Undeterminable Sexuality

[Sandy]

[B]Attimus:[/B] Yes, there has actually been wide researches on animal homosexuality, and it has been witnessed to exist among many species - especially mammals. Google it to find out more, if you will.

Also, I only responded to your argument that sex is only meant for breeding (a medieval conception, by the way, that has little base in modern western society). Obviously two guys or two girls can't have children in their sexual relationship, so is it wrong then for them/us to make love? Especially when most heterosexual couples also do it "for fun". Don't be a double-standardist, please!

And when you are disgusted by your friends' homosexuality, you are [I]not[/I] just appalled by what they [I]do[/I], but also who they [I]are[/I].

Sex is a natural thing to all lifeforms, and to expect somebody to live in selibacy just because you're grossed out by the act shows uttermost neglection and disrespect - not to mention it makes [I]you[/I] look stuck-up and proud.

You say you aren't judging anybody, but actually you're doing it constantly! Gay sex doesn't [I]hurt[/I] anybody, it has no consequences if proper protection is used, and the love between two guys or girls can be just as affectionate as "straight love" - trust me, a dating gay guy, on that - so [i]why are you so bothered by it?![/i] Can't you just let everybody be who they are, without condemning or moralizing?

If you're a Christian, then you should be aware that Jesus taught people to love, not judge. Besides, that part where one must stone gay guys to death is taken from the Old Testament, from the laws of a long-lost nation.

Why should that one part of the law still apply to our society, when the numerous others (about eating and hygiene and slaves, etc.) don't?

[Shane12_01]

"I just disagre with being gay in general. God made two sexes, not one, deal with it." -Atttimus331

sorry I didnt want to quote the whole thing... some of you should write a book because you've wrten alot alreadydamn... :animestun

Anyway to the quote above God also gave us a free will and gave us the power to make our own choices... and speaking of God I love Jesus does that make me gay?!? If it does Im proud to be bie... if not Im as strait as an arrow. :p
then to those who make that choice I have to say... whatever make you happy, and have fun. :D

[Solo Tremaine]

[color=#503f86]I gather a fair amount of people feel it's neccesarry to be gay or bisexual (or at least be labelled as being so) to be fashionable. I've certainly seen this a few times, and it doesn't help issues any. [/color]

[QUOTE=Hug Monster][color=purple]But why, why do people get so... emotional about these things? If your regretting it or freaked out by it why the hell are you... it? People act like they have no choice or power over their sexuality but I think thats total bull. We have control over everything we do.

Also I want the thread to die so no more bullcrap gets started, though I guess I started some in that same desire... oh well.[/color][/QUOTE][color=#503f86]Excuse me for being blunt, but you're forgetting how closely linked the mind and body are. If your hormones are out of whack (a physical symptom), then it's going to affect your emotions. Similarly, being depressed is going to affect the way your body reacts to certain situations.

There's an intangible explanation as to why not being near someone else makes you feel lonely, and there's a physical element to that as well as an emotional one, and both of those will be affected (to varying extents) by everything that happens to you.

Feelings aren't rational, and you can't often rationalise them. Whether discovering your homosexuality means you've a genetic inconsistency or have just made the cognitive decision to feel that way, it's always going to create emotional situations. And likewise for that very reason, if something feels right (so to speak...) then because of our rational thought we should be able to understand why people feel the way they do. You can rationalise decisions made on feelings, but not the feelings themselves.

