Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SpaceCricket79, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a profoundly perverted view!

    Turning was in NO WAY forced to do what he was doing - everything points to him pursuing computer science in theory and practice. You have NO evidence that he would have abandoned his career if he was allowed a normal private life.

    And, the contribution of the state was to drive him to suicide.

    Suggesting that is a positive contribution to Turing OR the UK is pure moral depravity on YOUR part.
     
  2. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you believe that sex (including the differences of the brain, hormones) has no role in gender differences then it makes no sense at all to believe that homosexuals are "born the way" they are.

    "Gender is a social construct... but being gay is genetic".

    So for all you know people "turn gay" if their dad didn't play sports with them, or if they were molested as a kid right?
     
  3. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, once again I recognize a difference between the sexes. The webmd article talked about the difference between female and male brains, not feminine and masculine brains. Sorry you have been swinging at nothing all this time.


    What science? The only thing you posted proved that the sexes are different. I agree the sexes are different. That isn't gender.
    Good point. The popularity of an idea has nothing to do with it's validity. Once again it was once unpopular to believe the earth revolved around the sun. Is that idea wrong because it was not popular?


    Your link discusses difference between male and female biologically. I never argued that sex was a social construct.

    Gender is the social expectations of behavior based on the sexes. That is a social construct.

    If you mean gender to be a synonym with sex it is your responsibility to make that clear.

    Your observation is incorrect and deeply colored by your bias. You think my questioning implies my desire to destroy something.

    I don't feel the need to pay homage to traditions when exploring something.

    All you have offered in expectations of your position, is confusion. I don't mind you using gender and sex interchangeably in our language, and I'm not out to convert you. However there are differing definitions of the word gender. I am simply using a different acceptable definition of the word.

    This is why it's important to understand how we are using terms.


    Am not talking about procreation. There isn't really much to argue about regarding that. It works the way it does and not the way it doesn't. You don't need to keep telling me about this. I understand. I'm talking about personality and social behavioral expectations.

    You have only posted your speculation based on your anecdotal position. Just because you think a child needs a father and mother to be healthy and happy doesn't make it so.

    Prove that kids growing up with same sex parents are dangerously worse off. If you can. The lack of proof is why the states lost on this one.

    If you can prove that children have sexual identity issues (despite you claming it is biologically influenced) than you have an argument. Than states have an interest in at least looking into it.


    Incorrect. The term cultural means it is influenced by culture.

    Take things that are biological such as hunger. No cultural influence can alter that.

    Further expectations on the sexes aren't even congruent from decade to decade within our own culture. So they aren't the least bit universal.


    Such genetically determined things are a product of sex, not gender, at least not in the context in which I am using the term.




    Placing taboos on things just for boys or just for girls is strictly repressive. The taboos only serve to make people feel better that their little boy is into "boy things." That is absolutely a social construct having nothing to do with biology.

    That is an example of a gender role. Genetics don't tell women to like pink, be Secretarys, cook and know their place. That is a social construct. The jihadists are desperate to enforce this as a predetermined concept based on their concept of God.

    If this was biologically influenced all culteral concepts on women's place in society would be exactly the same. Ours varies from decade to decade.


    Well you have been basically stating that the sexes are different. Of course I agree with that.

    Yes I absolutely agree that social conditioning such as finding role models is the basis of gender. That is what I have been trying to say all along.


    The construct of femininity is dissolving. The idea that women need to stay at home and make babies is extremely outmoded. Women by their biology (sex) are capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth, regardless of their profession. That is an example of a gender role that is lost. Fathers often times are great cooks, also rendering the gender role that states women cook is not genetic. How many more gender roles are like the ones I listed above?




    Gender roles aren't even universal within our own culture. So no, you are wrong. At one time we didn't think it was the role of women to vote.

    No it isn't the least bit universal. Modestly varies greatly among cultures. Pick up a national geographic magazine about tribal people in Zimbabwe and just look at the pictures.


