Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

it seems to me that all evidence points to Jesus being Homosexual.
He had no interest in women.
Did not get married

There is absolutely no evidence that i have come across that prove Jesus was not a homosexual.
and...

Some claim him to be the son of god, however is not all men the son of god ?
thus calling himself "the son of god" by definition was a statement of saying he was normal like all other men.

have you any evidence that shows that Jesus was not a homosexual ?
and evidence that Jesus was Heterosexual ?
any evidence at all of him being one gender or the other ?

your thoughts... ?

How do you know he had no interest in women or did not get married?

i agree sam, there is strong evidence that mary was his wife.

How do you know he had no interest in women or did not get married?

how does a church minister know that god said homosexuality is a sin ?

sex SEX and more Sex ! the church is obsessed with homophobia and gender stereotyping.
occums razor !

at one point suggesting Jesus was ever married would get you the death penalty.

lots of homosexuals joined the church to become ministers and monks to hide their sexuality and we have documented the massive sexual predation of young boys by church ministers etc...

walks like a duck quacks like a duck ... must be a duck !

err dude, you really need to learn history. There is vertually NO evidence that jesus had anything to do with a church which arose more than 100 years after his death. From memory (mum would know but im not going to call her at 2AM) the gospal written closest to his life was still 300 years after he died and Constine didnt prevert the sect into his church until WELL after that

is it fair to assume androgynous love paths the way to androgynous sexuality ?
or ?
is there a completely different type of love that only exists between 2 people having sex ?

err dude, you really need to learn history. There is vertually NO evidence that jesus had anything to do with a church which arose more than 100 years after his death. From memory (mum would know but im not going to call her at 2AM) the gospal written closest to his life was still 300 years after he died and Constine didnt prevert the sect into his church until WELL after that

ahh so where does the religious concept of sexuality come from ?

umm on the second question

a) what difference does it make
b) you have to prove that he "loved" men more than women
c) you once again ignore Constine's designs on the church.

Constine WANTED a church which gave HIM all the power, the only way he could do that was through priests. Before that the ritual for a man wanting to communicate with "God" was THROUGH sex. The translation of "prostitue" was actually "Priestess". ie Men prayed by having sex with the temple priestesses. Women didnt need to do this because it was belived that they were closer to divine because of there "ability" to "create new life".

Hell even the former POPE was forced to say that mary was a "very special person". The line "you are the rock on which i will build my church" MORE than likly refered to MARY not Peter if he said it at all.

does the bible define jesuss' sexual orientation ?
does the bible define sexuality at all ?

i agree sam, there is strong evidence that mary was his wife.

yeah, really strong evidence. like the kind that if you don't pick up on, you're an idiot.

i can't figure out why people are so hell bent on thinking that jesus didn't have sex. there's no indication of that anywhere. actually, quite the opposite. stands to reason that jesus was quite the ladies man. i know i swoon, and he's been dead for 2000 years!

is it fair to assume androgynous love paths the way to androgynous sexuality ?
or ?
is there a completely different type of love that only exists between 2 people having sex ?


imo, sex (marriage) is the closest thing to communion we can experience on this earth right now. the church is said to be the bride of christ, and the communion ceremony is symbolic of the union to come. when communion is restored (when sin is annihilated) we will all share ourselves completely with each other, regardless of gender, and it won't be dependent upon sex. imo...

does the bible define jesuss' sexual orientation ?
does the bible define sexuality at all ?

the bible talks about sex and sexual acts, but as far as i know doesn't refer to "sexuality and orientation" per se. probably because sexuality and sexual orientation are just romanticized bullshit. :shrug:

oh i just rembered the popes actual words (i think), he called her "the aposales, aposale". Ie she was the first and all the rest were followers. I belive they even found HER gospal in the dead sea scrolls but i could be wrong (its surposed to be one of the gnostic gospals).

He had no interest in women.

Except for the prostitute he hung out with and clearly cared about.

As far as the issue of his gender, Mary had a son. That should be a giveaway.

Except for the prostitute he hung out with and clearly cared about.

a) officially the church doesnt recognise that she was a prostitute anymore and b) that word translates to "temple priestess" and c) she was more than likly his WIFE

I have said it before I will say it again

Jesus was a Time Travelling Mexican from the Year 6052 and now in retrospect it is a good posability that he was indeed Gay if you go by the writings in the Bible either Gay or a Gang member Possibly a member of MS13.

This thread better be locked down. If gay supporters dont allow gay bashing than so shouldnt straight bashing be allowed as well.

This thread better be locked down. If gay supporters dont allow gay bashing than so shouldnt straight bashing be allowed as well.

how is this straight bashing? plus, from what i've seen, you don't have to be gay bashing to have a thread locked down, just gay discussing...:rolleyes:

Actually, it seemed that he had a relationship with his disciple, Mary.

From memory (mum would know but im not going to call her at 2AM) the gospal written closest to his life was still 300 years after he died and Constine didnt prevert the sect into his church until WELL after that

The first Gospel written, Mark, was circulating around 60 CE. In general the Gospels were relatively finalized and associated with their names by around 180 CE. There's the third-century mark you're probably thinking of. In the fourth century, 325 CE, the gospels were officially politicized and all but four held heretical.


• • •



i can't figure out why people are so hell bent on thinking that jesus didn't have sex.

Really? You can't figure it out?

I mean, that's not a joke. But this, obviously, is:


i know i swoon, and he's been dead for 2000 years!

We call that necrophilia, dear.


how is this straight bashing? plus, from what i've seen, you don't have to be gay bashing to have a thread locked down, just gay discussing...

Two brief points on this one:


(1) It's Draqon. Just nod and move on.

(2) It's not a matter of merely discussing homosexuals that is problematic; rather, like anything else, we expect members to have at least a shred of a scrap of a fraction of a speck of a clue regarding the subjects of their posts. With certain issues, of course, the dearth stands out a bit more severely than others. Like this amazing bit I saw last week; I wish you could have seen it. This member actually got all upset because gay men don't like pussy. It was fabulous. Okay, so get this: Apparently, it is sexual discrimination if a guy doesn't want to fuck women, but it's not sexual discrimination if a woman won't fuck women. Talk about clueless hypocrisy! Anyway, I digress; I guess you had to be there. But, yeah. Very little is forbidden compared to the idea that being completely clueless about a subject is, overwhelmingly more often, the core problem.

While there is some scripture, particularly the bit about Lazarus, which can be interpreted as Jesus being gay, there is also the Mary bit where he seems hetero.

But really I would say god would have to be bi and a pedo so he could love all his children equally.

While there is some scripture, particularly the bit about Lazarus, which can be interpreted as Jesus being gay, ....

what scripture about Lazarus hints at Jesus being gay?

Really? You can't figure it out?

I mean, that's not a joke. But this, obviously, is:



We call that necrophilia, dear.



Two brief points on this one:


(1) It's Draqon. Just nod and move on.

(2) It's not a matter of merely discussing homosexuals that is problematic; rather, like anything else, we expect members to have at least a shred of a scrap of a fraction of a speck of a clue regarding the subjects of their posts. With certain issues, of course, the dearth stands out a bit more severely than others. Like this amazing bit I saw last week; I wish you could have seen it. This member actually got all upset because gay men don't like pussy. It was fabulous. Okay, so get this: Apparently, it is sexual discrimination if a guy doesn't want to fuck women, but it's not sexual discrimination if a woman won't fuck women. Talk about clueless hypocrisy! Anyway, I digress; I guess you had to be there. But, yeah. Very little is forbidden compared to the idea that being completely clueless about a subject is, overwhelmingly more often, the core problem.


tiassa,

women can't fuck women. it's impossible. and my response about the whole genderism thing comes from many conversations and observations of one of my very best friends in the world, who is a diehard lesbian. so, i do have a clue. she thinks men are gross (from a sexual standpoint), just like some gay men out here have expressed that they think women are gross. but the truth is tiassa, that neither men nor women are gross, so if you think that, you're believing a lie. i mean, there are some men and women who are gross, but it's not because of their particular gender. gender doesn't make people gross. that's just craziness.

tiassa,

women can't fuck women. it's impossible. and my response about the whole genderism thing comes from many conversations and observations of one of my very best friends in the world, who is a diehard lesbian. so, i do have a clue. she thinks men are gross (from a sexual standpoint), just like some gay men out here have expressed that they think women are gross. but the truth is tiassa, that neither men nor women are gross, so if you think that, you're believing a lie. i mean, there are some men and women who are gross, but it's not because of their particular gender. gender doesn't make people gross. that's just craziness.

Actually, you're stretching again.

"Gross" is subjective. I think women, in a purely sexual aspect, are gross. That's MY opinion. That's what I think. I'm not grossed out by watching women have sex with other women, or other men. I'm grossed out when thinking about ME having sex with them because I'm gay. And that comes with the territory. You'll find that this is the case with most sexualities. For example, straight men usually find it "gross" to imagine themselves having sex with another man, even if they are the most open-minded man.

This isn't hatred anymore than it's "hatred" for a person to like cake or be grossed-out by it. It's about taste, and this simple fact seems to escape you, despite all your unsupported meanderings.

~String

Actually, you're stretching again.

"Gross" is subjective. I think women, in a purely sexual aspect, are gross. That's MY opinion. That's what I think. I'm not grossed out by watching women have sex with other women, or other men. I'm grossed out when thinking about ME having sex with them because I'm gay. And that comes with the territory. You'll find that this is the case with most sexualities. For example, straight men usually find it "gross" to imagine themselves having sex with another man, even if they are the most open-minded man.

This isn't hatred anymore than it's "hatred" for a person to like cake or be grossed-out by it. It's about taste, and this simple fact seems to escape you, despite all your unsupported meanderings.

~String

we're not talking about cake string. we're talking about a fucking human being! and we're talking about something inherent at birth. and we're not talking about eating, but something much more important and involved which you would think would involve some discriminations that are important and relevant, like what is on the inside, not just the outside. but to discriminate based on some god given physical characteristic is just nonsensical to me and i think it is a form of hatred.

So Lori_7 Jesus is a human now I thought he was the Son/Daughter of God.

So Lori_7 Jesus is a human now I thought he was the Son/Daughter of God.

you didn't know that jesus was a human being? :confused:

you didn't know that jesus was a human being? :confused:

How could he be a Human being if he was the Son/Daughter of God he would be a well God not a human being.

Edit at the very least he would only be Half human but was Mary Human or was she God as she was born without the original sin perhaps she was Gods Sister ... Well that would just be wrong...

How could he be a Human being if he was the Son/Daughter of God he would be a well God not a human being.

he was god in human form. immanuel means "god with us". the difference that's made between jesus and other humans, is that he was born without sin. when we are reborn through him, we will be without sin as well and a communion with god and each other will be restored. we will all be as one, even in all our individuality.

he was god in human form. immanuel means "god with us". the difference that's made between jesus and other humans, is that he was born without sin. when we are reborn through him, we will be without sin as well and a communion with god and each other will be restored. we will all be as one, even in all our individuality.

But if he is human he cannot promise that now can he or it is an empty promise now right. So in order for him to offer said born againness he would infact have to be a God ergo Not human.

So Lori_7 Jesus is a human now I thought he was the Son/Daughter of God.

Same thing.

we're not talking about cake string. we're talking about a fucking human being! and we're talking about something inherent at birth. and we're not talking about eating, but something much more important and involved which you would think would involve some discriminations that are important and relevant, like what is on the inside, not just the outside. but to discriminate based on some god given physical characteristic is just nonsensical to me and i think it is a form of hatred.

The comparison is apt. Human tastes are in discussion and the point remains that human diversity makes for human differences in tastes. Is this too difficult?

Sexuality is a "taste" and it's inhgerited from birth. Or do you have some information that has escaped most psychological experts on this planet?

You continue with this ultra-idiotic argument about discrimination. Seriously, what should I do, pop a Viagra and force myself to get a hard-on in order to have sex with a woman who doesn't turn me on? Is it really all about what you want?

~String

Except for the prostitute he hung out with and clearly cared about.

As far as the issue of his gender, Mary had a son. That should be a giveaway.
*************
M*W: The church lied about MM being a prostitute, but what did they know? What was the church afraid to reveal? From my study of astro-theology, J & MM were represented by the Sun and the Constellation Aquarias, respectively.

In any event, these mythic characters were just that--myths. These myths were based on ancient nomadic travels by night. They skies were used for navigation and entertainment purposes. This is not to say that astrology is anymore scientifically accurate than is reading tea leaves. It's just been around since about 5,000 BCE.

he was god in human form. immanuel means "god with us". the difference that's made between jesus and other humans, is that he was born without sin. when we are reborn through him, we will be without sin as well and a communion with god and each other will be restored. we will all be as one, even in all our individuality.
*************
M*W: Just curious, but in your opinion, what does the "Son-of-Man" mean to you? How do you define it?

From what I read and understood there is no evidence that Jesus was a homosexual . Furthermore Christianity is against homosexuality as it is a sin .
Just saying things does not make them reality or the truth .
The OP failed miserably to show us any proof about his false accusations .

There's no evidence in the bible to say that he didn't speak French either. Or that he wasn't a fan of macramé.
I wonder what the pope thinks of that...

The comparison is apt. Human tastes are in discussion and the point remains that human diversity makes for human differences in tastes. Is this too difficult?

Sexuality is a "taste" and it's inhgerited from birth. Or do you have some information that has escaped most psychological experts on this planet?

You continue with this ultra-idiotic argument about discrimination. Seriously, what should I do, pop a Viagra and force myself to get a hard-on in order to have sex with a woman who doesn't turn me on? Is it really all about what you want?

~String

no, that's not what i want. i don't want anything; it's just a discussion. i don't know what psychological experts think, but i know that my own sexuality has been shaped by my experience. we're not born with orientations; we're born with genders and hormones and parents and a society.

here's what i don't understand. i don't understand how someone could be put off by a vagina or a penis any more than they would be put off by an arm or a leg or a nose. it just doesn't make sense to me.

*************
M*W: Just curious, but in your opinion, what does the "Son-of-Man" mean to you? How do you define it?

if i had to take a guess, i would say that the son of man refers to his humanity, while the son of god refers to his purity (deity).

So your are saying that Jesus was not human then correct Lori_7

women can't fuck women. it's impossible.

You know, in truth, Lori, I expect to be sharing this odd formulation of yours with people because it's one of those things that widens their eyes and shakes their heads in disbelief. I actually dropped the line on a friend of mine the other day while we were talking about her gay brother. It got me two things; a thin laugh and this look common in my social circles that says, "I don't really want to know where that comes from, do I?"

Perhaps next we should argue about what is is. At the very least it would be less neurotic.


With his rude, persistent demand for the bodily origin of spiritual things, Freud starts not with love but with sexuality. But the man who discussed what he called the sexual life of children, and who insisted on the sexual character of thumb-sucking, must have had a special definition of sexuality. In fact, Freud's definition of the sexual instinct shows that he means something very general. It is the energy or desire with which the human being pursues pleasure, with the further specification that the pleasure sought is the pleasurable activity of an organ of the human body. He attributed the capacity of yielding such pleasure ... to all parts of the surface of the human body, and also to the internal organs. The organ in question may be the genital, or it may be the mouth, as in thumb-sucking, or it may be the eyes, as in the delight of seeing. If sex is so defined, there will surely be little disposition to deny that infants do have a sexual life, or even that sex in this sense is their chief aim. Infants are naturally absorbed in themselves and in their own bodies: they are in love with themselves; in Freudian terminology, their orientation is narcissistic. Infants are ignorant of the serious business of life (the reality-principle) and therefore know no guide except the pleasure-principle, making pleasurable activity of their own body their sole aim. And since childhood is a period of real immunity from the serious business of life, children are really in a position to obtain pleasure from the activity of their bodies to an extent which the adult is not. So Freud's definition of sexuality entails the proposition that infants have a richer sexual life than adults.

(Brown, 26)

In reducing the polymorphous to the singular and deliberately exclusive, you are only encouraging neurosis.


and my response about the whole genderism thing comes from many conversations and observations of one of my very best friends in the world, who is a diehard lesbian. so, i do have a clue. she thinks men are gross (from a sexual standpoint), just like some gay men out here have expressed that they think women are gross. but the truth is tiassa, that neither men nor women are gross, so if you think that, you're believing a lie. i mean, there are some men and women who are gross, but it's not because of their particular gender. gender doesn't make people gross. that's just craziness.

What's really curious about this, Lori, is that you are the one who tied one's sexual appeal so tightly to their personal worth. That is, if one hasn't what it takes to get a person off, then that one is somehow worthless.

This strikes many as ironic. Even feminist sympathizers such as myself stop and scratch our heads at this: So, first we all spend years—in some cases lifetimes—trying to explain that a woman's worth is not measured in her physical attributes or her ability to dole out adequate sexual pleasure on demand. But, along comes a gay man who isn't turned on by the thought of plowing a woman's furrow, and suddenly it's genderist? Really, Lori? Is that really where you want the discussion to go? Right back to measuring you—a woman—as a human being according to your ability to sexually satisfy men?

So let's make a short list here: people who think that "discussing" homosexuality is somehow verboten by Sciforums or other similar standards.


• People who compare consensual sex to raping animals.
• People who think a gay couple getting married somehow wrecks their own union.
• Biblically religious people who like to ignore Jesus.
• People who assert that those who want sexual satisfaction should have to submit themselves to being raped.

Do you notice a theme emerging? We can expand the list all you want, but the underlying theme will continue to be, "People who have a problem with homosexuals."

So let's stop and think about that for a moment. Not only have you stated that gay people should be raped if they want sexual satisfaction—and if you can't see the problem in that phrasing, I don't know what to tell you—but you've also repeatedly tried to dehumanize them by claiming they cannot have sex. Yet when questioned on the implications of this formulation, you dodged.

What are people supposed to think, m'lady? That is, when they see you dehumanizing a class of people, demanding that they be raped, and snarling at the idea that this sort of declaration is looked down upon—what the hell are people supposed to think?
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.

Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

it seems to me that all evidence points to Jesus being Homosexual.
He had no interest in women.
Did not get married

There is absolutely no evidence that i have come across that prove Jesus was not a homosexual.
and...

Some claim him to be the son of god, however is not all men the son of god ?
thus calling himself "the son of god" by definition was a statement of saying he was normal like all other men.

have you any evidence that shows that Jesus was not a homosexual ?
and evidence that Jesus was Heterosexual ?
any evidence at all of him being one gender or the other ?

your thoughts... ?

How do you know that all men who have no interest in getting married/interloping with the opposite gender are homosexual?

For instance do you consider the Dalai Lama a homosexual?

Do you consider Gandhi's move towards celibacy later in life a result of homosexuality?

You know, in truth, Lori, I expect to be sharing this odd formulation of yours with people because it's one of those things that widens their eyes and shakes their heads in disbelief. I actually dropped the line on a friend of mine the other day while we were talking about her gay brother. It got me two things; a thin laugh and this look common in my social circles that says, "I don't really want to know where that comes from, do I?"

Perhaps next we should argue about what is is. At the very least it would be less neurotic.


With his rude, persistent demand for the bodily origin of spiritual things, Freud starts not with love but with sexuality. But the man who discussed what he called the sexual life of children, and who insisted on the sexual character of thumb-sucking, must have had a special definition of sexuality. In fact, Freud's definition of the sexual instinct shows that he means something very general. It is the energy or desire with which the human being pursues pleasure, with the further specification that the pleasure sought is the pleasurable activity of an organ of the human body. He attributed the capacity of yielding such pleasure ... to all parts of the surface of the human body, and also to the internal organs. The organ in question may be the genital, or it may be the mouth, as in thumb-suckint, or it may be the eyes, as in the delight of seeing. If sex is so defined, there will surely be little disposition to deny that infants do have a sexual life, or even that sex in this sense is their chief aim. Infants are naturally absorbed in themselves and in their own bodies: they are in love with themselves; in Freudian terminology, their orientation is narcissistic. Infants are ignorant of the serious business of life (the reality-principle) and therefore know no guide except the pleasure-principle, making pleasurable activity of their own body their sole aim. And since childhood is a period of real immunity from the serious business of life, children are really in a position to obtain pleasure from the activity of their bodies to an extent which the adult is not. So Freud's definition of sexuality entails the proposition that infants have a richer sexual life than adults.

(Brown, 26)

In reducing the polymorphous to the singular and deliberately exclusive, you are only encouraging neurosis.



What's really curious about this, Lori, is that you are the one who tied one's sexual appeal so tightly to their personal worth. That is, if one hasn't what it takes to get a person off, then that one is somehow worthless.

This strikes many as ironic. Even feminist sympathizers such as myself stop and scratch our heads at this: So, first we all spend years—in some cases lifetimes—trying to explain that a woman's worth is not measured in her physical attributes or her ability to dole out adequate sexual pleasure on demand. But, along comes a gay man who isn't turned on by the thought of plowing a woman's furrow, and suddenly it's genderist? Really, Lori? Is that really where you want the discussion to go? Right back to measuring you—a woman—as a human being according to your ability to sexually satisfy men?

So let's make a short list here: people who think that "discussing" homosexuality is somehow verboten by Sciforums or other similar standards.


• People who compare consensual sex to raping animals.
• People who think a gay couple getting married somehow wrecks their own union.
• Biblically religious people who like to ignore Jesus.
• People who assert that those who want sexual satisfaction should have to submit themselves to being raped.

Do you notice a theme emerging? We can expand the list all you want, but the underlying theme will continue to be, "People who have a problem with homosexuals."

So let's stop and think about that for a moment. Not only have you stated that gay people should be raped if they want sexual satisfaction—and if you can't see the problem in that phrasing, I don't know what to tell you—but you've also repeatedly tried to dehumanize them by claiming they cannot have sex. Yet when questioned on the implications of this formulation, you dodged.

What are people supposed to think, m'lady? That is, when they see you dehumanizing a class of people, demanding that they be raped, and snarling at the idea that this sort of declaration is looked down upon—what the hell are people supposed to think?
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death . Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.



tiassa, you are way off the deep end here. first of all, babies have a richer sex life because they're not jaded yet. secondly, i don't have a problem with homosexuals any more than i have a problem with heterosexuals. i think that the whole concept of some inherent sexual orientation is rubbish. thirdly, i don't advocate rape in any capacity. and fourthly, i don't determine my self worth by whether someone else wants to have sex with me. for god's sake i was intentionally celibate for 8 years! and it was and extremely enlightening experience in regards to my self worth too.

So your are saying that Jesus was not human then correct Lori_7

no man, i'm saying he was human, but born without the birth defect that the bible calls sin.

Do you consider Gandhi's move towards celibacy later in life a result of homosexuality?

Do I sense a perversion in your logic?

Yes, I do and what a question to ask as if we could read the mind of Gandhi.

no man, i'm saying he was human, but born without the birth defect that the bible calls sin.


The creation story has been debunked, Lori. Sin is a lie told in dishonesty and didn't come from an honest God.

if i had to take a guess, i would say that the son of man refers to his humanity, while the son of god refers to his purity (deity).
If you follow logic it is just impossible .

first of all, babies have a richer sex life because they're not jaded yet.

If we take jaded to mean limited according to aesthetic priorities, then I have no reason to disagree.

Specifically, they have not yet learned to focus their pleasure centers around their genitals. You know, like ... oh, what was the line? Ah, here it is: "penis + vagina = sex. that's it." See, babies haven't yet learned to drive themselves insane with such strange standards.


secondly, i don't have a problem with homosexuals any more than i have a problem with heterosexuals.

Which is why you advocate an equal standard for homosexuals and heterosexuals: Have sexual intercourse you don't like.


i think that the whole concept of some inherent sexual orientation is rubbish

Unless, of course, that orientation is "heterosexual"?


thirdly, i don't advocate rape in any capacity.

Survey says!


"i'm not insecure. i just don't think the decision should come down to whether or not i have a vagina. that should be a given...a non-issue. i've had a gay guy want to have sex with me. i couldn't handle it."

What someone likes and feels comfortable with is a non-issue?

