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.
You have lost sight of the context of my statement that we are innately sexual...from a procreative standpoint...as are all creatures.
Of course there are other sexual motivators...and I never said procreation was the only one...just the only "innate" one. Everything else is a choice we make.When I said procreation was the only "innate" aspect of our sexual behavior...I said that as a response to the claim sexual orientation as respects gender choice was not chosen but innate. I said I see that as wrong...that it is choice a person makes. As is every sexual motivator we have outside of the instinct to procreate...including the quest for that "damned good feeling".
I'm pretty sure that when I'm horny, I'm simply horny.
That's pretty innate to me.
I don't choose to feel horny.
I know there are other people that think like you...I just said it was "rare/different/uncommon"...and it is. VERY different.
No, it's not very different.
That most women don't have the mindset that they "don't care for kids"...is not just "my truth" or "my opinion"...it is a flat out FACT.
How about most that you know.
In my group of friends, it's the opposite.
It's as much a FACT as yours.
Most women DO care for kids. Most women DO become Mothers...and think their children are the best thing in their life. That IS so. If you didn't know this...you must be completely unaware of the world and the people in it. You ARE different as respects your mindset about that...not bad, or evil, or wrong...but very, very, very, different.
Is it because they want to or because they are expected to or, as many want in the US, forced to do so?
Just like people that see a religious mindset as "evil". 98% of all the people that have ever lived for the last few thousand years...not only didn't see it the way you see it...they were IN FACT of a religious mindset themselves. The 2% that haven't been religious, is, of course, the "different" mindset. And the small percentage of that small percentage that even felt a religious mindset is actually "evil"...well, that is just about as different as different gets. Almost as rare as women that "don't care for kids".
I can see where my posts might confuse you.
I have said scores of times...I'm intolerant of intolerance...biased toward bias...and the only thing I hate is hate.
That could be seen as irony...criticizing people for criticizing other people.
The only negativity you will see in my posts...is toward negativity.
So many people demonstrate bias, intolerance, even hate toward those that don't think or act like they do. They will even go so far as to declare them "evil" (sound familiar) for their differences.
It is my position that everyone is entitled to their individuality of thoughts and actions...and if they themselves are not causing anyone else actual harm (being bothered isn't "harm")...it's all good.
I disagree with you.
Last edited by chielgirl; 02-15-2013 at 05:58 AM..
Like I said before...I never believed it was.
That doesn't change THE FACT...that is was presented that way by the scientific/medical community. To say it wasn't is just straight up ignorance...actual or willful.
Wasamatter?...is it you don't like further proof that my contention on this matter is accurate...or is it you don't like further proof of my general contention that you can't trust science any more than most any other source for accurate info?
You know exactly what he's saying.
How much "proof" do you need to know that it's not a mental illness.
Just because it was classified as one for political and "moral" reasons doesn't mean much.
You sure throw the word FACT around as if your arguments mean that something is fact.
I enjoy the debate...but please rebut the argument I was making...not some other argument you have pinned on me that I never made.
Please note that I stated that I never believed that it was a mental illness.
I said that the "born that way" proclamation about homosexuality started to combat the social stigma and mitigate bias and prejudice toward it.
Rebuttal was that "science" had shown it to be something "people are born with".
I responded: I don't go by "the science" on matters such as this. Heck, just a short time ago, "the science" was that it was a "mental disorder". I never agreed with that either.
THAT was the context in which I said science had considered it a mental illness.
It is true, and a FACT, that they did say it was a mental disorder.
I NEVER said that it was, or that I thought it was...matter of fact, just the opposite.
Your complaint about my view on that issue (that homosexuality is a mental illness) is unfounded...as it is NOT my view...and I NEVER stated such a view.
I enjoy the debate...but please rebut the argument I was making...not some other argument you have pinned on me that I never made.
Please note that I stated that I never believed that it was a mental illness.
Maybe not, but you surely post enough stuff about the subject to make any reasonable reader think you did believe it.
Quote:
I said that the "born that way" proclamation about homosexuality started to combat the social stigma and mitigate bias and prejudice toward it.
Rebuttal was that "science" had shown it to be something "people are born with".
I responded: I don't go by "the science" on matters such as this. Heck, just a short time ago, "the science" was that it was a "mental disorder". I never agreed with that either.
We, at least that is consistent. You've never let science stand in the way of anything else you wanted to post here. IT JUSSSTTT IISSSSS!!!
Quote:
THAT was the context in which I said science had considered it a mental illness.
It is true, and a FACT, that they did say it was a mental disorder.
I NEVER said that it was, or that I thought it was...matter of fact, just the opposite.
Thou dost protest too much.
Quote:
Your complaint about my view on that issue (that homosexuality is a mental illness) is unfounded...as it is NOT my view...and I NEVER stated such a view.
OK. OK. OK. But you made several posts that definitely implied that you did support the view that homosexuality IS a mental illness. Now, you backtrack.
Maybe not, but you surely post enough stuff about the subject to make any reasonable reader think you did believe it.
We, at least that is consistent. You've never let science stand in the way of anything else you wanted to post here. IT JUSSSTTT IISSSSS!!!
Thou dost protest too much.
OK. OK. OK. But you made several posts that definitely implied that you did support the view that homosexuality IS a mental illness. Now, you backtrack.
Not true.
You are slandering me because you don't like my Theist view...or probably any of my views for that matter...so your bias, prejudice, and intolerance is flaring up.
I posted where I said in no uncertain terms that I didn't/don't think it was.
I challenge you to show me the posts where I would have led people to believe I supported the view homosexuality IS a mental disorder. Use the actual quotes.
Also...I DO respect science for providing info...not as much as intuition and perception...but it's still pretty good.
Then of course there is "MY OPINION" and "BECAUSE I SAID SO, BASED UPON MY GREAT WISDOM"...which is the ultimate arbiter...to me.
Thanks, mensaguy.
You responded as I would have, but more eloquently.
You're quite welcome. I'm beginning to think we should both enlarge our Ignore List. The reason I don't is that I think it is important to the City-Data forums to be sure the truth is posted.
You're quite welcome. I'm beginning to think we should both enlarge our Ignore List. The reason I don't is that I think it is important to the City-Data forums to be sure the truth is posted.
If you wanted TRUTH posted...you can start by posting TRUTH.
But don't do it on my account...I like your posts just how they are.
IGNORE...if you want. But I would miss the amusement of your posts.
And THAT is the TRUTH!!
Often in cases of autism, for example, the severity of the condition or even the presence of the condition can differ between identical twins (ask some mothers of identical autistic twins about it or those with one NT and one autistic twin).
He said "in some cases" which means there are plenty of cases that do not support his findings. Also from the same website:
Quote:
"It's pretty unlikely they're going to significantly change any of the results found so far," counters Kerry Jang, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who runs Canada's largest twin study. "We can adjust our models to take [genetic differences] into account in the same way we've adjusted for different environments."
So it's a pretty far reach to say you have proof here explaining why identical twins are not both born gay.
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.