    I don't understand why you don't get this. Male and female are sexes. And yet again I'm not talking about the sexes.

    You are stuck in your conditioned state. Who said femininity is weakness?

    The concept of femininity is a dynamic and completely social construct. 200 years ago in our country it was considered effeminate for a man not to dominate and control his wife. Now that's something we punish by imprisonment. These roles have greatly changed just in my lifetime.

    The idea of gender is fading away, not because of Carl Marx, but because of reason.

    ---
    You are confused on gender roles. Watch me point out your confusion.

    A man should provide for his family, not play games in a gym. Women need to look sexy for men. Men are sexy because they don't waste time picking up stones in gyms. They work. Playing video games is something boys do, that isn't effeminate. Watching cartoons all day is something children do feminine women do not.

    You don't really seem to grasp what feminine even means.

    What are masculine and feminine traits? As our culture advances it is more and more difficult to decide what is or isn't.

    Playing games in a gym is not masculine or feminine. Exercise is good for Both sexes. Working and providing for your family is not masculine or feminine. Both sexes find rewards having a vocation.

    The idea that women and men should behave this way or that is completely social. It's constantly changing.
     
  4. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It makes perfect sense. Sexual orientation has to do with what sex you are oriented toward. Nothing about gender.

    You are socially conditioned to believe homosexual men are effeminate. That actually seems to be the exception not the rule.

    Being Gay is an identity or a label placed on people so they can better categorize others. I'd be just fine not identifying myself as gay. I generally don't. When asked about my spouse I say he is the same sex as me. I can't really help that I'm sexually attracted to the same sex, so that is why people say they are born gay. As to why I'm attracted to the same sex I can't begin to explain I was 27 when I was identified as gay. So I wasn't born identifying myself as gay. As far back as I can remember I was attracted to the same sex, you can label that any way you wish.

    Well if the only reason someone is attracted to the opposite sex is because their dad thew balls at them, I wouldn't call that heterosexual.

    For what it's worth I have no idea why I'm gay. I thought about it for decades. I saw several shrinks over a course of five years trying to see if there was some repressed memories. As it has been determined, I was never molested, or I am the most rare cases of repressed memories known to man. My relationship with my mother and father is strong. I never expressed any girly tendencies. So I don't think the things you listed are the cause. Molestation may be in a few cases, but it certainly isn't in all cases. In most cases where a child is molested by a same sex adult the victim is heterosexual and remains so.

    I don't know what causes it. I don't even think it's the same for every person, or that it is just one thing.

    So that dog doesn't hunt sir.
     
  5. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    having a basic right doesn't mean you have to do it.... I support the right to bear arms, have never owned or had a gun in my life

    marriage supports monogamous relationships. ,which benefits the states

    .
     
  6. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's no difference, that's just splitting hairs - brains between the sexes have net differences from which masculine and feminine traits derive. Testosterone and estrogen seem to be the biggest factors, as well as the biggest factors between "masculine and feminine" men and women.

    A person can "learn" specific behaviors from their environment, but that doesn't mean that the innate drives from which behaviors derive don't exist.

    By that logic then if a closeted gay man chooses to marry a woman out of societal pressure then he is "no longer homosexual".

    Gender = psychological difference. Differences come from the brain, therefore gender is a biological construct. Roles come from (biological) constructs, not the other way around.

    Just like the social expectation not to murder people wasn't "constructed" - it became a formalized social expectation because people are naturally social animals, and murder is deviation from innate norms. The construct was simply reinforcement of innate norms, not the other way around.

    That's misquoting me.

    Sex typically means the physical/chromosomal differences.

    Gender typically means the psychological difference, which includes the differences in the brains. You claim that differences in brain have no bearing but that's illogical.

    It doesn't necessarily - it means it's something which has been seen to exist in every culture in spite of cultural differences - so this much more strongly implies that it's innate and universal, and that all cultures developed around it, rather than invented it from scratch.