Let's check a larger version of the script:


Lori: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411097&postcount=83) you know, it's all what you get used to. some people survive on whale blubber and raw fish. some people like monkey brains. i used to hate green peppers, but it bugs me when i don't like certain foods. so i started forcing myself to eat them, like on pizza and as an ingredient in cooked foods to acclimate myself to the taste. then on salads. now i can eat them raw and by themselves and i love em.

String: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411104&postcount=85) Great. That's so big of you. So, should gay men be forced to have sex with women to make sure that you are satisfied with their lives?

I've had sex with a number of women (back when I was a teenager). I hated it. I did it because I thought, "Well, this is what guys do. . . so I have to do it." Sometime, Lori, all the "trying" in the world won't make a person like something. I was forced to eat Salisbury Steak as a kid. Periodically I've gone back and tried it again, only to confirm that--YEP--I still hate it.

Lori: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411113&postcount=87) the only thing it has to do with me, is that a gay man won't have sex with me just because i'm a woman, barring any other quality or trait or characteristic that i might have.

String: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411119&postcount=92) Christ! You are insecure.

Yes, Lori, gay men won't have sex with you. That's why they are gay.

I want to hear this from you, do you REALLY think that gay men should be "required" to have sex with women, despite what they do or do not want to do?

Lori: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411124&postcount=96) i'm not insecure. i just don't think the decision should come down to whether or not i have a vagina. that should be a given...a non-issue. i've had a gay guy want to have sex with me. i couldn't handle it ....

.... i don't think that anyone should be required to do anything.

There is a curious discord about your argument. Gay men are misogynists because they won't fuck women; gay men should force themselves to fuck women; what people enjoy and feel comfortable with is a non-issue. But you don't think anyone should be required to do anything.

Ah, I see. So homosexuals should either be celibate or rape bait in order that you can feel more secure about your pussy.

Sorry. Your argument just doesn't work.


fourthly, i don't determine my self worth by whether someone else wants to have sex with me. for god's sake i was intentionally celibate for 8 years! and it was and extremely enlightening experience in regards to my self worth too.

Lori, I'm sorry, but that's analogous to telling someone you're not violent after trying to beat them for no good reason. You are the one who looked past the words of gay men in order to accuse genderism. You are the one who looked at the idea that a gay man can be friends with a woman without wanting to bang her and decided that it was wrong, wrong, wrong. You are the one who is upset that it's your womanhood—as opposed to your intelligence or personality—that makes you undesirable to some men. (Any number of fitting observations about those criteria might go here.) You are the one disappointed at being viewed as a human being and not a mere sex object.

So you were intentionally celibate for eight years. Congratulations. Now what? I mean, it would seem in your mind that proves something. But the most apparent thing at this point is that, after eight years of obsessing over denying your vagina, you're now obsessing on its magnanimity.

Whatever God's greatest gift to the living Universe, I'm pretty sure it wasn't your pussy.

Sometimes I wish I were gay.

[SIZE="3"]There is absolutely no evidence that i have come across that prove Jesus was not a homosexual

Oli would say something like " How can I prove with evidence from that something which does not exist"?

How did I do?

a) officially the church doesnt recognise that she was a prostitute anymore and b) that word translates to "temple priestess" and c) she was more than likly his WIFEAll of which keeps her
a
woman.

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." -- Genesis 6:1-2

"...and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." -- Genesis 6:4


2 Peter 2:4, NASB
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;

I guess God turned them loose after his tryst with Mary.

*************
M*W: The church lied about MM being a prostitute, but what did they know? What was the church afraid to reveal? From my study of astro-theology, J & MM were represented by the Sun and the Constellation Aquarias, respectively.

In any event, these mythic characters were just that--myths. These myths were based on ancient nomadic travels by night. They skies were used for navigation and entertainment purposes. This is not to say that astrology is anymore scientifically accurate than is reading tea leaves. It's just been around since about 5,000 BCE.
Oh, you don't know that. Just because stories have parallels to other stories does not mean they did not happen. There are many explanations for why two stories have similarities.

I've seen prodigal sons return.
I have seen women lead men astray. (and the reverse of course, perhaps more often).
I have seen people follow voices, a la Noah, and create things that others first mocked and later appreciated.

Please. It is a very old fallacy that when something resembles something else it must be, really, that other thing.

At least you could present the idea as a possibility instead of stating it like you know.

no, that's not what i want. i don't want anything; it's just a discussion. i don't know what psychological experts think, but i know that my own sexuality has been shaped by my experience. we're not born with orientations; we're born with genders and hormones and parents and a society.

here's what i don't understand. i don't understand how someone could be put off by a vagina or a penis any more than they would be put off by an arm or a leg or a nose. it just doesn't make sense to me.

Well, the lack of understanding is yours. And the ignorance too.

Do a little reading, pick up a book. You'll find no credible psychologist who believes that homosexuality is a choice.

Nobody "controls" what they are and are not attracted to. It's innate to their personality.

I'm not attracted to vaginas. I believe you're playing stupid, or maybe it's not an act, but whatever, but you're pulling this act to support your idiotic claims. You also failed to answer my question. Do you or do you not believe that I should take a pill, or some other object to force myself to have sex with a woman despite the fact that I find females sexually unattractive.

One more time and hopefully you'll absorb this easy little fact: People have tastes. Don't even try to sell me on the bullshit that you like every single thing on earth. By saying, for example, I don't like cake (yes, yes, we aren't discussing cake, and despite your inability to understand the concept of a "comparison" it's still apt), it doesn't mean that cake is bad. I just don't like it.

[funny thing, in Mexican Spanish "biscocho" means cake and vagina!]

~String

i think that the whole concept of some inherent sexual orientation is rubbish.

Can you support that?

I can support my point of view: simple. Talk to gay people. Read what they say. Then take a trip to a shrink and ask them. The two experts on this issue (psychologists and... GAY PEOPLE) disagree with you. You've come to your view because you are offended and appalled by the fact that there's a man who isn't wowed by your vagina. Perish the thought!

~String

If we take jaded to mean limited according to aesthetic priorities, then I have no reason to disagree.

Specifically, they have not yet learned to focus their pleasure centers around their genitals. You know, like ... oh, what was the line? Ah, here it is: "penis + vagina = sex. that's it." See, babies haven't yet learned to drive themselves insane with such strange standards.

insane? sexual intercourse is a cause for insanity? that's ridiculous.




Which is why you advocate an equal standard for homosexuals and heterosexuals: Have sexual intercourse you don't like.

the question is this...why in the hell wouldn't you like it? the truth is, that unless something is wrong with your body, or wrong with your perception, there is nothing to not like. a woman rubbing on it feels just as good as a man rubbing on it. people have "intercourse" with inanimate objects for god's sake, and that feels good. i'm sorry, but it's a legitimate question...why jump through hoops to avoid having sexual intercourse? if there's something wrong with you physically it causes you physical pain. if there's something wrong with you mentally and/or emotionally it causes you mental and/or emotional pain. there's still something wrong.




Unless, of course, that orientation is "heterosexual"?

no. you're obviously not listening to what i'm saying. i spent the better part of my life thinking i was a heterosexual. because you know, that's what people like me do. and do you want to know what it was in my life that had the biggest impact on my "sexuality"? my lesbian friend. i found myself in conversations on the topic feeling like a hypocrite for embracing the same ideologies towards women as she does towards men. which forced me to change my perspective, in response to logic and truth.




Survey says!


"i'm not insecure. i just don't think the decision should come down to whether or not i have a vagina. that should be a given...a non-issue. i've had a gay guy want to have sex with me. i couldn't handle it."

What someone likes and feels comfortable with is a non-issue?

Let's check a larger version of the script:


Lori: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411097&postcount=83) you know, it's all what you get used to. some people survive on whale blubber and raw fish. some people like monkey brains. i used to hate green peppers, but it bugs me when i don't like certain foods. so i started forcing myself to eat them, like on pizza and as an ingredient in cooked foods to acclimate myself to the taste. then on salads. now i can eat them raw and by themselves and i love em.

String: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411104&postcount=85) Great. That's so big of you. So, should gay men be forced to have sex with women to make sure that you are satisfied with their lives?

I've had sex with a number of women (back when I was a teenager). I hated it. I did it because I thought, "Well, this is what guys do. . . so I have to do it." Sometime, Lori, all the "trying" in the world won't make a person like something. I was forced to eat Salisbury Steak as a kid. Periodically I've gone back and tried it again, only to confirm that--YEP--I still hate it.

Lori: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411113&postcount=87) the only thing it has to do with me, is that a gay man won't have sex with me just because i'm a woman, barring any other quality or trait or characteristic that i might have.

String: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411119&postcount=92) Christ! You are insecure.

Yes, Lori, gay men won't have sex with you. That's why they are gay.

I want to hear this from you, do you REALLY think that gay men should be "required" to have sex with women, despite what they do or do not want to do?

Lori: (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411124&postcount=96) i'm not insecure. i just don't think the decision should come down to whether or not i have a vagina. that should be a given...a non-issue. i've had a gay guy want to have sex with me. i couldn't handle it ....

.... i don't think that anyone should be required to do anything.

There is a curious discord about your argument. Gay men are misogynists because they won't fuck women; gay men should force themselves to fuck women; what people enjoy and feel comfortable with is a non-issue. But you don't think anyone should be required to do anything.

Ah, I see. So homosexuals should either be celibate or rape bait in order that you can feel more secure about your pussy.

Sorry. Your argument just doesn't work.

i didn't need a recap on the conversation, i remember it, and your conclusions are shit. what my point is and was, is that it is all perspective. if you believe that women or men are gross from a sexual standpoint, simply because they are men or women, you're wrong, and you're believing a lie. here's a great example...

trent reznor did a peta spot all up in arms about how they kill and eat dogs in china. he's not a fucking vegetarian. we do the same damn thing to all the cows and pigs and chickens he eats over here. the only difference is, that he's emotionally attached to dogs. he keeps them as pets. it's a retarded standpoint.




Lori, I'm sorry, but that's analogous to telling someone you're not violent after trying to beat them for no good reason. You are the one who looked past the words of gay men in order to accuse genderism. You are the one who looked at the idea that a gay man can be friends with a woman without wanting to bang her and decided that it was wrong, wrong, wrong. You are the one who is upset that it's your womanhood—as opposed to your intelligence or personality—that makes you undesirable to some men. (Any number of fitting observations about those criteria might go here.) You are the one disappointed at being viewed as a human being and not a mere sex object.

what a crock of shit. people should be able to be friends with all kinds of other people without wanting to "bang them" as you so eloquently put it. and this doesn't have a damn thing to do with my intelligence and personality when a gay man says "regardless of that, i won't be sexually intimate with you because, and only because, you have a vagina". the point is, that i don't think anyone, regardless of their gender, should be viewed as a sex object. i think people should be viewed as human beings.


So you were intentionally celibate for eight years. Congratulations. Now what? I mean, it would seem in your mind that proves something. But the most apparent thing at this point is that, after eight years of obsessing over denying your vagina, you're now obsessing on its magnanimity.

Whatever God's greatest gift to the living Universe, I'm pretty sure it wasn't your pussy.

magnanimity? are you serious? it should be a non-issue. it should be a given. and it's the "sexually oriented" people who insist that it's not.

Well, the lack of understanding is yours. And the ignorance too.

Do a little reading, pick up a book. You'll find no credible psychologist who believes that homosexuality is a choice.

Nobody "controls" what they are and are not attracted to. It's innate to their personality.

I'm not attracted to vaginas. I believe you're playing stupid, or maybe it's not an act, but whatever, but you're pulling this act to support your idiotic claims. You also failed to answer my question. Do you or do you not believe that I should take a pill, or some other object to force myself to have sex with a woman despite the fact that I find females sexually unattractive.

One more time and hopefully you'll absorb this easy little fact: People have tastes. Don't even try to sell me on the bullshit that you like every single thing on earth. By saying, for example, I don't like cake (yes, yes, we aren't discussing cake, and despite your inability to understand the concept of a "comparison" it's still apt), it doesn't mean that cake is bad. I just don't like it.

[funny thing, in Mexican Spanish "biscocho" means cake and vagina!]

~String


oh bullshit...it's innate to their perceptions, and perceptions are NOT innate. i'm so sick of people's emotionality. "my wittle feewings. i must coddle them. i must stroke them. i must legitimize them." when a lot of the time feelings are based upon lies. emotions and feelings have nothing to do with logic and truth.

you want to know what i don't like? i don't like it when i see people, including myself, led around on a leash by their "feelings". i also don't like it when people discriminate against other human beings because of physical traits, like gender.

Can you support that?

I can support my point of view: simple. Talk to gay people. Read what they say. Then take a trip to a shrink and ask them. The two experts on this issue (psychologists and... GAY PEOPLE) disagree with you. You've come to your view because you are offended and appalled by the fact that there's a man who isn't wowed by your vagina. Perish the thought!

~String

i am and have been good friends with many gay people. one of my best friend's is a lesbian, and trust me, it doesn't take a fucking psychologist to figure her out. i'm not offended or appalled, and it doesn't have anything to do with my vagina. it has to do with the fact that the human body, male and female, is something to be in awe of. male and female, humans are beautiful in many ways, and none of those ways are contingent upon their gender. sex and the manifestations of such are beautiful and something to be in awe of. and it's a damn shame that some people reduce it down to what they reduce it down to.

Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

it seems to me that all evidence points to Jesus being Homosexual.
He had no interest in women.
Did not get married

There is absolutely no evidence that i have come across that prove Jesus was not a homosexual.
and...

Some claim him to be the son of god, however is not all men the son of god ?
thus calling himself "the son of god" by definition was a statement of saying he was normal like all other men.

have you any evidence that shows that Jesus was not a homosexual ?
and evidence that Jesus was Heterosexual ?
any evidence at all of him being one gender or the other ?

your thoughts... ?

just to say that not all info about jesus was put into the bible..
there are some texts that didn't make it into the bible that make referance to mary (the prostitute) as his love interest..

as far as your 'son of man' statement being normal like us..
couldn't it also be viewed as we are just like him?

imo, sex (marriage) is the :bugeye:

What does marriage have to do with anything :confused:

Jesus was whatever you want Him (or Her) to be. I mean, it's all Harry Potter anyway.

:bugeye:

What does marriage have to do with anything :confused:

Jesus was whatever you want Him (or Her) to be. I mean, it's all Harry Potter anyway.

imo, marriage and sex are the same thing. sex is what distinguishes marriage from any other type of relationship. sex is the consecration of marriage.

If you follow logic it is just impossible .

what logic? that birth defects don't exist or that some could be born without such?

i agree sam, there is strong evidence that mary was his wife.
What strong evidence?


she was more than likly his WIFE
What makes you think that?


Actually, it seemed that he had a relationship with his disciple, Mary.
What makes it seem that way?

lets see, the former popes comments for one. There is also a documentry called (from memory) behind the "Di vinci code" (NOT by dan brown, this is done by actual resurchers) which is quite compelling

lets see, the former popes comments for one. There is also a documentry called (from memory) behind the "Di vinci code" (NOT by dan brown, this is done by actual resurchers) which is quite compelling

Which popes said what?

If you are talking about the documentary based on Holy Blood Holy Grail - there is nothing compelling about it at all, in my view.
Give me some specifics, please.

insane? sexual intercourse is a cause for insanity? that's ridiculous.

Actually, the problem is sexual repression.


If normal adult sexuality is a pattern which has grown out of the infantile delight in the pleasurable activity of all parts of the human body, then what was originally a much wider capacity for pleasure in the body has been narrowed in range, concentrated on one particular (the genital) organ, and subordinated to an aim derived not from the pleasure-principle, but from the reality-principle, namely, propagation .... Then the pattern of normal adult sexuality ... is a tyranny of one component in infantile sexuality, a tyranny which suppresses some of the other components altogether and subordinates the rest to itself .... But the normal adult sexuality can exist only on condition that the discarded pattern of infantile sexuality continues to exist side by side with it, and in conflict with it, in the repressed unconscious.

The discarded elements of infantile sexuality are, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, perverse. The adult sexual perversions, like normal adult sexuality, are well-organized tyrannies: they too represent an exaggerated concentration on one of the many erotic potentialities present in the human body, which are all actively explored in infancy. The manner of this tyranny, as well as the close connection between normal and perverted sexuality, is illustrated by the fact that various erotic activities, which are called perversions if they are pursued as substitutes for the normal sexual act, are called legitimate if they are subordinated as preliminaries to the normal sexual aim. Children, on the other hand, explore in indiscriminate and anarchistic fashion all the erotic potentialities of the human body. In Freudian terms, children are polymorphously perverse. But if infantile sexuality, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, is perverse, by the same token normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body.

(Brown, 26-27)


the question is this...why in the hell wouldn't you like it? the truth is, that unless something is wrong with your body, or wrong with your perception, there is nothing to not like.

I admit I'm surprised. That is an admirably clear statement of the problem.

Oh, and the answer is that God works in mysterious ways.


a woman rubbing on it feels just as good as a man rubbing on it.

Speaking from experience?

No, seriously, what is your authority for that assertion?

Thank you, though. I haven't had a laugh like that in ... um ... a while.


people have "intercourse" with inanimate objects for god's sake, and that feels good.

Sometimes. Maybe they're doing quaaludes again.



i'm sorry, but it's a legitimate question...why jump through hoops to avoid having sexual intercourse?

Actually, that's not a legitimate question. Why jump through hoops to find ways to disqualify people from even having sex? Why suggest people should jump through hoops to have sexual contact they don't enjoy in order to pursue pleasure and fulfillment?


if there's something wrong with you physically it causes you physical pain. if there's something wrong with you mentally and/or emotionally it causes you mental and/or emotional pain. there's still something wrong.

Can't have sex. Comparing people to inanimate objects. Must be something wrong. Why the hell wouldn't you like it?

That's a lot of hostility you're holding toward homosexuals.


no. you're obviously not listening to what i'm saying. i spent the better part of my life thinking i was a heterosexual. because you know, that's what people like me do. and do you want to know what it was in my life that had the biggest impact on my "sexuality"? my lesbian friend. i found myself in conversations on the topic feeling like a hypocrite for embracing the same ideologies towards women as she does towards men. which forced me to change my perspective, in response to logic and truth.

Which is why you dehumanize her, isn't it? Showed you your weakness?

Do I even want to know how you rectified your hypocrisy?


i didn't need a recap on the conversation ...

Obviously, you did.


... i remember it ...

Could have fooled me, given what you said.


... and your conclusions are shit.

Perhaps. But given the nearly amorphous (vaguely pile-shaped) excrement you've given us to work with, I wouldn't be expecting marble or granite.


what my point is and was, is that it is all perspective. if you believe that women or men are gross from a sexual standpoint, simply because they are men or women, you're wrong, and you're believing a lie.

Okay, you need to explain this leap from not wanting to fuck your pussy to finding you gross.

Are women gross or pointless because they don't have a penis? I mean, come on, let's apply this standard fairly.


trent reznor did a peta spot all up in arms about how they kill and eat dogs in china. he's not a fucking vegetarian. we do the same damn thing to all the cows and pigs and chickens he eats over here. the only difference is, that he's emotionally attached to dogs. he keeps them as pets. it's a retarded standpoint.

If you say so. What a sad view of animals you have, though.


what a crock of shit. people should be able to be friends with all kinds of other people without wanting to "bang them" as you so eloquently put it.

You find the notion offensive.


and this doesn't have a damn thing to do with my intelligence and personality when a gay man says "regardless of that, i won't be sexually intimate with you because, and only because, you have a vagina". the point is, that i don't think anyone, regardless of their gender, should be viewed as a sex object. i think people should be viewed as human beings.

You ceased making sense a while ago, but the naked contradiction in those two sentences is ... um ... well, back-bacon isn't the most attractive thing in the world, you know.

A woman can potentially have a male friend who will never hit on her, never judge her according to her sexual potential, and thus must necessarily find value in other parts of her person. And this, apparently, pisses her off. I admit, this is a fairly new one to me. At least ... never mind.

See, it would be helpful if you could reconcile some of the contradictions about your argument. I mean, on the one hand, you don't think anyone should be viewed as a sex object. Yet, what, because someone is gay, you're offended that they won't view you as a sex object?

Think about it. For once, your identity isn't assessed starting with your vagina. Or your tits. Or how your ass looks in those jeans. Or whether you look like the type who can swallow or deep throat. Imagine that. Someone's image of you doesn't start with the idea of a cock crammed down your throat or up your ass, or you screaming their name in joyful pleasure while they pound your insides to bruised mush. How is this offensive? How is this upsetting?


magnanimity? are you serious? it should be a non-issue. it should be a given. and it's the "sexually oriented" people who insist that it's not.

Just a question, Lori. Perhaps this will clear things up: Where do you think homosexuality comes from?
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.

umm tiassa, freud isnt the best person to base an argument on. He has been consistantly discredited in moden psycology, his sample size and demographic was a joke and thats just one problem with his theories. Erikson is a much better source for development theory (assuming i didnt just make an idiot of myself by mixing him up with one of the sociogical theorists:p)

You said "strong evidence".
Where is it?

oh bullshit...it's innate to their perceptions, and perceptions are NOT innate. i'm so sick of people's emotionality. "my wittle feewings. i must coddle them. i must stroke them. i must legitimize them." when a lot of the time feelings are based upon lies. emotions and feelings have nothing to do with logic and truth.

Who said you have to coddle anybody? All I said is that you should celebrate human differences the way you attack them. You talk about Logic and Truth, as if you've come to some grand wisdom, which is a total lie. People aren't robots. Emotions are 50% of life. Respecting them is as important as respecting logic and wisdom.


you want to know what i don't like? i don't like it when i see people, including myself, led around on a leash by their "feelings". i also don't like it when people discriminate against other human beings because of physical traits, like gender.

You're dense. Really. Humans are emotional creatures. And SHIT we aren't even talking about reacting to negative feelings and hurting someone. We're talking about the type of "feelings" that make the difference between tea and coffee, blonds or brunettes, dick or pussy. That's it. Nobody's talking about hatred or anger.

Having a preference does not in any way indicate "discrimination". This is where you make the mistake.


i am and have been good friends with many gay people. one of my best friend's is a lesbian, and trust me, it doesn't take a fucking psychologist to figure her out.

I think you're a liar. If you were friends with any gay person, they'd probably end it quickly because of your overt hatred.



it has to do with the fact that the human body, male and female, is something to be in awe of.

How many times do I need to say this until you get it. Gay people don't HATE female bodies. There is nothing about the female body that we don't find to be any less beautiful than the male body. It's equally awe inspiring as the next body. The only difference is one does not give us a hard-on and one does.

Until now, you've failed to answer my question, should gay people force themselves to have sex with a gender they are not attracted to? What about the totally involuntary part where he may not get erect (if you know men, you'll know that this part is usually not up to the guy, unless he's popping Viagra)? Should he "not discriminate" and force himself to have sex with women despite being disgusted by the concept? See, being disgusted by the idea of an act, doesn't mean that he hates those who does. My best friend is straight, but he gets a little grossed out when I talk about screwing a guy. It isn't that he's a homophobe, it's just that he really doesn't like the idea of having sex with a guy, despite his enjoyment of gay bars (which I hate) and the fact that his best friend is gay.


male and female, humans are beautiful in many ways, and none of those ways are contingent upon their gender.

Duh. That's why you see the photography, modeling, design and other "artsy" industries dominated by gay men. Most of the female models you see are dressed, made-up, photographed and trained by queeny men. If they couldn't see the innate beauty of women, then the industry would collapse.


sex and the manifestations of such are beautiful and something to be in awe of. and it's a damn shame that some people reduce it down to what they reduce it down to.

Yes, it is. It's a shame you people like you reduce it down to factors that aren't really even factors and reject the fact that human beings have individual tastes, none of which are "discriminatory" in the contemporary sense, when in reality, all it comes down to is preferences that aren't even choices to the individual.

~String

What's really curious about this, Lori, is that you are the one who tied one's sexual appeal so tightly to their personal worth. That is, if one hasn't what it takes to get a person off, then that one is somehow worthless.

