Jump to content

Homosexuality-> Genetics, Choice, or Both?


Recommended Posts

as i was saying before the homosexuality thread was destroyed prematurely...

Innocent young children can have normal admiration/fascination type feelings for the same sex... this can be understood as normal feelings or this can be misunderstood for "homosexual" feelings which they are not.  If the misunderstood viewpoint is taken, then when the teenage desire to reach an orgasm becomes unbearable, he will have to choose which type of fantasy and/or material to use to reach an orgasm, and if the misunderstood viewpoint of his/her feelings are taken then homosexual fantasies and/or material will be used instead of heterosexual ones.  The use of these fantasies and material will cause the brain to release dopamine which in turn will give a feeling of euphoria.  This euphoria will cause positive reinforcement which will have the brain associate the state of homosexuality with pleasure.  Positive reinforcement will strengthen the admiration and fascination feelings towards the same sex causing the child/teenager to form a "bond" with members of the same  sex.  This is also known as "Romantic Feelings".  Everyone knows that if you have sex with someone or fantasize about them... you will run the high risk of falling in love with them.  Because repeated positive reinforcement will cause the person to desire a relationship with the person in order to keep the feelings of euphoria from dissipating.

Heterosexuality works the same way except that normal procreative desires are enhanced through positive reinforcement instead of normal admiration/fascination feelings of the same sex being enhanced through misunderstanding.

This should explain how i define heterosexuality ...which you kept badgering me for Nema in the dungeonized thread...

Guns

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Acriku and TMA's responses which were deleted....

I think that homosexuality is genetic only in extreme cases where someone is born a hemaphrodite and their sex is in question... or if they have a severe hormonal imbalance... or if they have any other OBVIOUS severe genetic disorder.  If they do not possess these blatant disorders and are merely gay thru the misinterpretation of normal admiration feelings coupled with positive reinforcement, then they are psychologically gay through choosing their form of positive reinforcement after misunderstanding their feelings or after being traumatized.

Also even if someone becomes gay thru traumatization like prison or abuse.. they still become "Romantic Gays" in the end so they are no different from people who claim to be "pure gays" as the end result is the same.. they are both "Romantic Gays".  SO there is no "pure gay person"  Whether you misinterpret your natural childhood feelings or if you misinterpret childhood abuse... and decide to reach orgasm thru homosexual positive reinforcement.... both types will end up as romantic gays and are both considered the same "level" of gay.  TO say one is more pure than the other is a fallacy because at some point they both make the same choice of selecting homosexual fantasies or material to reach orgasm, and both will eventually become romantic gays thru prolonged duration of this positive reinforcement.

Guns

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the person has had no positive reinforcement, but rather negative punishment for their feelings, but still has them? How can you explain that person away?

Depends on which is stronger.... for instance... your father making fun of you is negative punishment... but the shame from your dad making fun of you is no match for the pleasure you get from the positive reinforcement of an orgasm ...or something as simple as deriving pleasure from staring at a man in public while your dad isnt watching.  If someone makes fun of you for masterbating Acriku... that is embarassing and its negative punishment.... but that negative punishment is too weak to overcome the positive reinforcement that you get when you reach orgasm during masterbation.  Hence you continue to masterbate despite the shameful stigma of masterbation.  And its impossible to have "NO" reinforcement or punishment.... we all get some positive and some negative... no matter how small or large it is.

Also they teach in psychology class that positive reinforcement is a better and more powerful tool for changing behavior than negative punishment.  Negative punishment can be rebelled against or hatred against the negative reinforcement can be harbored.  Whereas positive reinforcement  is a pleasurable way of altering behavior and therefore has little to no resistance.  So i guess i would have to agree with my psychology professor there.

*Note - i made a typo in my first post.. there was a sentence when i said "form a bond with the opposite sex" and i meant to type "form a bond with the same sex."   It has been corrected.

Guns

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on which is stronger.... for instance... your father making fun of you is negative reinforcement... but the shame from your dad making fun of you is no match for the pleasure you get from the positive reinforcement of an orgasm ...or something as simple as deriving pleasure from staring at a man in public while your dad isnt watching.  If someone makes fun of you for masterbating Acriku... that is embarassing and its negative reinforcement.... but that negative reinforcement is too weak to overcome the positive reinforcement that you get when you reach orgasm during masterbation.  Hence you continue to masterbate despite the shameful stigma of masterbation.  And its impossible to have "NO" reinforcement.. we all get some positive and some negative... no matter how small or large it is.

