Brokeback Propaganda

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You must compare apples to apples-In this case "culture to culture.[/quote]

Oh please. You’re now claiming that straight men in greek and roman culture were able to have sex with each other, but straight men in contemporary U.S. culture somehow magically are not?

Could you be any more ridiculous? The fact is that straight men have had sex with other men throughout the ages. And even by your own admission, it still happens in situations like prisons.

Are you actually wanting people to believe that it is physically impossible for straight men to have sex with one another??

It’s pretty obvious why many gay men have had sex with women. We are raised in cultures and religions that tell us it is wrong to be gay. The only option presented to us is a heterosexual model.

Thankfully, that is slowly changing. I think you will find that the number of gay men having sex with women will commensurately decrease as society recognizes equal rights for gays.

Much as you might wish otherwise, we aren’t going away.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hmm… if gays are “born that way” how can they physically be able to have sex with someone of the opposite sex?

I gave you numerous examples of societies where the majority of men had sex with other men (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, parts of Melanesia, Renaissance Italy, pre-modern Japan, etc.). OBVIOUSLY, it is possible for straight men to have sex with one another.

You gave me nothing relative to proof that heterosexual men have a sexual attraction for other men.

You must compare apples to apples-In this case "culture to culture.

Where does it say that “the majority of men have had sex with other men?” It does not say that. As it did not happen!

And it surely does not say that about Americans living in the 21st century.

Keep trying, to rationalize why the majority of “homosexuals” have had sex with women. But make sure you avoid the real reason: They are aroused by women as well as men! And this shoots the “born that way” theory all to heck.

What other explaination is there that 87% of all men who call themselves “gay” have had sex with a woman.

And if you think that 87% of all heterosexual men have had sex with another man you might be sicker than I originally thought.

Go back to therapy…try again!

[/quote]

They were in college experimenting!

Sorry I just had to!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Besides, who is suffering from more disease and dying at a more rapid rate (percentage wise) than any other group in America?

That would be homosexuals, not “straights.”[/quote]

If you really cared (rather than pursuing a religious agenda), you would be focusing on helping the largest number of people. Clearly, there are far more heterosexuals suffering from STDs than homosexuals, due to the fact that there are far more heterosexuals. Why not get the biggest bang for your buck by helping them out?

That’s because you’re uneducated on the subject. If it were simply a matter of “preference”, every major medical and mental health organization would not conclude that trying to change one’s orientation is not only generally impossible, but it is damaging.

Or did you forget about all those quotes from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organizations, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Social Workers, the Surgeon General, etc?

I can provide them again if you like. I’m still waiting for an answer on why you believe their scientific conclusions on sexual orientation are flawed. Because clearly you know more about the subject than they do.

I have a challenge for those of you that like to think of being gay as merely a sexual preference, with no genetic influence. Read the following report with a truly open mind. Set aside religious beliefs for 5 minutes, and just read this.

It discusses a new study published in this month’s issue of Human Genetics:

[quote]TUESDAY, Feb. 21 (HealthDay News) – New research adds a twist to the debate on the origins of sexual orientation, suggesting that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women.

Scientists found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other.

The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The link between genetics and sexual orientation has been a hot topic for more than a decade as a few scientists have tried to find genes that might make people gay or straight. In the new study, Bocklandt and colleagues examined a phenomenon called “X-chromosome inactivation.”

While females have two X chromosomes, they actually require only one and routinely inactivate the other, Bocklandt said. “That way, both men and women have basically one functional X chromosome,” he added. Men have both an X and Y chromosome, but the Y chromosome plays a much smaller role, he said.

Women typically inactivate one of their two X chromosomes at random. “It’s like flipping a coin,” Bocklandt said. “If you look at a woman in any given (bodily) tissue, you’d expect about half of the cells to inactivate one X, and half would inactivate the other.”

In the new study, researchers looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. The findings appear in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics.

“When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”

Forty-four of the women had more than one gay son.

In contrast, 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons activated the chromosome and 13 percent of those with just one gay son did.

The phenomenon of being more likely to inactivate one X chromosome – known as “extreme skewing” – is typically seen only in families that have major genetic irregularities, Bocklandt said.

What does this all mean? The researchers aren’t sure, but Bocklandt thinks he and his colleagues are moving closer to understanding the origins of sexual orientation.

