Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I...just...don't...CARE!
I wish EVERYBODY, homosexual and heterosexual alike, would take their sexuality back to the bedroom where it belongs!
And KEEP IT THERE!
I don't want to hear about it, I don't want to see it, and I certainly don't want my grandkids to be exposed to it.
Just go back to bed, and BE QUIET, all of you!
As for "gay marriage", I am all for it! Why should homosexuals get special privileges when it comes to relationships? Think about it; for years, all they had to do was go their separate ways when they wanted to. No lawyers, no courts, no "common law marriage", just split the sheets and go.
NOW, however, once they are "officially married", they can't do that! They have to hire a lawyer or two, they have to deal with community property, they have to decide who gets the kids (if any), who gets alimony (and for how long), then they have to go before a judge and see if the arrangements they have made meets the requirements of the State, and IF the Judge is happy with everything, they can go their separate ways. However, the State WILL be watching to make sure that the kids are properly taken care of, that all monetary payments are made, and to see to it that if and when the fionancial circumstances of either party change, the decree is changed to match, if the recipient of the payments so desires.
That is, IF the State where they reside has a law regarding same-sex divorce. It just might be that they can't get a divorce!
I think that is just GREAT!
Well, here in California, if you have a domestic partnership and want to dissolve it, we would have to hire two attorneys and pay for a divorce just as any straight married couple would. But we don't get the rights or benefits of marriage, just he cost of a divorce. In some states that do not allow ssm and the couple marries in a state that does have ssm, you cannot get a divorce. For equality purposes the laws should apply across the board. I have thought for a long time that to help lower the rates of divorce that marriage should be more difficult for everyone to get, like maybe marriage or relationship classes or counseling to be sure it is the right thing for the couple. It could avoid those Britney Spears marriages that last only 72 hours.
"While it was not a study of efforts to change, one could reasonably assume that if a group had participants who had shifted orientation very much, then this would be the group. However, that is not what they found"
Conservative Christian psychologist Dr Throckmorton says: "I think evangelicals need to face what evangelical academics are finding in research"
Jay, I'm not a scientist, but my major is biology. I'm not going to sit up here an pretend that makes me all that knowledgeable in the natural sciences of of chemistry, physics, and biology. But I would bet dollars to donuts that I have at minimum as much an understanding the physical (e.g., chemistry and physics) and life (e.g., biology and neuroscience) sciences as you. Given your proposition about handedness and an article related to a matter of psychology and behavior, that I actually understand more about these sciences than you do.
And while I'm not an historian nor a historian of science, I do know a little about the history of science. If we were back in the 1800s in an American court room you'd be believing the expert testimony of a scientist specializing in phrenology Phrenology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia about his opinion as to the predisposed character and personality of the defendant accused of murder.
And I'd bet you eugenics is referred to as a "pseudoscience science" even though like phrenology it was regarded and widely accepted by most scientists at the time as solidly good science. It's like historians rewriting history to call the Inquisition "pseudo-Catholicism."
But if eugenics is "pseudoscience" one might logically ask as to what that makes the proposition of the heritability of homosexuality? Given eugenics was grounded in biological determinism.
I actually once thought homosexuality was genetically heritable. It was not until I started studying biology in university that I came to the conclusion it is very unlikely it is. In fact, so unlikely, I'm willing to use language the science are shy and rare to do and say: it is not. (Science prefer to use phrases "likely" or not "likely" as their inductive method speaks to likelihood and rarely to certainty).
Homosexuality to me is a problem akin to heterosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, pederasty and attractions and fetishes in general. I think biology can play a role in bringing resolution to the puzzles investigated but I think the field of psychology is better suited to dealing with these puzzles. But some philosophers of science--for good reason I would say--either question how much a science psychology is or don't regard it as one of the sciences. Psychology has a history of using too many ad hoc hypotheses. A psychologist with a theory is therefore inclined to see what he or she wants to see.
As to whether homosexuality is immoral that is not a problem biology is capable of solving. As biology does not speak to morals. Murder, rape, violence, racism, promiscuity, infanticide, or pedophilia would all be amoral issues in biology. The fields of inquiry that investigate questions of morality are philosophy and theology. And theology is pretty much philosophy that presumes a certain number of dogmatic truths and works downward from there.
In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
Though, I would be curious to find out if women that have and attraction to lesbian "studs" like the ones in the youtube video I posted, have some psychological correlations with gay men that have an attraction to what they call "twinks." [1] Or what used to be term pederasty during the days of famous French novelist Marcel Proust. And he was someone with an admitted attraction to teenage boys. Back then it was not viewed as the crime and "evil" it is today.