    Modern culture and mass media have caused confusion because the media is interested in promoting political agendas, as well as in "selling stuff".

    For the most part "gender roles" were not formally taught, they were simply understood - the media capitalizes on this by turning "gender expectations" into a consumerist commodity; ex. equating 'manliness" with watching TV sports, buying bodybuilding supplements, or owning "expensive" stuff like big screen TVs.

    But this doesn't mean the roles aren't universal, just that some people are wrong while others are right. Courage for example is a culturally universal trait which is attractive to women. Even if in the modern world most men don't need to "fight, hunt, etc" this trait is still biologically attractive for reasons related to its natural role, and a man who acts too cowardly or weak won't be very attractive to women even if he "doesn't need" to actually fight anyone.

    That's again wrong, it's based on the cultural innateness of certain traits which are beneficial to the individual as well as their ability to procreate. Things associated with masculine traits such as courage, as opposed to things associated with feminine traits such as complacency are more naturally adapt for boys because they aid boys much more biologically than they do girls. The social taboos arise because we are social animals and desire the best for those around us, not "islands unto our-self" - and rightfully so.

    The state enforcing strict roles through law? No. Nevertheless with or without state control.

    I'm not an expert on color theory, but from what I've read colors produce different "moods"; pink is associated with feminine "moods" such as complacency, which is why it's associated with femininity more than masculinity.

    The problem is that specifics can intertwine - ex. while pink is a "feminine color", in some older cultures it was simultaneously associated with high status, so wealthy men would wear pink because of it's association with affluence.

    Not all tribes of chimpanzees are exactly the same, and individual chimps have slightly different personalities.

    That doesn't mean there aren't universal norms which are observable in chimpanzee behavior (who have 99% of our DNA) - overall - most of the "differences" are smoke and mirrors - just variations on the same universal concept of human identities.

    You're talking about rigidly enforced expectations via law; not psychological norms.

    Psychology actually shows that "nurturing" is a universal norm for women, which is where cultural roles such as cooking, cleaning, etc derived.

    Even in cultures which don't mandate that a woman hold certain roles or jobs, these characteristics are nevertheless still innate (which is for example why today 90% of registered nurses are women). Even though women have the legal freedom to be oil field workers, most of them would rather not do it because of innate drives - just as most men don't aspire to be preschool teachers just because they have the freedom to.

    Even in the 21st century it's helpful to look at what people actually do than what they say.

    I already told you the concept of modesty is a universal - there is no culture where modesty itself is non-existant; the only thing which varies is the specific normative, but the normative derives from traits which are universal to the human species.

    The idea that all people are born a "blank slate" and that behavioral traits only derive from external environment is really based on outdated psychology that pre-dated evolutionary biology.

    Strength and courage aren't traits which are as evolutionary necessary for women as they are for men, too much "bravado" or aggression on a female's part is sub-consciously perceived as a negative thing because it gives her the appearance of (ex. non-nurturing and therefore a less desirable mate).

    Just as too much weakness on the part of men is perceived as evolutionary disadvantageous, since men innately rely on these traits more than women.

    If it's changed, it's changed only about 1% or over human history, which is only about 10,000+ years old (as opposed to millions of years of evolutionary development).

    The "changes" you think are huge are really mere blips on the evolutionary radar. Gender characteristics have only changed about as much as racial differences have, and even the modern decedents of the earliest human ancestors (who've been isolated from all other races from thousands of years) are still virtually identical to us beyond minor physical differences.

    It's still considered effeminate - the only differences is that actual rape and abuse is less tolerated.

    But "domination" role playing or "rough sex" is extremely popular, hence best-selling romance novels like 50 Shades of Grey.

    What's ironic is that the idea that a woman is an individual isn't even a "modern" invention anyway as it's falsely made out to be; the ancient Greeks for example had a concept of age of consent closer to our modern one, while modern day Islamic countries still consider women property.

