Jump to content


Photo

Sexual Preferences Sb-777


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#61 StverDJ

StverDJ

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 04 May 2008 - 02:45 AM

QUOTE (Anonymouse @ May 3 2008, 11:52 PM)
That's the problem - the inevitable confusion surrounding the words "acceptance" and "tolerance."

Acceptance is thrown around in a talismanic fashion as if it's the same thing as tolerance.

I tolerate the homosexual's right to exist and be a homosexual. I do not, however, accept his lifestyle as proper. It's presumed that unless we accept homosexuality we are not tolerant of homosexuality. However, there is a blurring effect prevalent in that line of reasoning.


You read my mind!!!! It is exactly what I have been trying to put into words ever since I realized gays were here to stay.

Okay, there are gay people. Let them live. I do not like it but what can I do? I don't accept it I'm just living with it. But it really pisses me off when they advocate it like they're recruiting gays.

#62 vava

vava

    :yawn:

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 May 2008 - 11:08 PM

QUOTE (Sip @ Apr 30 2008, 01:50 AM)
That is definitley one, albeit boring, way of looking at it. My philosophy is, the overall boobs to testicles ratio should be at least 1.


lol - very funny Sip! And what about the poor guy with monorchism? He loses out on your test?

Anyway, I don't personally think that sexual preference is a choice. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon, that crosses cultural and ethnic boundaries. Ahmedinejad was roundly mocked in the American press not that long ago claiming that homosexuality does not exist in his country. Baloney - it exists, and exists just about everywhere.

A sex change however, is clearly voluntary, and I imagine the reasons one would decide to make such a decision vary considerably. I think Nairi is on to something - if society does away with general sexual stereotypes, than perhaps the number of sex change operations will decreaseé. Nevertheless, a portion of sex change operations are "legit" so to speak. The human reproductive system isn't infallible, and will produce the occasional anomaly... our current health industry seeks to fix anomalies so it's not surprising that surgery is a choice for some...

Kind of off-topic, but has anyone read Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides?

#63 Ani

Ani

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Yerevan, Armenia

Posted 14 May 2008 - 11:40 PM

QUOTE (vava @ May 14 2008, 10:08 PM)
lol - very funny Sip! And what about the poor guy with monorchism? He loses out on your test?

Anyway, I don't personally think that sexual preference is a choice. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon, that crosses cultural and ethnic boundaries. Ahmedinejad was roundly mocked in the American press not that long ago claiming that homosexuality does not exist in his country. Baloney - it exists, and exists just about everywhere.

A sex change however, is clearly voluntary, and I imagine the reasons one would decide to make such a decision vary considerably. I think Nairi is on to something - if society does away with general sexual stereotypes, than perhaps the number of sex change operations will decreaseé. Nevertheless, a portion of sex change operations are "legit" so to speak. The human reproductive system isn't infallible, and will produce the occasional anomaly... our current health industry seeks to fix anomalies so it's not surprising that surgery is a choice for some...

Kind of off-topic, but has anyone read Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides?


We talked about reading that book in our newly formed bookclub... wink.gif But everyone's so busy...It would be nice to know your opinion on the book dear vava, and i'll encourage the girls...smile.gif


#64 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 15 May 2008 - 12:11 AM

Why are we even worried - here is the American point of view, create a GAY BOMB, get read of all the male population of the world, and become female only over populated homosexuals...

Please observe - only 10 of these is enough to change the world around for once and for all...

gay bomb -

Gay bomb

The "Halitosis bomb" and "Gay bomb" are informal names for two theoretical non-lethal chemical weapons, which a United States Air Force research laboratory speculated about producing.

In 1994 the Wright Laboratory in Ohio produced a three-page proposal on a variety of possible nonlethal chemical weapons, which was later obtained - complete with marginal jottings and typos - by the Sunshine Project through a Freedom of Information Act request.