This strikes many as ironic. Even feminist sympathizers such as myself stop and scratch our heads at this: So, first we all spend years—in some cases lifetimes—trying to explain that a woman's worth is not measured in her physical attributes or her ability to dole out adequate sexual pleasure on demand. But, along comes a gay man who isn't turned on by the thought of plowing a woman's furrow, and suddenly it's genderist? Really, Lori? Is that really where you want the discussion to go? Right back to measuring you—a woman—as a human being according to your ability to sexually satisfy men?

See how ingrained the 'women are only useful as as sexual objects' is? See how ingrained the 'women are repulsive, revolting, repellent' is? Now I'm not saying that it is right to be homophobic. Actually I'll come out here and state categorically I don't believe it is acceptable at all. But looky here - once again we have a few men equating women with grossness, repulsivenes, revulsion. And a few gay men (admittedly elsewhere) equating black and brown men with the same! And an apparently not gay woman doing the same in regards to gay men.

GUYS!!!!!!! Listen to yourselves!
GALSSSS!!!! Listen to yourselves!

We have spent years plowing the furrow. There ain't nothing wrong with the furrow and there aint nothing wrong with the plough!!!!

Us womenfolk understand that the pussy dont turn a gay man on but hell our pussy is not gross in and of itself!! And neither is your dicky fellars. OK?

But what happens when I say:
'I find a gay man gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference.' (I don't!).
'I find a black man gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)
'I find women gross but hey i'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)
I find men gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)
I find you gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)

Such words are loaded and frankly ignorant whomever they are applied to! Sorry no excuses.


So let's make a short list here: people who think that "discussing" homosexuality is somehow verboten by Sciforums or other similar standards.



• People who compare consensual sex to raping animals.
• People who think a gay couple getting married somehow wrecks their own union.
• Biblically religious people who like to ignore Jesus.
• People who assert that those who want sexual satisfaction should have to submit themselves to being raped.

Do you notice a theme emerging? We can expand the list all you want, but the underlying theme will continue to be, "People who have a problem with homosexuals."

Tiassa it's the same theme as "People here who have a problem with - homosexuals, women, black people, athiests, muslims, christians..."





What are people supposed to think, m'lady? That is, when they see you dehumanizing a class of people, demanding that they be raped, and snarling at the idea that this sort of declaration is looked down upon—what the hell are people supposed to think?


That it sounds too, too horribly familiar!! And that twenty million 'wrongs' do not make a 'right'.

You know Tiassa what surprises me about both homosexuals and heterosexuals is that they find it difficult to recognise old patterns and make connections. So let me take your list and reword it:

So let's make a short list here: people who think that "discussing" women and sex is somehow verboten by Sciforums or other similar standards.


People who compare consensual sex to raping animals.
People who think people not getting/getting married somehow wrecks their own union.
Men
Biblically religious people who like to ignore Jesus. LOL!
People who assert that those who want sexual satisfaction should have to submit themselves to being raped.


My point is that those who are hung up about sex generally but particularly sex outside heterosexual marriage (argh argh argh run for the hills the world is ending!!) have no historical perspective upon what marriage actually is, why it was invented (and it was as surely as the internal combustion engine) and for whose convenience marriage as a 'thing' is. But that's a whole other thread.

On topic:

Was Jesus a homosexual? Er have we answered the 'Was Jesus ever?' question yet?

I mean they've found the tombs and bodies of the Egyptian pharoahs.... just sayin' :D (fallacy!)

Having a preference does not in any way indicate "discrimination". This is where you make the mistake.

This is the crux of the matter and on it you are wrong. A preference is a discrimination.





How many times do I need to say this until you get it. Gay people don't HATE female bodies. There is nothing about the female body that we don't find to be any less beautiful than the male body. It's equally awe inspiring as the next body. The only difference is one does not give us a hard-on and one does.

For a start you can't speak for all gay people.
But let me tell you if you use words such as gross and repulsive in relation to a particulat gender or 'race' then you are entering dangerous territory if you care whether or not people will find you sexist or racist. Just as a heterosexual would if they used similar terms in relation to homosexuals.


Until now, you've failed to answer my question, should gay people force themselves to have sex with a gender they are not attracted to? What about the totally involuntary part where he may not get erect (if you know men, you'll know that this part is usually not up to the guy, unless he's popping Viagra)?

Nobody should be forced to have sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with. But it cannot be denied that society has 'looked down upon' sex between the same gender and inter-racial sex.



Should he "not discriminate" and force himself to have sex with women despite being disgusted by the concept? See, being disgusted by the idea of an act, doesn't mean that he hates those who does.

'Turned off' or 'not turned on' would be more appropriate. 'Disgusted' at the thought of being raped or forced to have sex with a child or a horse is a more appropriate application of the word 'disgusted'. Come on!


My best friend is straight, but he gets a little grossed out when I talk about screwing a guy. It isn't that he's a homophobe, it's just that he really doesn't like the idea of having sex with a guy, despite his enjoyment of gay bars (which I hate) and the fact that his best friend is gay.

does he ever say he thinks gay men are 'disgusting' or 'gross'?




Duh. That's why you see the photography, modeling, design and other "artsy" industries dominated by gay men. Most of the female models you see are dressed, made-up, photographed and trained by queeny men. If they couldn't see the innate beauty of women, then the industry would collapse.

Hmm so women are still subjected and held to the standards of men......

Wake up ladies!!




Yes, it is. It's a shame you people like you reduce it down to factors that aren't really even factors and reject the fact that human beings have individual tastes, none of which are "discriminatory" in the contemporary sense, when in reality, all it comes down to is preferences that aren't even choices to the individual.

Sometimes we need to get beyond these superficial 'preferences' and have a good look at what's going on beneath...because some preferences are ingrained by culture and social conditioning. Such things as marriage, for instance.

What does it mean to have "discriminating taste"?

One more time and hopefully you'll absorb this easy little fact: People have tastes. Don't even try to sell me on the bullshit that you like every single thing on earth. By saying, for example, I don't like cake (yes, yes, we aren't discussing cake, and despite your inability to understand the concept of a "comparison" it's still apt), it doesn't mean that cake is bad. I just don't like it.


Sexuality is inherent. This is most likely to be true and we are waiting for the final evidence that is not based purely on the anecdotal. Certainly, other mammals exhibit a range of sexual behaviours.

Some tastes are certainly inherent; others are most likely cultural and or societal.

For instance how does one know one likes cake, or not, or sausage for that matter unless one has tasted it? One might suck it and see; so to speak...

Can one develop a 'taste' for classical music without ever having been exposed to it? Or Country and Western. Or Chinese Opera? Or African Drumming?

You see you need to be careful when associating sexual orientation with 'taste' because as some tastes may demonstrably change over a life-time; some people might expect sexual orientation to change too. They've even tried that one.

Hmm....

If I developed a 'taste' for sleeping with 5 years olds for instance. What would that make me? If I had that 'taste' from birth what would it say about me and my tastes?

If I developed a taste for raping women what would that say about me? If I had that 'taste' from birth what would that say about me and my 'taste'.

If I developed a 'taste for beating up brown skinned people what would that say about me? If I had that taste from birth what would that say about me and my 'taste'?

Or my society? Or my culture?

So I would associate my sexuality with inherence rather than 'taste'.

Do I sense a perversion in your logic?
I f you do, I can't fathom why


Yes, I do and what a question to ask as if we could read the mind of Gandhi.If we're going to take abstinence as an equivalent of homosexual until proven otherwise, it proves an easy task.

:shrug:

Have a look at this article it brings up some interesting veiws. And besides it is on the internet so therefore IT has to be true...........


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

imo, sex (marriage) is the closest thing to communion we can experience on this earth right now. the church is said to be the bride of christ, and the communion ceremony is symbolic of the union to come. when communion is restored (when sin is annihilated) we will all share ourselves completely with each other, regardless of gender, and it won't be dependent upon sex. imo...


the bible talks about sex and sexual acts, but as far as i know doesn't refer to "sexuality and orientation" per se. probably because sexuality and sexual orientation are just romanticized bullshit. :shrug:

i like the way you think Lori and your right on the spot of where i wanted this discussion to be.
very intuitive of you :)

i like the way you think Lori and your right on the spot of where i wanted this discussion to be.
very intuitive of you

Spot the difference:

http://www.cognitivedissident.org/images/20090206-counterprotest.jpg

http://susty.com/image/moscow-anti-gay-pride-protestors-nazi-salute-police-homosexual-rights-demonstrators-mean-violence-russia-photo.jpg


http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/3036264.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193B3EA2C03450C9486A4D8C228996D3243 B01E70F2B3269972

LOL!

"Times they are a changing..."
Bob Dylan


http://4.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kqo3lu2vm11qa3xbjo1_500.jpg

LOL!

http://bnp.org.uk/files/2009/05/muslim-demonstration-london.jpg


So.....let he who is without sin cast the first stone....... :D

before i go through and get side tracked with other peoples opinions i just want to say this.
in my opinion if i were to believe in a god then i would believe in that god creating homosexuality to define the every nature of true love between two souls devoid of materialism being the thing that is used to define true love.
thus...
true love is devoid of gender and sexual orientation and is something most higher level intellects seek toward in some form.

true love comes only with true acceptance.
true acceptance only comes by not judging someone based on things like homo hetro or bi sexual orientations.

the circle is complete and all roads lead to Rome.
however... keep in mind that most churches preach materialism and bastardise true love and preach hate.

only a church that preaches love is a true church.
any organization that preaches hate goes against all tenants of all religions as far as have found in my personal study to date.

thus collective definition of church is a place of preaching true love.

anything that preaches materialism or hate is a cult.

thus to summarise
those churches that preach anti gay and any other form of material sexuality are in fact preaching hate and are there by self defining as a cult of materialistic hate.
those that protest against sex are materialists and as far from spiritual as you can get short of out right violence.

your thoughts ?
in my opinion it makes perfect sense that the messenger of god would be homosexual in a world where male sexuality is defined as rape and the women defined as the victim.

your picture seem to show that women are extremely liberal and men are extremely conservative.

The way life is, it should be both. From liberal mindness comes chaos, from conservative mindness comes authoritarianism.

Spot the difference:

http://www.cognitivedissident.org/images/20090206-counterprotest.jpg

http://susty.com/image/moscow-anti-gay-pride-protestors-nazi-salute-police-homosexual-rights-demonstrators-mean-violence-russia-photo.jpg


http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/3036264.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193B3EA2C03450C9486A4D8C228996D3243 B01E70F2B3269972

LOL sniffy they have done a good job of screwing and bastardizing the sexuality of men no question.
however we must not forget that women do this just as much only carry more of a social voice to be party to non violence.
anti gay is violence against non violent people which is why women adhere to it more soo than men while women also recognize the victimization of homosexual men as they too have been sexually victimized for centuries.

LOL sniffy they have done a good job of screwing and bastardizing the sexuality of men no question.
however we must not forget that women do this just as much only carry more of a social voice to be party to non violence.
anti gay is violence against non violent people which is why women adhere to it more soo than men while women also recognize the victimization of homosexual men as they too have been sexually victimized for centuries.

I think we all do a pretty good job of bastardising and victimising one another or attempting to at least. I think it is about time we started to think about why the heckle doodle that is.

Hint: Not much at all to do with religion (although some USE religion to justify it) and an awful lot to do with BEING HUMAN! And being HUMAN has an awful lot to do with BEING ANIMALS if you get my drift...... but we gots brains and communication skills....so maybe we can work something out... or just be content with the fact that we are HUMAN and occasionally nashty ones at that.

And without our religions sanctifying us.....Oh GOD. We're humans!

I think we all do a pretty good job of bastardising and victimising one another or attempting to at least. I think it is about time we started to think about why the heckle doodle that is.

Hint: Not much at all to do with religion (although some USE religion to justify it) and an awful lot to do with BEING HUMAN! And being HUMAN has an awful lot to do with BEING ANIMALS if you get my drift...... but we gots brains and communication skills....so maybe we can work something out... or just be content with the fact that we are HUMAN and occasionally nashty ones at that.

And without our religions sanctifying us.....Oh GOD. We're humans!

heckle doodle Yeah Nah.... yeah !

ripleofdeath;


it seems to me that all evidence points to Jesus being Homosexual.
He had no interest in women.
Did not get married

How do you know this, especially as there are 18 years of his life unaccounted for?



There is absolutely no evidence that i have come across that prove Jesus was not a homosexual.
and...

Apart from not being married (no interest in women doesn't count as you could not possibly know this), what is the convincing factor in your theory.


have you any evidence that shows that Jesus was not a homosexual ?
and evidence that Jesus was Heterosexual ?
any evidence at all of him being one gender or the other ?

your thoughts... ?

My thought is that you are trying to belittle Jesus, specifically to get under the skins of Christians, and people who believe Jesus was a spiritual man.
But I think the fact that you have chosen to call him 'homosexual' to do this, shows what you really think of male homosexuality on a sub-consious level, and is propbably the concensus of all who are not homosexual on a similar level.

jan.

What does it mean to have "discriminating taste"?

i think that it's a really good idea to be discriminating when choosing a mate. but with all the important and relevant things to consider, i do not think that choice should be made based on any physical characteristic. in my experience, if you love and respect and admire and trust someone for what is on the inside, then the outside stuff works itself out gloriously.

before i go through and get side tracked with other peoples opinions i just want to say this.
in my opinion if i were to believe in a god then i would believe in that god creating homosexuality to define the every nature of true love between two souls devoid of materialism being the thing that is used to define true love.
thus...
true love is devoid of gender and sexual orientation and is something most higher level intellects seek toward in some form.

true love comes only with true acceptance.
true acceptance only comes by not judging someone based on things like homo hetro or bi sexual orientations.

the circle is complete and all roads lead to Rome.
however... keep in mind that most churches preach materialism and bastardise true love and preach hate.

only a church that preaches love is a true church.
any organization that preaches hate goes against all tenants of all religions as far as have found in my personal study to date.

thus collective definition of church is a place of preaching true love.

anything that preaches materialism or hate is a cult.

thus to summarise
those churches that preach anti gay and any other form of material sexuality are in fact preaching hate and are there by self defining as a cult of materialistic hate.
those that protest against sex are materialists and as far from spiritual as you can get short of out right violence.

your thoughts ?
in my opinion it makes perfect sense that the messenger of god would be homosexual in a world where male sexuality is defined as rape and the women defined as the victim.


i like what you've said here very much and i agree with you. from what i know of jesus, he loved everyone just the same, as does god, regardless of any physical characteristic such as gender, race, height, weight, hair color...or any thoughts or behaviors they might possess or display.

male sexuality doesn't have to be defined as rape, and women don't have to be victims. i've experienced both sides of this coin, so i know that.

My thought is that you are trying to belittle Jesus, specifically to get under the skins of Christians, and people who believe Jesus was a spiritual man.

In other words, Jan, Christians don't want their idol's character to be sullied in any way, despite the fact you or anybody else knew anything about him, if he even existed, of course.

Your statement demonstrates only your gullibility, selfishness and patronage.

from what i know of jesus

What YOU know about Jesus? You mean to tell us that your conversations with god were not with Jesus, too? If he was the son of god, why wouldn't you be speaking with him, too?

Actually, the problem is sexual repression.


If normal adult sexuality is a pattern which has grown out of the infantile delight in the pleasurable activity of all parts of the human body, then what was originally a much wider capacity for pleasure in the body has been narrowed in range, concentrated on one particular (the genital) organ, and subordinated to an aim derived not from the pleasure-principle, but from the reality-principle, namely, propagation .... Then the pattern of normal adult sexuality ... is a tyranny of one component in infantile sexuality, a tyranny which suppresses some of the other components altogether and subordinates the rest to itself .... But the normal adult sexuality can exist only on condition that the discarded pattern of infantile sexuality continues to exist side by side with it, and in conflict with it, in the repressed unconscious.

The discarded elements of infantile sexuality are, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, perverse. The adult sexual perversions, like normal adult sexuality, are well-organized tyrannies: they too represent an exaggerated concentration on one of the many erotic potentialities present in the human body, which are all actively explored in infancy. The manner of this tyranny, as well as the close connection between normal and perverted sexuality, is illustrated by the fact that various erotic activities, which are called perversions if they are pursued as substitutes for the normal sexual act, are called legitimate if they are subordinated as preliminaries to the normal sexual aim. Children, on the other hand, explore in indiscriminate and anarchistic fashion all the erotic potentialities of the human body. In Freudian terms, children are polymorphously perverse. But if infantile sexuality, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, is perverse, by the same token normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body.

(Brown, 26-27)



I admit I'm surprised. That is an admirably clear statement of the problem.

Oh, and the answer is that God works in mysterious ways.

well, if we're talking about freedom here, and a lack of inhibition, may i point out that inhibition is the very basis for hetero and/or homo sexuality. :bugeye:




Speaking from experience?

yes


No, seriously, what is your authority for that assertion?

how about common sense? a hand is a hand, a leg is a leg, a mouth is a mouth. for the most part, human beings' bodies are not that different. so why bother substituting assholes for vaginas and dildos and fingers for penises?


Thank you, though. I haven't had a laugh like that in ... um ... a while.

it wasn't that funny.




Sometimes. Maybe they're doing quaaludes again.

it's extremely common and mainstream to use sexual devices. trust me here, as when i tell people i don't, they look at me like i'm an alien. here i thought a silver bullet was a can of coors light. :D





Actually, that's not a legitimate question. Why jump through hoops to find ways to disqualify people from even having sex? Why suggest people should jump through hoops to have sexual contact they don't enjoy in order to pursue pleasure and fulfillment?



Can't have sex. Comparing people to inanimate objects. Must be something wrong. Why the hell wouldn't you like it?

That's a lot of hostility you're holding toward homosexuals.

i disagree. i think it is a legitimate question. and i don't hold hostility towards anyone anymore. it's all been beaten out of me. lol...i'm like a tamed horse.




Which is why you dehumanize her, isn't it? Showed you your weakness?

i don't dehumanize her; i love her very much. and i appreciate the enlightenment i've received from knowing her.


Do I even want to know how you rectified your hypocrisy?

i opened up my mind. oh i know, that's unheard of!




Okay, you need to explain this leap from not wanting to fuck your pussy to finding you gross.

Are women gross or pointless because they don't have a penis? I mean, come on, let's apply this standard fairly.

obviously there is some relative repulsion going on, otherwise there would be no preference.




If you say so. What a sad view of animals you have, though.

why? i'm a vegan. i don't eat dogs, cats, cows, pigs, or chickens. and i think trent reznor is an ass.




You find the notion offensive.

no i don't. i don't think anyone should want to or not want based on an inherent physical trait. i think it should be a little more cognitive than that.



A woman can potentially have a male friend who will never hit on her, never judge her according to her sexual potential, and thus must necessarily find value in other parts of her person. And this, apparently, pisses her off. I admit, this is a fairly new one to me. At least ... never mind.

all men should do that. but don't you see that those who are sexually oriented DO judge people according to their sexual potential?


See, it would be helpful if you could reconcile some of the contradictions about your argument. I mean, on the one hand, you don't think anyone should be viewed as a sex object. Yet, what, because someone is gay, you're offended that they won't view you as a sex object?

why is it that the equal opportunity stops when it comes to sex?


Think about it. For once, your identity isn't assessed starting with your vagina. Or your tits. Or how your ass looks in those jeans. Or whether you look like the type who can swallow or deep throat. Imagine that. Someone's image of you doesn't start with the idea of a cock crammed down your throat or up your ass, or you screaming their name in joyful pleasure while they pound your insides to bruised mush. How is this offensive? How is this upsetting?

why should that ever be the case tiassa?




Just a question, Lori. Perhaps this will clear things up: Where do you think homosexuality comes from?

i think it's a mindset...a perception.

What YOU know about Jesus? You mean to tell us that your conversations with god were not with Jesus, too? If he was the son of god, why wouldn't you be speaking with him, too?

Q when you speak to somebody's father are you also necessarily speaking to his son at the same time? To test your well thought out theory about this I suggest you ring up a friend's father and have a conversation. I suggest you then ring his son and carry on the conversation that you were having with his father.

Oh and unless you can get into Lori 7's head or shoes you have know idea to whom she may be talking at any given time. Or to whom she thinks she may be talking to at any given time.

Just felt like pointing that out, for some reason.

Q when you speak to somebody's father are you also necessarily speaking to his son at the same time? To test your well thought out theory about this I suggest you ring up a friend's father and have a conversation. I suggest you then ring his son and carry on the conversation that you were having with his father.

Oh and unless you can get into Lori 7's head or shoes you have know idea to whom she may be talking at any given time. Or to whom she thinks she may be talking to at any given time.

Just felt like pointing that out, for some reason.

But is Jesus and God not one and the same thing?

The Father The Son and The Holy Smoke I mean Ghost.

how about common sense? a hand is a hand, a leg is a leg, a mouth is a mouth. for the most part, human beings' bodies are not that different. so why bother substituting assholes for vaginas and dildos and fingers for penises?


Why not substitute assholes for vaginas, and dildos for fingers and mouths for anything? Have you thought that there might be different kinds of sensations associated with each? Are you that lacking in imagination? And.....at the end of the day what does it matter to you what other people do with their arses fingers, dildos and mouths? Should they have an interest in what you do with yours and vice versa?

I'm inclined to say 'no' to both.

But is Jesus and God not one and the same thing?

The Father The Son and The Holy Smoke I mean Ghost.

I have no idea. I don't give it much thought but I did find Qs assertion quite amusing.

Q when you speak to somebody's father are you also necessarily speaking to his son at the same time? To test your well thought out theory about this I suggest you ring up a friend's father and have a conversation. I suggest you then ring his son and carry on the conversation that you were having with his father.

Yeah sniffy, when you figure out that comparing the delusions of theists to reality, anything goes with religion.


Oh and unless you can get into Lori 7's head or shoes you have know idea to whom she may be talking at any given time. Or to whom she thinks she may be talking to at any given time.

Lori's insane, she hears voices and talks back to them and pretends she's talking with a god. It's very sad that she doesn't get professional help but it's clear she isn't talking with a father, a son, or a holy ghost. :D

Yeah sniffy, when you figure out that comparing the delusions of theists to reality, anything goes with religion.



Lori's insane, she hears voices and talks back to them and pretends she's talking with a god. It's very sad that she doesn't get professional help but it's clear she isn't talking with a father, a son, or a holy ghost. :D

i don't think you should be allowed to assert that i'm insane on a public forum if you can't confirm that via professional diagnosis. which of course you can not. i have had experiences that you can not and will not fathom. and yes, some of those have tried my mind quite a bit. but those experiences did in fact occur, and i will venture to say that if i were insane, they wouldn't have tried my mind at all. and if i were insane, the manifestations of such would be evident in my life. they are not.

your accusations are a product of your own insecurities.

Why not substitute assholes for vaginas, and dildos for fingers and mouths for anything? Have you thought that there might be different kinds of sensations associated with each? Are you that lacking in imagination? And.....at the end of the day what does it matter to you what other people do with their arses fingers, dildos and mouths? Should they have an interest in what you do with yours and vice versa?

I'm inclined to say 'no' to both.

it's a discussion forum sniffy. :shrug:

There is a mistake in this thread's title somehow word "normal" was typed in there, it should not be there.

i don't think you should be allowed to assert that i'm insane on a public forum

Then, you shouldn't present yourself as being insane.


if you can't confirm that via professional diagnosis. which of course you can not.

I probably can't, but a professional certainly would.


i have had experiences that you can not and will not fathom.

That is correct.


and yes, some of those have tried my mind quite a bit. but those experiences did in fact occur, and i will venture to say that if i were insane, they wouldn't have tried my mind at all. and if i were insane, the manifestations of such would be evident in my life. they are not.

"Physician, heal thyself"

Sure Lori, feel free to analyze your neuroses. Then, you can tell us all about invisible gods, aliens and all the other insane ramblings you've provided.


your accusations are a product of your own insecurities.

They are a produce of your posts and nothing else.

it's a discussion forum sniffy. :shrug:

No, really?