    This shows that there's been little universal change if any at all, just specific changes, usually dependent on the environment and economy of a certain culture. Humans themselves are still more or less biologically the same as they've been for over 10,000s of years - but environment (the industrial revolution) has changed rapidly.

    Not because of reason, because of ignorance and mixed messages particularly from the consumerist media which capitalizes on selling false messages which fit cliches.

    Most people who claim "gender is subjective" are just repeating it because they've heard it repeated enough times, not because of actual "reason". This is why getting cultural values from popular TV shows like "Big Bang Theory" and "Scrubs" is dumbing down our kids, when there's a lot of actual science and psychology out there that completely debunks the myths in question.

    ...um ask 100 people to explain "how evolution works" and you'll get 100 different answers, some of them wrong, some of them right.

    That doesn't mean a right answer doesn't exist, it could just mean that none of them have it since most of them get their views on "femininity/masulinity" from TV commericals and Sitcoms instead of books by actual psychologists, scientists, researchers, etc - argument from ignorance fallacy.

    Male traits include courage, competitiveness, etc - ones which are biologically advantageous for males at mating, survival, etc - feminine traits include compassion, nurturing, etc.

    Since men and women have different biologists some traits are more beneficial to one gender than the other - men can have some feminine traits and women can have some masculine traits; this can vary depending on the environment or culture to a degree - but an imbalance in these traits generally leads toward dysfunction.

    If a woman wants to grow a beard, take steroids, and hit the gym then nothing's stopping her -but if she does this then she's not going to be attractive to most men and probably have an unhealthy level of testosterone in her system.

    If a man wants to sit at home, eat junk food, and watch cartoons all day he's 'free' to do it - but he's not going to find many good mating options, and probably feel very repressed since he doesn't have a good outlet for male energy.

    Sorry if what I say offends you - but in a day and age where many men don't even have a dad in their lives, and they get mixed messages on what it means to "be a man" from television - I'm going to stand up for something of value in this world, rather than just walk on eggshells and tell inquisitive people what they "want to hear" just to feel good about themselves. I think the lack of understanding of what "manly" and "feminine" mean in this day and age is what's harming people, not the other way around.

    But hey if being an "individual" and just doing "whatever you want" is more important to you than young people who have no fathers having a healthy sense of identity, then go ahead and believe that. Tell yourself it's all just a meaningless construct without doing any research - in the long run however I believe you are harming young people more than helping them.
     
  7. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,165
    Likes Received:
    20,940
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That won't be the only effect. Men will have the same tools available to them, as women do. And then the equibilrium will finally, finally address the sexual power play that women make. They would actually have to MAKE a commitment.
     
  8. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just going by my own life experience:

    I had a dad who was in all likelihood a closeted homosexual and acted stereo-typically feminine. Even as young as 3-5 years old without any external influence or "conditioning" I knew there was something "off" with his behavior and it embarrassed me to the point that I didn't want any other kids my age to know he was my dad - today I'm not on speaking terms with him anymore.

    And even at that young an age, before even knowing what "sex" is - when I'd see a girl I would instinctively "puff out" my chest and try to act "macho" - no one "conditioned me" or even told me about "sex", reproduction, vaginas, dating, etc - I still thought that girls had "cooties" - yet all of these behaviors came to me completely instinctively.

    Based on my experience alone I know that gender is not just a "social construct". And hey if you people will believe that a person was born gay just because he tells you going by his own experience, there's no reason not to believe me.

    ---

    But anyway Polydectes, I don't feel like writing another huge wall of text, and I don't want this to get too personal for you or me. If you believe it's just a social construct I can't make you change your mind, but I suggest you read up on psychological concepts related to gender roles, biology, etc. It's fascinating stuff.
     
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not a right, right as in a correct thing to do. There are loads of things a US government could do that wouldnÂ’t be in breach of the Constitution but that we wouldnÂ’t want them to do.
     
  10. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you a gay man? I thought you were a woman because of your avatar.