In both of the documents, the possibility was canvassed that a strong aphrodisiac could be dropped on enemy troops, ideally one which would also cause "homosexual behavior". The documents described the aphrodisiac weapon as "distasteful but completely non-lethal". The "New Discoveries Needed" section of one of the documents implicitly acknowledges that no such chemicals are actually known. The reports also include many other off-beat ideas, such as spraying enemy troops with bee pheromones and then hiding numerous beehives in the combat area, and a chemical weapon that would give the enemy bad breath.

Body odor remote-engineering, such as halitosis and hyperhidrosis was another possibility discussed. How these would be produced would again be by a non-lethal chemical weapon -- possibly one that would affect the hormonal and digestive systems. Diabetes which is also another frequently reported ailment, can of course contribute to this goal. It appears that a 'heavy sweating bomb', 'flatulence bomb' and 'halitosis bomb' were also considered by a committee at the time. The plan was to make an enemy so smelly they could be quite literally sniffed out of hiding by their opponents. It was also considered fairly damaging to the enemy's morale as well.

Wright Laboratory won the 2007 Ig Nobel Peace Prize for "instigating research & development on a chemical weapon—the so-called 'gay bomb' / 'poof bomb' —that will make enemy soldiers become sexually irresistible to each other." However, Air Force personnel contacted were not willing to attend the award ceremony at Harvard University's Sanders Theater to accept the award in person.




#65 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:32 AM

QUOTE (StverDJ @ Apr 30 2008, 05:31 AM)
so a woman gets pregnant, the doctor is showing the embryo through ultrasound and he puts a microphone to the belly and asks the embryo what sex it wants to be???


this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard...

[don Gregory House tone]Yeah, that definitely IS the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.[/tone]

#66 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:32 AM

QUOTE (StverDJ @ Apr 30 2008, 05:34 AM)
oh, another thing came to mind just now...

they advocate homosexuality but if i step outside and tell people to be straight ill be a bad guy, right?

Sip had just said they don't advocate homosexuality but the acceptance. Are you, like, some illiterate Turk?

#67 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:40 AM

QUOTE (Arpa @ May 1 2008, 06:35 PM)
WHO THE HELL SAID THAT SAME SEX LOVE IS FORBIDDEN?
THE FACT THAT I LOVE MY FATHER, MY BROTHER AND MY SON, (all male, as I am), NOT TO MENTION MY EQUALLY MALE BEST FRIEND IS TANTAMOUNT TO HOMOSEXUALITY?
IS A MOTHER'S LOVE OF HER DAUGHTER AND VISA VERSA LESBIANISM?
WILL YOU GUYS CHILL OUT AND SEE THAT LOVE GOES ALL AND BOTH WAYS.
AND THOSE WHO CANNOT DISCERN THAT PROCREATIONAL LOVE IS MEANT FOR MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE.
WHY WOULD AHOMOSEXUAL THAT I KNOW WOULD HIRE HIS LESBIAN FRIEND TO CONCEIVE FOR HI, AND A LESBIAN COUPLE THAT I KNOW WOULD HIRE A SPERM DONOR TO COVEIVE? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? WHEN DID COCEPTION BECOME FOR HIRE?
IF THEY ARE FASCINNATED WITH PROCREATION, IF THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE LOVE OF A SON AND A DAUGHTER IS, THEY SHOULD SEE HOW THE CREATOR CREATED THEM!!

My goodness. So when you have sex, it's like having sex with your parent?

#68 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:41 AM

QUOTE (Ashot @ May 1 2008, 10:35 PM)
Nairi jan, I am too disgusted to even talk about it, so there is no way I will answer to your question... You want to explain why you wouldn't be disgusted talking about female+female in bed or male+male?

Actually, I quite enjoy soft porn/erotica with F+F...

#69 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:43 AM

QUOTE (vava @ May 15 2008, 06:08 AM)
Anyway, I don't personally think that sexual preference is a choice. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon, that crosses cultural and ethnic boundaries.

Not just cultural and ethnic but also species. Homosexuality exists in the rest of the animal kingdom as well, whether in the wild or in captivity. It doesn't get much more "natural" than that.