OK then answer my question..why shouldn't people substitute fingers assholes and dildos for pensises and vaginas...?

Yeah sniffy, when you figure out that comparing the delusions of theists to reality, anything goes with religion.

I manage to figure a lot out for myself. I certainly don't need any help from you. But as you mentioned delusions even us athiests have delusions....




Lori's insane, she hears voices and talks back to them and pretends she's talking with a god. It's very sad that she doesn't get professional help but it's clear she isn't talking with a father, a son, or a holy ghost. :D

She may well be talking out of her arse just like you because if she needs proferssional help you probably do too.

There is a mistake in this thread's title somehow word "normal" was typed in there, it should not be there.


Reported for homophobia

No, really?

OK then answer my question..why shouldn't people substitute fingers assholes and dildos for pensises and vaginas...?

just seems like a lot of trouble to me. due to some kind of avoidance. :shrug:

just seems like a lot of trouble to me. due to some kind of avoidance. :shrug:

Is it more trouble to finger someone or fuck someone up the arse than it is to fuck someone elsewhere? I would say about the same amount of effort involved....

I manage to figure a lot out for myself. I certainly don't need any help from you. But as you mentioned delusions even us athiests have delusions....

What delusions do you have?



She may well be talking out of her arse just like you because if she needs proferssional help you probably do too.

That would appear to be gibberish.

Is it more trouble to finger someone or fuck someone up the arse than it is to fuck someone elsewhere? I would say about the same amount of effort involved....

it's the avoidance issue that stumps me.

There isn't an avoidance issue.
That's another of your delusions.

There isn't an avoidance issue.
That's another of your delusions.

unless you're bisexual, there is indeed an avoidance issue.

Delusional nonsense.
Ever heard the word "variety"?
Or do also claim that anything but missionary position is also avoidance (or "not right").

Ever heard the word "variety"?



IMO, evolution is working in homosexual and lesbian activities weeding their genes from the human genetic pool because they don’t produce offspring. Those abnormal activities by homosexuals and lesbians are no big deal. Let nature take its course.

Delusional nonsense.
Ever heard the word "variety"?
Or do also claim that anything but missionary position is also avoidance (or "not right").

how is limiting yourself to one gender advocating variety?

IMO, evolution is working in homosexual and lesbian activities weeding their genes from the human genetic pool because they don’t produce offspring. Those abnormal activities by homosexuals and lesbians are no big deal. Let nature take its course.

whoa. :rolleyes:

and that would only be true if sexuality were genetic, and passed on from parent to child, which it's not.

Er, we were discussing the placement of various organs in orifices not "normally" associated with said organs, not gender variations.
You claimed that fingers in vaginas or penises in anuses was avoidance.

whoa. :rolleyes:

and that would only be true if sexuality were genetic, and passed on from parent to child, which it's not.

Its all in the genes or DNA if you prefer. Your genetic structure is you, children resemble their parents.

This is were creationist miss the larger picture by discounting evolution and its effects on a species longer term.

unless you're bisexual, there is indeed an avoidance issue.



state of mind (that whole cross-over of mind; lying to ones self is)

looking down and telling yourself you another type then what you are; IS an "avoidance issue"

ie... sex is not required for Love (sex is a biological 'requirement' for life; not fun, the fun is a perception)

and sword fights have a history of death

(live by the sword, die by the sword) (does that fit?)

or is the politcal issue of 'different' sexual preferences, now the topic of religion,

again?

Er, we were discussing the placement of various organs in orifices not "normally" associated with said organs, not gender variations.
You claimed that fingers in vaginas or penises in anuses was avoidance.

are you being dense on purpose?

in regards to hetero and homo sexuality, yes we are discussing gender.

the avoidance comes in in regards to a particular gender. the avoidance also comes in in regards to vaginal penetration with a penis.

Its all in the genes or DNA if you prefer. Your genetic structure is you, children resemble their parents.

that is in no way true in regards to sexual orientation.

state of mind (that whole cross-over of mind; lying to ones self is)

looking down and telling yourself you another type then what you are; IS an "avoidance issue"

ie... sex is not required for Love (sex is a biological 'requirement' for life; not fun, the fun is a perception)

and sword fights have a history of death

(live by the sword, die by the sword) (does that fit?)

or is the politcal issue of 'different' sexual preferences, now the topic of religion,

again?


i don't give a shit about religion.

are you being dense on purpose?
Nope, but apparently you are.
Sniiffy's question was nothing to do with homosexuality as such.
Maybe you just interpreted it that way.


in regards to hetero and homo sexuality, yes we are discussing gender.
the avoidance comes in in regards to a particular gender. the avoidance also comes in in regards to vaginal penetration with a penis.
Ah you assume (with no evidence or data whatsoever) that homosexuality is avoidance?
Now you're talking out of your arse.

that is in no way true in regards to sexual orientation.

Wrong Lori, evolution is the driving force on this planet and not your God. When you say "no way true" you're saying all science and scientist are wrong. You're like all those people in the bible who thought they were the smart people walking the planet. When in reality they were not.

Okay. Albeit, I thought it would be safer to assume that he was bisexual. You know..it's still open for you to swim to the safer shore.

Nope, but apparently you are.
Sniiffy's question was nothing to do with homosexuality as such.
Maybe you just interpreted it that way.


Ah you assume (with no evidence or data whatsoever) that homosexuality is avoidance?
Now you're talking out of your arse.

the designation of homo and hetero is saying that a particular gender is off limits and not even a consideration.

that is in no way true in regards to sexual orientation.

superstring01 said his sexual orientation is not by his choice. Don't you believe him? Sex drive and desisre is in the core of a being and controlled at the core through genes.

Wrong Lori, evolution is the driving force on this planet and not your God. When you say "no way true" you're saying all science and scientist are wrong. You're like all those people in the bible who thought they were the smart people walking the planet. When in reality they were not.

earth to earth...

there is no genetic link to orientation. if there is, i'm just not aware of it, so please provide your resource.

straight parents produce gay children and gay parents produce straight children all the time. there is no correlation that i'm aware of.

the designation of homo and hetero is saying that a particular gender is off limits and not even a consideration.
Which in no way is any sort of reply to ANY of the points I made in my post.

superstring01 said his sexual orientation is not by his choice. Don't you believe him? Sex drive and desisre is in the core of a being and controlled at the core through genes.

sex drive has nothing to do with orientation, and there is no gay, bi, or straight gene. and i do believe string when he says that, yes.

Which in no way is any sort of reply to ANY of the points I made in my post.

yes it is.

earth to earth...

there is no genetic link to orientation. if there is, i'm just not aware of it, so please provide your resource.

straight parents produce gay children and gay parents produce straight children all the time. there is no correlation that i'm aware of.

You aren't going to accept science, are you? You reject scientific evidence.

Does it matter if a woman, or a guy, ugly or hot is licking your genital? Lets see..if you don't have any visual contact, and are not allowed to touch, and someone is sexually stimulating you..what will happen? Will you come?

yes it is.
Er no...

the designation of homo and hetero is saying that a particular gender is off limits and not even a consideration.
Not being a consideration is not the same as avoidance.
It simply means that it's not even considered.

sex drive has nothing to do with orientation, and there is no gay, bi, or straight gene. and i do believe string when he says that, yes.

My point is gays have their genes remove from the human genetic pool because they produce no offspring, if indeed they are gay. This is an evolutionary method of weeding. When you reject evolution and natural selection and instead accept creation then no amount of scientific evidence is going to change your mind.

Does it matter if a woman, or a guy, ugly or hot is licking your genital? Lets see..if you don't have any visual contact, and are not allowed to touch, and someone is sexually stimulating you..what will happen? Will you come?

my vote...yes.

Er no...

Not being a consideration is not the same as avoidance.
It simply means that it's not even considered.

:wallbang:

My point is gays have their genes remove from the human genetic pool because they produce no offspring, if indeed they are gay. This is an evolutionary method of weeding. When you reject evolution and natural selection and instead accept creation then no amount of scientific evidence is going to change your mind.

gay people do in fact produce offspring. :confused:

my vote...yes.

You mean yes to " does it matter", or you will come one way or the other as long as you don't know who's behind the doing?

So you prefer to remain clueless?
Or would you like to talk about your avoidance issues regarding you and sex with camels?

I presume (yes I'm assuming, silly of me) that you don't have sex with camels.
This appears to be a serious avoidance issue and you may need counselling...

You mean yes to " does it matter", or you will come one way or the other as long as you don't know who's behind the doing?

i mean yes i'd come and i wouldn't give a crap who's behind the doing. that's kind of my whole point here...why in the hell would it matter? i don't know!?!?

well, if we're talking about freedom here, and a lack of inhibition, may i point out that inhibition is the very basis for hetero and/or homo sexuality.

Interesting. Were we talking about freedom? Myself, I'm talking about what people do to themselves.


yes

So what, in your experience, was unsatisfactory about having a man rub your penis?


how about common sense? a hand is a hand, a leg is a leg, a mouth is a mouth. for the most part, human beings' bodies are not that different. so why bother substituting assholes for vaginas and dildos and fingers for penises?

Because God works in mysterious ways?

How about this? Why bother having sexual intercourse at all if you don't intend to reproduce?


it wasn't that funny.

I can see why you wouldn't think so.


it's extremely common and mainstream to use sexual devices. trust me here, as when i tell people i don't, they look at me like i'm an alien. here i thought a silver bullet was a can of coors light.

It can be. Forgive me if I don't find a hyperlink that joins those two concepts visually.

And no, I don't think it's odd to not use a dildo. But I do find it pathetic to reduce, as you have done, other people to sex toys.


i disagree. i think it is a legitimate question. and i don't hold hostility towards anyone anymore. it's all been beaten out of me. lol...i'm like a tamed horse.

Do you understand the basic difference between words and actions? I mean, to the one, you say, "I don't hold hostility towards anyone anymore," but that's clearly bullshit given the extremes to which you will twist rhetoric in order to denigrate homosexuals. They can't have sex. They're substituting assholes for vaginas. They're the equivalent of inanimate objects. They're bigots for not being enamored by your vagina.

Yeah, right. You're not hostile toward anyone.


i don't dehumanize her; i love her very much. and i appreciate the enlightenment i've received from knowing her.

But you treat her comfort and security with such disdain. Again, you claim one thing but demonstrate another.


i opened up my mind.

Mmm-hmm.


oh i know, that's unheard of!

Only by your definition.


obviously there is some relative repulsion going on, otherwise there would be no preference.

Yeah, a gay man doesn't find your pussy attractive. Get over it.


why? i'm a vegan. i don't eat dogs, cats, cows, pigs, or chickens. and i think trent reznor is an ass.

What in God's name does being a vegan have to do with it? Did it ever occur to you that some animals have other uses in the human endeavor than food?

Tell you what: You eat the dog when you're desperate. Have yourself a meal. Really. I'm not sarcastic on that.

Because, meanwhile, I'll take the dog hunting, and it will feed us both. And when I sleep at night, the dog will help keep me warm. And when I wander down the long and lonely road, the dog will listen to what I say, and occasionally even respond. I mean, as pointless as it is, I still might as well point out that this is coming from a "cat" person.


no i don't. i don't think anyone should want to or not want based on an inherent physical trait. i think it should be a little more cognitive than that.

Trust me, it is. You simply picked out a superficial point and ran with it.

Think of it this way: I've fought with lovers before. I've been up to and over the line of domestic violence. Nobody should have to go through that. Absolutely nobody should have to lie sprawled over a bike rack, watching the cops go by, and make a snap decision on whether or not to send the insanely drunk woman who just revealed she's carrying your child to jail for a night for assaulting you. I've been through lies, addiction, and open hostility—for years.

Companionship among humans serves specific psychological needs. But what are those needs? Perhaps I'm being greedy in seeking refuge from the mundane vice of the human endeavor. Perhaps it is unreasonable to seek trust and faith, comfort and security, and deep, abiding love. Perhaps I should lower my standards and simply seek a mate I can tolerate the thought of having children with.

Oh, right. That didn't work out so well.


Where have those days gone?
South with other ways?
I'll just learn to settle on
Slightly lesser things.

(Floater, "Settling")

It's a matter of priorities.


all men should do that. but don't you see that those who are sexually oriented DO judge people according to their sexual potential?

I find that a thin proposition at best; it suggests even more clearly that this is an egocentric outcry on your part. You're just pissed because someone isn't turned on by the thought of your vagina.


why is it that the equal opportunity stops when it comes to sex?

The other end of that spectrum is why does egalitarianism stop when it comes to sex? Or, to use simpler language, why be exclusive about it?

After all, why should you limit yourself to a mate you can tolerate? Or only to people you find sexually attractive? I mean, there are useful and objective answers to such questions, but I don't see any hint of them in your argument.


why should that ever be the case tiassa?

You tell me. You're the one offended.


i think it's a mindset...a perception.

The heart of the problem. You know all that shit you said about your lesbian friend? How you love her very much and don't dehumanize her, and all that?

Next time, spare us. And quit lying to her.

When you do some objective research, Lori, you'll find one of two things, depending on your inclination—


(1) that homosexuality is a natural outcome of processes genetic, hormonal, and social, or,

(2) that homosexuality is instilled by God.

—and they both equal the same thing. There are all sorts of theories—some of them actually kind of funny—and a good number of them are working out.

Let's start with something tangible and fairly simple for you to work with. You can include God's will or not. But are you aware there are women walking around on this Earth whose genes describe them as males? That is, they are identifiable as XY, not XX.

This phenomenon occurs because even an XY embyro will develop into a female fetus until a certain infusion of maternal hormones spurs the transformation of the sex organs.

So just think about that. And we can use a stereotype if it helps: Imagine your prissy, effeminate gay man. And then tell me that, of the billions of conceptions and pregnancies, of the nearly infinite variations of circumstance that might affect gestation, and of the complexity of the human body, there is no room for variation. And if it helps, just think of math. Not every equation has a definitive answer; there is such a thing as a data set that covers a range of suitable outcomes. Homosexuals are just part of the human data set.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, Lori. It occurs in humans, primates, and birds at least, and homosexual behavior is observable in other animals including canines. In terms of faith, why the hell would God bother with that? In terms of nature, you're welcome to shout at the Earth and sky and sea that they're wrong, but I don't think it will make much of a difference.

But, yes, the mystery of your strange outlook is becoming more comprehensible. Your inaccurate notions of the nature of homosexuality understandably contribute to your callous treatment of gay people.


• • •



See how ingrained the 'women are only useful as as sexual objects' is? See how ingrained the 'women are repulsive, revolting, repellent' is? Now I'm not saying that it is right to be homophobic. Actually I'll come out here and state categorically I don't believe it is acceptable at all. But looky here - once again we have a few men equating women with grossness, repulsivenes, revulsion. And a few gay men (admittedly elsewhere) equating black and brown men with the same! And an apparently not gay woman doing the same in regards to gay men.

Well, guess what? Your pussy is not the whole of who you are. The leap from a woman's vagina being sexually repellant to a gay man to indicting the whole woman as "repulsive, revolting, repellent" is entirely yours and Lori's. In the Midwest thread, no less than five people made the point about separating sex appeal and individual worth, but you two have apparently gone blazing right by that point and now hope to hang people with it.


We have spent years plowing the furrow. There ain't nothing wrong with the furrow and there aint nothing wrong with the plough!!!!

Indeed, there ain't nothin' wrong with the furrow or the plow.


Us womenfolk understand that the pussy dont turn a gay man on but hell our pussy is not gross in and of itself!! And neither is your dicky fellars. OK?

I'm not sure where to start on this. I mean, there's always Mr. Garrison: "I'm sorry, Wendy, but I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."

Or there is the more primal: Some people simply find vaginas mythically threatening. After all, you take a virile rod, insert it until it pukes, and then withdraw a flaccid, weak sack of flesh. Some folks just aren't prepared to deal with it.

Some are traumatically scarred by a bad experience.

Some are generally turned off by a string of bad experiences.

Some are simply gay.


But what happens when I say:

To go down the list, the simple answer is that you're expressing an opinion of the whole person.


Such words are loaded and frankly ignorant whomever they are applied to! Sorry no excuses.

I would agree.

You know, it occurs to me that there are heterosexual men out there who don't go down on women. They find the practice deviant and extraneous and, yes, repulsive. In fact, I know one of them insofar as, while I'll probably never actually ask him the question, he's the deeply religious sort who washes his dick with rubbing alcohol before putting it in his wife of forty-some years. Now, I won't imagine that the only time he ever had sex they were trying to conceive; their daughter is adopted. But I will suggest that, while his reasons may be unique, his fear of dirty genitalia is not.

I actually got to see this transition happen: A neighbor boy, about eleven, once expressed that oral sex is gross. After all, why put your mouth where someone pees from? (You get it? Your pussy is gross.) Of course, given a year and a half or so to develop and experience the effects of his hormones, where do you think he wants his mouth?

Really, if sex is just about penis and vagina, as some would assert, why does someone want to put their mouth on another's genitalia? Why is the impulse to "put your mouth where pee comes from" so strong?

For some people, the impulse develops in the other direction. In theory—I don't know his specific tastes; he might be a pure top—String would prefer to put his mouth where I pee from than where you pee from. This bears no reflection whatsoever on your worth as a human being. Well, except of course for the fact that you insist it does.

Don't get me wrong: I well understand the impulse to want someone to go down on you. But what makes anyone actually want to go down?


Tiassa it's the same theme as "People here who have a problem with - homosexuals, women, black people, athiests, muslims, christians..."

I almost protested this, but in witnessing your explicit transference from an aspect of an individual to the whole character, well, on the one hand I think I get your point, while to the other I think you've argued against yourself. Quite obviously, discussing gays, blacks, women, atheists, Muslims, Christians, and so on, is perfectly permissible at Sciforums. Only those who can't imagine a discussion without overripe bigotry believe discussion of such subjects is somehow forbidden.


That it sounds too, too horribly familiar!! And that twenty million 'wrongs' do not make a 'right'.

You're going to have to fill in the gap on that one.


You know Tiassa what surprises me about both homosexuals and heterosexuals is that they find it difficult to recognise old patterns and make connections. So let me take your list and reword it:

So let's make a short list here: people who think that "discussing" women and sex is somehow verboten by Sciforums or other similar standards ....

Nobody has bitterly proposed that discussing women is forbidden at Sciforums. Come now, petulance isn't a good look on anyone. Well, unless of course that's what you're into.


My point is that those who are hung up about sex generally but particularly sex outside heterosexual marriage (argh argh argh run for the hills the world is ending!!) have no historical perspective upon what marriage actually is, why it was invented (and it was as surely as the internal combustion engine) and for whose convenience marriage as a 'thing' is. But that's a whole other thread.

I would generally agree, only dissenting to add specifically that those who are discriminated against for the gender of their sex partner also have a stake in arguing about sex.


Was Jesus a homosexual? Er have we answered the 'Was Jesus ever?' question yet?

What strikes me about the gay Jesus idea is that there is an odd phrase somewhere in one of the Gospels that, if we apply the common homophobia of the Christian heritage, suggests Jesus was gay. For anyone else, it's a thin argument at best. But it's certainly entertaining to watch people freak out about the idea.

But there's also an even better argument (=http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html), that we must "remember that for a moment in their savior's life, as he hung on a cross for everyone's sin, that Christ was gay".

Not that Jesus necessarily ever took it up the ass or anything, but, to borrow another phrase, see how they run.
____________________

Notes:

McKinley, Brian Elroy. "When Christ was Gay". (n.d.) Elroy.net. November 19, 2009. http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html

So you prefer to remain clueless?
Or would you like to talk about your avoidance issues regarding you and sex with camels?

I presume (yes I'm assuming, silly of me) that you don't have sex with camels.
This appears to be a serious avoidance issue and you may need counselling...



camels huh?

i don't give a shit about religion.

then why discussing a psychological issue within a religious section?

ie... gender is born, homosexual preferences is of choice (the mind)

(exceptions: hemorphradite which is a biological 'abnormality')

but don't give me or any that hoot about 'god made them gay' or that it is natural to like same sex intercorps

gay people do in fact produce offspring. :confused:

Not when living the life of a gay.

I'll give a good example of evolution weeding genes from the human genetic pool and you think about this one.

Jesus and the apostle Paul were celibate. They produced no offspring and thus their genes were removed from the human genetic pool. Celibacy eliminates genes and prevents their genes from having a chance to survive.

I.Q relates directly to the offsprings parents.

Ah you assume (with no evidence or data whatsoever) that homosexuality is avoidance?

but i can

anyone calling themself a women, that is really a man or vice versus, only has to look between their leggs to find they lying to themselves; avoiding the truth (reality)

no need of polls for trolls (they don't look at evidence for themselves)

i mean yes i'd come and i wouldn't give a crap who's behind the doing. that's kind of my whole point here...why in the hell would it matter? i don't know!?!?

So, the psychological factor could be the cause of turning someone off? I thought about it, too, and as it is, I think that my sexual desires are influenced by aesthetic attraction. I guess as long as I wouldn't know who's doing it, and I'd be drugged enough to let myself go, I'd come. But as soon as I'd know, who, or what is behind the stimulation, I'd rethink. Pansexuality for the win?!

superstring01 said his sexual orientation is not by his choice. Don't you believe him?

no

i don't


Sex drive and desisre is in the core of a being and controlled at the core through genes.

bull

it is a choice

even to wipe your butt is a choice

the only genes you need are to breath, eat, poop and procreate

everything else is of choice

could care less what people believe; honesty rules

but i can

anyone calling themself a women, that is really a man or vice versus, only has to look between their leggs to find they lying to themselves; avoiding the truth (reality)

no need of polls for trolls (they don't look at evidence for themselves)

You are an ignorant person, and it was a choice.

but i can
No you can't.


anyone calling themself a women, that is really a man or vice versus, only has to look between their leggs to find they lying to themselves; avoiding the truth (reality)
And as usual you're talking crap.


no
i don't
That's because you're an idiot.


it is a choice
Wrong.


could care less what people believe; honesty rules
Yes, please tell us about honesty. Liar.

There's nothing indicating that Jesus was homosexual. The reliable third-party historical records about him come from Josephus and Tacitus; both of which mention nothing of his personal life.
There's likewise nothing indicating that he had a sexual relationship with Mary of Magdala, if she even existed. Not a single Christian account of her makes any such implication; and non-Christian records do not mention her at all. It's a ridiculous notion with no historical evidence.

The Gospels, highly biased accounts despite being written some time in the late First Century, make no mention of any sexual life. So, the only logical conclusion from the accounts of his life is that he was celibate.

So, the psychological factor could be the cause of turning someone off?

that's what i'm saying.


I thought about it, too, and as it is, I think that my sexual desires are influenced by aesthetic attraction.

mine are not. i guess that's why i can't really relate to the whole orientation thing. :shrug:


I guess as long as I wouldn't know who's doing it, and I'd be drugged enough to let myself go, I'd come. But as soon as I'd know, who, or what is behind the stimulation, I'd rethink.

i really don't think it would make a difference to me if i knew who was doing it or not. but the sobriety thing would. i come when i'm sober.

ah, my faithful peanut gallery......


uh huh

naught uh

uh huh

naught uh


you 2 on this subject; reminds me of holding one bone up between 2 dogs

neither gives a hoot as long as they get to eat first

of all subjects; this is the worst for me, as there is no in-between

same sex is of choice and all who say otherwise, must prove it by eating poop as a random preference

that means; if what you put in your mouth is a choice; then you better believe sex is one too

nothing to debate!

you guys following the political game while i understand LOVE

and there is not requisite of sex in LOVE; period!

what gays do behind closed doors is the same as why i have sex behind closed doors; nothing more

sex is a biological requisite for 'life' and not fun

FACT!

There's nothing indicating that Jesus was homosexual. The reliable third-party historical records about him come from Josephus and Tacitus; both of which mention nothing of his personal life.
There's likewise nothing indicating that he had a sexual relationship with Mary of Magdala, if she even existed. Not a single Christian account of her makes any such implication; and non-Christian records do not mention her at all. It's a ridiculous notion with no historical evidence.