    I've met a few gay men in my life and most of them have been more effeminate and flamboyant than other men, so I don't think this is just a stereotype. Though to me they didn't seem like "wusses" - they seemed more like confident straight women, than wussy straight men.


    I'm not 100% against the idea that hormones or developmental factors don't cause it.

    In an ideal world I don't think anyone would be born with same-sex attraction since it doesn't seem to have any advantages. But no one is forcing you "not to be gay".

    Plus my discussion about gender roles wasn't just about homosexuality - it was about gender roles as a whole. I just think it's strange that you believe that a person can be born gay yet that every other gender trait is just a "social construct" - that seems oxymoron to me.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  11. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it isn't. It's using a specific definition of a word. If you look in the dictionary many words have dissent meanings.
    No, you admitted that culture influences masculine and feminine traits. You talked all about role model conditioning. You admitted twice in two rants that it is a social construct. If it wasn't no child would ever need any role models to display the proper gender.
    Both sexes produce both hormones in varying quantities. It doesn't really have much to do with gender. It has to do with sex.

    Of course it doesn't. But cultural behavioral expectations placed in the sexes are rooted in culture, hence the term cultural mentioned many times even by you.

    Not by any of my logic. Orientation isn't synonymous with gender.


    Well by that definition, it's psychological cultural or behavioral. So this is correct, I am as well.

    It Actually isn't because biology creates people that don't fit the culturally prescribed roles. And that is biological also because it comes from the brain. So a static set of culturally accepted gender roles goes against biology.
    No Gender roles come from culture. If they came from biology you wouldn't need to learn them. People don't need to learn hunger.

    Incorrect social expectations are created by society, not biology. If they were created by biology they would be called instincts. You called them social expectations. I understand we are naturally social creatures, so the creation of society it's an instinct, however the expectation of its participants is not an instinct.


    Yes, that it's the biology of the animal. I'm talking about its behavior.

    The definition also includes cultural and social differences. That exist within the culture.


    There is no other constant besides existence. All cultures have differing expectations on the sexes, but that doesn't mean the culture doesn't create it. We constantly reinvent what is feminine and masculine. I see 20 year old males wearing skin tight jeans. It was masculine when I was that age to wear baggy loose fitting jeans. People did it in the 90s, they were considered feminine because right jeans were associated with women.

    Are you suggesting the biology of humanity only within my culture changed in the past 20 years completely?

    Incorrect. People claiming that gender is influenced by biology has caused confusion. The discomfort of being in the vicinity of somebody who is anachronistic cases confusion. You don't even know who is confused.

    Gender roles are conditioned. You said so yourself.

    Yes, making gender like manliness a social construct, one that is easily manipulated by media.

    Correct. The fact that the roles lack continuity within the same culture between two decades means they aren't universal.

    That trait is universal across both genders. Courage is attractive to masculine straight men within women. To masculine gay men within masculine gay men, and so forth.

    It's universally attractive to all people, it's why hero movies are such block busters.

    That isn't an example that gender roles are biological. It's an example that humans are similar.


    No it's correct. As you pointed out with the term cultural. The ability to procreate requires only fertile sperm, a viable egg and a womb. Nothing more.

    Courage is associated with femininity also. Complacency is also part of masculinity.

    Your personal views are not relevant.

    Incorrect social taboos arise out of socialist views.

    That's why they are called taboos and not instincts.


    I am glad you went down this rabbit hole. Pink was for centuries associated with boys. It symbolized valor. Blue was always associated with women. Ever notice what color Mary always wears?

    Yes I agree pink is associated with femininity, only because our society conditioned it to be so.




    Not relevant.

    Go ask a young goal oriented single woman if the difference between her lifestyle and that of a woman married to an ISIs supporter is smoke and mirrors.


    Well I have stated it at least ten times that I'm talking about the expectations placed on the sexes.

    Psychological norms are heavily influenced by social constructs, not really often by biology.