Since when were sex and relationships not an emotional matter anyway?[/color]

[quote name='Attimus331']The only difference between the animals and the humans is rational thought[/quote][color=#503f86]And yet as far as I know, you don't see animals being chided for homosexuality. Funny, that. I guess rational thought isn't all it's cracked up to be.[/color]

[color=#503f86]Unfortunately the arguments towards homosexuality in the animal kingdom have many conclusions drawn from them for publicity and propaganda purposes when perhaps they shouldn't be (e.g., that it's beneficial to a species- I know no-one here's actually saying that, but a lot of people do). That said, I found one website to do with family science research that pinned 'gay life' down as some kind of evil decadence that tries to ensnare your children into its drug-addled clutches, lol.[/color]
[color=#503f86][/color]
[color=#503f86]Which it isn't. It's not a cult, or a sect or anything like that. It's a life decision.[/color]

[color=#503f86]What research does show is that homosexuality occurs in many instances across the entire mammal kingdom. That's it. Considering our intellectual advancement in comparison to any other creature on the planet, our emotions are far more developed and as such it's difficult to compare the two objectively when looking at causes for the behaviour and its acceptance into societies. However, physical patterns are much easier to identify and apply to our own bodies since the evolutionary lines and adaptations are much easier to trace. The problem is that we can actually think about it, where other animals can't. If they could, I'm sure you'd find similar prejudices and segregations developing between animal communities.[/color]

[color=#503f86]Of course, looking at it on a wider scale, there's little to no point getting aggrovated about it in the first place. What [i]actual[/i] harm is it going to do if someone else is gay and justifying their feelings for it? Why does it matter so much that someone has fallen in love with someone else of the same sex?[/color]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Solo Tremaine][color=#503f86]Of course, looking at it on a wider scale, there's little to no point getting aggrovated about it in the first place. What [i]actual[/i'] harm is it going to do if someone else is gay and justifying their feelings for it? Why does it matter so much that someone has fallen in love with someone else of the same sex?[/color][/quote][COLOR=teal]Because the reasoning also supports beastiality as well as autosexuality (getting turned on by yourself or preferring masturbation). And that's a double standard - well, unless you actually find those as ok (which brings a whole array of other problems). Double standards indicate a flaw in fundamental reasoning (i.e., something is wrong with your conclusion and/or rationale).

Just to play devil's advocate. ^^ *throws wood into fire and runs like hell*[/COLOR]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=teal]Because the reasoning also supports beastiality as well as autosexuality (getting turned on by yourself or preferring masturbation). And that's a double standard - well, unless you actually find those as ok (which brings a whole array of other problems). Double standards indicate a flaw in fundamental reasoning (i.e., something is wrong with your conclusion and/or rationale).

Just to play devil's advocate. ^^ *throws wood into fire and runs like hell*[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Hello? Thinking that self-satisfaction is wrong is [I]so[/I] last millennium. :P What problems does masturbation bring anyway, if I may ask? ,:) Besides, almost [I]all[/I] men (besides asexuals) do that, wether they're straight, gay or bi.

And I have [I]no[/I] idea what bestiality means in this context. Isn't it human/animal sex? :/ There's rarely a concensus on sex in [I]those[/I] "relationships"...

I really see no double-standardism in gay sex itself. In reality, it doesn't differ very much from heterosexual intercourse - there's just no risk of getting knocked up. ;D

[Solo Tremaine]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][color=teal]Because the reasoning also supports beastiality as well as autosexuality (getting turned on by yourself or preferring masturbation). And that's a double standard - well, unless you actually find those as ok (which brings a whole array of other problems). Double standards indicate a flaw in fundamental reasoning (i.e., something is wrong with your conclusion and/or rationale).

Just to play devil's advocate. ^^ *throws wood into fire and runs like hell*[/color][/QUOTE][color=#503f86]You're applying a double-standard to two very different situations. There's no doubt in saying that if you enjoy getting it off with something not of your own species then there's something wrong with you. Even at the most basic instinctive level it's wrong because it's not as if anything other than sexual satisfaction can be gained from it. And even though the same thing can be said for homosexual sex you're implying that people can form stable relationships with animals, which isn't true.

Besides, homosexual sex in a relationship would be consensual; bestiality's as good as rape. And autosexuality's just someone being classically conditioned to finding their own masturbation arousing. They masturbate and find it arousing (obviously), and because they get positive reinforcement from masturbating, they associate sensations they get at orgasm with themselves masturbating, and hence they develop sexual feelings for themselves. It's cyclicar, and constantly being reinforced. Getting turned on by something isn't the same as a sexual preference. It's not as if you can even properly have sex with yourself, which in my opinion'd be a true definition of autosexuality.