The Gospels, highly biased accounts despite being written some time in the late First Century, make no mention of any sexual life. So, the only logical conclusion from the accounts of his life is that he was celibate.

the idea of a grown man being celibate isn't all that logical hapsburg.

You are an ignorant person, and it was a choice.


to make your claim is the ignorace of a nasty bigot

but you cannot sustain your post

the idea of a grown man being celibate isn't all that logical hapsburg.

If the man in question is an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end of the world was nigh, then yeah, it kinda is. Which is what the evidence points to Jesus of Nazareth being.

Does it matter if a woman, or a guy, ugly or hot is licking your genital? Lets see..if you don't have any visual contact, and are not allowed to touch, and someone is sexually stimulating you..what will happen? Will you come?

This is one of those questions that really fucks people up. I used to ask it of guys: "If you had the best blowjob of your life, say at a masquerade party or something, and then found out you got it from a guy?"

Absolutely fucks up some people.

But that's the thing. So let's say it happens. Someone gets the best sexual satisfaction of their life, and then finds out it was a homosexual act. Now, some folks will actually stop to think about what that means. Others will simply panic. And for those, relationships aren't invested in love and trust and all that good stuff people extol; rather, they are invested in pride.

If something rewarding takes me out of image, skews my character, and causes me to change? Hell, I'll adapt. I think it's absolutely tragic that some people hide in the closet because they're supposed to be ashamed—especially ashamed, even more so than everyone else—of how God made them. Fat people can't pretend to be thin. Black people can't pretend to be white. But gays can certainly pretend to be straight.

I can't imagine saying to myself, "That was great! Now, how do I make sure it never happens again and nobody ever finds out it happened at all?"

To the other—and I'll have to go fish for statistics—I've encountered numbers suggesting that up to a third of gay male couples don't engage in anal sex.

Must mean they hate men. You know, since a guy's asshole doesn't turn them on.

Or something like that. It's one of those things that seems relevant, although I haven't figured the tie-in yet.


• • •



bull

it is a choice

As is heterosexuality. Either could choose celibacy.


• • •



The Gospels, highly biased accounts despite being written some time in the late First Century, make no mention of any sexual life. So, the only logical conclusion from the accounts of his life is that he was celibate.

A political outcome. The four canonical gospels are a political outcome.


As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

(The Gospel of Phillip (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html))
____________________

Notes:

The Gospel of Phillip. (n.d.) Trans. Wesley W. Isenberg. Gnosis.org. November 19, 2009. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

the idea of a grown man being celibate isn't all that logical hapsburg.
Don't talk crap.
Haven't you said in a post somewhere that you were celibate for a number of years?
Why isn't it "logical" (as if you knew what the word means :rolleyes:).


of all subjects; this is the worst for me, as there is no in-between
same sex is of choice and all who say otherwise, must prove it by eating poop as a random preference
that means; if what you put in your mouth is a choice; then you better believe sex is one too
Still making ridiculous and facile comparisons.
Still failing completely to back up your assertions.


you guys following the political game while i understand LOVE
Still talking bollocks.


sex is a biological requisite for 'life' and not fun
FACT!
Yep, you're still ignoring evidence.

In fact: you're still Bishadi.
As dumb as they come and unlikely to get better.

Someone gets the best sexual satisfaction of their life, and then finds out it was a homosexual act.

is like liking chocolate ice cream over mint chip; a preference



As is heterosexuality. Either could choose celibacy.

celibacy means; no genes into the next generation

kind of like having a good dog and not breeding it

ie... either you breed or your lights go out

or simply, you killed your parents by choice

(what if your parents were celibate? you wouldn't be here. (might be best for some but wow, when people do not comprehend life itself, it messes up all kinds of PREFERENCES/choices)

Don't talk crap. you the one with the dirty wipe over the face. (your avatar)



Still making ridiculous and facile comparisons.
Still failing completely to back up your assertions.

i offer my opinion, you can like or shove it

i could care less, as you have no integrity



Still talking bollocks.


Yep, you're still ignoring evidence.

In fact: you're still Bishadi.
As dumb as they come and unlikely to get better.


again, you and i don't get alone, because of your dishonesty

prove me wrong moron

otherwise, go back to your dish and do your daily cleaning

is like liking chocolate ice cream over mint chip; a preference
You're reading the context incorrectly.


celibacy means; no genes into the next generation
kind of like having a good dog and not breeding it
ie... either you breed or your lights go out
or simply, you killed your parents by choice
(what if your parents were celibate? you wouldn't be here. (might be best for some but wow, when people do not comprehend life itself, it messes up all kinds of PREFERENCES/choices)
And you're still making the same stupid cremarks.
So what?
Or are you suggesting that everyone should breed?

i offer my opinion, you can like or shove it
Ah, so now you admit it's just an opinion.
Not facts.
Okay.


again, you and i don't get alone, because of your dishonesty
Another example of your dishonesty: I've already shown in a thread how and where you lied, repeatedly. But you conveniently ignore that fact.
And the word is "along".
I do wish you'd learn English.

the idea of a grown man being celibate isn't all that logical hapsburg.

Well, it's better than the idea of seeking sexual relief in activities one does not enjoy.


• "you know, it's all what you get used to. some people survive on whale blubber and raw fish. some people like monkey brains. i used to hate green peppers, but it bugs me when i don't like certain foods. so i started forcing myself to eat them, like on pizza and as an ingredient in cooked foods to acclimate myself to the taste. then on salads. now i can eat them raw and by themselves and i love em." (#2411097/83 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411097&postcount=83), boldface accent added)

• "i just don't think the decision should come down to whether or not i have a vagina. that should be a given...a non-issue." (#2411124/96 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411124&postcount=96))

Thus, what we have is:


• It is illogical to expect celibacy of a grown male.

• Grown gay males should force themselves to like pussy, because liking pussy should be a given, a non-issue, for a man.


What was it you said before (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2417284&postcount=42)?


"... i don't advocate rape in any capacity." (#2417284/42 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2417284&postcount=42))

Care to rethink that one?


• • •



is like liking chocolate ice cream over mint chip; a preference

To reiterate:


I can't imagine saying to myself, "That was great! Now, how do I make sure it never happens again and nobody ever finds out it happened at all?"

In this case, I can't imagine denying myself mint chip—having found I actually enjoy the stuff—simply because I don't want anyone to know I like mint chip.


celibacy means; no genes into the next generation

kind of like having a good dog and not breeding it

ie... either you breed or your lights go out

or simply, you killed your parents by choice

(what if your parents were celibate? you wouldn't be here. (might be best for some but wow, when people do not comprehend life itself, it messes up all kinds of PREFERENCES/choices)

Um ... okay.

If the man in question is an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end of the world was nigh, then yeah, it kinda is. Which is what the evidence points to Jesus of Nazareth being.

not necessarily. i've struggled with that perception myself. but really, what is the difference if a child is born 10 minutes before the apocalypse or 10 or 30 years before? what if mary thought that way?

You're reading the context incorrectly.


And you're still making the same stupid cremarks.
So what?
Or are you suggesting that everyone should breed?

strawman argument

Ah, so now you admit it's just an opinion.
Not facts.
Okay.
when it comes to the sex issue, the gender is biological, the choices to do with your equipment is your CHOICE

sure exceptions arise but considering homosexuality as normal is like suggesting pigs can fly (but they have been on planes before, as dolphin do get frustrated)

the political issue is beyond return (i could care less)




Another example of your dishonesty: I've already shown in a thread how and where you lied, please repeat it (show the example)

put it in your signature

scream on the rooftops

don't change the fact, you are one of the worst on the whole forum as far as credibility

i know i make mistakes and got the yahoos to admit it when i am

i suppose you gotta a problem with that too?

Incorrect: you're implying that being celibate is somehow bad because there's no breeding due to the celibacy.
So why IS celibacy not a good thing then?

Either you're talking bollocks (as usual) and there's nothing wrong with celibacy OR you're suggesting that everyone should have children.
Which is it?
Bollocks or breeding?

Well, it's better than the idea of seeking sexual relief in activities one does not enjoy.


• "you know, it's all what you get used to. some people survive on whale blubber and raw fish. some people like monkey brains. i used to hate green peppers, but it bugs me when i don't like certain foods. so i started forcing myself to eat them, like on pizza and as an ingredient in cooked foods to acclimate myself to the taste. then on salads. now i can eat them raw and by themselves and i love em." (#2411097/83 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411097&postcount=83), boldface accent added)

• "i just don't think the decision should come down to whether or not i have a vagina. that should be a given...a non-issue." (#2411124/96 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411124&postcount=96))

Thus, what we have is:


• It is illogical to expect celibacy of a grown male.

• Grown gay males should force themselves to like pussy, because liking pussy should be a given, a non-issue, for a man.


What was it you said before (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2417284&postcount=42)?


"... i don't advocate rape in any capacity." (#2417284/42 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2417284&postcount=42))

Care to rethink that one?

no. the point of that post was not to say that anyone should force themselves to do anything. that was my choice. and i made that choice for a reason. you should have bold-faced the sentence prior to that. "it bugs me when i don't like certain foods."

my point also was, that apparently my distaste for green peppers was not inherent.

food is food. and if i'm going to be picky about it, i'm going to focus on health, not on taste.

sexual relief is sexual relief. and if i'm going to be picky about it, i'm going to focus on more important attributes of a mate than physical appearance.

when it comes to the sex issue, the gender is biological, the choices to do with your equipment is your CHOICE
sure exceptions arise but considering homosexuality as normal is like suggesting pigs can fly (but they have been on planes before, as dolphin do get frustrated)
Insupportable bullshit.


please repeat it (show the example)
Ah, so your dishonesty extends to pretending you haven't said THAT before as well.
I get it: once a liar always a liar.


don't change the fact, you are one of the worst on the whole forum as far as credibility
Also bullshit.


i know i make mistakes and got the yahoos to admit it when i am
Actually that was one of the lies you told: I pointed out an error of yours and you denied it was an error. Just compounded your dishonesty.


i suppose you gotta a problem with that too?
I wouldn't have a problem if it were actually true.

Don't talk crap.
Haven't you said in a post somewhere that you were celibate for a number of years?
Why isn't it "logical" (as if you knew what the word means :rolleyes:).


it was due to circumstances that were pretty damn extenuating. i was isolated by some experiences that i had, and extremely idealistic in regards to mating. but i'm not going to pretend i was happy about my isolation. it sucked. i'm glad i did what i did. i learned alot about myself, my strengths, and alot about isolation and communion. i'm also glad that period of my life is over. being isolated and celibate isn't healthy. neither are a lot of sexual relationships i've been in, and seen others in. i just concluded that standing for something i thought was right was less painful than not standing for it.

To reiterate:


I can't imagine saying to myself, "That was great! Now, how do I make sure it never happens again and nobody ever finds out it happened at all?"

who and why you discounting what you like? If you like it, then be that it may; don't mean anyone else needs to know, pay or submit to your preferences.




In this case, I can't imagine denying myself mint chip—having found I actually enjoy the stuff—simply because I don't want anyone to know I like mint chip.


i agree

but if that mint chip is all over your face, then you need to clean up because no one needs to know either way

start with equality, and then work thru each choice

i could care less, who people are doinkin.

if they want to live longer, then procreate

even if going back for just the five minutes

but dont any raise children and teach them a lie based on self preference that is purely going against nature. ie... auto's suck and are lousy to the earth; that be fact (but use like mine) (so reality exists, and we often change our liability responsibility based on norms (accepted beliefs))

bottom line of this subject is give the kids a chance first with reality, then over time, each can think and choose based on their life

now do you see where and why i get involved; it don't matter what each like (we can't choose their destiny), but no damaging the new lives, that came from the exact frame of hetero (even test tube) and screw up the next generation with the same confusion as is happening RIGHT NOW on this earth




Um ... okay.

that be truth you just "um ok'ing"

all the other stuff is opinion

point; the homosexual issue is dead, in that choice is its flavor when it comes to mankind (but with exceptions; hemorphradite to be politically correct, of course)

compassion is for others, not self

be selfish in the closet, as i raw dog like a race horse in heat

or would you all like to know what i call marriage (the best ritual to ruin a romance)

Insupportable bullshit.


Ah, so your dishonesty extends to pretending you haven't said THAT before as well.
I get it: once a liar always a liar.


Also bullshit.


Actually that was one of the lies you told: I pointed out an error of yours and you denied it was an error. Just compounded your dishonesty.


I wouldn't have a problem if it were actually true.

troll

it was due to circumstances that were pretty damn extenuating.
Which still doesn't explain why it's "illogical" for a grown man to be celibate.


troll
Idiot and liar.

who and why you discounting what you like? If you like it, then be that it may; don't mean anyone else needs to know, pay or submit to your preferences.

What the hell are you on about now?

Fine. Whatever.

Let's get rid of wedding rings. Nobody else needs to know. And everyone should stop holding hands, or kissing, or hugging in public. Nobody else needs to know.

Pay? You're going to have to explain that one.

Submit? Okay, look, just because, I would claim, say, String has the right to be gay? It does not claim that you must be gay.


but if that mint chip is all over your face, then you need to clean up because no one needs to know either way

It saves folks embarrassment in the long run to have a clue. Imagine if I omit you from dessert service because I erroneously believe you don't like what we're serving? Hell, I did that to my kid the other day by accident:


Emma: Daddy! I wanted some!

Tiassa: (cautiously) Um ... it had pepperoni on it.

Emma: I know. I wanted some.

Tiassa: (still confused) I'm sorry. I didn't know you like pepperoni.

Emma: I do.

Tiassa: When?

Emma: I had pepperoni last week at Mommy's.

Tiassa: I see. And you liked it?

Emma: Yes.

Tiassa: I'm sorry. I have another pizza in the freezer. Would you like me to make it?

Emma: Is there cheese pizza to make?

This can certainly be unsettling. And even more so when it's adults and, er ... um ... salami:


Woman: Can I buy you a drink?

Man: (looks startled)

Woman: (apologetic) I'm sorry. That probably wasn't appropriate. I know some men don't like forward women.

Man: (alarmed) No, no, no. I am sorry. Forward women are great. (sheepishly) It's just that I'd rather your friend over there buy me a drink.

Woman: (eyes widen; gestures over shoulder) Tom?

Man: Is that his name? I thought it would have been Hank, or maybe Max.

Woman: (embarrassed) Oh, God. I'm sorry. I—

Man: (smiles genuinely) No, really. It's all good. I mean, I'm not wearing a sign or anything, right? Come on, let me buy you a drink. I have a friend who would love those shoes. Where did you get them? They're adorable ....

I mean, it doesn't hurt to forestall those embarrassing moments. Unless, of course, one just has a specific problem with gay people and can't tolerate the idea that they exist in society.


but dont any raise children and teach them a lie based on self preference that is purely going against nature.

Like religion?

No, seriously, what lie that is purely going against nature are you referring to?

It's just an odd change of subject, is all.


bottom line of this subject is give the kids a chance first with reality, then over time, each can think and choose based on their life

On this we can agree.


now do you see where and why i get involved; it don't matter what each like (we can't choose their destiny), but no damaging the new lives, that came from the exact frame of hetero (even test tube) and screw up the next generation with the same confusion as is happening RIGHT NOW on this earth

I have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, to be specific, I might have a few guesses, but none of them are particularly complimentary.


that be truth you just "um ok'ing"

Actually, it just seemed rather extraneous to say, "What the fuck are you talking about?"


or would you all like to know what i call marriage (the best ritual to ruin a romance)

Woo-hoo.


How do you cure a nymphomaniac? Marry her.

Sorry. It was on the joke sheet that went around in ninth grade. I still find that funny, twenty-some years later. Probably because I don't know any heterosexual married men who are happy with their sex lives. Well, I might know one, but his take on sexual relations is even more screwy than Lori's, and his general outlook is exceptionally neurotic.

Which still doesn't explain why it's "illogical" for a grown man to be celibate.


because it's unhealthy. and granted, jesus had some extenuating circumstances, but that i think, he could have argued either way. bottom line...jesus was a man of faith. i mean, check the circumstances surrounding his own birth. :shrug:

because it's unhealthy. and granted, jesus had some extenuating circumstances, but that i think, he could have argued either way. bottom line...jesus was a man of faith. i mean, check the circumstances surrounding his own birth. :shrug:

But...I thought you were celibate for years. :shrug:

because it's unhealthy.

I'll tell you what's even more unhealthy: rape.

But...I thought you were celibate for years. :shrug:

i was...so i can testify.

I'll tell you what's even more unhealthy: rape.

tiassa, the only one suggesting rape here is you. :mad:

because it's unhealthy
In what way?


jesus was a man of faith. i mean, check the circumstances surrounding his own birth.
Er, it's still not an established fact that Jesus actually existed.

In what way?

i'm pretty sure it's unhealthy mentally, emotionally, and physically. there are immense benefits to having sex, and to communion with another human being. in my own case, my celibacy had it's own benefits. i learned a lot, and i'm glad i stood for what i did. i was also sad and very lonely much of the time during, and i'm glad that part of my life is over.



Er, it's still not an established fact that Jesus actually existed.

well since we're discussing the possibility of his sexual activity and orientation, for the sake of argument, let's assume he did.

i'm pretty sure it's unhealthy mentally, emotionally, and physically.
Ah, you're "pretty sure".
In other words you're speculating.


in my own case, my celibacy had it's own benefits. i learned a lot, and i'm glad i stood for what i did.
And then you say celibacy has benefits.

Ah, you're "pretty sure".
In other words you're speculating.


And then you say celibacy has benefits.

if you want to research the health benefits of sex and relationships go ahead. if you want to research the effects of isolation on human beings, google it up. i've learned the hard way already.

let me put it this way...

i've been in some unhealthy relationships, and imo, celibacy is better than that. i'm now in a very healthy relationship, and imo, that is better than celibacy.

what i found out when i was celibate, was just how much the aspect of or possibility of sex permeates everything...your perception, your perspective, your behavior, your manners, the way you see other people and treat other people, the decisions you make, the way you see and treat yourself. you take sex and the possibility of such out of your life completely, and it frees your time, energy, and focus up so much it's unbelievable. and people treat and respond to you differently too, when it finally sinks in that you're serious. at first, it just went right over people's heads. i think they just rejected the whole idea because they couldn't conceive of it or relate to it. but once the idea sinks in, an agenda is removed, and a relationship is freed. it's very liberating. that's why i'm glad i did it. i also think that my willingness to stand for an ideal, got me that ideal.

Excuse me: but celibacy does NOT mean isolation.
It also does not mean no relationships.

Excuse me: but celibacy does NOT mean isolation.
It also does not mean no relationships.

it places a distinct limit on them. it is a form of isolation, when everyone around you's primary focus is on sex.

my isolation ran a bit deeper than that, and was a driving force in my choice to be celibate. i've mentioned that i went through some weird shit. i didn't think it was possible to share that, and to be understood, like i thought i should be in a marriage. i also didn't think it was responsible to drag someone else into it, or to subject them to it.

tiassa, the only one suggesting rape here is you. :mad:

Oh, spare us the huff and puff.

True enough that if one forces themselves to engage in unwanted sexual contact, it's not really rape, but I'm setting that nicety aside because of your advocacy that homosexuals should seek unpleasant sexual contact in order to satisfy their needs.

After all, you apparently did need a recap of the conversation.

Here, let's look at your latest (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2418347&postcount=163) defense of your position:


no. the point of that post was not to say that anyone should force themselves to do anything. that was my choice. and i made that choice for a reason. you should have bold-faced the sentence prior to that. "it bugs me when i don't like certain foods."

Well, let's see. When you were asked why a lesbian should be required to take a dick when it's just not her thing, you responded with masculine and feminine attributes of men and women.

Add in that, having missed the whole point about chorizo, you went on to talk about forcing yourself to like certain foods.

And then, when asked specifically, "Do you really think that gay men should be 'required' to have sex with women, despite what they do or do not want to do?" you responded by saying that your anatomy should be a non-issue.

Peppering your posts with the occasional statement that people should not be required to do anything is fine. But that contradicts the deeper implications of your broader philosophy. That is, when cornered on the specific issue, you say what sounds proper. But when the issue is more diffuse, the trend is actually fairly clear.

For instance, I could—and have—acknowledged the proposition that hetero- and homosexuals alike can choose celibacy, but apparently we both agree that this is unhealthy. I would suggest you learn a bit about the fundamentals of psychology; that way, when someone asks you why it isn't logical for a grown man to be celibate, you might be able to at least propose an answer.


(1) Celibacy is unhealthy. (Do you know why?)
(2) Homosexuality is bigotry.
(3) You can force yourself to like things.
(4) Whether or not someone likes vaginas should be a non-issue.
(5) But you don't think people should be forced to do anything.

How magnanimous of you. And your vagina. It seems that you would argue that homosexuals, in order to be both healthy and open-minded, should engage in sexual intercourse they do not want.

And it's pretty clear what's going on. (Indeed, one need not much more than the fundamentals of psychology to figure it out.) To your credit, though, I will note that you managed to string people along for a while. But today you've made it pretty clear.

It's a nice, convenient package. After all, you love your lesbian friend very much despite treating her as a lower order of being. What's that? How so?

Well ....


(1) Celibacy is illogical.
(2) Penis + vagina = sex. That's it.
(3) Marriage and sex are the same thing.

It's a convenient argument against gay marriage, I'll grant you that. Well, except that I already predicted it (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410989&postcount=59):


I get it: Vanilla is your favorite flavor when it comes to coupling. But you really need to get over this penis-vagina obsession. What it sounds like, honestly, is bitterness. We can't fire the faggots for being faggots. We can't deny them housing or basic civil rights. They're even getting married! Oh, hey, I know! It's really pointless for gays to get married since they can never consummate. I mean, they can't actually have sex, you know ....

I mean, sure I can just go and cherry-pick if I want to build the case, but you're handing it to me.

Your subconscious seems to be somewhat in conflict. The slow return of the repressed becomes even more apparent. I've seen this with all sorts of bigotry over the years, and the only reasons your bigotry stands out so clearly are that it's right in front of me, and it's revealing itself at a remarkable rate. That latter might be predictable, though; you have the appearance of running ad hoc for about a week now.

Stop. Breathe. Think. There's what, three threads now? Go back and read through them. You're tacking up bright posters everywhere announcing your neurosis on this issue. And as an artistic review, I'd have to say the sublimation is pretty shallow.

In the EM&J thread, you ducked the most obvious implications of your formulation. In AtM, you clearly dodged. In this thread, I admit I'm a bit surprised: I didn't expect you to come out and wave those flags so blatantly. You're driving the nails for me.

it places a distinct limit on them.
No it doesn't (except for the "getting into bed with someone" bit).


it is a form of isolation, when everyone around you's primary focus is on sex.
I suggest that it was possibly YOUR primary focus if you felt that, rather than theirs.

Pay? You're going to have to explain that one. oh shit....

the political issue is over benefits (MONEY) (oh my, you funny)


Submit? Okay, look, just because, I would claim, say, String has the right to be gay? It does not claim that you must be gay. i am gay for you thou

i submit; it aint natural

bottom line

flying pigs aint natural, nor is flying human beings; sure it occurs, still aint natural



Like religion?

No, seriously, what lie that is purely going against nature are you referring to? dogs don't believe in god

the ideology of god being some separate entity is unnatural (man created)

so is suggesting that same sex is normal (man created belief)




It's just an odd change of subject, is all. i often look at the big picture instead of little thing




On this we can agree. most everything i do or say is with our future (the children) in mind

if you don't know that yet, then you just getting started

No it doesn't (except for the "getting into bed with someone" bit).

yes, having sex. i don't use birth control, i equate it with marriage, and it's not something i consider to be a casual way to pass the time or have some fun.