To correct your misconceptions, reinforcement is to increase a behavior, whereas punishment is to decrease a behavior. A person making fun of you is positive punishment because they've added redicule in order to decrease your behavior (it is in no way reinforcement because the person making fun of you does not intend to increase the behavior). What I was referring to is negative punishment whereas the person loses their rights (like to be homosexual period, or to father/mother a child through adoption), personal properties (vandalism) and even financials (like losing your job, not getting a loan), where any stable person would rather have those than the feelings they can't help but feel. Why would a person continue to "choose" to be homosexual if all of these take place (and are, in this great country of ours)? Remember, no positive reinforcement (adding something in order to increase the behavior) and plenty of negative punishment (taking away something in order to decrease the behavior). It is not impossible to not have positive reinforcement, or I should say significant positive reinforcement. A child brought up in a WASP family would very much have little to no positive reinforcement. Why do they remain homosexual? Well, I guess choice isn't a big part of the equation, is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To correct your misconceptions, reinforcement is to increase a behavior, whereas punishment is to decrease a behavior. A person making fun of you is positive punishment because they've added redicule in order to decrease your behavior (it is in no way reinforcement because the person making fun of you does not intend to increase the behavior). What I was referring to is negative punishment whereas the person loses their rights (like to be homosexual period, or to father/mother a child through adoption), personal properties (vandalism) and even financials (like losing your job, not getting a loan), where any stable person would rather have those than the feelings they can't help but feel. Why would a person continue to "choose" to be homosexual if all of these take place (and are, in this great country of ours)? Remember, no positive reinforcement (adding something in order to increase the behavior) and plenty of negative punishment (taking away something in order to decrease the behavior). It is not impossible to not have positive reinforcement, or I should say significant positive reinforcement. A child brought up in a WASP family would very much have little to no positive reinforcement. Why do they remain homosexual? Well, I guess choice isn't a big part of the equation, is it?

Sorry for my semantical error... i was thinking negative punishment when i said negative reinforcement.  Psychology class was like 8 years ago.  Thanks for catching that.  I corrected my post.  I am typing a bit too fast i think.  Anyways...  the person growing up in the WASP family.. is pretty ambiguous.. we cant know what experiences he may or may not have had.  And there is no person we can use as an example except for hypothetical purposes.. and its probably not a realistic example. 

If a pre-teen in a non-gay environment saw an older guy in the pool shower and misinterpreted feelings of admiration/fascination and went and masterbated in a stall where nobody would see...he would get positive reinforcement.  Hence massive positive reinforcement is easy to obtain.  You dont have to be raised in a homosexual environment... if you simply misunderstand your feelings and decide to "go with it" you can give yourself all types of positive reinforcement when you have privacy.  I dont think your parents prevented you from positively reinforcing your heterosexual fantasies growing up... whether it was a magazine under the bed (or your dad's video hidden behind the vcr) ... or just a fantasy in your head ......you are in control of your orgasms and positive reinforcement.

Secondly.. the stuff about losing a loan, having your car vandalized, losing parental rights,  we dont know how many people lied about being gay in order to avoid this stuff......so lying or trying to hide it would be the obvious solution to avoiding negative punishment.. NOT changing your sexual tastes......also you would expect the natural reaction to be to fight for their rights instead of changing their sexual tastes.... especially since negative punishment is weaker than positive reinforcement.  Its easy to understand....I personally would lie about being heterosexual or fight for my right to a loan and my rights to my children's custody.....before changing my sexual tastes.  So its understandable that they would do the same.  And i would call the cops to report vandalism before changing my sexual tastes as well.  Sexual tastes are powerfully set once you condition your brain to accept it.  Its no surprise people would suffer persecution and negative punishment in order to keep what they have conditioned their brain to give them euphoria (this includes sex or romance, either one).  Especially when there are easier solutions such as lying, hiding, or being prideful and fighting for your rights.

Guns

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep referring to it as misunderstanding feelings? Would that mean that a kid looking at a hot woman in a pool would be be misunderstanding his feelings if he suddenly liked what he was seeing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep referring to it as misunderstanding feelings? Would that mean that a kid looking at a hot woman in a pool would be be misunderstanding his feelings if he suddenly liked what he was seeing?

A kid looking at a hot woman would be feeling the natural feeling to procreate.  This is natural.  To enhance this feeling and push it to the point of sexual contact or romance would be normal as well... as a penis is designed to enter into a vagina and ejaculate.

