Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 2:15 pm
(August 14, 2009 at 9:47 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Sexuality is not as simple as you make it to be. People can commit acts that don't define their sexuality depending on the situation.
How do you define it then?
I would have thought that if someone does sexual acts to both sexes then they are bisexual to some extent, unless they're asexual perhaps? I don't kno wmuch about asexuals.
How can you willingly commit a sexual act without being attracted to that sex to some extent, at least subconsciously? (Unless perhaps you're asexual or something like that?).
EvF
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Because arousal is not dependent on being attracted to someone. A man or woman who is gay and marries someone of the opposite sex because they're afraid of coming out are not suddenly bisexual because they were able to engage in sexual acts with the same sex and have children. We all understand that these people are able to perform the acts and are gay, not bisexual.
I think you're confusing the fact that people can commit a homosexual act and still be straight, or a heterosexual act and still be gay. The act doesn't determine sexuality, what a person is attracted to does. I'm attracted to men and women so I recognize I'm bisexual.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 3:02 pm
(August 14, 2009 at 2:09 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Fr0d0, as someone who's experienced bigotry first hand for being bisexual, I can tell you that the statements Anto made are clearly bigoted. When you deny what the scientific community says and say they are pandering to "raging queers" it's bigoted. There's no discussion that can happen after that point. His card hand has been shown.
I don't wanna drag this out really, but I saw him logically refute what was put before him. That isn't bigotry. If he'd made the above statement without qualification, then yeah, I'd agree. But he didn't.
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Fr0d0, then maybe you shouldn't drag it out. What he said was bigoted, as he clearly stated his argument was solely base don his opinion that homosexuals are "disruptive" and "maladaptive" without any scientific evidence or logical argument. I don't think you recognize how bigoted what he said was because you don't have to fight to for your right to be considered equal under the law, I do. I'm very aware of certain code words and arguments made against homosexuals that are steeped in bigotry. So please, drop the issue. His ban is over by now, he can come back anyway.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm
(August 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I think you're confusing the fact that people can commit a homosexual act and still be straight, or a heterosexual act and still be gay.
Well I couldn't without being so. What does that make me?
I can't willingly become arroused by anyone without being attracted to them.
I personally would only be able to have sex with the same sex as myself if I were gay or Bi.
How can you willingly pretend to be a sexuality that you're not? How can you physically willingly do sexual acts without being attracted... at all?
Unless as I said - they're asexual or something like that.
EvF
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm
(August 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: (August 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I think you're confusing the fact that people can commit a homosexual act and still be straight, or a heterosexual act and still be gay.
Well I couldn't without being so. What does that make me?
I can't willingly become arroused by anyone without being attracted to them.
I personally would only be able to have sex with the same sex as myself if I were gay or Bi.
How can you willingly pretend to be a sexuality that you're not? How can you physically willingly do sexual acts without being attracted...at all?
Unless as I said - they're asexual or something like that.
EvF
You do realize that just because you can't imagine it's true, does not mean it can't be possible. EvF you're committing a logical fallacy here.
The fact remains that gay men have married and had children. Historically they have married women to keep the status quo. This is a fact, so your inability to imagine it doesn't mean it can't be true.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 3:45 pm
(August 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: You do realize that just because you can't imagine it's true, does not mean it can't be possible. EvF you're committing a logical fallacy here.
No, because I'm not claiming that it's the case just because I can't imagine it. No such implication was intended. I'm well aware of the fallacy of The Argument from Personal Incredulity. I just say that I can't imagine it yes - And what I'm trying to understand is how it can be different for others.
Quote:The fact remains that gay men have married and had children. Historically they have married women to keep the status quo.
How do you know they're gay if they're marrying and having children? That's what I'm wondering.
I can see how they could easily be frustrated because they prefer men. But I can't imagine how they could have sex with the opposite sex willingly, without having any feelings for them. Because this isn't all nuts and bolts (Unless they're asexual or something as I said, which I think means - not having any sexual feelings whatsoever?).
I can't imagine it - so I want to understand how it can be otherwise. I'm not claiming that I'm right because I can't imagine it. That would, indeed, be a fallacy (and a very pathetic one at that).
Quote:This is a fact, so your inability to imagine it doesn't mean it can't be true.
Indeed and I didn't claim that. And no such implication was intended as you seem to think it was.
EvF
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm
(August 14, 2009 at 12:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To quote the Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
"Bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" Let's see if the bolding made it any clearer.
...
No?
Anto Wrote:[Homosexuality] is a social maladaption and developmental disorder. ^ Hateful + Intolerant
Anto Wrote:...the social effect of homosexuality is destructive. ^ Hateful + Intolerant
Anto Wrote:not pander to a bunch of raging queers. ^ Oooh! Ooooh! I know!!! Hateful + Intolerant.
You honestly think someone could walk into a discussion about homosexuality in real life, fire off those kind of remarks (without proof or reasoning), and expect others to say "Hey yeah, that's a good point of view, let's talk!". He's a bigot.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 4:36 pm
You understand he was extremely agitated due to, what he says was racial abuse right? My point stands his logical points were not countered. He was driven to a point beyond reason (with those statements above), he didn't initiate it.
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Homosexuality
August 14, 2009 at 4:42 pm
(This post was last modified: August 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm by Eilonnwy.)
(August 14, 2009 at 4:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You understand he was extremely agitated due to, what he says was racial abuse right? My point stands his logical points were not countered. He was driven to a point beyond reason (with those statements above), he didn't initiate it.
He did not have any logical points Fr0d0, but even if I agreed with you and he did...it doesn't matter. His comments that Adrian pointed out where the reason for his banning plus those in the other thread. Bigotry like that will not be tolerated whether he had a point to make before it or not. Now, it's over and done with. Drop it.
(August 14, 2009 at 3:45 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: (August 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: You do realize that just because you can't imagine it's true, does not mean it can't be possible. EvF you're committing a logical fallacy here.
No, because I'm not claiming that it's the case just because I can't imagine it. No such implication was intended. I'm well aware of the fallacy of The Argument from Personal Incredulity. I just say that I can't imagine it yes - And what I'm trying to understand is how it can be different for others.
Quote:The fact remains that gay men have married and had children. Historically they have married women to keep the status quo.
How do you know they're gay if they're marrying and having children? That's what I'm wondering.
I can see how they could easily be frustrated because they prefer men. But I can't imagine how they could have sex with the opposite sex willingly, without having any feelings for them. Because this isn't all nuts and bolts (Unless they're asexual or something as I said, which I think means - not having any sexual feelings whatsoever?).
I can't imagine it - so I want to understand how it can be otherwise. I'm not claiming that I'm right because I can't imagine it. That would, indeed, be a fallacy (and a very pathetic one at that).
Quote:This is a fact, so your inability to imagine it doesn't mean it can't be true.
Indeed and I didn't claim that. And no such implication was intended as you seem to think it was.
EvF
Because you can be aroused with the right stimulus even if you're not attracted to that person.
And how do I know Gay men have been married? Because guys come out all the time.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/lovesexadvic...arried.htm
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gaysexadvice...tation.htm
|
odcast:: 