I suggest that it was possibly YOUR primary focus if you felt that, rather than theirs.

i suggest that sex is the primary driving focus of most human beings, unless their lives are in danger, then survival takes over. and as soon as their lives aren't in danger anymore, sex takes back over.

yes, having sex. i don't use birth control, i equate it with marriage, and it's not something i consider to be a casual way to pass the time or have some fun.
Regardless, sex is the only "part" of relationships that's out of the picture if you're celibate.


i suggest that sex is the primary driving focus of most human beings, unless their lives are in danger, then survival takes over. and as soon as their lives aren't in danger anymore, sex takes back over.
Yes and no. It may be the primary driver but it isn't visible as such ALL the time unless you yourself are obsessed with it.
How much of buying a newspaper, doing the washing, socialising with friends is ABOUT sex?

Oh, spare us the huff and puff.

True enough that if one forces themselves to engage in unwanted sexual contact, it's not really rape, but I'm setting that nicety aside because of your advocacy that homosexuals should seek unpleasant sexual contact in order to satisfy their needs.

After all, you apparently did need a recap of the conversation.

Here, let's look at your latest (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2418347&postcount=163) defense of your position:



Well, let's see. When you were asked why a lesbian should be required to take a dick when it's just not her thing, you responded with masculine and feminine attributes of men and women.

Add in that, having missed the whole point about chorizo, you went on to talk about forcing yourself to like certain foods.

And then, when asked specifically, "Do you really think that gay men should be 'required' to have sex with women, despite what they do or do not want to do?" you responded by saying that your anatomy should be a non-issue.

it should be a non-issue tiassa! penises, vagina, arms, legs, what the fuck is not to like? it's silly.

now, i will reiterate that i don't give a shit what people do, and i wouldn't advocate forcing anyone to do anything for any reason. but when my lesbian friend responds to any sexual reference to a man with disgust, i would like to know why. when the truth is, there is nothing inherently disgusting about men, just like there's nothing inherently disgusting about women. imo, the only thing inherently disgusting about humans is their sin, and we're all in the same boat.


Peppering your posts with the occasional statement that people should not be required to do anything is fine. But that contradicts the deeper implications of your broader philosophy. That is, when cornered on the specific issue, you say what sounds proper. But when the issue is more diffuse, the trend is actually fairly clear.

no tiassa, i'm saying what i actually think. i'm sorry it doesn't jive with your armchair psychology. the point that you seem to be missing is that i'm talking about what's going on in people's heads and perceptions that drive behavior, and you're reducing it down to behavior alone.


For instance, I could—and have—acknowledged the proposition that hetero- and homosexuals alike can choose celibacy, but apparently we both agree that this is unhealthy. I would suggest you learn a bit about the fundamentals of psychology; that way, when someone asks you why it isn't logical for a grown man to be celibate, you might be able to at least propose an answer.

for purposes of what, intellectual masturbation? i gave him an answer. the answer is out there. i see no need to regurgitate it just to fill up space on a forum.



(1) Celibacy is unhealthy. (Do you know why?)

i just know that it is. i didn't memorize the reasons so i could later impress someone with my useless knowledge base.


(2) Homosexuality is bigotry.

so is heterosexuality.


(3) You can force yourself to like things.

no, i said that i forced myself to try something and became acclimated to it.



(4) Whether or not someone likes vaginas should be a non-issue.

yeah. what's not to like or dislike? it's a fucking body part for christ sake.


(5) But you don't think people should be forced to do anything.

exactly. that takes all the fun out of it.


How magnanimous of you. And your vagina. It seems that you would argue that homosexuals, in order to be both healthy and open-minded, should engage in sexual intercourse they do not want.

nope. i doubt that it would be healthy if they didn't want it. i would imagine that would be fairly stressful. what i'm suggesting is that their perception regarding the opposite sex (and heterosexuals regarding the same sex) is not healthy or open-minded.


And it's pretty clear what's going on. (Indeed, one need not much more than the fundamentals of psychology to figure it out.) To your credit, though, I will note that you managed to string people along for a while. But today you've made it pretty clear.

It's a nice, convenient package. After all, you love your lesbian friend very much despite treating her as a lower order of being. What's that? How so?

Well ....


(1) Celibacy is illogical.
(2) Penis + vagina = sex. That's it.
(3) Marriage and sex are the same thing.

i do not consider nor do i treat my lesbian friend to be a lower order of being. that's ridiculous. everybody has hangups tiassa, even you and me, i'm simply suggesting that sexual orientation is one of the many.


It's a convenient argument against gay marriage, I'll grant you that. Well, except that I already predicted it (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410989&postcount=59):


I get it: Vanilla is your favorite flavor when it comes to coupling. But you really need to get over this penis-vagina obsession. What it sounds like, honestly, is bitterness. We can't fire the faggots for being faggots. We can't deny them housing or basic civil rights. They're even getting married! Oh, hey, I know! It's really pointless for gays to get married since they can never consummate. I mean, they can't actually have sex, you know ....

i've said it before, and i'll say it again, not that you're listening...i think marriage is great, i don't care if you're gay or straight. i know plenty of gay couples (my lesbian friend included) that have healthier marriages than i did, and that many heterosexual couples do.


I mean, sure I can just go and cherry-pick if I want to build the case, but you're handing it to me.

Your subconscious seems to be somewhat in conflict. The slow return of the repressed becomes even more apparent. I've seen this with all sorts of bigotry over the years, and the only reasons your bigotry stands out so clearly are that it's right in front of me, and it's revealing itself at a remarkable rate. That latter might be predictable, though; you have the appearance of running ad hoc for about a week now.

Stop. Breathe. Think. There's what, three threads now? Go back and read through them. You're tacking up bright posters everywhere announcing your neurosis on this issue. And as an artistic review, I'd have to say the sublimation is pretty shallow.

In the EM&J thread, you ducked the most obvious implications of your formulation. In AtM, you clearly dodged. In this thread, I admit I'm a bit surprised: I didn't expect you to come out and wave those flags so blatantly. You're driving the nails for me.

first of all, why in the hell are you so interested in driving nails? secondly, bigotry is what i'm questioning here. and thirdly, questioning is not neurotic. i just happened to question the oh so taboo basis of sexual orientation.

Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

it seems to me that all evidence points to Jesus being Homosexual.
He had no interest in women.
Did not get married

There is absolutely no evidence that i have come across that prove Jesus was not a homosexual.
and...

Some claim him to be the son of god, however is not all men the son of god ?
thus calling himself "the son of god" by definition was a statement of saying he was normal like all other men.

have you any evidence that shows that Jesus was not a homosexual ?
and evidence that Jesus was Heterosexual ?
any evidence at all of him being one gender or the other ?

your thoughts... ?
Jesus is supposed to have lived a life free from sin. A perfect life. Practicing homosexuality is a sin. So clearly, whatever his inclinations, Jesus was not a practicing homosexual. Furthermore, Jesus said

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart."
No mention of looking at a man lustfully. One would think that if he himself were homosexual he would have made some mention of lust of that sort as well.

Finally, for the avatar of God to be homosexual makes about as much sense as him being a dwarf. I'd expect the son of God would be the model of human perfection. Not bald, or fat, or myopic, or gay.

Regardless, sex is the only "part" of relationships that's out of the picture if you're celibate.

it's a huge part. when sex is a consideration to be made, you see and treat people very differently, as they do you.



Yes and no. It may be the primary driver but it isn't visible as such ALL the time unless you yourself are obsessed with it.
How much of buying a newspaper, doing the washing, socialising with friends is ABOUT sex?

it's systemic.

it's a huge part. when sex is a consideration to be made, you see and treat people very differently, as they do you.
So you can't have a relationship without sex?


it's systemic.
That's YOUR perception.

So you can't have a relationship without sex?

of course you can. what i'm saying though, is when you remove the consideration of sex from your life altogether, it makes a big difference.



That's YOUR perception.

how much of your adult like have you spent intentionally celibate vs sexually active? yes, it's my perception.

of course you can. what i'm saying though, is when you remove the consideration of sex from your life altogether, it makes a big difference.
Nah.


how much of your adult like have you spent intentionally celibate vs sexually active?
More than twice as long as you claim to have done.


yes, it's my perception.
Yup, so it's YOU that was obsessed with sex, not them.

Nah.


More than twice as long as you claim to have done.


Yup, so it's YOU that was obsessed with sex, not them.

i don't think you're paying attention.

On the contrary, since as I noted above that my experience is greater than yours in this are (and I certainly didn't have that "problem", i.e. seeing everything as sex-related) then I suggest, once again, that it was simply YOUR obsession.
It was a non-issue for me.
Simple really.

it should be a non-issue tiassa! penises, vagina, arms, legs, what the fuck is not to like? it's silly.

What's not to like? The appearance, the smell, the feel. As I said, once upon a time (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410418&postcount=21):


Everybody has their reasons for liking something or not. Some of those reasons will actually make sense.

If you are unable to empathize with other people, that is your own problem best kept to yourself.


now, i will reiterate that i don't give a shit what people do, and i wouldn't advocate forcing anyone to do anything for any reason. but when my lesbian friend responds to any sexual reference to a man with disgust, i would like to know why. when the truth is, there is nothing inherently disgusting about men, just like there's nothing inherently disgusting about women. imo, the only thing inherently disgusting about humans is their sin, and we're all in the same boat.

(all accents added)

Okay, note the highlighted words. There are two primary issues here:


(1) When your lesbian friend responds with disgust to any sexual reference it has to do with having sex with men.

(2) This is a far different question than whether or not there is something inherently disgusting about men (or women).

The leap from sex appeal to judgments of individual worth is entirely your own, a pure invention. Doubtless, you'll find plenty of people who, for one reason or another, make the same leap. But at their core, those outcomes have specific etiologies removed from the basic question of sexual orientation.


no tiassa, i'm saying what i actually think.

Yes. We're aware that you think denigrating homosexuals is all right and proper. That's what certain people in this discussion are questioning.


i'm sorry it doesn't jive with your armchair psychology.

Psychology helps explain a phenomenon, but is not a prerequisite to observing it.

So set the psychology aside for a moment.

On the one hand, we have:


• People should not be forced to do things.
• You love your lesbian friend very much and don't treat her poorly.

To the other, we have:


• Denigration of gay sex lives.
• The proposition that what someone is comfortable with should be a non-issue in sexual consent.
• Dodging direct and simple questions about rape.
• Forcing yourself to like certain foods.
• Exclusivity of sex and marriage to heterosexuals.
• Homosexuality is just "a mindset ... a perception".

One need not be a psychologist to perceive the conflict.


the point that you seem to be missing is that i'm talking about what's going on in people's heads and perceptions that drive behavior, and you're reducing it down to behavior alone.

No, m'lady. Say it all you want, but your foundation is clearly erroneous, and thus the error manifests itself in each iteration of the outcome.


for purposes of what, intellectual masturbation? i gave him an answer. the answer is out there. i see no need to regurgitate it just to fill up space on a forum.

Well, you might wish to establish that you have a clue what you're talking about.

You might wish to demonstrate that you're not just posting lazy regurgitations of bigotry.

You might—might—actually wish to learn a thing or two about the subjects upon which you opine.


i just know that it is. i didn't memorize the reasons so i could later impress someone with my useless knowledge base.

Can the hostility, Lori. You want to run away from your own posts, that's fine. But for heaven's sakes, at least be honest about it.


so is heterosexuality.

I think that compared to racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, the denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or even international soccer hooliganism, the fact of hetero- and homosexuals is so far down the list it's not even on the list.


no, i said that i forced myself to try something and became acclimated to it.

Quit lying.


"so i started forcing myself to eat them, like on pizza and as an ingredient in cooked foods to acclimate myself to the taste. then on salads. now i can eat them raw and by themselves and i love em." (#2411097/83 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411097&postcount=83), boldface accent added)

Let's compare:


• "... and i love em."

• "... became acclimated to it."

And before you make the obvious point, yes, I see the word "acclimate" in the former version. I also see the phrase, "and I love 'em". The implication, of course, that if one forces oneself to do what one does not want to do, they can become acclimated to it, and eventually love it.

So quit lying. If you're not willing to stand behind your words, why should anyone else take you seriously?


yeah. what's not to like or dislike? it's a fucking body part for christ sake.

The appearance, the smell, the feel. As I said, once upon a time (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410418&postcount=21):


Everybody has their reasons for liking something or not. Some of those reasons will actually make sense.


exactly. that takes all the fun out of it.

Fine. So what is your problem with homosexuals that you feel the need to denigrate them as you have, and insist on continuing to do?


nope. i doubt that it would be healthy if they didn't want it. i would imagine that would be fairly stressful. what i'm suggesting is that their perception regarding the opposite sex (and heterosexuals regarding the same sex) is not healthy or open-minded.

See, here's where your argument spirals in on itself. Taken individually, any given statement you've put up on this subject is entirely its own. But humans don't live in that kind of vacuum.

What you've done here is closed off two parts of your argument, and what will help you communicate your point is if you reconcile them. Celibacy is unhealthy, but gay sex is bad and stupid and bigoted. The result, then, is that if gays don't wish to suffer neurosis, they have to be bad and stupid and bigoted. If, on the other hand, they don't want to be bad and stupid and bigoted, they have to be neurotic.

This is a basic conflict that you have constructed. And running from one while pushing the other without ever reconciling the fundamental conflicts between their implications is simply not going to help you communicate anything save your own neuroses.


i do not consider nor do i treat my lesbian friend to be a lower order of being. that's ridiculous.

Your explicit declaration vs. your longer-term conduct. Hmmm ....


everybody has hangups tiassa, even you and me, i'm simply suggesting that sexual orientation is one of the many.

And what solution do you propose?

Myself, I would propose that you get over the fact that some people simply don't find your pussy attractive because they are more comfortable and attracted to other kinds of sexual anatomy.


i've said it before, and i'll say it again, not that you're listening...i think marriage is great, i don't care if you're gay or straight.

I hear what you say. I just think it rings false. You think marriage is great? You don't care if they're gay or straight? Wonderful. Now, what about those standards that make gay marriage impossible? You know:


• penis + vagina = sex. that's it.
• Marriage and sex are the same thing.

There is no such thing as gay marriage according to that construction; gays don't have sex.

So I'm sorry if I don't find your explicit declarations of nobility honest, but compared to everything else they just don't measure up.


i know plenty of gay couples (my lesbian friend included) that have healthier marriages than i did, and that many heterosexual couples do.

I have resisted the temptation to make the point that the gay marriages I have known have a better success rate than the heterosexual unions I've known. Three major factors complicate such a claim: small sample size, short sample duration, and disparate circumstances describing both forms of union.


first of all, why in the hell are you so interested in driving nails? secondly, bigotry is what i'm questioning here. and thirdly, questioning is not neurotic. i just happened to question the oh so taboo basis of sexual orientation.

First of all, I would very much like to see as much bigotry eliminated from society as possible. Secondly, bigotry is what you're promoting. Thirdly, no, questioning is not in and of itself neurotic; your construction of issues, however, very much appears to be.

And as to the oh-so-taboo basis of sexual orientation, stuff the melodrama. The taboo of sexual orientation comes from the homophobes. The "taboo" in this discussion is found in your clearly uneducated presuppositions about the nature of homosexuality.

In other words, it's not sexual orientation that's problematic in this discussion, but rather your bigotry.

Let's start with something basic: Explain, please, the leap from evaluating the appeal of one's sex organs to judging the whole worth of a person.

not necessarily. i've struggled with that perception myself. but really, what is the difference if a child is born 10 minutes before the apocalypse or 10 or 30 years before? what if mary thought that way?

It's irrelevant. There is no support from the canonical Gospels or any third-person source, like Josephus and Tacitus, to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala were married or had children. There's no evidence for it.

It's irrelevant. There is no support from the canonical Gospels or any third-person source, like Josephus and Tacitus, to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala were married or had children. There's no evidence for it.

it says in one of the gospels, maybe of thomas (?) that he kissed her on the mouth a lot. and she was with his mom when he rose from the tomb. that screams daughter in law to me.

It's irrelevant. There is no support from the canonical Gospels or any third-person source, like Josephus and Tacitus, to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala were married or had children. There's no evidence for it.

exactly. And none for homosexuality either, right?

exactly. And none for homosexuality either, right?

Yeah. I don't see Hay-zoos being a gay man. . . and living long, for that matter. (being closet case is another matter, one left only to wild speculation)

~String

earth to earth...

there is no genetic link to orientation. if there is, i'm just not aware of it, so please provide your resource.

straight parents produce gay children and gay parents produce straight children all the time. there is no correlation that i'm aware of.


Okay Lori, I did a little googling and found that genetics influence homosexuality.

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925)

In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference.
One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did.

What's not to like? The appearance, the smell, the feel. As I said, once upon a time (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410418&postcount=21):


Everybody has their reasons for liking something or not. Some of those reasons will actually make sense.

and some of them don't.


If you are unable to empathize with other people, that is your own problem best kept to yourself.

i have no problem empathizing. i told you already that i spent the better part of my life identifying myself as a heterosexual.




Okay, note the highlighted words. There are two primary issues here:


(1) When your lesbian friend responds with disgust to any sexual reference it has to do with having sex with men.

(2) This is a far different question than whether or not there is something inherently disgusting about men (or women).

well gee tiassa, if there's nothing disgusting about them, and there's nothing disgusting about sex, then why would it be disgusting to have sex with them?


The leap from sex appeal to judgments of individual worth is entirely your own, a pure invention. Doubtless, you'll find plenty of people who, for one reason or another, make the same leap. But at their core, those outcomes have specific etiologies removed from the basic question of sexual orientation.

well obviously some people are worth having sex with and some aren't, and in regards to orientation, that worth is decided by their gender.




Yes. We're aware that you think denigrating homosexuals is all right and proper. That's what certain people in this discussion are questioning.

oh stop with the dramatics won't you? if i'm denigrating anyone, then i'm denigrating the vast majority of people in the world and on this forum. i'm not playing favorites like you are. i'm not singling out homosexuals. i'm saying that sexual orientation itself doesn't make sense to me.




Psychology helps explain a phenomenon, but is not a prerequisite to observing it.

So set the psychology aside for a moment.

On the one hand, we have:


• People should not be forced to do things.
• You love your lesbian friend very much and don't treat her poorly.

To the other, we have:


• Denigration of gay sex lives.
• The proposition that what someone is comfortable with should be a non-issue in sexual consent.
• Dodging direct and simple questions about rape.
• Forcing yourself to like certain foods.
• Exclusivity of sex and marriage to heterosexuals.
• Homosexuality is just "a mindset ... a perception".

One need not be a psychologist to perceive the conflict.



No, m'lady. Say it all you want, but your foundation is clearly erroneous, and thus the error manifests itself in each iteration of the outcome.



Well, you might wish to establish that you have a clue what you're talking about.

You might wish to demonstrate that you're not just posting lazy regurgitations of bigotry.

You might—might—actually wish to learn a thing or two about the subjects upon which you opine.



Can the hostility, Lori. You want to run away from your own posts, that's fine. But for heaven's sakes, at least be honest about it.



I think that compared to racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, the denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or even international soccer hooliganism, the fact of hetero- and homosexuals is so far down the list it's not even on the list.

why do you keep focusing on homosexuals vs heterosexuals? because i'm not making that distinction.




Quit lying.


"so i started forcing myself to eat them, like on pizza and as an ingredient in cooked foods to acclimate myself to the taste. then on salads. now i can eat them raw and by themselves and i love em." (#2411097/83 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411097&postcount=83), boldface accent added)

Let's compare:


• "... and i love em."

• "... became acclimated to it."

And before you make the obvious point, yes, I see the word "acclimate" in the former version. I also see the phrase, "and I love 'em". The implication, of course, that if one forces oneself to do what one does not want to do, they can become acclimated to it, and eventually love it.

So quit lying. If you're not willing to stand behind your words, why should anyone else take you seriously?

i'm not lying. why are you overreacting and assigning conclusions and intent to my words when it's not there. i chose to do that to myself for a reason of my own. i in no way suggested that anyone else do what i did. the point was, AGAIN, that taste is not inherent.




The appearance, the smell, the feel. As I said, once upon a time (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410418&postcount=21):


Everybody has their reasons for liking something or not. Some of those reasons will actually make sense.

and like i said, some of them don't.




Fine. So what is your problem with homosexuals that you feel the need to denigrate them as you have, and insist on continuing to do?

you're the one who insists on singling out homosexuals, not me.




See, here's where your argument spirals in on itself. Taken individually, any given statement you've put up on this subject is entirely its own. But humans don't live in that kind of vacuum.

What you've done here is closed off two parts of your argument, and what will help you communicate your point is if you reconcile them. Celibacy is unhealthy, but gay sex is bad and stupid and bigoted. The result, then, is that if gays don't wish to suffer neurosis, they have to be bad and stupid and bigoted. If, on the other hand, they don't want to be bad and stupid and bigoted, they have to be neurotic.

This is a basic conflict that you have constructed. And running from one while pushing the other without ever reconciling the fundamental conflicts between their implications is simply not going to help you communicate anything save your own neuroses.

no tiassa, i am not singling out gay sex as bigoted. i am saying that sexual orientation is bigoted.



And what solution do you propose?

Myself, I would propose that you get over the fact that some people simply don't find your pussy attractive because they are more comfortable and attracted to other kinds of sexual anatomy.

people are comfortable and attracted to all kinds of things. and that comfort and attraction or repulsion, whichever it might be, doesn't have to have anything to do with logic or truth.




I hear what you say. I just think it rings false. You think marriage is great? You don't care if they're gay or straight? Wonderful. Now, what about those standards that make gay marriage impossible? You know:


• penis + vagina = sex. that's it.
• Marriage and sex are the same thing.

There is no such thing as gay marriage according to that construction; gays don't have sex.

So I'm sorry if I don't find your explicit declarations of nobility honest, but compared to everything else they just don't measure up.



I have resisted the temptation to make the point that the gay marriages I have known have a better success rate than the heterosexual unions I've known. Three major factors complicate such a claim: small sample size, short sample duration, and disparate circumstances describing both forms of union.

not many people define marriage the way i do, so how is that relevant? people don't have to define marriage the way i do...that's for me.




First of all, I would very much like to see as much bigotry eliminated from society as possible. Secondly, bigotry is what you're promoting. Thirdly, no, questioning is not in and of itself neurotic; your construction of issues, however, very much appears to be.

And as to the oh-so-taboo basis of sexual orientation, stuff the melodrama. The taboo of sexual orientation comes from the homophobes. The "taboo" in this discussion is found in your clearly uneducated presuppositions about the nature of homosexuality.

In other words, it's not sexual orientation that's problematic in this discussion, but rather your bigotry.

Let's start with something basic: Explain, please, the leap from evaluating the appeal of one's sex organs to judging the whole worth of a person.

sexual orientation is based in bigotry. and homophobes?! oh please! it's not the homophobes that are jumping down my throat now is it? :rolleyes:

Yeah. I don't see Hay-zoos being a gay man. . . and living long, for that matter. (being closet case is another matter, one left only to wild speculation)

~String

well it probably would have been more self-preserving than claiming to be the son of god. apparently. lol...

Okay Lori, I did a little googling and found that genetics influence homosexuality.

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925)

In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference.
One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did.

hm. is that all you could find? i mean, since 1993 i would imagine there would be a hell of a lot of gay scientists out there searching for that gene don't you?

also, if it's passed down from a straight mom, your weeding out theory is mute.

well it probably would have been more self-preserving than claiming to be the son of god. apparently. lol...

Hmmm. I'm not sure which one would have elicited the quickest death sentence. My guess is the homosexuality claim would have gotten him killed immediately. At least while faking to be a deity-in-the-flesh he could develop a significant group of followers to protect him.

~String

Hmmm. I'm not sure which one would have elicited the quickest death sentence. My guess is the homosexuality claim would have gotten him killed immediately. At least while faking to be a deity-in-the-flesh he could develop a significant group of followers to protect him.

~String

i thought the romans were big into homosexuality? i thought it was common practice back then?

i thought the romans were big into homosexuality? i thought it was common practice back then?

