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.
A scale on how heterosexual or homosexual someone is? And you believe this mess? So I guess by that logic you believe bisexuals should be able to polygamist right?
What a strange question....Humans by nature are polygamist, and it doesn't matter which sex they are attracted to.
From a scientific perspective, his conclusion about abuse is flawed in my opinion. The first thing you have to do is define what abuse is. Some people have been abused so much from the time that they are born that they don't even know what it actually is. Abuse is a word that can be loosely defined depending on who you ask. Second, there is an assumption that the people who are reporting that they have been abused or not are telling the truth. That brings the results into question and really destroys his point of view. The only way that he could truly use that as a basis to make a conclusion is if he witnessed every detail of their life and has a clear and concise definition of what abuse actually is. The later part is impossible so it is very difficult to draw a reasonable conclusion out of that.
My opinion again....give gay people everything they want...and then educate exactly as mentioned above...including bringing in victims to the schools or trips to hospitals and clinics for a good look....
Victims of what exactly?
Bigotry from the conservatives and religious right?
Quote:
there seems to be this issue with animals....man is not an animal and if animals can survive virus's cancer and infectious disease in a more able way....thats thier business...man gets exactly what he deserves
If man is not an animal then you and your ilk need to stop playing the "it's not natural" card.
But the fact is, man IS an animal. An ape, actually. And was part of nature for almost the entirety of his evolutionary development.
So if I chose to be with only one woman, that makes me unnatural?
It is an un-natural act. Why do you think we have such rampant difficulties maintaining fidelity?
Yes, I do believe (and have believed for quite sometime) we are all born polygamist.
Polgamy is evolution at it's finest... monogamy, not so much.
Every Christian I've ever known has told me that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. But how can anything be unnatural if God created everything? In fact, what does the word unnatural even mean to a person who thinks the universe was created by someone? Heh....
People who say it's unnatural are uneducated and ignorant, seeing as it's a universal phenomenon in the entire animal kingdom and new studies have shown it is beneficial to the survival of the species.
It is an un-natural act. Why do you think we have such rampant difficulties maintaining fidelity?
Yes, I do believe (and have believed for quite sometime) we are all born polygamist.
Polgamy is evolution at it's finest... monogamy, not so much.
It's called self-control, keep your peter in the pan. It's not difficult. We aren't wild animals, we are fully capable of controlling ourselves. People cheat because they choose to, not because they can't help themselves.
It's called self-control, keep your peter in the pan. It's not difficult. We aren't wild animals, we are fully capable of controlling ourselves. People cheat because they choose to, not because they can't help themselves.
Yes of course that is the evangelical thing to do, but I was thinking in the context of nature vs. nurture.
From what I've read it's probably somewhere around 60%.
My main point though, is the artificial and hypocritical focus on SEX ACTS!!!!!, while ignoring the fact that gay and lesbian people lead varied and full lives just as straight people do. Who on earth would go around only talking about the whole range of heterosexual sex acts, and nothing else, with every straight person they met?
We should also point out that, that among that 60% number, does not mean all of them are receptive partners (which seems to be the argument about health risks and cancer). Many gay men who partake in that form of sex, only like to "Top".
Women on the other hand in heterosexual relationships are exclusively receptive partners.
Meaning heterosexual women are at far higher risk for health issues than gay men, and yet I don't see the anti-gay brigade whining about women engaging in that behavior all the time.
Perhaps they've been so thoroughly convinced that no heterosexual would ever engage in such behavior, it's only a "gay thing" despite evidence to the contrary.
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.
