GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Also Dan i would like to ask you a question... do you really have that much of an over-sexed warped perception of sexuality that you think every time a man looks at a woman he is thinking f** f** f** f** till the sun comes up ?? Come on Dan, thats absurd.. gayness isnt your problem... its your warped sense of sexuality in general. Somehow i dont think it would matter if you were gay or not, you would just be warped regardless. ;)
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 All I can do is laugh at that assertion, because I've been saying the same thing to straight guys for a while now.
Dunenewt Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Wow, you really are immature. So you're acting like the master of biology by speaking about all the genetics, and then say I have a tiny brain. You should know that my brain will be about the same size as yours roughly. I do not know how old you are so I cannot be too accurate about it though.You act like homosexuality is some kind of disease, and one that the 'victims' need to be cured of. I'm sure Dan and Dust don't find it a problem, and indeed a lot of other people do not see it as a problem they just see gay people as normal people who are attracted to men. They are not any less human as you make them out to be, which I expect they find annoying and degrading the way they are spoken to by you. They are much nicer and pleasant people than you, which is what more people would judge them by, not by their sexuality. Now people who believe in physically abusing their kids, they have a problem. Eh, Gunwounds?
tutuco21 Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 i will be a rich man if i gain one dollar for every gay man who find me atractiveim not gay and aways have girlfriends but i realy think im not the handsome guy of the blocki have 115 kilos and 1.85 methers ,,, im probably one tall fat guy... but i did ginastics for many years so im not the blob.. im more a tank like semy fat guy.. i look like a not green warcraft grunt whith a bellyfor my experience short girls love to stay with me because im am more than 2 times biguer... i can lift my 2 last girlfriend with one hand. i gave a sense of protection and strenght (i tink) my last girl (the actual) is not in the rule... she is not small.. she is tall for a girl. but i think in the pysical part she like me because of the same reason.the gay guys like me because of the same,,, large shoulders etc etc etcwhem comes to psycological aspect i think mans and girls like me for my sweet nature.the point is gay boys and short girls like me for the same reasonso i think they dont have a choice... i think is just a natural development of they libidosome girls like me,,, some man like me,,, some girls dislike me and some man dislike me tooIts a natural thing to develop diferent sexual atractionssome have atraction for large mans like me,,,(like the girls who like the american fotball defenders) some like more mans like leonardo de caprio (pretty jokeys) some like antonio bandeiras (average size average musculature)its normal.. i think the gay guys who like me just feel wet for the idea of having a big man in theyr bedssaiyng that gay mans is not natural is just a social bsi will give an examplein the time of the anciet greeks they have a lot of gay sexandplato (platao) whrote one mith about thatin the anciet times the mans are biguer and more powerfull the have 4 legs and lock like spheres (balls)they have 2 sexone day the gods worry about the great power of the mansand splith all the mans in halfthe mans after this days are aways looking for theyr missing parts the man whyth 2 vaginas become the lesbosthe man whyt 2 penis become the gaysthe man whyt 1 penis and 1 vagina become the heterookwhy im telling u this babel tower like mith about goods woryng about mans power???because in plato time there a lot of gay sex so he explain the gay love using religion plato say that gay love is natural. its just a fanccy way to express social believe in our times all the bigger religions dont live well with gay actsmost of the countrys have one predominat religionso always some "expert" guy will try to prove that gay is not naturalhe will use cience or religion like plato to prove one social believethe fact is gay are present in all human historyi dont think all gay man see or are tramatized by gay acts so he becomes gayi dont think all gays have
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 well tutuco think about this....in the southern states of America...
danielsh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 There have been many, many famous homosexuals throughout history.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 There are many famous homosexuals ... We built this [link] culturehahaa oh man that is a good one...
Dante Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 blaming it all on genetics is the biggest copout....I can't believe you can say that just after quoting me sayingStill, I'm not arguing for genetics I'm arguing for physiology; which again should have entered your life at some point. Your attraction to men is most likely a learned behaviour since it obviously isnt a normal reproductive habit.It could just as easily be physiological. Physiology and genetics both produce different characteristics. And besides, homosexuality could very well not be a 'reproductive habit.' Since it doesn't encourage reproduction at all that seems like a viable theory to me. And will you quit with that word 'normal'?Well, there is correct behaviour and correct reproduction processes.There is no correct behaviour, and there are correct reproduction processes, but why should that be the course of homosexuality? It is possible to label something as incorrect or defect without persecuting it.Oxymoronism, or moronism? ::)i believe that is a form of admiration, perhaps the same type of admiration a gay man might use.And you are by no means qualified to make that assumption. Void, null, pointless, it is.As a heterosexual, you look at men and say, "That man's attractive."