Romans afforded a large degree of self-rule to its outlying provinces. Some where ruled directly by Rome (well, as directly as could be engineered back then); while others were pacified by allowing local rules to co-govern under a Roman prefect. Egypt, Greece, Palestine and Anatolia, for example, were prefectures (Egypt being the most important). In the case of Palestine (Israel), local rules were permitted so long as Roman super-rule was respected. Thus, the Jews were allowed to demand Jesus's (properly translated, "Joshuah" by the way; "Jesus" is a Latin contrivance) death to Pontius Pilate for the simple offense of claiming to be Yhwh's son (aka: heresy).

~String

hm. is that all you could find? i mean, since 1993 i would imagine there would be a hell of a lot of gay scientists out there searching for that gene don't you?

also, if it's passed down from a straight mom, your weeding out theory is mute.

Evolution is a fact. Weeding = natural selection

If one doesn't have any offspring then its the end of the line for the genes of that individual.

http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Religion is pitifully ignorant.

In the future there will most likely be gene treatments for homosexuality and it will be thought of as a disease.

I would find it highly amusing if Jesus actually existed and was infact gay. Especially when the Christians insist that "god hates fags".

There is no gay gene. I'll look around for the article, which I've posted here before (although it's been a couple years), but the leading theories right now involve multiple genes and hormone infusions in utero. Once those are pinned down a little better, we'll be able to start looking at how these outcomes respond to social conditioning. There is also a birth order statistic that isn't winning much favor but nonetheless operates around a curious coincidence that the later a male is in the birth order, the more likely he is to be homosexual. (It's entirely possible they're looking at the wrong aspect of the birth order statistic. I mean, it's the first time I ever heard of "anti-male antibodies", and I'm always dubious about newly-learned terms in those sorts of papers. I do, however, wonder about decalibration (wear and tear) of an oft-used uterus, and whether those later sons are subject to hormonal imbalances in utero that result in alternative responses from the genes in question.

In the future there will most likely be gene treatments for homosexuality and it will be thought of as a disease

Actually, study shows that homosexuality is of benefit to a species, (obviously at a relatively small percentage which - in human terms equates to about 3%, although some try to claim 10%).

Studies have revolved around when a homosexual individual is born, (typically a later child), and why it has benefit. If, for instance, you've had three - dare I say -"normal" children and then give birth to a homosexual, he or she actually provides benefit to the aunt and her children. You'll have go to New Scientist to check it, I have no relevant links to hand.

P.S I've just read Tiassas post that makes mention of this. For relevant details I would suggest New Scientist.

As for Jesus being gay - I frankly have very little, sorry - no, reason to believe that such individual existed in the first place. I know some individuals would argue that a person - not named Jesus obviously but something like Yeshua existed and was a rabbi or something. If we go to that level, we're not talking about "Jesus" anymore to even really bother caring. When someone asks: "did Jesus exist", they mean something very specific when saying "Jesus". If on the other hand we accept the existence of Jesus and christian claims, (he's god), then we know he hates - sorry no, detests - homosexuality. Some would submit that it then makes it unlikely that he was homosexual.

Having said that... I can think of something else that the biblical god stated was disgraceful. Yes.. long hair on a man.

Yet this very same entity had long hair.

So hey, he probably was gay.

and some of them don't.

Zen acuity.


i have no problem empathizing. i told you already that i spent the better part of my life identifying myself as a heterosexual.

The second sentence is non-sequitur to the first.

Beyond that, surprise me.


well gee tiassa, if there's nothing disgusting about them, and there's nothing disgusting about sex, then why would it be disgusting to have sex with them?

Lori, it is my general presumption that people are smart enough to understand certain basic ideas. Admittedly, this is a dangerous proposition, as it is constantly shown to be wrong. But let's try this:


• If fucking you doesn't feel good, does that make you a bad person?

I'm going to say no. I'm very interested in your answer, and why.


well obviously some people are worth having sex with and some aren't, and in regards to orientation, that worth is decided by their gender.

No, actually, it's not. For some, sure, but as I noted before, those outcomes have specific etiologies removed from the basic question of sexual orientation. However, when you stop to consider that "roughly a quarter of all gay men don't enjoy and don't indulge in anal sex" (Savage (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2531572)), it should become clear that it's not about your piehole. I mean, the hole in your pie. Er ... I mean your vagina.

It's about something far more profound. Perhaps you've never experienced it with any lover. Or maybe you have and just don't think men, or homosexuals, or whomever, can feel it.

Whichever, I would still suggest your standard about sex appeal and individual worth speaks far more about you than anyone else.


oh stop with the dramatics won't you? if i'm denigrating anyone, then i'm denigrating the vast majority of people in the world and on this forum. i'm not playing favorites like you are. i'm not singling out homosexuals. i'm saying that sexual orientation itself doesn't make sense to me.

Right. And gay people can't have sex. Or are you going to retract that?


why do you keep focusing on homosexuals vs heterosexuals? because i'm not making that distinction.

When did you stop?

Never mind. What the hell are you talking about, then? Remember, you are the one who made sexual orientation about bigotry.


i'm not lying. why are you overreacting and assigning conclusions and intent to my words when it's not there. i chose to do that to myself for a reason of my own. i in no way suggested that anyone else do what i did. the point was, AGAIN, that taste is not inherent.

The only way this works is if we presume that your responses to String, from which I extracted those quotes, were written completely without regard to the posts you allegedly responded to.

You know, I frequently do this patronizing lecture about how there are these things called letters, and we string them together into words, which make sentences, paragraphs, and so on. The point of it is that at Sciforums, and on the internet in general, people seem to have difficulty recognizing themes. It's as if one sentence isn't connected to the next, and there is no relation between paragraphs, chapters, posts, and so on.

Okay, look: I might be able to force myself to eat enough chorizo to acclimate myself to it. Who knows, I might even be able to love the stuff. But that doesn't mean I'm going to find a pussy that smells like chorizo attractive any more than I would one that smells or tastes like asiago.

Right there is part of the problem. It appears you never understood the chorizo issue. To the other, if you ever happen to read through that whole disaster again, and finally get it, let me know. We can start this whole argument over on completely new terms.

But what do you really expect when someone asks you questions about rape and you respond by dodging the issue and talking about forcing yourself to eat stuff you don't like and eventually learning to love it?

Really. Just stop. Put everything else we're arguing about, and all your pride, aside for a few minutes, and go back and read through that exchange you had with String. Let's just start with something simple. How do you think your answers relate to the questions? That is, when String asked you about lesbians being "required" to take a dick, what did masculine and feminine attributes of men and women have to do with anything? When asked if gay men should be required to sleep with women, what does it matter that you're pouting because someone doesn't want to fuck a vagina? When that question was reiterated, you finally said that genitalia should be a non-issue, which is absurd enough in itself, for suggesting that a sexual partner's comfort and sense of security is a non-issue. And it is also self-contradictory: If your vagina is a non-issue, then stop getting upset that gay men won't fuck it.


and like i said, some of them don't

Zen acuity, yet again.

Ever hear of a Zen martini? It's a drink that features no gin and no vermouth. There's also no glass.


you're the one who insists on singling out homosexuals, not me.

Oh, stop with that, Lori. You're the one who threw a fit about gay men not liking pussy. You're the one who stuck your nose into "The Gay Fray" with that ridiculous formula describing sexual intercourse. You raised the issue. I'm following it. For instance:


no tiassa, i am not singling out gay sex as bigoted. i am saying that sexual orientation is bigoted.

How do I put this gently? I mean, since nothing else has worked?

Ah, let's try this: That's stupid.

One of the odd things that happens around here is that people, when backed into a corner, devise these strange suppositions that all things and situations are equal.

Thus the existence of a fat man in another country means one should not criticize obesity in the U.S. Or joining a hobby club is no different from joining a religion. Hell, by your standard, punching you in the face at random is the same as raping you.

These things aren't the same.

Feminism has come a long way in my lifetime; I mention that to preface the note that over the years, I've seen a certain presupposition driven out of the culture. For heterosexual guys, sticking a penis into a warm, wet vagina—especially for the first time—is an overwhelmingly joyful feeling. Not always so for women. Yet over the course of my lifetime, I've seen the men's presupposition that since it feels that good for them it must necessarily feel that good for the women choke and gasp and very nearly die in the street. Now, I can't tell you what it feels like to have my vagina properly shagged, as I don't have one. But I can tell you that penetrating and being penetrated are not the same.

As far as bigotry goes, yeah, you have a point if sexual intercourse is the psychological equivalent of sharing a church pew with someone.

And perhaps it is to you. But that would be quite the statistical deviation.


people are comfortable and attracted to all kinds of things. and that comfort and attraction or repulsion, whichever it might be, doesn't have to have anything to do with logic or truth.

O ... kay.


not many people define marriage the way i do, so how is that relevant? people don't have to define marriage the way i do...that's for me.

When you have bizarre, or even unique standards, don't be surprised if people question them. And if you use those standards to accuse, don't be surprised if people find you ridiculous.


sexual orientation is based in bigotry. and homophobes?! oh please! it's not the homophobes that are jumping down my throat now is it?

Why would homophobes attack one of their own? Especially when you've added such a novel and perplexing argument to their arsenal of hatred?

We'll try this again:


Let's start with something basic: Explain, please, the leap from evaluating the appeal of one's sex organs to judging the whole worth of a person.
_____________________

Notes:

Savage, Dan. "Plunge In". The Stranger. October 22, 2009. TheStranger.com. November 19, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2531572

This is one of those questions that really fucks people up. I used to ask it of guys: "If you had the best blowjob of your life, say at a masquerade party or something, and then found out you got it from a guy?"

Absolutely fucks up some people.

But that's the thing. So let's say it happens. Someone gets the best sexual satisfaction of their life, and then finds out it was a homosexual act. Now, some folks will actually stop to think about what that means. Others will simply panic. And for those, relationships aren't invested in love and trust and all that good stuff people extol; rather, they are invested in pride.

If something rewarding takes me out of image, skews my character, and causes me to change? Hell, I'll adapt. I think it's absolutely tragic that some people hide in the closet because they're supposed to be ashamed—especially ashamed, even more so than everyone else—of how God made them. Fat people can't pretend to be thin. Black people can't pretend to be white. But gays can certainly pretend to be straight.

I can't imagine saying to myself, "That was great! Now, how do I make sure it never happens again and nobody ever finds out it happened at all?"

To the other—and I'll have to go fish for statistics—I've encountered numbers suggesting that up to a third of gay male couples don't engage in anal sex.

Must mean they hate men. You know, since a guy's asshole doesn't turn them on.

Or something like that. It's one of those things that seems relevant, although I haven't figured the tie-in yet.

What consternates me is, that such an experience doesn't define one's sexual orientation, it just proves that one can be sexually stimulated by anyone and anything as long as the thought of it doesn't plague them. So, I don't really understand why anyone would panic..I mean, just because you enjoyed the blowjob doesn't make you a gay/lesbian, it just means that you really really enjoyed that awesome sexual stimulation.

Don't know how to word this properly, but I always wondered how much someone's sexual organ does matter. For example, would they still be into girls if girls had instead of a cunt a dick, and vice versa? Or is it more about the general physical appearance, in other words aesthetics? You know..the typical characteristics for each gender..

Well, I guess not everybody's into anal sex, and that's probably not relevant to gender. Could also be connected with what purpose the asshole serves, and that the feeling of being penetrated in the back isn't considered as enjoyable by everyone.

exactly. And none for homosexuality either, right?
Exactly. There's no mention of Jesus having any sexual life whatsoever. Not in the canonical Gospels, which admittedly are heavily biased; and not in the third-party accounts, e.g. Josephus or Tacitus. There's no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was married, was gay, or had an active sexual life at all.

Have a look at this article it brings up some interesting veiws. And besides it is on the internet so therefore IT has to be true...........


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm



Again this link has some good ppoints both pro and con have a look and see.

Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man
[COLOR="Blue"]

Technically, would Jesus be a man, a member of the genus Homo? If he is real and because he is generally regarded as a man then what does that make his father? The story indicates the mother as being a bipedal ape but we know precious little about the sperm donor. In fact there is some doubts as to his validity as a man for that matter. Unless the father was a man there is no way Jesus would have been normal as you say. The least he could be is a hybrid homo.

Maybe its ok for a half-breed god-man to like the company of human men, after all women aren't all that important to the Big Guy are they?

Well, guess what? Your pussy is not the whole of who you are. The leap from a woman's vagina being sexually repellant to a gay man to indicting the whole woman as "repulsive, revolting, repellent" is entirely yours and Lori's. In the Midwest thread, no less than five people made the point about separating sex appeal and individual worth, but you two have apparently gone blazing right by that point and now hope to hang people with it.

First off thanks Mister for telling me what my pussy is and what it isn't to me.

You need to read that thread and my comments there and here again if you think it was just about gay men finding women 'repulsive' sexually; that it was just me (Lori has other issues don't lump me in with those) who had a problem with the word usage and that it was just about some of us missing the point. I certainly don't want to have peope hanged (as some would have me) but I do want to look a little more closely. So here goes attempt number umpty kazillion.

At least one man who identified himselve as gay in that thread said he found women, blacks, asians and dogs equally repulsive/repugnant. Now I find that sort of sentiment worrysome. Don't you? Not because I'm so stupid or at all homophobic or because I equate my pussy as my worth but because I find the sentiment expressed in the particular way it was worrying. You get it? Worrying. I do realise, and pretty much always have, that gay men don't want the pussy and I don't worrying about it.

Now try very, very hard to understand why some folks might find the words repulsive, repugnant in association with women, blacks and asians worrying.




Or there is the more primal: Some people simply find vaginas mythically threatening. After all, you take a virile rod, insert it until it pukes, and then withdraw a flaccid, weak sack of flesh. Some folks just aren't prepared to deal with it.

Really? Got a citation? :D


Some are traumatically scarred by a bad experience.

Some are generally turned off by a string of bad experiences.

Some are simply gay.

No shit sherlock?




You know, it occurs to me that there are heterosexual men out there who don't go down on women. They find the practice deviant and extraneous and, yes, repulsive. In fact, I know one of them insofar as, while I'll probably never actually ask him the question, he's the deeply religious sort who washes his dick with rubbing alcohol before putting it in his wife of forty-some years. Now, I won't imagine that the only time he ever had sex they were trying to conceive; their daughter is adopted. But I will suggest that, while his reasons may be unique, his fear of dirty genitalia is not.


So now you are eqauting female genetalia with dirt? Nice one. You know some people who are not deeply religious keep their genetalia clean without the need for a message from god....males and females.



I actually got to see this transition happen: A neighbor boy, about eleven, once expressed that oral sex is gross. After all, why put your mouth where someone pees from? (You get it? Your pussy is gross.)

Oh yeah I get it. Eleven year old boys. When I hear thirty something men expressing the same sentiments using the same sort of language I start to think.....



Of course, given a year and a half or so to develop and experience the effects of his hormones, where do you think he wants his mouth?

Where his money is?




For some people, the impulse develops in the other direction. In theory—I don't know his specific tastes; he might be a pure top—String would prefer to put his mouth where I pee from than where you pee from. This bears no reflection whatsoever on your worth as a human being. Well, except of course for the fact that you insist it does.

I don't equate my pussy with my worth. But then I wouldn't call yours or string's cock repulsive or repugnant either because I realise that when I utter repugnant any where near a gay, bisexual, asian, black or mixed ethnicity man my words might get misconstrued and cause hurt or trouble. But then I gots some empathy for the struggles of others. Seems that some gay (hmm is that term an example of equating oneself with a sexual measure of worth) men don't have similar levels of empathy.

You get it? Yet?


Don't get me wrong: I well understand the impulse to want someone to go down on you. But what makes anyone actually want to go down?

You have no idea what impulses I have and whom I want to act on them. however I would expect lust, desire, passion, the need to replicate one's genes might have something to do with it. The same might be true of sucking cock.




I almost protested this, but in witnessing your explicit transference from an aspect of an individual to the whole character, well, on the one hand I think I get your point, while to the other I think you've argued against yourself. Quite obviously, discussing gays, blacks, women, atheists, Muslims, Christians, and so on, is perfectly permissible at Sciforums. Only those who can't imagine a discussion without overripe bigotry believe discussion of such subjects is somehow forbidden.

I don't think any discussion should be forbidden on sci. Not sure what you mean by 'over ripe bigotry'. There is either bigotry or there isn't. I'm not one for ignoring issues. I'm one for facing them.




Nobody has bitterly proposed that discussing women is forbidden at Sciforums. Come now, petulance isn't a good look on anyone. Well, unless of course that's what you're into.

What? I'm making the point that quite often on sci the only conversation about women is about rape, what a woman should or shouldn't say, what a woman should or shouldn't wear or have an opinion on. How a woman should or shouldn't behave. A woman certainly shouldn't criticise a gay man, it seems. Or be petulant (petulant ohh silly, silly girl). It's ok to be angry is it?




I would generally agree, only dissenting to add specifically that those who are discriminated against for the gender of their sex partner also have a stake in arguing about sex.

What about those who are discriminated against because of the non white colour of their skin or their 'asianness' or that of their sex partner? Oh brush that one under the carpet quickly......

There is no gay gene. I'll look around for the article, which I've posted here before (although it's been a couple years), but the leading theories right now involve multiple genes and hormone infusions in utero. Once those are pinned down a little better, we'll be able to start looking at how these outcomes respond to social conditioning. There is also a birth order statistic that isn't winning much favor but nonetheless operates around a curious coincidence that the later a male is in the birth order, the more likely he is to be homosexual. (It's entirely possible they're looking at the wrong aspect of the birth order statistic. I mean, it's the first time I ever heard of "anti-male antibodies", and I'm always dubious about newly-learned terms in those sorts of papers. I do, however, wonder about decalibration (wear and tear) of an oft-used uterus, and whether those later sons are subject to hormonal imbalances in utero that result in alternative responses from the genes in question.
*************
M*W: The "oft-used" uterus is an interesting theory. I believe, however, that hormonal infusions in utero play a role in gender specification. With oral contraceptives being put on the market some 40 years ago, I think this is the single largest culprit of fetal hormone imbalances. Then there is the bombardment of ultrasound into the fetal brain. Then post-natally, there are hormones and other toxins in our food supply.

The article you mentioned, is that the study done with twin males in California? I'm too lazy to look it up. I seem to recall that the study investigated identical twins where one was gay and the other one not. The hypothesis was that the size or shape of the hypothalamus was what determined homosexuality. I cannot remember exactly.

This subject requires further investigation, but the bottom-line is that homosexuality is not evil, it's not a sin, and there should be no social stigma. Like heart disease, cancer, diabetes or hammertoes, it needs to stay out of the pulpit.

i thought the romans were big into homosexuality? i thought it was common practice back then?
*************
M*W: Actually, you are correct. The empiric Romans married for socio-economic and political reasons, but they kept young boys around for their pleasure. It was a common practice not frowned on by the populace according to what I have read in Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors. I don't recall the author.

*************
M*W: Actually, you are correct. The empiric Romans married for socio-economic and political reasons, but they kept young boys around for their pleasure. It was a common practice not frowned on by the populace according to what I have read in Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors. I don't recall the author.

do you have any real sources for this?

Why is the book named in the post you quoted not considered to be "real source"?
Or maybe you're expecting a survivor from the sack of Rome to step forward and confirm or deny the assertion...

Or maybe you're expecting a survivor from the sack of Rome to step forward and confirm or deny the assertion...

Yes.

and descriptions arent evidence.

...it just proves that one can be sexually stimulated by anyone and anything as long as the thought of it doesn't plague them.

bingo!

mother fucking bingo.

and tiassa, i'm not responding to your last post because the poor horse is dead, but THIS quote sums up my point and perspective perfectly. imo, NO ONE...gay, straight, whatever the fuck...should be plagued by an inherent physical trait of another human being. period.

and ps...the smell of chiozo is NOT inherent, so drop that analogy. my pussy smells like a freshly baked pastry. heh.

Evolution is a fact. Weeding = natural selection

If one doesn't have any offspring then its the end of the line for the genes of that individual.

http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Religion is pitifully ignorant.

In the future there will most likely be gene treatments for homosexuality and it will be thought of as a disease.

and you call religion ignorant? listen, i'm not a big fan of religion but...

if said gene is passed by straight women, then the children of gay people aren't the subject matter. and, as i pointed out previously, plenty of gay people have children...:confused:

and descriptions arent evidence.
Correct.
What's that got to do with anything?
Or are you assuming that the named book simply describes, on the basis of no actual research/ evidence whatsoever?
It wouldn't be possible, for example, for the book to be based on written records that are still extant?

Actually, study shows that homosexuality is of benefit to a species, (obviously at a relatively small percentage which - in human terms equates to about 3%, although some try to claim 10%).

Studies have revolved around when a homosexual individual is born, (typically a later child), and why it has benefit. If, for instance, you've had three - dare I say -"normal" children and then give birth to a homosexual, he or she actually provides benefit to the aunt and her children. You'll have go to New Scientist to check it, I have no relevant links to hand.

P.S I've just read Tiassas post that makes mention of this. For relevant details I would suggest New Scientist.

As for Jesus being gay - I frankly have very little, sorry - no, reason to believe that such individual existed in the first place. I know some individuals would argue that a person - not named Jesus obviously but something like Yeshua existed and was a rabbi or something. If we go to that level, we're not talking about "Jesus" anymore to even really bother caring. When someone asks: "did Jesus exist", they mean something very specific when saying "Jesus". If on the other hand we accept the existence of Jesus and christian claims, (he's god), then we know he hates - sorry no, detests - homosexuality. Some would submit that it then makes it unlikely that he was homosexual.

Having said that... I can think of something else that the biblical god stated was disgraceful. Yes.. long hair on a man.

Yet this very same entity had long hair.

So hey, he probably was gay.


according to the styles of jewish men at the time, he probably didn't have long hair. that's just the european depiction. jesus wasn't european though. funny.

Being with a man is 100% unnatural for me and to try to go against what is natural, for me, is unhealthy. It's more than just body parts though, Lori and as much as I love ya... I'm not sure that you'll ever understand it because it seems that you are still hung up with what you feel is the "proper" way to have sex and how that should dictate who we should be with.

Being with a man is 100% unnatural for me and to try to go against what is natural, for me, is unhealthy. It's more than just body parts though, Lori and as much as I love ya... I'm not sure that you'll ever understand it because it seems that you are still hung up with what you feel is the "proper" way to have sex and how that should dictate who we should be with.

yes, i'm so proper. lol. but what you say is true. and i love you too. :)

its amazing how a book comes out about something secret from over 2000 years ago. personally i never believed all the hyped up stories not about any culture for that matter that was supposedly only know 'until recently'...

its amazing how a book comes out about something secret from over 2000 years ago. personally i never believed all the hyped up stories not about any culture for that matter that was supposedly only know 'until recently'...
No what's really amazing is that you can be so ignorant of history to think that it was a "secret" or that it's only just come to light.

Being with a man is 100% unnatural for me

so you are a lesbian?

Being with a man is 100% unnatural for me.

Hey, we have something in common.

Hey, we have something in common.

than you can both hook up. Less problems, both of you happy.

yes, i'm so proper. lol. but what you say is true. and i love you too. :)

hmm You proper? You're right, wtf was I saying? :p

so you are a lesbian?

I am

Hey, we have something in common.

Breathing...I bet we have that in common too. :)

and tiassa, i'm not responding to your last post because the poor horse is dead, but THIS quote sums up my point and perspective perfectly

And if it plagues them, they're a bigot.

Nice try, though.


imo, NO ONE...gay, straight, whatever the fuck...should be plagued by an inherent physical trait of another human being. period.

Lori, we're already aware that comfort and security—two basic psychological needs of human beings—are non-issues to you.


and ps...the smell of chiozo is NOT inherent, so drop that analogy. my pussy smells like a freshly baked pastry. heh.

Mmm. Yeasty.

Make you a deal, m'lady: Demonstrate that you have a clue what the chorizo bit was about and I'll consider it.

Actually, I won't. Because if you demonstrate you have a clue what it was about, that will pretty much put the issue to rest.

And if it plagues them, they're a bigot.

Nice try, though.

some people are plagued by black skin, and they wouldn't want to use the same drinking fountains or bathrooms as people with black skin would.

i'm plagued by people who have noses, so you know, i don't want to have sex with anyone who has a nose.




