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.
Gayness has been proven too by doing experiments where people sat down and looked at images of men, women, and men and women engaged in heterosexual vs. homosexual acts, and their blood flow and perspiration levels were measured, which clued the examiners into how aroused they were. People who were significantly more aroused by the opposite sex were proven to be heterosexual and people who were significantly more aroused by the same sex were proven to be homosexual. Female sexuality was noted to be more fluid in these studies too.
I actually respect you as a poster...HOWEVER, I noticed that people use this notion of studies measuring stimulation and perspiration and responses to gay porn and so forth. I just cant understand how people let this go unquestioned.
A) The measurements for determining whether men are gay or women are gay, are always different. That, to me, means that one group is exempt from the same standards that the other group is subject to. Usually, its women. Ive heard people say "even though all women in the study got aroused at the sight of gay porn, that doesnt mean that all of those women are gay". Well, what gives? Man or woman, either you like gay porn or you dont, right? So why the double standard? And, considering that men have a much larger hypothalamus/sexual center than women anyway, how could any man who became aroused at the sight of any kind of sex be deemed gay or straight?
B) Some males get boners if they just have a surge of adrenaline, which can come from excitement or if they get nervous -- neither of which would be exclusively the result of a sexual stimuli. Many men get boners during their deaths. Saddam Hussein died with a boner. This doesnt mean that those men were sexually stimulated by their deaths does it? Im not sure if boner frequency would be any kind of conclusive measurement for a person's sexuality. I would be inclined to believe that a person who gets sexually excited when viewing same sex would be homosexual, but that could never be anything more than opinion. Thats nothing that can be proved.
C) How is it that we are constantly taught that sexual behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and then the ONE thing that is touted as a gauge of sexual orientation, is essentially nothing more than the measurement of sexual behavior? (i.e. How the body behaves in response to sexual stimuli)
I actually respect you as a poster...HOWEVER, I noticed that people use this notion of studies measuring stimulation and perspiration and responses to gay porn and so forth. I just cant understand how people let this go unquestioned.
A) The measurements for determining whether men are gay or women are gay, are always different. That, to me, means that one group is exempt from the same standards that the other group is subject to. Usually, its women. Ive heard people say "even though all women in the study got aroused at the sight of gay porn, that doesnt mean that all of those women are gay". Well, what gives? Man or woman, either you like gay porn or you dont, right? So why the double standard? And, considering that men have a much larger hypothalamus/sexual center than women anyway, how could any man who became aroused at the sight of any kind of sex be deemed gay or straight?
I actually can't answer this question because, well, porn does nothing for me. So I don't really understand how it works. I've only accidentally watched it once, when I found all the porn my roommate downloaded on my computer. So I know enough to know that it doesn't do anything for me but I've never been compelled to watch it on my own.
Quote:
B) Some males get boners if they just have a surge of adrenaline, which can come from excitement or if they get nervous -- neither of which would be exclusively the result of a sexual stimuli. Many men get boners during their deaths. Saddam Hussein died with a boner. This doesnt mean that those men were sexually stimulated by their deaths does it? Im not sure if boner frequency would be any kind of conclusive measurement for a person's sexuality. I would be inclined to believe that a person who gets sexually excited when viewing same sex would be homosexual, but that could never be anything more than opinion. Thats nothing that can be proved.
But there were correlations found between boners/orgasms and certain images. In those cases, they signify something. Even though sexual arousal can happen from nothing or from something that you don't find attractive (like physical stimulation during rape), the increased correlation between certain individuals' arousal and certain images cannot be ignored.
Quote:
C) How is it that we are constantly taught that sexual behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and then the ONE thing that is touted as a gauge of sexual orientation, is essentially nothing more than the measurement of sexual behavior? (i.e. How the body behaves in response to sexual stimuli)
I can totally understand why you would ask this. The reason sexual behavior can't determine sexual orientation in life is because there are a million social pressures to act a certain way. There is a tremendous pressure on gay people to act straight. Almost every gay person you meet will mention having dated someone of the opposite sex or feeling pressured to despite no sexual attraction. Bisexuals are encouraged to suppress their gay side. Heterosexuals have their own pressures. Many religious institutions discourage sex outside of marriage and encourage sex within marriage. So an individual may never have sex before marriage but that definitely doesn't imply they haven't experienced sexual attraction. And a heterosexual individual might not feel attracted to his/her spouse after a certain number of years, but may feel obligated to have sex to please his/her spouse or to have more children. So there are a lot of societal pressures in addition to sexual orientation that make it impossible to predict orientation on behavior alone.
The difference in the study is that people are being put in a situation where there's no societal pressure. The examiners aren't telling them it's okay to react to certain stimuli and not others. The examiners aren't telling the experiments that being gay is wrong and being straight is right. The examiners don't have any social criteria (religious-based or otherwise) that they are pressuring the experimenters to react a certain way. In any scientific study, the factor in question has to be isolated. In this case, sexual behavior (the dependent factor) is being isolated to sexual orientation (the independent factor) and all other factors (social pressures, physical stimulation) are eliminated. The way the experiment is set up such that the only thing determining sexual behavior during the experiment is sexual orientation.
Last edited by nimchimpsky; 04-10-2011 at 06:23 PM..
This articulates it perfectly. As Jaymax so kindly pointed out before, I used to have no problem with people being gay before I found God again. My argument was the same as theirs, love is love, doesn't matter who it's with, we shouldn't say one kind of love is better than another or that homosexuality is wrong b/c they can't procreate. But when I found God and started going back to church and reading the Bible, my views changed so drastically and my liberal mindset vanished (and no, I was not going to some radical church that indoctrinates its congregants with political crap). The homosexuality thing was actually one of the hardest for me to accept (abortion was the first thing I changed my mind on...that one was easy!). I didn't change my opinions on purpose, that came from having a relationship with God again.
This is sad since you obviously have absolutely no understanding of the Bible whatsoever. (Hint: Homosexuality is not in the originals!)
As for your relationship with God. "By their fruits you shall know them". I see no good fruits from you. You ignore at least one of God's most important commandments with your contempt towards gays.
Yes, science is proven. It's not an opinion. Maybe you need a dictionary. That will help you to understand the difference between science and opinion.
I already told you that YOU can not change or choose your sexuality. And you have not given me a reason as to why you think gays can do. Then you have also not told me why they would "choose" to be gay, when they are being discriminated against, being harassed, and hated by people like you. You essentially utterly failed to make your point.
Um, the science of psychology is different than "regular" science.
I don't care what you told me already, and as a matter of fact, I don't even recognize you, so who knows what you supposedly told me. I can change my sexuality anytime I want...I just choose not to.
Disagreeing with my opinion here does not mean I have no point, get it straight.
Originally Posted by andrea3821 I get attacked for my religion, which is worse than being labeled some stupid inaccurate buzz word. Don't you think all of this rhetoric is taking away from any meaningful discussion about homosexuality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
I think any use of a two-thousand year old fairy tale book is takes away from any meaningful discussion about homosexuality.
This is sad since you obviously have absolutely no understanding of the Bible whatsoever. (Hint: Homosexuality is not in the originals!)
I never said anything about that, did I?
Quote:
As for your relationship with God. "By their fruits you shall know them". I see no good fruits from you. You ignore at least one of God's most important commandments with your contempt towards gays.
No contempt for anyone coming from me. That's how you choose to see it. You would see no good fruits from anyone on a random Internet discussion board about politics.
I am still waiting for a response to my post. I'm thinking you ignore it because you can not counter with anything reasonable but rants.
That's b/c I was at work. LMAO
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.
