[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Zeb, you freely admit that there are some men who identify themselves to be gay who are able to get aroused by either men or women.[/quote]
Not “some”. According to the CDC, 87% of all men who have sex with other men also have sex with women. That is a staggering statistic and one that I doubt mainstream America is aware of. Homosexuality is indeed a preference and nothing more.
Those men are called “bisexual”. But in reality 87% of all homosexuals are “bisexual”.
The study is truly garbage, nothing can be determined by it. Did you read my previous post on the matter? It’s junk science pure and simple.
Also, I don’t think sexuality is nearly as complex as the powerful gay lobby would have us believe.
Some gay lobby goals:
Try to prove that being gay is “normal”. Claim that there are a higher percentage of gay people than really exist. Also, try to imply that even straight men have homosexual tendencies.
Attack all who speak out against gay marriage or adoption. Call them homophobic associate them with hatred and in fact being gay themselves.
Continue to push homosexuality into the media in order to desensitize the youth of America.
Over all I must say they are doing a good job. However, not quite good enough as most of the gains made have had to come through the judiciary. A full 70% of Americans accoding to most polls and elections know instinctively that gay marriage and gay adoption are simply wrong.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those men are called “bisexual”. But in reality 87% of all homosexuals are “bisexual”.[/quote]
Lol, I’m still waiting for an answer to my last post, Zeb.
According to your “logic”, all of the Greek elite were bisexual since they practiced pederasty. Forget that Wiki says most Greeks practiced pederasty, at least you’ve admitted that the Greek elite did.
So how do you explain such a mysteriously large percentage of “bisexuals” among the Greek elite? Are you now trying to argue that most people are in fact bisexual? Or was it wearing togas that did the trick?
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Those men are called “bisexual”. But in reality 87% of all homosexuals are “bisexual”.
Lol, I’m still waiting for an answer to my last post, Zeb.[/quote]
Really? I’m still waiting for you, or anyone who is “gay” to answer my question. How is it that 87% of homosexual men are able to have sex with women and do so regularly? In fact I’ve been waiting for that question to be answered for a few years now still no answer. Are 87% of “Heterosexual” men able to have sex with other men? No, not at all.
So, what’s up with that forlife?
Since I already gave you the opportunity to draw a line of distinction between homosexual men and child molesters and you didn’t do it I must then assume that you think homosexuals also like to fondle little boys as that’s what pederasty means. Now you have one more thing to explain.
Get back to me on those two points, if you are able.
So you’re now going to argue that the majority of the Greek elite were pedophiles, on top of being bisexual? So what changed between them and today’s elite? How do you explain that fact, without acknowledging the role of culture in sexual expression/repression?
I’ll answer your questions, but only if you promise to answer the above question directly and honestly. In all seriousness, if you start dodging and playing games like you did a couple years ago, I’m not going to waste my time talking with you. If you want a constructive discussion, I’m all for it.
If you’re going to define people who practiced pederasty as child molestors, to be fair you have to simlarly define straight men who married young women as child molestors. You do realize that in the Greek culture, marriage to young women (i.e., children by our current cultural norms) was commonplace right? How about applying your logic consistently, instead of only applying it when it suits your argument?
Given an enabling culture, a large percentage of men, gay or straight, are probably “able” to have a sexual experience with someone of the same or opposite gender. That doesn’t mean this is their natural orientation, or that they are capable of having a romantic relationship that parallels what is compatible with their actual orientation.
Prove it. Your logic is ridiculous, because you are failing to control for culture. You are saying:
87% of gay men have had a sexual experience with women.
0% of straight men have had a sexual experience with men.
Therefore, gay men are bisexual and straight men are not.
The first problem with your “logic” is the contention that 0% of straight men have had a sexual experience with men. You have offered zero proof of this. You habitually dismiss evidence to the contrary by saying those men must have been bisexual rather than truly being heterosexual.
The second problem with your “logic” is that you completely ignore the role of cultural norms in determining sexual expression.
Obviously, in a culture where same sex relationships is ridiculed, disparaged, and discriminated against, the vast majority of men are going to choose not to have a sexual experience with another man, irrespective of whether or not they are capable of doing so. You can’t argue that lack of experience means an inability to have the experience, particularly in light of other cultures where this experience was far more common than in our own culture.