Or I wonder if those women attracted to "studs" have some psychological correlation to homosexual pedophiles given the women they like dressed as boys look like prepubescent boys. Some of them. Some of them look like teenage boys or even men.
And I used the term "discrimination" to mean essentially "selection." As in Sexual Selection [2] would construe selecting for certain traits explainable through evolutionary causes. Why might a grown woman select for a grown woman dressed as a boy that looks like a teenage boy or a 12 year old boy? Why might a pedophile priest or sports coach select for a 12 year old boy? Discriminating (selecting against) against an adult man and an adult woman respectively?
You'll find bio-mathematicians like Ian Stewart in his book The Mathematics of Life being condescending towards the notion of the genetic heritability of homosexuality.
And I had to read as a requirement in a philosophy of biology class a paper by a geneticist refuting the conclusions homosexuality is genetically heritable. We had to read papers concluding the opposite too (although I don't think any where actually the work of a geneticist).
My own personal view is that heterosexuals can become attracted to the same sex. Not just prison but a number of societies seem to evidence that. Spartan society, Samurai society, and one or more Amerindian societies where men were obligated to take a male lover beside their wives. But homosexual men marrying an impregnating women suggests this too. A man has to gain an erection and ejaculate to impregnate a woman. And gay men have achieved this with women.
But I'll have to admit whatever I learned about handedness I've forgotten. My mind is very foggy on that. So, maybe you have some point on the similarities or correlations. But sexual attractions are more complex than simply "homosexual" and "heterosexuality" because you have "twinks" and pedophilia. And a lot more than that.
Better yet, let me approach the issue of my "opposition" if you will, to "discrimination" in terms of "selection," this way:
I really don't care who one likes. A woman can like a female stud that dresses like a Hip Hop male with his pants sagging. A person can like blonds, tall people, rich people, short people, fat people, slim people etc.
What I oppose is any pontification the young Hip Hop male wearing his pants sagging is anymore immoral than a young woman doing the same, and therefore a woman must select against the male for a male in a suit. What I'm suggesting here is that pro-gay people come with there own preconceived and indoctrinated sets of values they received from society about the goodness of lesbian or gay X and the badness of heterosexuals Y.
Many continue to ask, what is a Stud? I'm my opinion a Stud is a complimentary term used loosely to describe a group of sexy, empowered, confident, strong women. Ultimately a force of nature! A stud is proud, fierce and passionate about all of her convictions. She is determined, ambitious, motivated, and not to be silenced! A stud is an aggressive, intelligent spiritual woman who is a masculine lesbian! A stud is a woman who defines strength, not allowing or affirming anyone else's definition. She defines her! She is the epitome! A stud is the ultimate choice, the cream of the crop, and definitely the pick of the litter!
Studs are passionate, and loving. They are compassionate and nurturing. Many studs want long term relationships, and marriage. There are even studs that want to have and raise children! I believe studs make great parents...
Quote:
A stud would never wear frilly, floral or polka dot clothing! A stud would never wear ruffles; polish her nails bright goofy colors, or wear a push up bra. A stud would never wear panty hose, stilettos, wear full make-up, or big gaudy jewelry. A stud would never wear sexy feminine lingerie. Studs would never wear flowers in their hair, or super tight clothing!
Some common names for stud women are butch, dom, boi, aggressive, drag king, stone butch, top and the list goes on. All studs are different. Some studs are stone-butch, who do not identify with anything female or feminine. There are also women considered soft-studs who may have an androgynous look or personality. There are studs who are athletes, some have a hip hop look...
But both heterosexual men and women that consider themselves "rational" and progressive liberals will encourage (morally too) a young woman to entirely reject a young man dressed like this:
The whole conception of a "good man" being predicated on traits that lesbians need not look for, in fact some which run counter to them and equal the "bad man" or "dirt bag" or "looser" among men suggests all of these notions and attractions are merely sociological mores.
It seems there is nothing intrinsic to the concepts of a "good woman" for a man (as a universal, objective norm) if it's great for me a 40 year old man to like and marry a 19 year old twink male. How then is one to "accept" that but "oppose" a 40 year old man liking and marrying a "high maintenance woman"? The public moral acceptance of one and opposition to the other seems to be nonsensical to me.
And with respects to the above photo: if a woman looking like Halle Berry rejected the guy (male) in the red hoodie for the stud (for this purpose lets say the person is a female stud) in the gray jacket and cap, especially if the two talked similar, the guy was employed as a bus boy, and the stud was out of work from a low paying temporary service job, then it is nonsensical to me to talk about "what women want" in terms of an evolutionary need for "her offspring" or to speak of women only wanting "a good man."