    Even the definition of mental illness is dependant on social constructs.

    https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions

    Both sexes nurture it'd they didn't children without fathers wouldn't be disadvantaged.

    Innate drives that are culturally conditioned.

    Looking at majority actually supports my argument. People are easily conditioned.


    And that is still incorrect.

    Yes their is. Pick up a national geographic magazine.

    I absolutely agree. There are behaviors that are completely genetic. These are called instincts. Like jumping at a loud noise.

    Wearing tight jeans however is not an instinct.


    Yes they absolutely are.
    Bravado and aggression are behaviors to hide insecurities. Those are equally unattractive regardless of sex or gender.

    Weakness and disadvantage are synonyms. They are equally unattractive to both sexes irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.


    Incorrect. It isn't evolutionary, they aren't blips it's done a complete 360 in twenty years.

    Race is also a social construct.


    Quite the contrary. It's considered masculine to not be threatened by a wife that brings in income. It's also considered masculine to support her.

    Your ideals have been outmoded.

    I wasn't talking about that, I'm a homosexual man, I don't pretend to know about that dynamic.

    You wish to pretend there isn't much of a difference. The facts suggest otherwise. The concept of women and men being equal is 100% different than them being chattel.


    Yes because of reason. Definitely not because of bogeymen in the media.

    People that claim it's biological have only been conditioned to believe so by religions and group think.

    Entertainment doesn't dumb down people. In every generation it's stated that entertainment is corrupting people. It's intellectually lazy and it's scapegoating.

    Formulate an argument instead of blaming pop culture.


    You repeatedly reference this science and these books and psychologists that support your opinions.

    Who are they what are their works? Give me some titles, some excerpts.

    To throw this back at you, I can state scientists agree with me. And it's 100% as legitimate as your claim.

    Shut me up, post some of this elusive work that you keep touting.




    Not interested in opinions.

    Again you are talking about the differences between male and female.

    Everything you talk about in relation to feminine and masculine is only your opinion.

    Women are far more competitive than men, and they are typically very courageous.

    Your bias isn't a fact. What you view as courage isn't the only form of courage.

    If you feel females aren't courageous, go harass a six week old grizzly bear cub. If you think they aren't competitive, tell them how great you think another woman they work with is.

    Seems you are really naive
     
  12. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How sad. Being a more feminine male has nothing to do with sexuality. I know serial men that you would say are effeminate, they are mostly straight. Generally speaking gay men don't fit the stereotype you see on the media.

    On a personal note boyhood is a difficult time and other children can be really cruel. I don't blame you for being embarrassed. I hope it isn't his not do macho persona that has cased you to not speak to him.
    How do you know? Cultural conditioning starts the second you are born.

    Personal experience can't tell you what is our isn't genetic. I believe people that day they chose to be gay, I even believe people that day they used to be gay. Who am I to tell people how to think. I don't know what cases homosexuality, or if there is just one cause. So if somebody says they were born gay, or they are ex gay, hey it's a big world.

    But you want to believe this is instinctual. I don't really care to get into why that's between you and your therapist. You also want to believe that people that don't fit the norm are somehow unhappy. No amount of truth would convince you otherwise.

    ---

    I agree, I actually studied psychology extensively at the university of Houston. For a little over seven years.

    I was extremely interested in human sexuality, that was my main focus. I've studied many works regarding gender.
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am a homosexual man. My avatar is a man.

    I am sorry, I know a lot more gay men than you do, and this types do exist. But it is a stereotype. How do you know you have only met a few? You may have met guys like me, I don't fit that stereotype. Thus I don't announce my sexuality in social situations.

    So you may think it's more than a stereotype, but that doesn't mean it is.

    Would you notice the ones who seem like confident straight men?



    Me either. But I don't think it's a one cause fits all situation.

    I have two brothers and a sister I'm the only gay one. So I don't believe it's my childhood environment. I never had my hormones checked but than again I was always a boyish boy and a manly guy. I sing baritone, I like fixing cars and watching movies with explosions. I'm just a normal guy.