Lori, we're already aware that comfort and security—two basic psychological needs of human beings—are non-issues to you.

i know for a fact that a person's perceptions have a lot to do with their comfort and security levels.




Mmm. Yeasty.

:p


Make you a deal, m'lady: Demonstrate that you have a clue what the chorizo bit was about and I'll consider it.

Actually, I won't. Because if you demonstrate you have a clue what it was about, that will pretty much put the issue to rest.

you said that she ate chiozo for breakfast every morning so her pussy smelled like it. eating or smelling of chiozo isn't an inherent trait.

First off thanks Mister for telling me what my pussy is and what it isn't to me.

You're so very welcome.


You need to read that thread and my comments there and here again if you think it was just about gay men finding women 'repulsive' sexually; that it was just me (Lori has other issues don't lump me in with those) who had a problem with the word usage and that it was just about some of us missing the point. I certainly don't want to have peope hanged (as some would have me) but I do want to look a little more closely. So here goes attempt number umpty kazillion.

At least one man who identified himselve as gay in that thread said he found women, blacks, asians and dogs equally repulsive/repugnant. Now I find that sort of sentiment worrysome. Don't you? Not because I'm so stupid or at all homophobic or because I equate my pussy as my worth but because I find the sentiment expressed in the particular way it was worrying. You get it? Worrying. I do realise, and pretty much always have, that gay men don't want the pussy and I don't worrying about it.

Now try very, very hard to understand why some folks might find the words repulsive, repugnant in association with women, blacks and asians worrying.

Try the contextual analysis, madam. Watch where the reassignment takes place.

The original exchange (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97470) that started the whole thing was:


Crunchy Cat (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410267&postcount=4): Maybe you're bi? Go date a few girls. They even come with their own built-in lube.

MZ3Boy84: Nope, I'm definately gay. You know how I know? You just made me nausiated with that comment.

And the leap? Lori (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410304&postcount=5):


"what the fuck is so repulsive about girls?! i hate that shit. genderist! :mad:"

And it was Lori (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410949&postcount=57) who introduced race to the equation. MZ3's initial response (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411132&postcount=101) was that maybe some people just aren't attracted to black men. And who focused that point to skin color alone? Lori (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411138&postcount=104).

Now, I can't protect people from their own poor expression, especially given how many people there are who cannot be saved from their own poor perception; however, even I disdain MZ3's further statements on the issue. While you might be worried that he doesn't like women, blacks, Asians, or dogs, my concern was the comparison of human beings to pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden. I might be able to care less if black people don't get him up, but it's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

However, I can also understand why some people aren't attracted to certain ethnicities. And it's not just skin color. Among blacks, I find Nigerian features attractive; some find Nubian features hot. But there are some pug-ugly black lineages, just like there are frog-ugly white people. Among Asians, I'm not as big on Viet and Laotian aesthetics as I am Japanese, Chinese, or Korean. And it has to do with common bone structures of the face. Don't get me wrong; a friend of mine married a smokin' hot Laotian woman, but, truth told, I much preferred the aesthetics of her departure to her approach. She was a nice girl, and not what I would call stupid. But I still couldn't be him. I couldn't wake up next to her every day. And it's not even the bone structure, as I have less exacting standards for physical aesthetics. In this case, while the words she spoke were more than adequate, the pitch and resonance of her voice, combined with her specific accent (even compared to other Laotian-Americans) drove me nuts.

It's entirely possible that various factors associated with the lineage are the source of the turn-off. Is it skin color or bone structure? Does the texture of a person's hair feel weird?

And there are cultural factors, too. You know, when you're close to someone and share a bond of genuine trust, you can say all sorts of things to one another. And you know the phrase, "Say it with a smile"? I mean, most people do.

To use String as a theoretic example: his lack of attraction to black men is emotional. It could be something as simple as the tone of one's voice when the lover calls him a dirty little bitch. The problem there, of course, is that not all black people sound like gangsta thugs. Generally speaking, of course, there is also the problem of saying or implying never. However, in terms of Sciforums, I'm long unsettled by a strange but widespread phenomenon by which people retreat into insanely exacting standards in order to keep an argument alive. Hell, I just had a discussion in the religion forum where someone thought the "separation of church and state" was about specific churches like Episcopalian or Lutheran, despite the fact that the Constitution and the judicial history of the issue speak to religion generally, and not specific churches. My first thought, of course, was to wonder if he was just dicking around. The end result is that in order to satisfy every inquiry by one's opposition, one must write in a way that utterly stunts communication. Perhaps it would have behooved MZ3—or anyone else of similar mind—to raise the issue of aesthetics beyond mere skin color (oh, that's right, he did (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411308&postcount=171)), but the fact remains that it was Lori who reduced the issue as such.

You might suggest that I need to read the thread and your comments again, but I would suggest that you need to acquire a grasp of context.

For instance, it's becoming more and more clear to me how Lori blew the chorizo thing. Look at the exchange between Crunchy Cat and MZ3. And then look at Lori's entry and ask yourself at what point we went from vaginal lubrication nauseating someone to condemning the whole person based on genitalia.


Really? Got a citation? :D

It's buried in Freud somewhere. It'll take a while to dig up.


No shit sherlock?

Your point being?


So now you are eqauting female genetalia with dirt? Nice one.

As you're an honest person, Sniffy, I'm sure you can explain how you came to that one.


You know some people who are not deeply religious keep their genetalia clean without the need for a message from god....males and females.

Try again. That was almost funny.


Oh yeah I get it. Eleven year old boys. When I hear thirty something men expressing the same sentiments using the same sort of language I start to think.....

Well, at least something starts you thinking.


Where his money is?

See? Now that is funny. Admittedly in a "Be Sharp" fashion. But, still, it's a start.


I don't equate my pussy with my worth.

Then why are you taking up the argument?

Context, m'lady. Context.


But then I wouldn't call yours or string's cock repulsive or repugnant either because I realise that when I utter repugnant any where near a gay, bisexual, asian, black or mixed ethnicity man my words might get misconstrued and cause hurt or trouble.

Paranoia will destroy ya.


But then I gots some empathy for the struggles of others.

No, dear, you don't. At least not in this issue. Quit lying.


Seems that some gay (hmm is that term an example of equating oneself with a sexual measure of worth) men don't have similar levels of empathy.

I would ask you to demonstrate that assertion based on the relevant threads.


You get it? Yet?

Yep. Let me know when your return flight to reality arrives.


You have no idea what impulses I have and whom I want to act on them.

Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I'm damn sure you're smarter than that.


however I would expect lust, desire, passion, the need to replicate one's genes might have something to do with it.

Um ... Sniffy?

:facepalm:

Never mind.


I don't think any discussion should be forbidden on sci.

The laws of various countries would disagree with you.


Not sure what you mean by 'over ripe bigotry'. There is either bigotry or there isn't.

Well, sometimes it would be nice to encounter a new bigotry, or at least some innovation on classic bigotry. Otherwise it gets ... stale. Overripe. Moldy.


I'm not one for ignoring issues. I'm one for facing them.

And inventing them, it seems.


What? I'm making the point that quite often on sci the only conversation about women is about rape, what a woman should or shouldn't say, what a woman should or shouldn't wear or have an opinion on. How a woman should or shouldn't behave.

Yeah. It's kind of disturbing, isn't it?


A woman certainly shouldn't criticise a gay man, it seems.

Generally speaking, we prefer that people's criticisms be grounded in reality, not some moronic fantasy devised specifically to complain about.


Or be petulant (petulant ohh silly, silly girl).

I just don't think the rude, childish, pouting caprice helps your argument.


It's ok to be angry is it?

As far as I know. But, again, it's one of those things we prefer to reflect reality, and not some stupid construct designed specifically to foster pointless, dishonest complaint.


What about those who are discriminated against because of the non white colour of their skin or their 'asianness' or that of their sex partner? Oh brush that one under the carpet quickly......

Not at all. It's just that I find it rather a different issue.

But, as you suggested I review the discussion, I would reiterate the question arising from that review:


How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?

I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.


• • •



some people are plagued by black skin, and they wouldn't want to use the same drinking fountains or bathrooms as people with black skin would.

Are you seriously equating having sex with someone to using a public restroom?


i know for a fact that a person's perceptions have a lot to do with their comfort and security levels.

And?

Don't get me wrong here; it's a start. But where are you going with that?


you said that she ate chiozo for breakfast every morning so her pussy smelled like it. eating or smelling of chiozo isn't an inherent trait.

You're still missing the point.

So I'll try the same question with you as I asked Sniffy:


How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?

And yes, I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

No what's really amazing is that you can be so ignorant of history to think that it was a "secret" or that it's only just come to light.

when did it come to light? was it 1972?

You're so very welcome.



Try the contextual analysis, madam. Watch where the reassignment takes place.

The original exchange (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97470) that started the whole thing was:


Crunchy Cat (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410267&postcount=4): Maybe you're bi? Go date a few girls. They even come with their own built-in lube.

MZ3Boy84: Nope, I'm definately gay. You know how I know? You just made me nausiated with that comment.

And the leap? Lori (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410304&postcount=5):


"what the fuck is so repulsive about girls?! i hate that shit. genderist! :mad:"

And it was Lori (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2410949&postcount=57) who introduced race to the equation. MZ3's initial response (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411132&postcount=101) was that maybe some people just aren't attracted to black men. And who focused that point to skin color alone? Lori (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411138&postcount=104).

Now, I can't protect people from their own poor expression, especially given how many people there are who cannot be saved from their own poor perception; however, even I disdain MZ3's further statements on the issue. While you might be worried that he doesn't like women, blacks, Asians, or dogs, my concern was the comparison of human beings to pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden. I might be able to care less if black people don't get him up, but it's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

However, I can also understand why some people aren't attracted to certain ethnicities. And it's not just skin color. Among blacks, I find Nigerian features attractive; some find Nubian features hot. But there are some pug-ugly black lineages, just like there are frog-ugly white people. Among Asians, I'm not as big on Viet and Laotian aesthetics as I am Japanese, Chinese, or Korean. And it has to do with common bone structures of the face. Don't get me wrong; a friend of mine married a smokin' hot Laotian woman, but, truth told, I much preferred the aesthetics of her departure to her approach. She was a nice girl, and not what I would call stupid. But I still couldn't be him. I couldn't wake up next to her every day. And it's not even the bone structure, as I have less exacting standards for physical aesthetics. In this case, while the words she spoke were more than adequate, the pitch and resonance of her voice, combined with her specific accent (even compared to other Laotian-Americans) drove me nuts.

It's entirely possible that various factors associated with the lineage are the source of the turn-off. Is it skin color or bone structure? Does the texture of a person's hair feel weird?

And there are cultural factors, too. You know, when you're close to someone and share a bond of genuine trust, you can say all sorts of things to one another. And you know the phrase, "Say it with a smile"? I mean, most people do.

To use String as a theoretic example: his lack of attraction to black men is emotional. It could be something as simple as the tone of one's voice when the lover calls him a dirty little bitch. The problem there, of course, is that not all black people sound like gangsta thugs. Generally speaking, of course, there is also the problem of saying or implying never. However, in terms of Sciforums, I'm long unsettled by a strange but widespread phenomenon by which people retreat into insanely exacting standards in order to keep an argument alive. Hell, I just had a discussion in the religion forum where someone thought the "separation of church and state" was about specific churches like Episcopalian or Lutheran, despite the fact that the Constitution and the judicial history of the issue speak to religion generally, and not specific churches. My first thought, of course, was to wonder if he was just dicking around. The end result is that in order to satisfy every inquiry by one's opposition, one must write in a way that utterly stunts communication. Perhaps it would have behooved MZ3—or anyone else of similar mind—to raise the issue of aesthetics beyond mere skin color (oh, that's right, he did (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411308&postcount=171)), but the fact remains that it was Lori who reduced the issue as such.

You might suggest that I need to read the thread and your comments again, but I would suggest that you need to acquire a grasp of context.

For instance, it's becoming more and more clear to me how Lori blew the chorizo thing. Look at the exchange between Crunchy Cat and MZ3. And then look at Lori's entry and ask yourself at what point we went from vaginal lubrication nauseating someone to condemning the whole person based on genitalia.



It's buried in Freud somewhere. It'll take a while to dig up.



Your point being?



As you're an honest person, Sniffy, I'm sure you can explain how you came to that one.



Try again. That was almost funny.



Well, at least something starts you thinking.



See? Now that is funny. Admittedly in a "Be Sharp" fashion. But, still, it's a start.



Then why are you taking up the argument?

Context, m'lady. Context.



Paranoia will destroy ya.



No, dear, you don't. At least not in this issue. Quit lying.



I would ask you to demonstrate that assertion based on the relevant threads.



Yep. Let me know when your return flight to reality arrives.



Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I'm damn sure you're smarter than that.



Um ... Sniffy?

:facepalm:

Never mind.



The laws of various countries would disagree with you.



Well, sometimes it would be nice to encounter a new bigotry, or at least some innovation on classic bigotry. Otherwise it gets ... stale. Overripe. Moldy.



And inventing them, it seems.



Yeah. It's kind of disturbing, isn't it?



Generally speaking, we prefer that people's criticisms be grounded in reality, not some moronic fantasy devised specifically to complain about.



I just don't think the rude, childish, pouting caprice helps your argument.



As far as I know. But, again, it's one of those things we prefer to reflect reality, and not some stupid construct designed specifically to foster pointless, dishonest complaint.



Not at all. It's just that I find it rather a different issue.

But, as you suggested I review the discussion, I would reiterate the question arising from that review:


How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?

I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.


• • •



Are you seriously equating having sex with someone to using a public restroom?



And?

Don't get me wrong here; it's a start. But where are you going with that?



You're still missing the point.

So I'll try the same question with you as I asked Sniffy:


How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?

And yes, I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

:facepalm:

tiassa the sex guru. what about my weenie?

I don't know. Is it a kielbasa or a Li'l Smokie?

Are you seriously equating having sex with someone to using a public restroom?

i'm not equating it at all, but i think it's a pretty good analogy given what we're talking about here. genitalia and bodily fluids...it's relevant. it's an analogy for an inherent physical trait (ie race and/or gender) vs some form of intimacy and physical contact (ie sharing facilities in which bodily fluids might interchange or sex). those white people didn't think they were going to catch some disease or parasite from those black people, they just didn't want any form of intimacy with them because they were undesirables.




And?

Don't get me wrong here; it's a start. But where are you going with that?

sexual orientation is based on a perception. and a perception that is not based in truth.




You're still missing the point.

So I'll try the same question with you as I asked Sniffy:


How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?

And yes, I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

ok, i'm going to respond to your question with a question because you're talking out both sides of your mouth here...

do you think that it's sound and logical to choose a mate based on one inherent physical trait, or do you think that choice should be based upon something alot deeper than that?

because homosexuals and heterosexuals alike draw the line at one physical trait, barring anything and everything else. any other physical trait and they're all over the board. masculinity vs femininity and they're all over the board. personality, all over the board. responsibility, spirituality, honesty, integrity, or any form of character, they're all over the board. but they draw that line, and slap on a label when it comes to gender. why? because they have an irrational perception or a negative association with a certain sex's genitals? come on! you're the armchair psychologist. you tell me if that makes a lick of sense, because it doesn't to me.

I don't know. Is it a kielbasa or a Li'l Smokie?

at his age, it's probably a vienna sausage. heh, heh, heh.

j/k john. :D

tiassa the sex guru. what about my weenie?
*************
M*W: What about it?

Try the contextual analysis, madam. Watch where the reassignment takes place.

I read the thread.

The original exchange (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97470) that started the whole thing was:


And who focused that point to skin color alone?

And Kira and SAM and I..... we also expressed concern about the association of women black asians with dogs..... more than once.....





Now, I can't protect people from their own poor expression, especially given how many people there are who cannot be saved from their own poor perception; however, even I disdain MZ3's further statements on the issue. While you might be worried that he doesn't like women, blacks, Asians, or dogs, my concern was the comparison of human beings to pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden. I might be able to care less if black people don't get him up, but it's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

no but it does point to an issue of racism within the gay community and as this IS a discussion board maybe that is wortthy of discussion? Just because you don't lose sleep over it doesn't mean to say it isn't a 'real' issue. At the same time we might look at the 'double-whammy' faced by black and Asian people from some in their own conmmunities about their homosexuality and the relation if any that bears to religion. Or we could just throw ad homs around....


However, I can also understand why some people aren't attracted to certain ethnicities. And it's not just skin color. Among blacks, I find Nigerian features attractive; some find Nubian features hot.

There are plug ugly features and there are plug ugly people. The two aren't necessarily related if you know what I mean?



It's entirely possible that various factors associated with the lineage are the source of the turn-off. Is it skin color or bone structure? Does the texture of a person's hair feel weird?

Yeah or is it the centuries of soicio-cultural racism that we've been indoctrinated by? That is the question. It's a hard one to answer. But hey!


And there are cultural factors, too. You know, when you're close to someone and share a bond of genuine trust, you can say all sorts of things to one another. And you know the phrase, "Say it with a smile"? I mean, most people do.

Smiles: 'You're a plug ugly sexist racist.'

Does that help?


To use String as a theoretic example: his lack of attraction to black men is emotional. It could be something as simple as the tone of one's voice when the lover calls him a dirty little bitch. The problem there, of course, is that not all black people sound like gangsta thugs.

Very few of them do...


Generally speaking, of course, there is also the problem of saying or implying never. However, in terms of Sciforums, I'm long unsettled by a strange but widespread phenomenon by which people retreat into insanely exacting standards in order to keep an argument alive.

I think the implication was 'never'. As I've said I understand that gay people prefer same sex partnerships. I'm that intelligent. I have issues with the use of language in reference to those you don't sleep with. 'Repugnant', 'repulsive', 'sickened', that sort of thing well it smacks of something.....



The end result is that in order to satisfy every inquiry by one's opposition, one must write in a way that utterly stunts communication. Perhaps it would have behooved MZ3—or anyone else of similar mind—to raise the issue of aesthetics beyond mere skin color (oh, that's right, he did (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2411308&postcount=171)), but the fact remains that it was Lori who reduced the issue as such.

Issues.


You might suggest that I need to read the thread and your comments again, but I would suggest that you need to acquire a grasp of context.

I've grasped.


For instance, it's becoming more and more clear to me how Lori blew the chorizo thing. Look at the exchange between Crunchy Cat and MZ3. And then look at Lori's entry and ask yourself at what point we went from vaginal lubrication nauseating someone to condemning the whole person based on genitalia.

I'd say at the points words such as repugnant, repulsive and dogs are introduced.




It's buried in Freud somewhere. It'll take a while to dig up.

I dare say it's buried with Freud but men love to keep digging it up. Funny that!



As you're an honest person, Sniffy, I'm sure you can explain how you came to that one.

Mucky vaginas.....




Try again. That was almost funny.

:shrug:




Well, at least something starts you thinking.

Ho Ho Ho. Shame the same doesn't happen with some fellas when they 'grow up'.



See? Now that is funny. Admittedly in a "Be Sharp" fashion. But, still, it's a start.




Then why are you taking up the argument?

Because others do....and I'm countering.


Context, m'lady. Context.

Shall I start another thread? :rolleyes:




Paranoia will destroy ya.

Paranoid I ain't. Realistis I am. Don't bleat about the big, bad boys equating homosexuality with perversion and then use language or perversion to describe women, balcks and Asians. Is it that difficult fellas?

It starts with language....




No, dear, you don't. At least not in this issue. Quit lying.

I'm not lying. I don't like hypocrisy. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of it but I check myself for it regularly. If I have a personal issue with someone; it's personal and not related to their gender, sexual orientation or skin colour. People who are downright nasty in whatever way.... expect to get back what you sow or meet me half way.




I would ask you to demonstrate that assertion based on the relevant threads.

The one in question. And life. There are issues within the gay community about racism and sexism.




Yep. Let me know when your return flight to reality arrives.

I never leave reality. I don't mind pushing a few boundaries though.




Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I'm damn sure you're smarter than that.

WTF?




Um ... Sniffy?

What? Don't be afraid to spell it out.




Well, sometimes it would be nice to encounter a new bigotry, or at least some innovation on classic bigotry. Otherwise it gets ... stale. Overripe. Moldy.

Yeah well tell that to the bigots.



And inventing them, it seems.

WTF?




Yeah. It's kind of disturbing, isn't it?

Yeah and here you are joinging in!




Generally speaking, we prefer that people's criticisms be grounded in reality, not some moronic fantasy devised specifically to complain about.

Moronic fantasy? Devised to be complained about? Oh I get it you think because I have a little problem with string that I've jumped up this complaint? You have made an incorrect assertion.




I just don't think the rude, childish, pouting caprice helps your argument.

Demonstrate the rude, childish, pouting (nice sexist word added to the mix)....




As far as I know. But, again, it's one of those things we prefer to reflect reality, and not some stupid construct designed specifically to foster pointless, dishonest complaint.

Not a stupid construct and not designed to foster pointless, dishonest complaint. A genuine concern.






How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?

I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

I have given you my genuine answer.

And btw I wasn't the only one with the issue:


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97470&page=5


String, after reading the whole thread (oh noes, please return my precious 10 minutes >.<), I don't think Lori's problem is that gay men don't want to have sex with women, it is that gay men here find women to be repulsive/repugnant (post #13, post #24). It is as if women are sh!t or something like that. Just my two cents!

and here is the issue reiterated:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97470&page=6


It has to do with biology. I, for one, am not attracted to black men. That does not, in any way, mean that I am racist.

Ok... would you have sex with a horse? A dog? A gazelle? Or how bout this.... a midget? Or maybe someone 8 foot tall? Maybe someone who has no arms or legs. Or someone who stinks? No???? Why not? Because you don't find them sexually attractive.

Not very kindly towards disabled people either, eh? But hey like I said women, black people, Asian people, disabled people and dogs open season here at sci and don't ever complain about it. Unless of course you want to be labelled:

Insane, petulant, dishonest, childish and moronic. :rolleyes:

(Q),


in other words, Jan, Christians don't want their idol's character to be sullied in any way,...

That wasn't my point, but you're right people don't want their idol's character to be sullied in such a mallicious and derogatory way.


...despite the fact you or anybody else knew anything about him, if he even existed, of course.

Of course we know things about Jesus, in fact we know the most personal things about him.
This is true even if he is a fictional character.
But why would you consider that he may not have existed?


Your statement demonstrates only your gullibility, selfishness and patronage.

My statement did not extend to my personal belief system, as there was no need. Another example of pre-conceived ideas, and premature assumptions.

jan.

What difference would it make if jesus was homosexual ?

personally i have a bit of a feeling that he might have been bisexual and probably didnt explore that side because of social customs which resulted i the semi monastic type atmosphere that was created around him.
he was not shouted from the roof tops for being a husband and father either which in that day would have been quite uncommon.

they did not exactly have birth control did they.

my heart held honest belief of who or what jesus was/is is one or a combination of 2 things
1. a powerful psychic and prophetic speaker and religious preacher.
2. an alien seeking to make a mark in the social evolution of the human species away from blood lust.

ripleofdeath,


What difference would it make if jesus was homosexual ?

What difference it would make, is immaterial.
Why conclude he his homosexual?
Why not conclude he was celibate, as there is no mention of sexual relations.
It seem quite extreme, especially as he was jewish, by culteral default, often being refered to as 'rabbi'.


personally i have a bit of a feeling that he might have been bisexual and probably didnt explore that side because of social customs which resulted i the semi monastic type atmosphere that was created around him.

What makes you think he was sexually active at all?


my heart held honest belief of who or what jesus was/is is one or a combination of 2 things
1. a powerful psychic and prophetic speaker and religious preacher.
2. an alien seeking to make a mark in the social evolution of the human species away from blood lust.[/QUOTE]

Interesting.

jan.

esus was a Normal Homosexual Man

If you believe that then you probably think there's a good chance Christian men of the cloth are paedophiles. :D Oooops sorry...normal paedophiles!

Did Jesus ever blow Gabriel's trumpet?