“What’s really remarkable and very novel about this is that you see something in the bodies of women that is linked to a behavioral trait in their sons,” he said. “That’s new, that’s unheard of.”

Still, there are caveats. Dr. Ionel Sandovici, a genetics researcher at The Babraham Institute in Cambridge, England, pointed out that most of the mothers of multiple gay sons didn’t share the unusual X-chromosome trait. And the study itself is small, which means more research will need to be done to confirm its findings, Sandovici said.

Ultimately, Sandovici added, the origins of sexual orientation remain “rather a complicated biological puzzle.”

And this line of research does have its critics. Some have worried that, in the future, manipulation of a “gay gene” or genes might be used as a method of preventing homosexuality in utero, or perhaps even after. But Bocklandt said these kinds of fears shouldn’t stand in the way of legitimate scientific research.

“We’re trying to understand one of the most critical human traits: the ability to love and be attracted to others. Without sexual reproduction we would not exist, and sexual selection played an essential role in evolution,” he said. “Yet, we have no idea how it works, and that’s what we’re trying to find out. As with any research, the knowledge you acquire could be used for benefit or harm. But if [scientists] would have avoided research because we were afraid of what we were going to find, then we would still be living in the stone age.”[/quote]

STOP THE PRESS EVERYONE! I THINK WE HAVE A VICTORY ON THE HOME FRONT

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Why do you believe that gay men cannot have sex with women, and that straight men cannot have sex with other men?[/quote]

(You see friends “forlife” is badly confused. Reread that last statement of his. He wants all of us straight males to believe that we are the odd ones because we have never had, and don’t want to have sex with other males! Keep reading it not only gets better forlife actually gives up the fight!)

The overwhelming majority of staright men recoil at the thought of this act!

And if homosexuals actually have sex with women then that would make them “bisexual.”

Isn’t that what they call men who go either way: Bisexual.

Is forlife suggesting that all men who call themselves “homosexual” are in reality “bisexual?”

Very Interesting…but it gets better.

[quote]Your basic assumption is flawed. Clearly, it is possible for straight men to have sex with one another. It is also possible for gay men to have sex with women. Is it so shocking that gay men would similarly prefer to have sex with men?.
[/quote]

Please reread what “forlife” wrote above. My “assumption, that straight men don’t have sex with other men” is somehow flawed. That is actually funny. Think about it, wouildn’t those men be called “bisexual?” Keep reading…

The important point comes with his very next two sentences. He says that it’s “possible for “gay men” to have sex with women.” Again, wouldn’t that mean that they are actually "bisexual? And if that’s the case there is no “homosexuality” as we know it…

And finally the BIG CONFESSION it seems that he agrees with me…finally: "

Oh my forlife…you said PREFER

As in I am able to drinnk scotch and wine, but I prefer wine over scotch.

What happened to the homosexual cry of "I can’t have sex with women, I’m only attracted to men?

Gone by the wayside in a flurry of posts is the big lie of the politically correct: “gays are born that way. And they can only have sex with someone of the same gender.”

You are saying that women arouse you. And you are saying that women arouse the other 87% of “gay” men.

THIS CASE IS CLOSED!

There is a choice involved by those calling themselves homosexuals!

And since that is the case you have just [b/blown a big wide hole in the “born that way” theory. And you have helped me take this debate to a whole other level regarding homosexuality.

You are in essence stating that there is no pure homosexuality. And that what is really going on is that men who have sex with men can also have sex with women but like men better! Which means that it is indeed a choice!

And I might add, more of a conscious choice than I originally suspected!

They can have it either way (which is not known to the general public) but “prefer” another man instead!

I want to thank you for that little confession of yours. This thread has been very fruitful indeed.

Your confession above might just cause someone to think twice before walking down the same painful path that you have apparently CHOSEN!

(Spikes the ball and walks off the field.)

:slight_smile:

Zeb,

Your absolutely right, and everytime a man donates semen he finds the cup sexually attractive as well.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
These are government statistics. They are attempting to gather accurate information with no agenda.

So you accept the CDC, a GOVERNMENT organization as being non-political.

Since the facts have been pretty steady through democrat and republican administrations alike…yea I think they are very reliable.

The Post Office is a government institution as well. That does not mean that they change the way they do things based upon who is President.

I think you’re a bit naive there.

You then dismiss the American Psychiatric Association, as worthless because they all have a political agenda?