A kid looking at a hot man would be feeling the natural feeling to appreciate/admire/be fascinated with something more mature than him that he may one day become.  Little boys naturally idolize older boys because they want to be older boys.  And its natural for little boys to "hate girls" or say  "eeew yucky girls" and want to play with boys.  This is all natural.  Pre-teen boys have low levels of testosterone and are not that different from girls.  Squeaky voice, small shoulders, no facial hair, and so therefore "gay little boys" are not really gay.  However to enhance this feeling to the point of sexual contact or romance would be  UNnatural.  As a penis is not designed to do anything with another man.

Both sets of feelings in their primitive innocent state are natural.. but only one of those feelings were intended to be enhanced to the point of sexual contact or romance.  Pre-teen boys and even teenage boys are undeveloped and therefore are still quite feminine compared to a full grown man.  Thats why it is important for the boy to not misunderstand any feelings at this intermediate stage in his life... because if he does misunderstand these feelings he will end up positively reinforceing himself into a lifestyle that will be almost impossible to change once he is cemented into adulthood. 

It IS a CHOICE.. however the problem is that the choice is given to boys at a far far too early age.  Little boys are able to ejaculate at age 8.  This means that they are able to start positively reinforcing themselves to certain sexual tastes BEFORE they are even real men.  Now hopefully you can understand what i am trying to say.  Homosexuality IS a choice but its a choice given to us when we are young and and when we are still very poor decision makers.

Guns

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a case where the man, now adult with children of 30 years old, had the impression that he was attracted to other men. This was when he was younger. In any case, the priest at confession said to him that to go with a woman would make it pass. He was thinking about joining to priests too (he had the education background and so on).

Well he married and got a family. He divorced after all the children were gone from the house as they were old enough. It does not, from the data available, look like it's strictly a matter of psychology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A kid looking at a hot woman would be feeling the natural feeling to procreate.  This is natural.  To enhance this feeling and push it to the point of sexual contact or romance would be normal as well... as a penis is designed to enter into a vagina and ejaculate.

A kid looking at a hot man would be feeling the natural feeling to appreciate/admire/be fascinated with something more mature than him that he may one day become.  Little boys naturally idolize older boys because they want to be older boys.  And its natural for little boys to "hate girls" or say  "eeew yucky girls" and want to play with boys.  This is all natural.  Pre-teen boys have low levels of testosterone and are not that different from girls.  Squeaky voice, small shoulders, no facial hair, and so therefore "gay little boys" are not really gay.  However to enhance this feeling to the point of sexual contact or romance would be  UNnatural.  As a penis is not designed to do anything with another man.

Both sets of feelings in their primitive innocent state are natural.. but only one of those feelings were intended to be enhanced to the point of sexual contact or romance.  Pre-teen boys and even teenage boys are undeveloped and therefore are still quite feminine compared to a full grown man.  Thats why it is important for the boy to not misunderstand any feelings at this intermediate stage in his life... because if he does misunderstand these feelings he will end up positively reinforceing himself into a lifestyle that will be almost impossible to change once he is cemented into adulthood. 

It IS a CHOICE.. however the problem is that the choice is given to boys at a far far too early age.  Little boys are able to ejaculate at age 8.  This means that they are able to start positively reinforcing themselves to certain sexual tastes BEFORE they are even real men.  Now hopefully you can understand what i am trying to say.  Homosexuality IS a choice but its a choice given to us when we are young and and when we are still very poor decision makers.

Guns

Everything you say is in terms of evolution and how the species is what each organism is made to continue, how we procreate and develop relationships in order to further our genes and continue the species to prevent extinction. But that is not necessary anymore for human species, and saying things are defective because they reduce or stop procreation is not valid any more because our numbers are significant enough to have certain things not matter any more: the best example is that every organism must procreate. This might be extremely important for one population, but for us it is of trivial importance. People go through their lives not having any children, yet they are not defective. Natural selection plays a much less part in our species' survival because of our numbers and self-realization. Therefore, after all this is said, homosexuality is not a defect in human species and is actually beneficial considering our overpopulation.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you say is in terms of evolution and how the species is what each organism is made to continue, how we procreate and develop relationships in order to further our genes and continue the species to prevent extinction. But that is not necessary anymore for human species, and saying things are defective because they reduce or stop procreation is not valid any more because our numbers are significant enough to have certain things not matter any more: the best example is that every organism must procreate. This might be extremely important for one population, but for us it is of trivial importance. People go through their lives not having any children, yet they are not defective. Natural selection plays a much less part in our species' survival because of our numbers and self-realization. Therefore, after all this is said, homosexuality is not a defect in human species and is actually beneficial considering our overpopulation.

