More Shame n' Judgement Please

a reply to: Freija

It is not an assumption at all, it is a scientific fact. I have provided one source of credibility, you have chosen to disregard it. This was the second website that popped up on google mind you, there are thousands that validate what I am telling you.

a reply to: kaylaluv

And as i have already stated, here we go again, testosterone is not the sole player in formation of sexuality, let alone human perception. Birth defects such as brain irregularities, glandular irregularities, organ irregularities all play a factor.

Sexuality and sexual orientation are the same thing.

a reply to: chadderson

Low testosterone can affect a man's sexual desire or libido. It has nothing to do with the target of sexual desire.

a reply to: Freija

Test affects the way the mind functions, it affects perception, it does have the ability to influence what sex one is attracted to, as a properly functioning male body is attracted to a female.

As kayla has said, hetero's can have low T, and homosexuals can have regualar T, but with a dysfunctional biomechanical process elsewhere in the body, the testosterone is not the inhibiting factor in these cases. Birth defects can impair the way the brain functions, and how biomechanical processes unfold, testosterone is just one of the many that play a factor.

originally posted by: chadderson

Homosexuality is a product of defective anatomy within the human body.

We are ALL mutations from the first homosapien. That includes you.

The complexity of creating a living being is beyond our current scientific knowledge.

For you to put limitations on that process, because of constraints in your beliefs, is really absurd.

a reply to: Annee

When a human is incapable of passing on its genetic material do to factors within its own body, it is a legitimate limitation and needs to be addressed. Males and females exist for procreation. If this were not the case we would have asexual humans that spawn life in a completely different way. There would be no differentiation between male and female. The asexual human would perhaps be void of sex organs entirely, or any differentiating factors.

originally posted by: chadderson


Sexuality and sexual orientation are the same thing.

Not at all!

a reply to: aorAki

Care to elaborate?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Still calling names on the forums. I will give you one more chance to express yourself properly. Please provide the claims from the source you were adamant I look into. The link you provided had no information on the subject matter when I looked into it. I will ask one last time for you to please stay on topic and refrain from ad hominem, otherwise I will have to ignore the remainder of your posts, as there is no credibility or reason to give them any mind.

OP, sorry I am late to this but had to reply!

What are you saying? You state that "transgenderism" and homosexuality exist and are natural but then the manner in which you speak about them screams the opposite. So if you do in fact think they are natural states of being are you suggesting we deny those people equal rights just in case there are a few people 'pretending'?

originally posted by: chadderson

Here is the article that discusses transgenderism and the stance people need to take for themselves. It was once said that the acceptance of homosexuality would inevitably lead to the acceptance of other ideals such as pedophelia; I believe it is true.

This won't happen, let me explain why I think that... Humans have an intrinsic set of values. As a human being
I will never accept a behaviour that will cause such suffering to another human being.

a reply to: Scouse100

Everything happening under the sun, within creation, is natural. Birth defects are natural. Downs syndrome, homosexuality, transgenders, are birth defects.

I support helping those with birth defects live their lives as normally as possible, especially helping them assimilate into a normal way of life.

The thread's purpose is stating political correctness should not force children to be subjected to the opposite sex being in the same locker rooms, nude and exposed. Transgendered males, boys that think they are girls, are being granted access to girls locker rooms and bathrooms. I have taken a stance saying this is wrong. Forcing children to witness the genitalia of the opposite sex, and having the opposite sex witness their genitalia without letting them have a say is inherently wrong.

I am not against rights for transgenders nor homosexuals. I support them the same way I support others with disabilities/birth defects/mental disorders.

I am glad to hear you do not support the suffering of any human being. Hear the cries of our young girls in our tax paid public schools when they want boys and their penises out of their locker rooms, eyes included.

a reply to: chadderson

Sexuality is the ability to have sexual experiences, unreliant upon sexual orientation.
It can influence sexual orientation, but it is not sexual orientation.

a reply to: aorAki

Sexual orientation is a preqrequisite for sexuality. If one has no orientation, how can they be sexual?

originally posted by: chadderson

I am not against rights for transgenders nor homosexuals. I support them the same way I support others with disabilities/birth defects/mental disorders.

