Originally posted by Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Indeed it seems that is the major problem, although I cannot help but wondor if part of the reason you disregarded the rest of my argument, is because you found yourself somewhat stumped by what I had to say...No, I would have to go into much too in depth an explanation due to our different perspectives.Oh well, moving on......
You mentioned possibilities as to what may or may not the the cause of homosexual tendencies...let's evaluate:
1)Perhaps simple play behaviors
Like....? Perhaps the choice to behave in a manner that, while not overtly but very subtly, fit more with a feminine stereotype. Then a slightly more feminine play, and so on, over the course of years.
2)perhaps which friends were chosen
So it's thier fault ? No, but the choice impacted your future behavior, choosing a more feminine bo over a more masculine boy, choosing girls over boys, their behaviors impacted yours to some degree. There is no "fault", just fact.
3)Perhaps the choice of foods you ate the morning you played with the first female child in your early years that resulted in a horrible experience in the presence of (altered to be a more accurate statement)[b] a girl. [b]This is one statement not two.
NEver happened....I had a pretty nice childhood, and most straight guys HAVE had a very horrible experience with women..that never made them gay.... The point is that stating why is too complicated to respond to.
There are infinite possible choices that would eventually lead to homosexual behaviors. I do not think that the choice was, "Oh, that boy is cute", or anything like that, it was subtle and extremely innocent.
Would you say it was my fault that I am Bisexual ? No, but the choices you made and experiences you had resulted in your sexuality.
Regret, there is ONE ENORMOUS FLAW IN YOUR ARGUMENT
Femininity has nothing to do with Homosexuality...AT ALL
You fall too easily into the stereotype that gay men and gay boys are these flaming queens who learn to be girly and like men, and that's a totally false and non-factual claim.
You are such an intelligent person, and yet you made such a stupid conclusion, and I am honestly shocked !
I also LOVE the way you totally IGNORED Adam Poe's claim of how he was Gay BEFORE he started having sex, when he was still a Virgin. Captain Fantastic has said the SAME THING, and I have always argued this....
yet you simply ignore our claims of our pasts for your own convienence. That is pretty pathetic 👇
Another thing...Masculinity and Femininity are SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS which are ASSIGNED to a gender by society. They do NOT exist in nature, and have NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.
I think you hold to the beleif that Homosexuality is a choice because it makes it easier for you to see Homosexuality as a Sin, therefore validifying your Faith, even though you ignore all the evidense that supports it is not chosen...while paying more attention to the non-conclusive and false evidense that homosexuality is taught, learned, chosen, etc.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI do not hold to the femininity stereotype. But there are feminine homosexuals, regardless of whether all are or not. For some homosexuals such a hypothetical situation could exist, I do not claim any of those hypothetical situations are typical or even necessarily plausible, I claim that various behaviors combine and shape sexuality, none of the hypotheticals I presented should be held as anything other than one among a nearly infinite number of possible events.
Regret, there is ONE ENORMOUS FLAW IN YOUR ARGUMENTFemininity has nothing to do with Homosexuality...AT ALL
I do not ignore your claims to early belief as to your sexuality, the day you realized your sexual orientation is the day you were that orientation. I do not deny this. I do deny that genetics do anything more than set a predisposition towards a sexual orientation.
As to homosexuality being a choice, it is only a choice in that in the history of behaviors leading to your, and the other's, realizations of your homosexual orientation some choices were made that could have led to another orientation. Thus, sexual orientation is based in choice, regardless of whether the choice was to be homosexual, or merely some seemingly insignificant choice at some other point.
My position is often oversimplified erroneously by my detractors, such occurs oftentimes due to misinterpretations of statements I make. To be good listener one must at times request clarification or verification of what the other has stated, it seems that many here would rather have a target than someone to discuss the subject with, or at least that seems to be the attitude often.
Wait the **** up! Are you people serious?
No one has said that all homosexuals are "girly men". Nor has anyone said that bondage is exclusively masculine.
Bottom line (no pun intended for those less capable of dealing with such a turn of phrase) there is nothing stereotypical about homosexuals. Not one damned thing. For every example of a red-blooded American male behavior you place in front of me, I'll quote you a hundred examples of a ****** fulfilling the same stereotype. (also, no pun interpretation needed)
Being cute and self-depricating is one thing, being stupid and irrelevant is another.
And for those responding to this thread while being bogged down by religious doubt and an air of false moral superiority, you can go screw yourselves.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a [b]significant role in a person's sexuality.""There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a[n] important role in a person's sexuality."
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a fairly large role in a person's sexuality."
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a . . . role in a person's sexuality [that is] too closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicating a systematic relation."
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a . . . role in a person's sexuality [that is] rich in significance or implication."
"Just enough to have an impact," indeed. 🙄 [/B]
Yeah, thanks for just pointlessly repeating what you already said. It changes absolutely nothing. Significant does NOT mean primary. In that context, it CLEARLY means significant as in, something that should be considered, an effect large enough to warrant mentionting. Something can have MANY significant factors. To see something labelled as significant and then to declare it 'primary' because of that is the act of a fool.
I see this type of mistake made a lot by my students. Try not to make such errors just because you are so keen to defend a position; it is very unseemly. You said the APA says genetics is the primary factor. That is a lie and everyone can see it. They say no such thing. They merely say that recent studies suggest it is a significant one. They have not said, nor are they likely to say until a whole lot more is known, what the primary factor may be, if indeed one can ever be distinguished.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yeah, thanks for just pointlessly repeating what you already said. It changes absolutely nothing. Significant does NOT mean primary. In that context, it CLEARLY means significant as in, something that should be considered, an effect large enough to warrant mentionting. Something can have MANY significant factors. To see something labelled as significant and then to declare it 'primary' because of that is the act of a fool.I see this type of mistake made a lot by my students. Try not to make such errors just because you are so keen to defend a position; it is very unseemly. You said the APA says genetics is the primary factor. That is a lie and everyone can see it. They say no such thing. They merely say that recent studies suggest it is a significant one. They have not said, nor are they likely to say until a whole lot more is known, what the primary factor may be, if indeed one can ever be distinguished.
Apparently, it needed to be repeated as you do not seem to understand the meaning of significant.
Significant does not merely connotate "something that should be considered."
Nor is a significant factor simply one "large enough to warrant mentioning."
Rather, a significant factor warrants mentioning because it is large, i.e. "of a greater size or quantity; to a greater degree" than other factors.
Such a factor would be "highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal." Hence, primary.