I understand what you are saying... but... just because procreation is trivial to our population.... that does not follow that it exempts it from being a biological defect in terms of reproduction, and it does not exclude it from being a psychological choice.  Your point is more along the lines of "Well it X is insignificant and it might be useful so its not a defect"  However, A person who is suicidal and kills themselves could be looked at in the same way.  I mean with 6 billion people... who cares if a few million blow their brains out each year.  With 6 billion people.. living or dying is pretty trivial... and if these people kill themselves then its less strain on Social security and they will eat less food and they will take up less housing since dead people dont need food or housing.  And with 6 billion ... suicidal depression is actually beneficial considering overpopulation......however, i think we can all agree that suicidal depression is a psychological defect.  I am sure due to the fact that we have 6 billion people and overpopulation that we could justify alot of things and call alot of things "trivial"...  But in reality that is just living by the lowest common denominator.  Not very logical or acceptable, but thats just me.

Guns

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a case where the man, now adult with children of 30 years old, had the impression that he was attracted to other men. This was when he was younger. In any case, the priest at confession said to him that to go with a woman would make it pass. He was thinking about joining to priests too (he had the education background and so on).

Well he married and got a family. He divorced after all the children were gone from the house as they were old enough. It does not, from the data available, look like it's strictly a matter of psychology.

Thats ambiguous tho... we cant really know why he divorced...  perhaps he did positive reinforcement to both men and women while growing up.. we cannot know what he did in his free time.  He may have reinforced to both women and men and therefore became bisexual.  Maybe his wife was a real witch and he decided he didnt want anymore kids or females problems and decide to go with a simpler male relationship.  However in your example you just said he got divorced...you didnt say whether he got with another man or another woman.  Heck maybe he just wanted to try some taboo stuff.  You example is lacking alot of information... alot of which we will never know.  So you cant really take ambiguous examples and say "Oh this clearly isnt psychology".    Also the priest should have made a better explaination to him rather than "oh it will pass" ... the boy was definately confused and needed to know that it was completely natural... and in addition... many misconceptions can follow someone into adulthood.  Some people never get over inferiority complexes that they suffered back in highschool when the jocks or whatever  use to beat them up and stuff them in lockers....and that same inferiority complex follows them into adulthood.  Its called baggage.

Guns

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying... but... just because procreation is trivial to our population.... that does not follow that it exempts it from being a biological defect in terms of reproduction, and it does not exclude it from being a psychological choice.  Your point is more along the lines of "Well it X is insignificant and it might be useful so its not a defect"  However, A person who is suicidal and kills themselves could be looked at in the same way.  I mean with 6 billion people... who cares if a few million blow their brains out each year.  With 6 billion people.. living or dying is pretty trivial... and if these people kill themselves then its less strain on Social security and they will eat less food and they will take up less housing since dead people dont need food or housing.  And with 6 billion ... suicidal depression is actually beneficial considering overpopulation......however, i think we can all agree that suicidal depression is a psychological defect.  I am sure due to the fact that we have 6 billion people and overpopulation that we could justify alot of things and call alot of things "trivial"...  But in reality that is just living by the lowest common denominator.  Not very logical or acceptable, but thats just me.

Guns

That case is more obvious than homosexuality, sure. However, there's nothing wrong psychologically with homosexuals as it does not disrupt their personal lives or professional lives (excluding limits met by outside individuals) and therefore should not be seen as a psychological defect/disorder. Being a physical defect, well that's harder to determine because there is no real loss or disadvantage, since many women don't even have children at all in their lives (producing the same output for homosexuals). Unless you want to call women who refuse to have children a defect, you can't really call homosexuality a defect.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns, please, be quiet.  Please.  Unless you're gay (you certainly seem to like describing certain acts that would seem to indicate at least bisexuality), you know sweet FA about being gay.  I'm not, but I know that it's not something that needs to be cured, nor is it a 'condition'.  I took Psychology as well, and homosexuality is not a learned behaviour that could POSSIBLY be induced by reinforcement (positive OR negative) or punishment.