Damnit! Straight men can get sexually aroused by other men. The Greeks and Romans fucked anything that moved, raping boys well below what would now be the age of consent… See? homosexuality is completely natural.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Talk about winning the battle but losing the war:
Damnit! Straight men can get sexually aroused by other men. The Greeks and Romans fucked anything that moved, raping boys well below what would now be the age of consent… See? homosexuality is completely natural.[/quote]
I don’t see it as an argument for or against the naturalness of homosexuality. I’m simply pointing out the flaw in Zeb’s “logic” that gays are all bisexual, but it is impossible for heteros to have a sexual experience with someone of the same gender.
I haven’t seen a single person, for or against gay marriage, agree with Zeb on this point. It is ridiculous, and I’m calling him on it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m simply pointing out the flaw in Zeb’s “logic” that gays are all bisexual, but it is impossible for heteros to have a sexual experience with someone of the same gender.[/quote]
You remind me of an Uncle, each time he tells a story it just seems to get more fantastic. I never said ALL gays are bisexual. I stated (many times) that 87% of all homosexual men have had and continue to have sex with women. I will now ask you for the 8th (or is it 9th) time, how is that possible?
In fact, you are part of the 87% of homosexual men who have had regular sex with a woman, that would be your former wife.
Again, how is that possible? The only logical answer is that homosexuality is indeed a preference. Sure you can become aroused with a woman but you PREFER a man.
Everyone can understand that.
The reason that you reject such a notion is that it would put a light on homosexuality that is not very favorable in your opinion. It would basically bust a myth wide open.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Again, how is that possible? The only logical answer is that homosexuality is indeed a preference. Sure you can become aroused with a woman but you PREFER a man.[/quote]
Why should it not be possible for a percentage of gay men to have sex with women? Nobody said otherwise.
What I’m contending is your ridiculous assertion that it is impossible for heterosexual men to have sex with other men.
I discussed in detail why this is blatantly ridiculous, and you completely ignored my post. Do you plan to address it any time soon?
Why do you keep claiming that a low incidence of same sex experience among heterosexuals (in our current culture, not in other cultures) proves an inability to have a same sex experience, rather than proving that straight men prefer to have sex with women?
[quote]The reason that you reject such a notion is that it would put a light on homosexuality that is not very favorable in your opinion. It would basically bust a myth wide open.
[/quote]
What myth is that? I’ve never claimed it was impossible for me to have sex with a woman. Obviously, it’s not. I’ve said that it is impossible for me to love a woman romantically, and enjoy the same level of emotional intimacy as I feel with another man.
Not to mention that the sex itself is way better with a man
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Again, how is that possible? The only logical answer is that homosexuality is indeed a preference. Sure you can become aroused with a woman but you PREFER a man.
Why should it not be possible for a percentage of gay men to have sex with women? Nobody said otherwise.
What I’m contending is your ridiculous assertion that it is impossible for heterosexual men to have sex with other men.[/quote]
Sorry forlife this is where your view of the world meets reality. Why do you think that there is such stiff opposition to gay marriage across the country? Do you think it’s because 87% of heterosexual men find it possible to have sex with other men? No my very confused gay friend, it’s because the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men find sex with other men pretty much repulsive.
First of all you can’t give me any sort of solid statistics relating to those other cultures. Sure some of the elite in Greek society may have been pedo’s but what does that have to do with our discussion? Not much actually.
The reason that you reject such a notion is that it would put a light on homosexuality that is not very favorable in your opinion. It would basically bust a myth wide open.
Intamacy shmintacy, gay men seem to have it both ways don’t they? Are there any real gay men? I think bisexual is a better term. If 87% of those who call themselves “gay” can become aroused with a woman then I’d say the jig is pretty much up.
I’ll give you the final post on the topic. I know you like to have the last word, even though it will be steeped in “wrongness”. Ha ha, Take care forlife and try to stay healthy and out of trouble my friend.
Personally, I see homosexuality as a narcissistic personality disorder. It is worth noting that Forlife has, as far as I can tell, the only avatar where he’s gazing at himself, lovingly and seemingly impressed. Sorry, I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but that really is the way I see it.