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 *ignores irrelevant one-liner "nuh-uh" mess of responses above*
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 also i might add that Greek Army Generals used to encourage and promote homosexuality amongst troops to strengthen the bond between soldiers.This was done so the men would fight harder.... because they would be fighting with not only their friends.. but their lovers...So this is another piece of evidence that strengthens my point of homosexuality being a learned behavior. These men were actually told to have sex with each other and that it was a good thing.... So of course the men tried it out. And of course sex is gonna feel good no matter who it is with ( an orgasm is an orgasm) .... so of course they liked it and before you know it ... you have full blown homosexuality. Also some psychological studies have stated that if you have sex with someone you will eventually fall in love with them... whether you intended to or not. Basically sexual relations forms a mental bond.So then it follows that even if you are heterosexual.... that if you indulge in homosexual acts long enough.... you could grow to love that man.The more and more you look into this matter it just seems to gather more evidence that homosexuality is a learned and voluntary behavior that seems to reinforce itself mentally amongst the practitioners.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 One of these days, Gunwounds, you're going to learn how to distinguish between serious discourse and something that is so flagrantly false that it must be hyperbole.And the Greeks you're referring to never actually penetrated each other; that would have been dishonorable.
nemafakei Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 The reason, Gunwounds, they're one line responses, is that it doesn't take much to point out the flaws and holes in the arguments you make."There are many famous homosexuals ... We built this culture"Dan, was this a response to something? If so, point out the text, since it's unclear.If it isn't a response to something, then what on earth is your argument?Gunwounds, you keep citing cases and situations where homosexuality is or can be a learned behavoiour, but you have still failed to show that it cannot be anything else.Let us imagine a situation in which I have had no encouragement, pressure, or similar stimulus whatsoever to become gay, but I find that I am emotionally attracted to men just as anyone else would be towards women, and conversely, I am unattracted towards women.Do you suggest that this can never occur? (for this is what your stance seems to suggest)If so, what evidence have you? (not evidence suggesting alternative ways that I might have become 'gay', we've heard enough of those, and they're not relevant)
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Let us imagine a situation in which I have had no encouragement, pressure, or similar stimulus whatsoever to become gay, but I find that I am emotionally attracted to men just as anyone else would be towards women, and conversely, I am unattracted towards women.Show me an environment with no encouragement, no pressure, and no stimulus.
danielsh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 "There are many famous homosexuals ... We built this culture"Dan, was this a response to something? If so, point out the text, since it's unclear.If it isn't a response to something, then what on earth is your argument?It was meant as a joke, in response to Tutuco's statement thatthe fact is gay are present in all human historyGunwounds, I was trying to make a distinction between rubbing up against someone to create fiction and camaraderie and actually feeling a physical or emotional attraction to that person. And I'm not trying to concede anything---you're saying that sexuality can be learned, and I'm saying that there's no reason people can't move all over the sexual spectrum. I find myself very close to "gay," in that I can't think of a woman to whom I'm physically attracted. You probably find yourself very close to "straight," in that you probably can't think of a man to whom you're physically attracted. But someone might be heteroflexible, as the expression goes---that is, a man who's mostly a breeder but fools around with the other team once in a while. I don't see sexuality as a toggle switch---on/off, gay/straight---I see it as a continuum. That doesn't mean sexuality is learned, it just means sexuality isn't defined as strictly as you'd like to think.
danielsh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 A simplistic form of same sex appreciation is sort of present in young boys... young boys think that "girls are gross" and they only want to play with boys.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Of course, you still haven't accounted for the fact that gay porn turned this mystery child on in the first place, nor have you provided any evidence more than your---to use the term loosely---reasoning.You totally missed my point.... A child's first masturbatory experience will not be a fantasy, or love, or anything like that.It will simply be something he does because it feels good.
nemafakei Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 "Let us imagine a situation""We are talking about the real world Nema"Ever heard of a hypothetical question?Now, see if you can answer questions as asked quicker than empr (I think his record for thick-skulledness in this respect extended to a dozen posts apiece)...Let's make this simpler.To begin, are you saying that sexuality can be...i. Only a learned behaviourii. Only a voluntary behaviouriii. Learned or voluntary, but never anything elseiv. Due, in part or in whole, to another cause against which it is possible to resist.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I like the ease with which you associate emotional attraction with physical attraction.
danielsh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I'm so tempted to test your theory by posting some gay porn.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 "Let us imagine a situation""We are talking about the real world Nema"Ever heard of a hypothetical question?Now, see if you can answer questions as asked quicker than empr (I think his record for thick-skulledness in this respect extended to a dozen posts apiece)...Let's make this simpler.To begin, are you saying that sexuality can be...i. Only a learned behaviourii. Only a voluntary behaviouriii. Learned or voluntary, but never anything elseiv. Due, in part or in whole, to another cause against which it is possible to resist.In my post above with blue text i think i pretty clearly defined how a child progresses through sexuality... and that at one point children have neutral erections that are purely mechanical.obviously as they mature they will be subjected to something that could decide to or decide not to associate with their orgasms.
nemafakei Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Edit: added quote for context: "You seem to want to separate mechanical sex with emotional love... but the two are entwined.. one strengthens the other."With such associations (the existence of which I won't deny), your stance seems to predict that the physical alone gives rise to the emotional, and that the emotional cannot exist without it. Is this your stance?This question comes in addition to the previous. Your answer seems to be iii, but I'd like you to confirm this, because previous experience tells me that your responses turn out not to always mean what they first appear.
Recommended Posts