Lock this topic, and leave the entire subject well alone.  People here don't seem to be ready to accept certain facts.  This is just the same as saying 'women are inferior' or 'black people are (insert insult here)'.  Which they are NOT.

And before you, or anyone else responds, chances are you're wrong anyway.  I won't be posting in this thread (or any like it) again.  Just had to let my feelings about this be known.  Regardless, though... Guns?  You're wrong.  End of story.

Nope, no snappy comebacks, please; you're just wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I sympathize, I think debate brings out the reasons behind his and my arguments which would help us all (instead of  aggressively squashing him). I don't know, if you want to lock it go ahead. I figured we were getting somewhere, if anything at least a mutual understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That case is more obvious than homosexuality, sure. However, there's nothing wrong psychologically with homosexuals as it does not disrupt their personal lives or professional lives (excluding limits met by outside individuals) and therefore should not be seen as a psychological defect/disorder. Being a physical defect, well that's harder to determine because there is no real loss or disadvantage, since many women don't even have children at all in their lives (producing the same output for homosexuals). Unless you want to call women who refuse to have children a defect, you can't really call homosexuality a defect.

     Well "defect" per say isnt my main point.  Defect may be a harsh word... and even insulting.... but its not meant to be.  I really dont have anything against a homosexual person.  I just think that from what you and I have discussed Acriku, its atleast somewhat clear that altho it may be an insignificant defect... it most certainly is a CHOICE (just as a woman not having kids is a choice by your example)... although its a choice made at an age where we shouldnt be making choices.  An 8 year old shouldnt have to be subject to sexual feelings or feelings of admiration/fascination and have to sort them out at such a young age when their decision making processes and comprehension skills are poor.

     So while maybe we can come to a mutual understanding that homosexuality isnt some glaring outrageous defect... i think we should also have a mutual understanding that it IS a sexual taste.... it IS a personal choice... and it is NOT some mystical thing that people are born with and cannot control.  I absolutely hate it when people try to mystify homosexuality... there is nothing mysterious about it.  Its not some age old mystery that will never be understood.  Its pretty simple to understand.  Thats probably my biggest beef.  You see the reason people want to mystify  homosexuality and say it cant be controlled.. is so that it wont have to be subject to morality issues.  Thats the conspiracy.  BUt here's the thing.. heterosexuality isnt exempt from morality issues... womanizing is definitely heterosexual.. but it is considered immoral.  Homosexuals dont want to be considered immoral... so they try to mystify it and throw it out of the bounds of morality.  Which is a whole nother issue in itself.

     The reason we have a problem understanding homosexuality is not due to the fact that the subject is complex... the problem is that homophobia prevents people from telling the truth.  All these macho men saying that they never have looked at a man in a weird way or that it would be "impossible" for them to ever love a man...... yea right.... I agree with Dan .. (an old poster with the mouse avatar) when he said that all people are bisexual... they just lean to one side or the other.  So all this talk of "you're not gay so STFU" is pointless.  Because we all know what it is like to appreciate the same sex.  Women know what a beautiful woman is and men know what a beautiful man is.  If you try to argue against this you are just insecure about your sexuality and playing the macho card out of fear somebody is gonna call you a "homo" or "f*g". 

  @ Dragoon---->  First of all stop posting like a child.... second of all, stop demanding moderation, as it is against the rules in the FAQ.. you are not supposed to impersonate a moderator, and finally stop coming up with ridiculous comparison such as comparing homosexuals to people like women or blacks... women's rights groups and blacks rights groups actually get offended when you compare their plight to homosexuals.  So please stop it. Now.

     As for your refutation of my post... take this into account.... Many studies have shown where a heterosexual man is hooked up to an erection detector and shown homosexual porn.  An overwhelming percentage of heterosexual men got an erection from looking at homosexual porn.  And i dont see this as totally incomprehensible.  I mean you own the "equipment" ... and i am sure you like your own equipment... so its not a huge stretch to find heterosexual men who get aroused when viewing homosexual porn.  And we have even established that heterosexual men can engage in homosexual acts and not be considered homosexual.  You arent considered homosexual until you develop the "Romantic Feelings"... but engage in enough homosexual acts or fantasies and the dopamine release followed by euphoria will transform you over time to where you could be considered a "Romantic Homosexual". 