So, basically, I "oppose" what to me seems to be logical nonsense in some if not most of the gay and lesbian attractions. It seems to me to make more sense for them to select for a person of the opposite sex and marry them. Maybe. It's not that simple either.
There are a number of posters here who oppose homosexuality for one reason or another. I'm wondering which best describes their position.
1. Homosexuality is an illness. Affected individuals must be cured through prayer and/or other means. Any person experiencing same-sex attractions must recognize that they're sick and get help accordingly.
2. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. Homosexuals simply choose to ignore their natural state, (heterosexuality is the only thing that naturally exists), and pervert themselves with strange flesh.
3. People may experience same-sex attractions and may even have a homosexual orientation. However, actually practicing this behavior is sinful and affected individuals must either remain celibate or have relations within an opposite-sex framework.
4. Any others?
Also, a couple of other questions:
5. Do you believe that any experiencing same-sex attractions who truly repents of them, even assuming they occur again, is truly forgiven and can be made right with God, the church, or conservative society?
6. Do you believe that it is okay for people to remain single for their lives, or is it everybody's duty in conservative society to marry and have children?
Thanks for answering everyone.
I dont OPPOSE it, I think they should be protected under the persons with disabilities act
gayness, like aspergers, pyromania, kleptomania is a MISSWIRING of the brain....a NEUROLOGICAL disorder....a genetic disorder.......a birth defect....yes they are born with it(although some( the bi's) its a choice (possibley based on the disillusionment of the opposite sex))
Not all lesbians are attracted to "studs" just like not all hetero men are attracted to blondes with big boobs.
Attraction is something different to different PEOPLE. I am attracted to femms and more androg women, not butches, or studs, and I am a femme.
@ blue highlight: I never suggested otherwise. Just as not all homosexual men have an attraction to "twinks." Not all heterosexual women have an attraction to "metro sexual" men.
And not to offend you, but your attraction to feminine women while at the same time you are a feminine woman makes no sense to me in terms of what people continually claim to be evolutionary reasons women are attracted to tall men (as opposed to shorter men), with high salaries, that look like men and not 12 year old boys.
And this is not just a question I have per se. As the question as to how and why homosexuals and lesbians exist, in evolutionary terms, was central to a philosophy of biology class I had. It's a question that has not been resolved by philosophers nor biologists. In fact, it seems to contradict the Theory of Evolution. Nonetheless, there are philosophers and biologists that try to reconcile it with, and explain it with evolutionary theory.
But consider that people opposed to extremely thin runway models often claim these women look less like "real women" and more like prepubescent boys. Resolve questions of any male's attraction to women like these as opposed to full figured women, and all in light of homosexual or bisexual males that are either attracted to teenage boys or younger prepubescent boys? Evolutionary reasons behind this? It's genetic heritability given a person inherits 1/2 their genes from their father and 1/2 from their mother?
And men that are attracted to 16 year old boys are not always attracted to 8 year old boys. [1]
Pederasty or paederasty (US/ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK/ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male outside his immediate family. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) "love of boys",[1] a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover".
Historically, pederasty has existed as a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. The status of pederasty has changed over the course of history, at times considered an ideal and at other times a crime. In the history of Europe, its most structured cultural manifestation was Athenian pederasty...
Quote:
The legal status of pederasty in most countries is currently determined by whether or not the boy has reached the local age of consent. Illegal forms of pederasty fall under child sexual abuse.
As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).[1][2][3][4] An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.
So, I've had heterosexual ethnic Black-American women who's morality, view points, and pseudoscience they think is "science" get enraged at me for a number of my views including my views on homosexuality. And they selected for an openly gay black male who dates white men (not black women). They desired to marry him as they say. Similar to many of their selections for "studs."
I do not regard such choices as "holy," "scientific," or "right." I regard them simply as said hetero or lesbian woman's choice motivated from her own biases and prejudices.
So, in terms of addressing you and the OP I'm "opposed" to homosexuality and lesbianism (or hetero women's selection for gay men) in so much as I find it nonsensical. In evolutionary terms. In terms of logic (e.g., as logic is related to mathematics: 1 + 1 = 2).
Of course, I'm aware it's a cultural trait among American women that they detest being questioned or countered. Therefore, if they say something is right, if they say 1 + 1 = 3 then you better agree or they will outright hate you.
So, I'm aware my posts in this thread will win me no friends. But I can take strength from the religiously Third Order Franciscan Galileo Gallilei and say, "And yet it moves."
@ blue highlight: I never suggested otherwise. Just as not all homosexual men have an attraction to "twinks." Not all heterosexual women have an attraction to "metro sexual" men.
