, and we need to go to the Loo. It has many urges all on its own. A female body type is linked to cycles of the moon, this makes the woman moody, whether she is straight or les. The body has it's periods, even if the girl is lesbian. Men wake up in the morning with erection, whether straight or gay.

So, the body is always doing its own thing.

Enter the mind.

People mentally gravitate to different groups. Everybody wants to be a member of some group. That's how we get gangs, and gang wars, and neighborhoods ruled by gangs, like Mafia, etc..Being part of a group is "belonging" somewhere. See all the letters GLBTQ+ etc..some group. People pick a group based on their fantasy. That fantasy was determined by many factors, but there's only a few different groups you can join for sexual fantasies...hence the finite sequence of letters.

This is all stuff going on in the mind, the fantasies, all mental activity.

The body is still doing its own thing, regardless of the fantasies the mind conjours up.

Every month, the body tells the girl, time for a baby. It sends the message up to the brain. Actually, the hormones are released from the brain, in the pituitary gland, and sent around the body to activate the "baby now" signal. That's when scientists say the woman is "ovulating". Her pupils dilate, and she begins to feel like making a kid. All of this is heterosexual functioning of the body itself. But, it sends signals to the fantasy part of the mind, and the mind fits it in with its movie script.

So, the heterosexual body is telling the woman, make a baby, make a baby now, and the girl goes with her partner and acts out a drama that would normally make a baby, but if she is a lesbian, the baby doesn't come, and she still remains hungry and unfulfilled. The mind still has that thought "Where is my baby?" So, she goes to adopt a kid instead.

That's kinda how things work.

The sexual impulse was "misdirected" into a gay or lesbian behavior, so the result was "incomplete".

Hunger still there. Want the kid. Food wasn't filling.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

It won't be my conclusion, and it won't be your non-informative response either.

Oh good grief. Stop the mind games and get to your point.

Speaking of "non-informative"...

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So if a gay person is interested in heterosexual reproduction, what does that make them?

Gay people are able to procreate using their genetics and forgo heterosexual sex. They do all the time. They can, and often do, have the desire to reproduce, to start families, all the while lack any interest in having sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. Your premise is flawed from the onset so I really don't see your long-awaited big reveal to be all that astonishing.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: AMPTAH

The only shoe I see fitting is a religious nut who thinks the bible is the last word on everything in this world and will not even consider that another viewpoint may exist.

ISIS do the same thing with the Qu'ran you know.

Just saying.........

Well, the relevancy of the bible is that it is one of the most "recent" compilation of scriptures. I looked at the Quran, but I couldn't make any sense of that book. It remains a mystery to me. The bible, however, is logical and clear, and many things in it can be traced back to older religions, like buddhism and hinduism. So, in my view, the bible is, in a sense, the last word we can trust, on the subject of spiritual scriptures. It is the last compilation that retains a coherent viewpoint. It leaves out many things that older religions elaborate more extensively upon, but it contains, nevertheless, the essense of the spiritual drama we humans are engaged in. And it is most relevant for our times.


I don't think ISIS has anything to do with the Qu'ran. Someone is funding them, giving them weapons, uniforms, training, and all this nonsense about the Quran and Islam is misdirection for our consumption in the west. Someone with lots of money, thinks that an unstable middle east is good for the western economies. Anyway, that's a whole other topic. And ISIS aren't homosexuals, so we'll toss them out.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

But the Bible is just a Book without the Belief in it, not everyone does.. there are many Religious Books and Text that many people Believe in

If you haven't read the bible, or read but didn't understand, then it's just a book.

But, if you read the bible, and understand what it says, you'll find it is really a compilation of various types of wisdom.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

But the Bible is just a Book without the Belief in it, not everyone does.. there are many Religious Books and Text that many people Believe in

If you haven't read the bible, or read but didn't understand, then it's just a book.

But, if you read the bible, and understand what it says, you'll find it is really a compilation of various types of wisdom.

And as always, you'd rather take it as the final authority despite the fact the last book was written about 2,000 years ago. You therefore rule out at your own cherry picking convenience 2,000 years of human scientific and cultural learnings.

But hey the earth is still flat is only 6,000 years old, right?