     I fail to see how positive reinforcement works in every other case but sexuality.... actually to be honest... positive reinforcement probably works BEST for sexuality than other things... simply because of the fact that it is mainly chemical euphoria akin to drugs.  Give a woman an orgasm and i guarantee you she will come back for more and more and more.  Why?  cause it feels great... hence the positive reinforcement.  If you cannot understand this simple simple logic... i refuse to argue anymore because you will just be arguing to spite me.  Trying to debate this aspect with me is like arguing about 2+2 = 4.  You will only look foolish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I sympathize, I think debate brings out the reasons behind his and my arguments which would help us all (instead of  aggressively squashing him). I don't know, if you want to lock it go ahead. I figured we were getting somewhere, if anything at least a mutual understanding.

We do have a mutual understanding.. but some immature people would rather beg to lock things and dungeonize them instead of achieving clarity through discussion.  Many things you said have made me think hard and if not for this discussion we wouldnt have gotten this far.  Posters who want to act like the moderator's henchmen need to read the PRP description  .. "Not intended for the weak minded"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunwounds, you post in order to be offensive, and push the issue onto the rest of us for the same reason. There isn't a debate or an understanding here because neither party is the slightest bit convinced by or interested in the opposing viewpoints. This topic serves no purpose but to inflame and annoy; in other words, trolling. Which is why I left it alone until now and will most likely continue to do. After all, it's not like any contribution I could make would have any effect.

Besides which, some of us prefer topics that don't imply that we are devient, perverted, evil, defective, hedonistic, paedophilic, sexually frustrated, genetically defunct abominations of nature. I might actually be prepared to discuss anything with others, were it not for the offensive asides.

Or maybe not. Being told that you're just a whimsical decision is insulting enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a debate or an understanding here because neither party is the slightest bit convinced by or interested in the opposing viewpoints.

  Why is it that we can discuss and debate religion, God, abortion, current and past conflicts in Iraq all of which for many have deep-seeded opposing viewpoints and beliefs....yet THIS is just out-right Taboo. I can understand thread-locking for direct insulting of one person, or just getting a bit too heated at times. But isn't PRP suppose to be heated at times? I mean it is debating different beliefs. So why not rebute instead of just crying, "homophobes!" 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Why is it that we can discuss and debate religion, God, abortion, current and past conflicts in Iraq all of which for many have deep-seeded opposing viewpoints and beliefs....yet THIS is just out-right Taboo. I can understand thread-locking for direct insulting of one person, or just getting a bit too heated at times. But isn't PRP suppose to be heated at times? I mean it is debating different beliefs. So why not rebute instead of just crying, "homophobes!"   

Atleast someone gets it!   ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it serves no point, prolongs an already overlong argument, and gives the opposition yet another oppertunity to repeat their tired old dogma. Again. I gave my arguments in the previous thread, repeating them here would not be useful or productive.

Also, neither in this thread nor its predecessor did I ever label anyone homophobic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it serves no point, prolongs an already overlong argument, and gives the opposition yet another oppertunity to repeat their tired old dogma. Again. I gave my arguments in the previous thread, repeating them here would not be useful or productive.

Also, neither in this thread nor its predecessor did I ever label anyone homophobic.

homosexuality is the LEAST of the offensive topics we discuss here in PRP.... many abortion debaters arent interested or convinced by their opponents arguements and the arguments only serve to annoy and offend.

Actually Dante's complaint and/or faulty logic COULD apply to ALL PRP topics... in all the threads you have one side that isnt convinced or interested in the opponents arguements and all the topics COULD only serve to annoy and offend.....and there is never a resolution .... if there were... then all debate would cease to exist and we would all be happy little carebears.

So until Dante realizes that his complaint has no logical merit he just isnt "getting it"

How about this then.... I want all topics that contain a christian - atheist debate to be locked and dungeonize and have  no more created.... because they offend and annoy me and hurt my delicate wittle feelings.  ::)  See how silly that sounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it serves no point

I think if a topic, any topic that more than 1 person debating certainly is debatable if they are trying to make viable points about the subject via thier opinion. We don't all agree with alot that is posted, but we do...well should have the right to debate it in a mature fashion.

The history of homosexuality has points just as nazis' abortion,religion,how bad the USA is at war,Christianity,Atheism etc, etc, etc. The point is... it's debatable no matter how much one dislikes it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would always be useful to list out several general arguments first before starting a debate if it's relating to an age-old topic. At least we'll see less repetitions. The problem with most debates that get dungeonised is that we don't get to see the arguments again. Damn! :'(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...