Did you seriously equate homosexuals and transgenders with disabilities/birth defects/mental disorders?

Your 'support' would appear to be quite condescending.

a reply to: aorAki

Calling a square a square has nothing to do with supporting it or not supporting it.

The problem with political correctness is that truth is often misunderstood as some form of hatred or prejudice. Simply because the truth is difficult to comprehend and come to terms with, that feelings and emotions are illicited, does not make it hateful nor prejudiced.

I genuinely support helping these people.

originally posted by: chadderson
The thread's purpose is stating political correctness should not force children to be subjected to the opposite sex being in the same locker rooms, nude and exposed. Transgendered males, boys that think they are girls, are being granted access to girls locker rooms and bathrooms. I have taken a stance saying this is wrong. Forcing children to witness the genitalia of the opposite sex, and having the opposite sex witness their genitalia without letting them have a say is inherently wrong.

I don't think I'm the only one who is concerned with your obsession about little nude children in locker rooms being "exposed" to other nude children's genitalia. Maybe you've given it enough thought for today... Maybe think about adults and people with clothes on...

a reply to: chadderson

So then, ill take that to mean you don't have any science to base your beliefs on. Just opinion and subjective experience.

Are you intentionally dodging my questions? I have answered yours thoroughly.

No you have not answered my questions with supporting evidence and I am not dodging your questions. In your OP you verbalised your feelings on homosexuality which are not facts. You have still not provided evidence to support your claims.

Stating a biological cause for homosexuality is quite different to calling it a birth defect and despite this there are no conclusive studies to demonstrate this. As JohnnyCanuck posted, it really shows what perspective you are coming from and your motivation.

I gave you a link to a valid study on the effects of nudity on children and you dismissed saying that only relates to nudists. If you are truly intelligent and seek intellectual debate you would offer a better critique than just "they are nudists" and dismiss it. In fact by doing this you are actually supporting the idea that nudity is non-harmful without realising it. Just by merely saying nudists are different. So is a naturist being naked somehow different to a non-naturist being naked?

A gay man that impregnates a female is lying to himself and hurting his own offspring. The truth will set us all free, the first step is facing it. If a homosexual man is truly homosexual, he does not possess the ability to become aroused by a female, he has no means of impregnating her. Test tube babies are possible to create, but it is no better than a homosexual man selfishly impregnating a female because he desires to father a child. In the end the man is still lying to himself in order to create the child, this hurts him as well as the offspring.

That sounds more like a minister in church giving his sermon lol Where is your evidence? By the same argument I can show you evidence of many heterosexuals who don't deserve children and act irresponsibly. In fact you can watch it daily on The Jeremy Kyle Show. I have several gay friends that have children and they put them above their own needs. Show me evidence that it hurts homosexual fathers and their offspring.

Are you presenting a general article on testosterone, on an on-line health magazine, as evidence of homosexuality being biological to invite intellectual debate? Seriously?

Rather than opening a thread on transgender toilets and also your own personal claims about homosexuality you would be far better omitting this or presenting this as a separate thread in a form which is intellectually inviting such as this:

" From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection. "

"This study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring."

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

This is something which invites intellectual debate rather than stating personal feelings as fact which causes animosity.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Annee

When a human is incapable of passing on its genetic material do to factors within its own body, it is a legitimate limitation and needs to be addressed.

Why is it OK for hetero couples to use science to reproduce? In IVF treatments, often eggs or sperm come from a third party. I don't see you complain about this.

Anyway, except for a possible medical condition, homosexuals do reproduce. Before medical technology they did it the old fashion way. Granted they did need a third party. No different then many hetero couples today. And no different from adopting your partners child.

However, I'd say Michaelangelo, da Vinci, Walt Whitman, etc gave us far more then the physical act of reproduction. Something any irresponsible idiot can do.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Are you concerned I am creeping up on your record of 32,000+ posts? I am coming for your record.

Joking aside.. I appreciate all of the input, the concern as well, we would not be having much of a discussion if we all were not concerned about the subject matter.