QUOTE (vava @ May 15 2008, 06:08 AM)
Ahmedinejad was roundly mocked in the American press not that long ago claiming that homosexuality does not exist in his country. Baloney - it exists, and exists just about everywhere.

It exists in their classical literature, for goodness' sakes...

#70 Zoolal

Zoolal

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:36 PM

Stop the homophobia and just relax! There are more important issues to worry about.

Besides, aren't we all playing the role of men and women at the same time to a certain degree? Show me a person who is a typical woman or a typical man these days! Men are changing diapers, getting pedicures, following fashion trends, etc... and women, we are career professionals, active sexually as men have been for ages, independent and opinionated. Yes, we have physical differences but we are forming the same experiences and sensations the more and more.

I'd say let's worry more about the environment, finding cure to terminal diseases, poverty and injustice...leave personal choices alone!

Zoolal biggrin.gif



#71 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 31 May 2008 - 06:12 PM

QUOTE (Stormig @ May 19 2008, 06:43 AM)
Not just cultural and ethnic but also species. Homosexuality exists in the rest of the animal kingdom as well, whether in the wild or in captivity. It doesn't get much more "natural" than that.


It exists in their classical literature, for goodness' sakes...


So what? Because homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom thereby we should promote and commercialize and advertise and shove it down peoples' throats? There are all sorts of deviancies that man is capable of, that doesn't mean it should be lauded as a good thing or accepted.

Even the god damned Greeks recognized and allowed homosexuality to exist among men, provided they got married to a woman, for god's sake. Only the inverted "Western Civilization" (whatever that means) is foolish enough to dabble in such crazy social experiments.

#72 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 31 May 2008 - 06:19 PM

QUOTE (Zoolal @ May 19 2008, 03:36 PM)
Stop the homophobia and just relax! There are more important issues to worry about.

Besides, aren't we all playing the role of men and women at the same time to a certain degree? Show me a person who is a typical woman or a typical man these days! Men are changing diapers, getting pedicures, following fashion trends, etc... and women, we are career professionals, active sexually as men have been for ages, independent and opinionated. Yes, we have physical differences but we are forming the same experiences and sensations the more and more.

I'd say let's worry more about the environment, finding cure to terminal diseases, poverty and injustice...leave personal choices alone!

Zoolal biggrin.gif


Oh great! Yet another liberal with their pliable philosophy of all things are relative and there are no defined rules or boundaries and everything is a blur and bend where we have all merged into one androgynous utopia. And to top it off, you seal your liberalism with the nice closer - "environment", "poverty" and "injustice" - all the typically vague and cliche issues all liberals like to take up as a cause.

You end by stating that we should "leave personal choices alone!" That's great! I couldn't agree more, which is why homosexuals should not advertise their behavior and demand all sorts of handouts and rights and commercialize their deviancy. I mean, who the hell has a "pride parade?" Why do homosexuals feel the need to constantly flaunt themselves and their lifestlye to the rest of the world stating, "Hey look at us we are gay and we exist!" Who are they trying to prove their homosexuality to, us or them? Very insecure mass-minded psychosis.

#73 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 01 June 2008 - 02:43 AM

If people engaging in homosexual acts should be married to the opposite sex, does that mean that people married to the opposite sex should engage in homosexual acts?

Or, alternatively,

If homosexuals should be married to the opposite sex, does that mean that straight people should engage in homosexual acts?

#74 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 June 2008 - 01:58 AM

QUOTE (nairi @ Jun 1 2008, 02:43 AM)
If people engaging in homosexual acts should be married to the opposite sex, does that mean that people married to the opposite sex should engage in homosexual acts?

Or, alternatively,

If homosexuals should be married to the opposite sex, does that mean that straight people should engage in homosexual acts?


I fail to see how one follows from the other. You're trying too hard here and out of your element. Try again though, my fellow Armenian sister. I support you!