    Everyone has differing opinions on ideals.

    IIt probably seems like an oxymoron to you for anybody to think gender roles are a social construct. That's possibly because you disagree. I'm 100% fine with that. But the sex I'm attracted to has no effect on my courage, or competitive nature. Honestly that doesn't make the least bit of sense to me that it's an oxymoron to you. The two things are not at all related.

    Anyway, thanks for the spirited debate. It's refreshing to find somebody that can disagree without being a child about it.

    I look forward to more debate in the future.
     
  14. LeeroyHim

    LeeroyHim Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Try readin the very quote you just replied to. The last part specifically
     
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't get it.
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    already dealt with this. no such thing as natural law. marriage is a legal institution, defined by laws. the law in the US says it's also between 2 men and 2 women. sorry.

    correct, things that don't exist aren't effected by anything.
     
  17. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Isn't it wonderful how irrefutable fact, OKA: "Reality", is considered a perversion, when rinsed through the mental disorder presenting sexual deviancy?

    I never seem to tire of that... .


    And no one here has suggested he was.

    What he was forced to do, is to avoid being caught engaging in homosexuality. Which forced him to re-direct the energy which would otherwise be used to pursue sexual gratification, into his work. A circumstance which usually produces excellence; thus the long standing approach by most of the world's religions, wherein they require adherents to discipline their sexual appetites.

    Of course, the same is true in the failure of Pop-culture to require such of its adherents... wherein that mess is the least productive gaggle of halfwits, malcontents and losers to ever be amassed, in the entirety of human history.

    LOL! Such is the pitiful state of the Western Culture today, that it is on the precipice of being over-run, slaughtered and conquered by THE 7th CENTURY.

    YEEAHSss.... You people truly have a handle on 'life'. It's just that it's not actually a handle and you just 'think' it's your life... when all it really is, is your dick... and it was never meant to be a means by which you are entertained.

    But hey, the good news is that natural law is what it is and you're all soon going to be treated to yet ANOTHER classic demonstration of the consequences, for failing to adhere to such. And won't THAT be entertaining?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yes... your numerous concessions have all been duly noted and summarily accepted.
     
  18. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL! I just ADORE the sweeter irony.

    - - - Updated - - -

    ROFLMNAO! Fun with oxymorons...

    Classic!
     
  19. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Homophobia is so Islamist these days.
     
  20. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No... they don't. As homosexuals pursue sexual gratification from those of the same gender, which is a full 180 degree deviation from the standard established by Nature's Human Physiological design, OKA: sexual normality.
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    refuting your statements isn't a concession.

    - - - Updated - - -

    yes...they do.

    pretty sure you know he was talking about the actual sex acts performed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
     
  22. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well... homophobia is a fiction, advanced by a degenerate cult, as truth. Islam is a fictional religion, advanced by a political cult.

    So, sure... why not?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Deflection is not refutation, scamp.

    And with that said, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
     
  23. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're conflating inviable, unsustainable homosexual behavior, with that of normal, viable, thus sustainable sexual behavior of those aligned with natural law. And you're doing so as a deceitful means to advance fraudulence, toward the hope of influencing the ignorant; which is to say to 'fool' the ignorant into the belief that such establishes abnormal behavior as normal.

    So that where you manage to do so, you can then turn to appeal to what you falsely claim is a majority... on the absurd premise that a majority opinion, is a valid opinion; when in fact, popularity of a given position, has absolutely no relevance to validity.

    But hey... in your defense, deception is the sole tool of evil... thus you're doing what one should reasonably expect you to do.
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    true, which is why I've directly addressed your comments, and refuted them.


    refuting your statements isn't a concession.
     
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not, actually. I'm explaining that homosexuals and heterosexuals perform the same acts. and there is no such thing as natural law.

    homosexuality is natural, and normal and has existed in humans since the beginning of the species.


    refuting your statements isn't a deception.
     

Share This Page