Back in the 1970s, William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate feminist author Germaine Greer at the Oxford Union, but found that he and Greer were unable to agree on the wording of the resolution to be debated. After a long exchange of trans-Atlantic telegrams, Buckley in exasperation cabled his final proposal: “Resolved: Give 'em an inch, they’ll take a mile.”
In that simple phrase, Buckley summed up a basic truth about the conservative instinct. Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that “social justice” requires that we grant their latest demand.
We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.
When they refer to themselves as “progressives,” radicals express their own basic truth: Their method of operation is always to move steadily forward, seeking a progressive series of victories, each new gain exploited to lay the groundwork for the next advance, as the opposition progressively yields terrain. Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest “progressive” demand and asking, “Is this a hill worth dying on?”
My own instinct is always to answer, “Hell, yes.” Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. Ergo, to defeat the radicals in their latest crusade (whatever the crusade may be) is to demoralize and weaken their side, and to embolden and encourage our side. Even to fight and lose is better than conceding without a fight because, after all, give 'em an inch and they’ll take a mile.
This explains much about why I disagree with some conservatives who say we should not expend much effort defending traditional marriage against the gay-rights insurgency.
Some conservatives are wholly persuaded by the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates. Others, however, are merely unprincipled cowards and defeatists. Concerned about maintaining their intellectual prestige, some elitists on the Right do not wish to associate themselves with Bible-thumping evangelicals. Or, disparaging the likelihood of successful opposition, they advocate pre-emptive surrender rather than waging a fight that will put conservatism on the losing side of the issue.
Yet if the defense of traditional marriage – an ancient and honorable institution – is not a “hill worth dying on,” what is? In every ballot-box fight to date, voters have supported the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. As indicated by exit polls in California last fall, this is one issue where the conservative position is widely endorsed by black and Latino voters. Should such a potentially promising political development be abandoned?
Buckley’s “give 'em an inch” response to Greer is instructive in more ways than one. In the 1970s, women’s equality was a cause with even more elite prestige than gay marriage enjoys today. Legalized abortion and no-fault divorce were but two of the specific policy innovations easily won by what was then called the “women’s liberation” movement.
With few exceptions, even most conservatives viewed “women’s lib” as relatively benign. Conservatives were then mainly concerned with fighting Communist aggression – the central uniting principle of Frank Meyer’s “fusionist” coalition – and feminism seems to have struck them as a rather silly domestic distraction from the big game of stopping the Reds. Thus it was that Richard Nixon and others endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment without caveat.
Phyllis Schlafly, however, had a more perceptive understanding of the profound issues involved. The woman who had backed Barry Goldwater in 1964 by insisting that the GOP must offer voters A Choice, Not an Echo saw that in endorsing the ERA, Republicans were once again guilty of echoing liberalism. It was Schlafly who played the key role leading the long battle to prevent ratification of the ERA in state legislatures.
Feminists have never forgiven Schlafly for her success in that cause. Arguably one of the most influential American women of the 20th century, Schlafly has been smeared as a “traitor” to women’s rights and caricatured as a puritanical reactionary seeking to relegate women to second-class citizenship – barefoot, pregnant and toiling in the kitchen.
Schlafly’s opposition to feminist ideology, however, never made her an opponent of women’s freedom or achievement. She worked her way through college during World War II test-firing machine-gun ammo in a munitions plant, and later earned a law degree. Even while raising six children, Schlafly was constantly active in political and civic life, and she mentored many other conservative women leaders. (Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter both extol Schlafly’s example.)
[b]Schlafly discerned that the ERA sought to embed in our Constitution a radical egalitarian ideology alien to our nation’s traditions and contrary to fact. Feminist ideologues insist that men and women are not merely equal in the Lockean sense – having the right to life, liberty and property – but are radically equal in the sense of being inherently identical.
The differences between men and women, according to the egalitarian view, are so trivial that the law must forbid any recognition of such differences, so that the sexes are treated as interchangeable. As I argued in January, it is from a careless acquiescence to this egalitarian falsehood that Americans have been steadily – one might well say “progressively” – marched to the point where the Iowa Supreme Court mandates gay marriage and anyone who questions that ruling is dismissed as an ignorant, hateful bigot suffering from the mental disorder of “homophobia.”