#75 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 03 June 2008 - 02:41 AM

It's not meant to make sense, just like your argument doesn't make sense.

I assume that you can't imagine that there are people who don't feel attracted or aroused upon seeing the opposite sex. Just because the Greeks failed to recognize this, doesn't mean that you should too.

Interestingly, however, you contradict yourself. The fact that you use the word "homosexual" shows that you actually do recognize that there is a category of people that are not "heterosexual," and thus do not have the same sexual desires as "heterosexuals." How do you equate the two then by forcing one to become like the other? And if you force one to become like the other, why not force the other to become like the one too?

#76 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 June 2008 - 03:31 AM

QUOTE (nairi @ Jun 3 2008, 02:41 AM)
Interestingly, however, you contradict yourself. The fact that you use the word "homosexual" shows that you actually do recognize that there is a category of people that are not "heterosexual," and thus do not have the same sexual desires as "heterosexuals." How do you equate the two then by forcing one to become like the other? And if you force one to become like the other, why not force the other to become like the one too?



A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

#77 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 03 June 2008 - 03:40 AM

I'm not arguing anything. I'm only interpreting what you wrote, albeit falsely, and asking questions based on my interpretation. It's up to you to correct me.

#78 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 June 2008 - 10:03 AM

QUOTE (nairi @ Jun 3 2008, 03:40 AM)
I'm not arguing anything. I'm only interpreting what you wrote, albeit falsely, and asking questions based on my interpretation. It's up to you to correct me.


I never denied homosexuals exist so for you to tell me I contradicted myself makes no sense.

#79 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 03 June 2008 - 03:01 PM

So, if you recognize that homosexuals exist (meaning that there is a category of people that does not feel aroused by the opposite sex), and you do not believe in socialism (meaning that we should deprive ourselves of certain things for the greater good of the collectivity), then why would you want to see homosexuals married to people that they do not feel attracted to just so that we can continue propagating the myth that homosexuals are either an aberration or a figment of our imagination?

And if you still think that homosexuals should be married to the opposite sex, to whom they are not sexually attracted, then why should heterosexuals be able to enjoy their sexual choices and freedoms when their homosexual peers are not?

#80 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 June 2008 - 06:00 PM

QUOTE (nairi @ Jun 3 2008, 03:01 PM)
So, if you recognize that homosexuals exist (meaning that there is a category of people that does not feel aroused by the opposite sex), and you do not believe in socialism (meaning that we should deprive ourselves of certain things for the greater good of the collectivity), then why would you want to see homosexuals married to people that they do not feel attracted to just so that we can continue propagating the myth that homosexuals are either an aberration or a figment of our imagination?

And if you still think that homosexuals should be married to the opposite sex, to whom they are not sexually attracted, then why should heterosexuals be able to enjoy their sexual choices and freedoms when their homosexual peers are not?


I never said homosexuals should not be married. If they want to get married, it's within the confines of what society deems 'marriage.'

The problem here is that what has been nothing more than a behavior and tendency among a marginal portion of the human population is now being foisted upon the majority and imposed as somehow an 'identity' when for ages it has always been recognized as nothing more than a sexual jumpsuit people jump in and out of. And to go even beyond calling it an 'identity' and to attach "rights" to it is even more idiotic.

Redefining marriage and the longstanding traditions which represent the collective wisdom of the ages and civilizations is like changing measure of a yardstick into centimeters and insisting on using it as a yardstick. In both cases one cannot change the definition of that thing, and still use it as a reliable source for measure.

Every society and its institutions are intolerant of some sort of behavior. Unqualified toleration is not only nonsensical it is impossible and lethal. Society can shun or frown on certain behavior or attitudes that it deems unjust or in some way inappropriate. Intolerance always occurs in terms of a society’s or its institutions’ premises. But since we are in a "democracy" where we are in an endless game of "rights", even "right and wrong" concepts become a matter of majorities and "tolerance".

Edited by Anonymouse, 03 June 2008 - 06:01 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users