No, they are not “worthless.” they are just “owned.”

What I said was that the APA was hijacked by the politically correct in 1973.

Would you like to read about that?
[/quote]

It would be interesting to find out if the occurrence of depression in gays was higher or lower since the APA took out being gay as a mental disorder? I mean, before that decision you had the option of accepting you were gay and doing nothing, or believing you had an illness and seeking treatment. All gays have now is the option to accept it as it is difficult to find treatment for something no longer technically considered a disorder.

So I wonder if the shrinking options for gays to deal with their own feelings has caused more or less depression?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
STOP THE PRESS EVERYONE! I THINK WE HAVE A VICTORY ON THE HOME FRONT

forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Why do you believe that gay men cannot have sex with women, and that straight men cannot have sex with other men?

(You see friends “forlife” is badly confused. Reread that last statement of his. He wants all of us straight males to believe that we are the odd ones because we have never had, and don’t want to have sex with other males! Keep reading it not only gets better forlife actually gives up the fight!)

The overwhelming majority of staright men recoil at the thought of this act!

And if homosexuals actually have sex with women then that would make them “bisexual.”

Isn’t that what they call men who go either way: Bisexual.

Is forlife suggesting that all men who call themselves “homosexual” are in reality “bisexual?”

Very Interesting…but it gets better.

Your basic assumption is flawed. Clearly, it is possible for straight men to have sex with one another. It is also possible for gay men to have sex with women. Is it so shocking that gay men would similarly prefer to have sex with men?.

Please reread what “forlife” wrote above. My “assumption, that straight men don’t have sex with other men” is somehow flawed. That is actually funny. Think about it, wouildn’t those men be called “bisexual?” Keep reading…

The important point comes with his very next two sentences. He says that it’s “possible for “gay men” to have sex with women.” Again, wouldn’t that mean that they are actually "bisexual? And if that’s the case there is no “homosexuality” as we know it…

And finally the BIG CONFESSION it seems that he agrees with me…finally: "

Oh my forlife…you said PREFER

As in I am able to drinnk scotch and wine, but I prefer wine over scotch.

What happened to the homosexual cry of "I can’t have sex with women, I’m only attracted to men?

Gone by the wayside in a flurry of posts is the big lie of the politically correct: “gays are born that way. And they can only have sex with someone of the same gender.”

You are saying that women arouse you. And you are saying that women arouse the other 87% of “gay” men.

THIS CASE IS CLOSED!

There is a choice involved by those calling themselves homosexuals!

And since that is the case you have just [b/blown a big wide hole in the “born that way” theory. And you have helped me take this debate to a whole other level regarding homosexuality.

You are in essence stating that there is no pure homosexuality. And that what is really going on is that men who have sex with men can also have sex with women but like men better! Which means that it is indeed a choice!

And I might add, more of a conscious choice than I originally suspected!

They can have it either way (which is not known to the general public) but “prefer” another man instead!

I want to thank you for that little confession of yours. This thread has been very fruitful indeed.

Your confession above might just cause someone to think twice before walking down the same painful path that you have apparently CHOSEN!

(Spikes the ball and walks off the field.)

:)[/quote]

Completely true! It is obvious that forlife has been trying to advance his own agenda. He doens’t care about truth.

Zeb wrote:

I am simply countering the incredible amount of propaganda that has been spread by the politically correct regarding homosexuality. Those who have a same sex attraction can indeed try to get therapy. It has worked for thousands of those who had same sex attraction.

And because one therapy fails does not mean that others will not succeed.

Waterskiin wrote:

The fact that you take no heed from forlife’s message that these therapies that you speak of cause more damage than good. He has listed the associations that all agree. You have never conceded to this. The facts are stacked against you in this matter. You prefer to harm these people further than to help them with acceptance to a society which currently denies thier right to equality and existance.

Your response to the CDC article I posted is still awaited. I realize this is the same group in which you put full belief, so please let me know if that is propaganda as well. I realize it contradicts your message, so please spin it your way.

Waterskiin

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
ZEB wrote:
STOP THE PRESS EVERYONE! I THINK WE HAVE A VICTORY ON THE HOME FRONT

forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Why do you believe that gay men cannot have sex with women, and that straight men cannot have sex with other men?

(You see friends “forlife” is badly confused. Reread that last statement of his. He wants all of us straight males to believe that we are the odd ones because we have never had, and don’t want to have sex with other males! Keep reading it not only gets better forlife actually gives up the fight!)