It is only by the activist rulings of judges and other officials, never at the behest of voters, that the radical crusade for same-sex marriage has advanced this far. We know which side the people are on. Even Barack Obama was shrewd enough to declare his opposition to same-sex marriage during the presidential campaign. We have seen voters in 30 states pass constitutional amendments to defend the “one-man, one-woman” definition of marriage, and conservatives in Iowa are now planning efforts to add their state to the list.
Having been given an inch, the radicals now attempt to take a mile. But this is a hill to die on. [/b]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why do you think that there is such stiff opposition to gay marriage across the country? Do you think it’s because 87% of heterosexual men find it possible to have sex with other men? No my very confused gay friend, it’s because the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men find sex with other men pretty much repulsive.[/quote]
It’s true that most straight men in our culture find same sex relationships repulsive. Nobody argued otherwise.
My point was that just because our current culture demonizes same sex relationships doesn’t mean all cultures have done so. Nor does it mean that it is impossible for all heterosexual men to have a sexual experience with another man. You’re overreaching here, and I think you know it as well as I do.
It has a lot to do with the current discussion, because it shows that when cultural norms support same sex relationships, the incidence of these relationships goes up, even among men who consider themselves heterosexual.
Wiki says that most Greek men had same sex experiences. You deny this, and insist that this was true only for the Greek elite. Even if you’re right, you still have disproven your own claim that it is impossible for straight men to have same sex relationships, regardless of cultural norms. Obviously, not all of the Greek elite were bisexual/homosexual, and yet pederasty was commonplace due to the cultural norms at the time.
Maybe your relationship with your wife is so shallow that you define it by the quality of the sex alone, but I doubt it. Most people actually value emotional/romantic intimacy in our relationships.
Well Zeb, I had a long answer to your post but it was eaten by a network error and I don’t want to retype it all
[Edit: looks like the post came through after all so you get two for one]
I’ll just say that I find it sad that you define relationships on the basis of sex alone, without considering the quality of the sex, or more importantly, without considering the presence/absence of emotional and romantic intimacy. Love is about so much more than just sex, but you refuse to acknowledge that simple truth when discussing gay relationships.
If gay men were all bisexual as you claim, and relationships were equally fulfilling regardless of whether we were with women or men, why don’t you think we would choose to be with women? Seriously?
Why would any gay man choose to be the object of ridicule, disgust, and discrimination if it were possible to be equally fulfilled by simply choosing to be with a woman? If we were bisexual as you claim, it would be a no brainer to make such a choice.
Seems so blatantly obvious, but I get the impression you really believe all the tripe you peddle here on this board. I don’t hold any illusion that I’ll change your mind. You’re entitled to believe whatever you want, so more power to you
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Personally, I see homosexuality as a narcissistic personality disorder. It is worth noting that Forlife has, as far as I can tell, the only avatar where he’s gazing at himself, lovingly and seemingly impressed. Sorry, I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but that really is the way I see it.[/quote]
Lol, I hadn’t thought about it but I can see why you might think that. Oh well, was thinking about updating my avatar pic anyway
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Those men are called “bisexual”. But in reality 87% of all homosexuals are “bisexual”.
Lol, I’m still waiting for an answer to my last post, Zeb.
Really? I’m still waiting for you, or anyone who is “gay” to answer my question. How is it that 87% of homosexual men are able to have sex with women and do so regularly? In fact I’ve been waiting for that question to be answered for a few years now still no answer. Are 87% of “Heterosexual” men able to have sex with other men? No, not at all.
So, what’s up with that forlife?
[/quote]
You are drifting your stat like a politician in the run up to polling day.
You have quoted 87% of Gay men have some sexual experience with a woman. Not sure of the source for this stat however it includes any guy who had a drunken fumble with a girl in high school before coming out of the closet.
Given that straight is seen as the norm, this is what you would expect.
Also, from talking to a promiscuous gay guy that I was working with last year, a lot of the guys that he was sleeping with would have classed themselves as straight on any survey (sneaking out from their wives to have sex.)
Before you jump on this as an example of evil gay culture, there are plenty of guys sneaking out from their wives to have an affair with another woman.