And not to offend you, but your attraction to feminine women while at the same time you are a feminine woman makes no sense to me in terms of what people continually claim to be evolutionary reasons women are attracted to tall men (as opposed to shorter men), with high salaries, that look like men and not 12 year old boys.
And this is not just a question I have per se. As the question as to how and why homosexuals and lesbians exist, in evolutionary terms, was central to a philosophy of biology class I had. It's a question that has not been resolved by philosophers nor biologists. In fact, it seems to contradict the Theory of Evolution. Nonetheless, there are philosophers and biologists that try to reconcile it with, and explain it with evolutionary theory.
But consider that people opposed to extremely thin runway models often claim these women look less like "real women" and more like prepubescent boys. Resolve questions of any male's attraction to women like these as opposed to full figured women, and all in light of homosexual or bisexual males that are either attracted to teenage boys or younger prepubescent boys? Evolutionary reasons behind this? It's genetic heritability given a person inherits 1/2 their genes from their father and 1/2 from their mother?
And men that are attracted to 16 year old boys are not always attracted to 8 year old boys. [1]
So, I've had heterosexual ethnic Black-American women who's morality, view points, and pseudoscience they think is "science" get enraged at me for a number of my views including my views on homosexuality. And they selected for an openly gay black male who dates white men (not black women). They desired to marry him as they say. Similar to many of their selections for "studs."
I do not regard such choices as "holy," "scientific," or "right." I regard them simply as said hetero or lesbian woman's choice motivated from her own biases and prejudices.
So, in terms of addressing you and the OP I'm "opposed" to homosexuality and lesbianism (or hetero women's selection for gay men) in so much as I find it nonsensical. In evolutionary terms. In terms of logic (e.g., as logic is related to mathematics: 1 + 1 = 2).
Of course, I'm aware it's a cultural trait among American women that they detest being questioned or countered. Therefore, if they say something is right, if they say 1 + 1 = 3 then you better agree or they will outright hate you.
So, I'm aware my posts in this thread will win me no friends. But I can take strength from the religiously Third Order Franciscan Galileo Gallilei and say, "And yet it moves."
Ever heard "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Not everything is about "evolutionary reason".
Some people prefer redheads, some blondes, some like a slim body, some like curves. It is all about personal preference.
As far as I know we don't inherit our preferences in body type, hair color, or eye color. If anything it is influenced by the culture we live in. In some cultures a thin woman is not seen as beautiful or womanly. That influences the way people perceive the women in that culture. In some cultures very fair skin is seen as beautiful. In some it is large eyes. In some it is large boobs. These are cultural, not inherited traits.
There are a number of posters here who oppose homosexuality for one reason or another. I'm wondering which best describes their position.
1. Homosexuality is an illness. Affected individuals must be cured through prayer and/or other means. Any person experiencing same-sex attractions must recognize that they're sick and get help accordingly.
2. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. Homosexuals simply choose to ignore their natural state, (heterosexuality is the only thing that naturally exists), and pervert themselves with strange flesh.
3. People may experience same-sex attractions and may even have a homosexual orientation. However, actually practicing this behavior is sinful and affected individuals must either remain celibate or have relations within an opposite-sex framework.
4. Any others?
Also, a couple of other questions:
5. Do you believe that any experiencing same-sex attractions who truly repents of them, even assuming they occur again, is truly forgiven and can be made right with God, the church, or conservative society?
6. Do you believe that it is okay for people to remain single for their lives, or is it everybody's duty in conservative society to marry and have children?
Thanks for answering everyone.
It's really difficult to answer this question based on the choices above. I guess, if I had to choose one it would be #1. I believe that homosexuality is caused by severe trauma of some kind. Whether it is a very difficult childhood or sexual abuse or some other matter (whether they are aware/conscious of it or not).
For some people homosexuality is much easier than dealing with members of the opposite sex. This seems particularly true of lesbians. Many, many lesbians have been married, had families and somewhere along the line make the conscious decision that having a female partner is much better than having to deal with. I worked with a lesbian woman many years ago to confided in me that, although she was still attracted to men, she chose to be with a woman because she could experience love, affection and companionship without having to put up with a mans "crap".
My opinion is that if a homosexual person was willing to get some serious therapy and discover their issues and heal them, that they could resolve their pain and return to a more "normally accepted" type of existence. However, most people do not want to open up the scars of a painful past and so they are content to life the life they have chosen to avoid the pain. I don't blame them for that. I have some behaviors myself that I use for avoidance. It is pretty natural and human to do that.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals as long as they keep their sexuality to themselves. I can't stand these "swishy" dudes who act that way as a huge put-on. I have seen the swishiest of men turn quite manly in the company of people who would kick their butts if they behaved gay. So I know it is an adaption and a totally fake demeanor.
20yrsinBranson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