The overwhelming majority of staright men recoil at the thought of this act!

And if homosexuals actually have sex with women then that would make them “bisexual.”

Isn’t that what they call men who go either way: Bisexual.

Is forlife suggesting that all men who call themselves “homosexual” are in reality “bisexual?”

Very Interesting…but it gets better.

Your basic assumption is flawed. Clearly, it is possible for straight men to have sex with one another. It is also possible for gay men to have sex with women. Is it so shocking that gay men would similarly prefer to have sex with men?.

Please reread what “forlife” wrote above. My “assumption, that straight men don’t have sex with other men” is somehow flawed. That is actually funny. Think about it, wouildn’t those men be called “bisexual?” Keep reading…

The important point comes with his very next two sentences. He says that it’s “possible for “gay men” to have sex with women.” Again, wouldn’t that mean that they are actually "bisexual? And if that’s the case there is no “homosexuality” as we know it…

And finally the BIG CONFESSION it seems that he agrees with me…finally: "

Oh my forlife…you said PREFER

As in I am able to drinnk scotch and wine, but I prefer wine over scotch.

What happened to the homosexual cry of "I can’t have sex with women, I’m only attracted to men?

Gone by the wayside in a flurry of posts is the big lie of the politically correct: “gays are born that way. And they can only have sex with someone of the same gender.”

You are saying that women arouse you. And you are saying that women arouse the other 87% of “gay” men.

THIS CASE IS CLOSED!

There is a choice involved by those calling themselves homosexuals!

And since that is the case you have just [b/blown a big wide hole in the “born that way” theory. And you have helped me take this debate to a whole other level regarding homosexuality.

You are in essence stating that there is no pure homosexuality. And that what is really going on is that men who have sex with men can also have sex with women but like men better! Which means that it is indeed a choice!

And I might add, more of a conscious choice than I originally suspected!

They can have it either way (which is not known to the general public) but “prefer” another man instead!

I want to thank you for that little confession of yours. This thread has been very fruitful indeed.

Your confession above might just cause someone to think twice before walking down the same painful path that you have apparently CHOSEN!

(Spikes the ball and walks off the field.)

:slight_smile:

Completely true! It is obvious that forlife has been trying to advance his own agenda. He doens’t care about truth.[/quote]

What about the 13% that have never had sex with a woman. Are they just to be marginalized as a loss to society?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
He wants all of us straight males to believe that we are the odd ones because we have never had, and don’t want to have sex with other males![/quote]

Looks like you’re as adept at misquoting me as you are at misquoting scientific studies. I never said it was odd for straight men to have sex with women.

What I said was that it is not PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for straight men to have sex with one another, according to your ridiculous claim. Straight men CAN, and sometimes DO have sex with one another under various circumstances (just as gay men CAN, and sometimes DO have sex with women under various circumstances).

No. Bisexuality refers to the orientation, not the act. If two straight prisoners get horny and have sex, that doesn’t magically turn them into bisexuals. They are still straight, and given the choice they would go with a woman instead. And they would enjoy it a hell of a lot more. But that doesn’t make it impossible for them to have sex with one another. A bisexual would be just as happy with a woman as with a man.

Again, bisexuality refers to the orientation where people are equally fulfilled with either gender. Homosexuals are more fulfilled with people of their own gender, while heterosexuals are more fulfilled with people of the opposite gender. They are defined by what fulfills them, not by who they have sex with.

I think most gay men would tell you that they probably could have sex with women, but it would not feel right to them and would lack the same intimacy and meaning that they experience with another man. Just like straight men probably could have sex with other men, but the experience would lack the same intimacy and meaning they would feel with a woman.

I never said anything of the sort. My wife is the only woman I’ve ever had sex with, and even then the experience was nothing compared to what I have felt with men.

You know the automatic processing that occurs when an attractive man and woman step into the room? Your eyes involuntarily go to one or the other person. The chemistry naturally exists for one or the other gender, depending on your orientation. In my case, my eyes naturally go to the man.

The sexual act is a choice. Straight men could also choose to have sex with other men (and sometimes do). But you can’t choose your orientation. The act is going to have very different meaning, depending on whether or not it is consistent with your orientation. You can’t force the experience to have the same level of intimacy and depth simply by wanting it to be that way. It is an organic attraction that you have no control over.

