[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What if Jesus was gay…the guy was thirty three and never got any?
I woulda been turnin water into wine all over the place, and getting broads like crazy[/quote]
Read The DaVinci Code. Some believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Contrary to their “orientation?” Then you are basically stating that homosexuals are in fact “oriented” to have sex with women (as well as men) since 87% of them do!
[/quote]
No, I’m saying that people can choose to have sex contrary to their orientation, due to strong religious or cultural influences. The act is a choice. The orientation is not.
Zeb, it is possible that you missed my question because you were making another post at the time. Here it is again:
[quote]You have claimed that one of the organizations I’ve cited in the past (the American Psychological Association) is “politically correct”, and thus their conclusions are worthless.
Are you making a similar claim against every other major medical and mental health organization? Do you truly believe that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, etc. are all so politically biased that their research and conclusions on homosexuality are invalid?
[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The typical heterosexual male “cannot” have sex with another male.
Where is your proof?
[/quote]
Oh forlife, I’m not going to fall for that one…
“Heterosexual” males don’t generally have sex with another male. Therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that this is not the case.
I take it you can’t do that.
And since you can’t do that stop saying that it happens so that you can rationalize why homosxual men seem to have a great deal of sex (87% have) with women.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Contrary to their “orientation?” Then you are basically stating that homosexuals are in fact “oriented” to have sex with women (as well as men) since 87% of them do!
No, I’m saying that people can choose to have sex contrary to their orientation, due to strong religious or cultural influences. The act is a choice. The orientation is not.[/quote]
The “act” is a choice. And you cannot have the act unless you are aroused. Are telling me that you can have sex with a lamp shade?
You were aroused by a woman! Just as 87% of all homosexual were!
Now…it’s time to cut the crap!
[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Now that we have that out of the way, I’m still waiting for any logical arguments that back up the religious dogma in this thread.
-Glee
Headhunter wrote:
A logical argument cannot back up a religious argument. Logic and faith are 2 different things.
[/quote]
EXACTLY!
Even though we may be on different sides of the discussion, I appreciate your unfettered honesty.
Now, I hope it’s clear to everyone in this thread that religious beliefs are no basis for secular legislation, or any other construct based (ostensibly) on logical reasoning.
-Glee
[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Tell you what: I’ll worry about who I talk to. You just worry about trying to make sense of your cognitive dissonance.
Oh, and act like a man.
-Glee
ZEB wrote:
Glee-
That might be what terribleivan is talking about.
The politically correct, seem to think they have carte blanche to attack anyone personally who does not follow their line of thought.[/quote]
I’m not attacking you. I’m just telling you that you should act like a man. If you think that your latest childish rants about “having forlife on the run” while ignoring the latest legitimate challenges to your logic constitute acting like a man, there’s another debate we need to have.
And not only am I partially joking, but you’re joking with me (re: the quip about talking to the wrong guy). Now, either you want to joke with me or you don’t. Make up your mind and get back to me.
You’ve been quite forthcoming and provided sources for your views, yes. But you’ve made a personal attack or two. And when your sources were challenged (the climing rate of HIV-positive heterosexuals in the world for example, or the fact that more straight than gay people have anal sex), you have dug in your heels and begun to rant instead of continuing in a logical vein.
[quote]And you enter the thread with what?
“Act like a man?”
Come on…[/quote]
Actually, I entered the thread by pointing out to stellar_horizon that he probably shouldn’t talk on behalf of black people:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=909774&pageNo=25#932752
-Glee
[quote]ZEB wrote:
“Heterosexual” males don’t generally have sex with another male. Therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that this is not the case.[/quote]
You’re confusing “cannot” with “have not” again.
You stated that straight men “cannot” have sex with other men. Unless you can back up your claim with evidence, it means nothing.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The “act” is a choice. And you cannot have the act unless you are aroused. Are telling me that you can have sex with a lamp shade?[/quote]
Yeah, I probably could. People have had sex with watermelons too. Does that mean they have a watermelon orientation?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Then you can choose to not stick your zimmy in a non-sexual organ like the rectum.
If I made such a choice, would you still be opposed to homosexuality? What do you think about lesbians?
[/quote]
Bro, we have talked about this before. I’m opposed to acting on homosexual impulses, not having those impulses. So if you made that choice I would support that choice. It is not the thoughts that cause the problems, it’s acting on them. (“Homosexual” includes lesbians).
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Don’t forget evolutionary science. According to a survival of the fittest model, being gay is a defect that is non-functional to carry on the species.
If that were the case, why would homosexuality still exist? It would have died out long ago. Homosexuality may actually be beneficial from an evolutionary perspective:
Homosexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom, especially in species closer to humans on the evolutionary scale, such as the great apes. Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexuality, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males.