For example, here’s a study that was published last year in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

[quote]A team from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm used positron emission tomography scanning to examine the brain?s response to two hormone derivatives, AND and EST, which have been proposed as human pheromones ? powerful scents known to convey sexual signals in many species but which have an uncertain role in human beings.

The scans showed a different pattern of activity in response in heterosexual and homosexual men, particularly in a brain region known as the hypothalamus that is involved in sexual arousal. The brain activity of gay men turned out to be much more similar to that of straight women, suggesting that sexual orientation rather than gender was the determinant.[/quote]

Hardly a conscious choice, as you claim.

Alright, time for another string of replies:

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

Wow - I’ll try to backtrack and read all these neat posts when I have time, but it seems like we’ve traveled this ground before. The result was as follows:

The opponents of the gay lifestyle strung together effective arguments that showed how destructive and dangerous gay activity is. They won the debate.

The liberals and homosexuals got emotional, angry, verbally profane. They were unable to prove their point, and their frustration was evident. They lost the debate.[/quote]

Thanks for the entirely objective and unbiased analysis. Why don’t you quote one of these effective arguments against ‘gay activity’?

-Glee

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Furthermore, he joined a debate regarding homosexuality knowing that there were strong opinions on both sides. He then let spill the details of his life. Did he want us all to post how brave and heroic he was for doing the wrong thing?[/quote]

I don’t think anyone has congratulated him for blindly following religious dogma for so long. At least he eventually realised the error of his ways. For that, I do congratulate him.

-Glee

[quote]ZEB wrote:

If you had a brother who had two kids but was cheating on his wife with the cocktail waitress down the street would you not at least try to correct that behavior?[/quote]

If he really loved cocktail waitreses, I would encourage him to marry a cocktail waitress instead of shovelling him blindly into a mundane white-bread existence because some invisible superhero in outer space said so.

-Glee

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

When you say that it is not for us to judge, you are wrong. The Bible tells us to judge righteous judgement.[/quote]

What about self-righteous judgement?

-Glee

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Where is the indisputable objective evidence that you would not have been happier with your wife and children than what you are currently participating in?[/quote]

Don’t look now, but I think he is the proof.

-Glee

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The fact that homosexuals have a shortened life span,[/quote]

No causal link. Invalid argument.

You might want to consult ALL OF AFRICA on that one.

bis

Redundant. Invalid argument.

Since you consider this a bad thing, you’re obviously pro-gay-marriage. Fortunately, marriage can also positively influence anxiety, depression and suicide rates. Why Zeb, I didn’t know you were so open-minded :wink:

No causal link. Invalid argument.

No causal link. Invalid argument.

-Glee

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
skor wrote:

You should realize that the only way you can claim that there is a scientific evidence that gayness is “bad” (even given that the “facts” presented by you are true) is if you control for factors other than gayness. For example, let’s allow gay marriage, introduce very strong anti-discriminatory policies and give it some time. If in a generation time the happiness of gays did not increase, you might claim that their lifestyle is destructive. Not before that.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

It is not possible for us to control all the factors that go into all the different people in a population.[/quote]

So basically, what you’re saying is that existing studies aren’t detailed enough to draw definitive conclusions on homosexuality. That’s fair.

There are a lot of "if"s up there. What about the discrimination and bigotry faced by homosexuals? And what about the lower incidences of disease and depression and general ‘maladjustment’ that exists in societies where homosexuals don’t face as much discrimination?

Large sample sizes only increase the accuracy of the results. What they don’t do is rectify problems in the premise of the study. And they DEFINITELY don’t account for biased conclusions based on said studies.

We can find plenty of gay couples willing to undergo marriage. If you can find a few cancer sufferers willing to undergo untreated cancer, we have a deal.

-Glee

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

Again, I have not said homosexuality is a mental illness. I have just said that gay sex is destructive.[/quote]

What makes ‘gay sex’ destructive?

-Glee

[quote]forlife wrote:
More specifically, aggressive anal sex can be dangerous.

ZEB wrote:
Um, wrong answer!

Anal sex can be dangerous. PERIOD

And I should have known that you wanted to read this again so here you go:

(blah blah blah TLDR -ed)

The best prevention is “don’t go there”."[/quote]

That applies to all sexual activity. I fail to see what this has to do specifically with gay marriage – unless you’re trying to promote it.

-Glee