For a representative discussion of homosexuality as an evolutionary trait in humans:
Evolutionary theory proposes that adaptive traits are reproduced more successfully than maladaptive traits. Accordingly, natural selection should favour heterosexuality as it facilitates reproduction and the propagation of genes. However, the question becomes, what has maintained homosexuality in a small but consistent percentage of the human population? Research into the evolutionary and hormonal factors associated with a homosexual orientation have yielded provocative but inconsistent results. It also suggests that human sexual orientation, and in particular homosexual orientation, is too complex to be described by one simple model or a single research discipline. The current paper treads a new path and emphasises an integrative approach for the understanding of homosexuality. The authors examine the combined effects of evolutionary factors and neurohormonal processes on the development of a homosexual orientation. It is suggested that research into the topic could benefit from an examination of and change in some of the assumptions upon which much past research has been based.
http://cogprints.org/2163/
[/quote]
There are a lot of traits that don’t support survival of the fittest that still come up, that doesn’t make them functional.
The closest thing I could think of is that if someone had a genetic abnormality that could be passed on, and being gay prevented them from procreating, then it might be functional in terms of society, resources, etc…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What if Jesus was gay…the guy was thirty three and never got any?
I woulda been turnin water into wine all over the place, and getting broads like crazy[/quote]
I guess that is why you aren’t Jesus isn’t it!
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
“Heterosexual” males don’t generally have sex with another male. Therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that this is not the case.
You’re confusing “cannot” with “have not” again.
You stated that straight men “cannot” have sex with other men. Unless you can back up your claim with evidence, it means nothing.
[/quote]
Your arguments have hit a new low in terms of logic.
I can only repeat what I’ve already stated, "“Heterosexual” males don’t generally have sex with another male. Therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that this is not the case.
You must prove it somehow, and you can’t!
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The “act” is a choice. And you cannot have the act unless you are aroused. Are telling me that you can have sex with a lamp shade?
Yeah, I probably could. People have had sex with watermelons too. Does that mean they have a watermelon orientation?
[/quote]
You would probably say that they do, and then demand that watermelons and men have a right to marry…
You are a silly guy on sooo many fronts…
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Bro, we have talked about this before. I’m opposed to acting on homosexual impulses, not having those impulses. So if you made that choice I would support that choice. It is not the thoughts that cause the problems, it’s acting on them. (“Homosexual” includes lesbians).[/quote]
I appreciate your honesty. My point was that, even without the possibility of increased health risks, you would still be opposed to homosexuality. But at that point, it is entirely subjective rather than being based on objective evidence.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
There are a lot of traits that don’t support survival of the fittest that still come up, that doesn’t make them functional.
[/quote]
Those traits aren’t, however, ruled out by “evolutionary evidence”. So you can’t really claim that there is evolutionary evidence against homosexuality.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I can only repeat what I’ve already stated, "“Heterosexual” males don’t generally have sex with another male. Therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that this is not the case.
You must prove it somehow, and you can’t!
[/quote]
Zeb, I’m trying to be respectful, and will be glad to address any serious points that you make. But if you continue to just ignore my points, I’m not going to waste my time.
Saying that straight men don’t usually choose to have sex with one another in no way proves that straight men cannot have sex with one another. Do you see the difference?
Cannot is different from have not.
I have not been to China, but that doesn’t mean I cannot go to China.
I have not ridden in a hot air balloon, but that doesn’t mean I cannot ride in a hot air balloon.
I have not seen Gone With the Wind yet, but that doesn’t mean I cannot see Gone With the Wind.
You claimed that straight men CANNOT have sex with one another. You made the claim, and it us your burden to present eviadence for that claim. If you can’t do so, your claim has no weight.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You would probably say that they do, and then demand that watermelons and men have a right to marry…
You are a silly guy on sooo many fronts…
[/quote]
No, I don’t believe there is a watermelon orientation. Yet, amazingly, I could still choose to have sex with a watermelon.
Have you considered that it is similarly possible to have sex with someone that doesn’t fit your orientation?
The act is different from the orientation.
Zeb, I’ve answered your questions. Why do you not show me the same respect? Or is that you don’t have an answer for this question, so you’re purposely ignoring it?
[quote]You have claimed that one of the organizations I’ve cited in the past (the American Psychological Association) is “politically correct”, and thus their conclusions are worthless.
Are you making a similar claim against every other major medical and mental health organization? Do you truly believe that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, etc. are all so politically biased that their research and conclusions on homosexuality are invalid?[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I can only repeat what I’ve already stated, "“Heterosexual” males don’t generally have sex with another male. Therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that this is not the case.
You must prove it somehow, and you can’t!
Saying that straight men don’t usually choose to have sex with one another in no way proves that straight men cannot have sex with one another. Do you see the difference? [/quote]
And saying that a tiny percentage of heterosexual men have for one odd reason or another had sex with another man does not prove that ALL or even a large percentage of men have or can have sex with other men.
You cannot use this illogical tactic to rationalize why 87% of homosexual men have had sex with a woman!