Sexuality isn't [i]just about sex[/i]. While by definition it plays a large role, there's more complexity to it, certainly in humans.[/color]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Sandy]Hello? Thinking that self-satisfaction is wrong is [I]so[/I] last millennium. :P What problems does masturbation bring anyway, if I may ask? ,:) Besides, almost [I]all[/I] men (besides asexuals) do that, wether they're straight, gay or bi.[/QUOTE][COLOR=teal]You misread my post, and thankfully, Solo has clarified it: [QUOTE']And autosexuality's just someone being classically conditioned to finding their own masturbation arousing. They masturbate and find it arousing (obviously), and because they get positive reinforcement from masturbating, they associate sensations they get at orgasm with themselves masturbating, and hence they develop sexual feelings for themselves. It's cyclicar, and constantly being reinforced.[/quote] Autosexuality is when you find yourself sexually attracted to yourself. It is a big psychological problem that thankfully is rare.

As for the "everybody mastubates" rumor, that's a facade originating in the US for the sake of making everyone feel better about doing it. Well, I can't argue more than that, since I really can't/haven't asked every man. However, there have been scientific experiments/surveys where they see the benefits (or negatives) of masturbation, by following a sample of men who masturbated since puberty against a sample of men who never masturbated until old age. The results were interesting, but I guess they were made up since everyone masturbates! XD

It's funny how many people's opinions and facts arise only from questionable propaganda, lol. Always question facts and sources that you only hear of (and yes, that can go for what I'm saying here too).[QUOTE]And I have [I]no[/I] idea what bestiality means in this context. Isn't it human/animal sex? :/ There's rarely a concensus on sex in [I]those[/I] "relationships"...[/QUOTE] This makes no sense. So just because - say - a dog can't speak, he has no ability to show approval or disapproval? I'd say initiating the act with a human is consent, but that's just me. [QUOTE]I really see no double-standardism in gay sex itself. In reality, it doesn't differ very much from heterosexual intercourse - there's just no risk of getting knocked up. ;D[/QUOTE] There is a double standard. A big one. If you are going to say "what is wrong with letting any two people regardless of gender love," why does that not extend out to other species? Why are you restricting love when some people believe it is an abstraction that transcends even species?

It's the same reasoning, really.

Solo, I don't understand what you mean about forming stable relationships with other species. I'd argue otherwise, but I'm not sure if you mean what I think you mean.[/COLOR]

[Fyxe]

[QUOTE=Solo Tremaine][color=#503f86]
Sexuality isn't [i]just about sex[/i]. While by definition it plays a large role, there's more complexity to it, certainly in humans.[/color][/QUOTE]

[size=1][color=slategray]I love you, lol. Yes, sexuality has never been just about sex. I mean, you can be attracted to someone [I]without having sexual feelings toward them.[/I] And wasn't that Hug Monster's problem in the first place? That he is attracted to guys, but cannot picture himself having sexual feelings toward them? There is such a thing as "personality attraction," which is how people fall in love anyway. People can have a perfectly fine and mutual relationship without ever involving sex, if that's just how they feel about it.
People may have their urges, but sex isn't the foundation to most relationships... well... it shouldn't be, either. >>[/color][/size]

[Deadpool]

I'm not gay but I don't have anything against them either. I actually know a guy someone who is gay and we are friends. If someone wants to be gay or a girl wants to be a lesbian they have every right to be. Don't base your decision off of what other people say. Do your own thing.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[QUOTE=Lix][size=1][color=slategray]I love you, lol. Yes, sexuality has never been just about sex. I mean, you can be attracted to someone [I]without having sexual feelings toward them.[/I] And wasn't that Hug Monster's problem in the first place? That he is attracted to guys, but cannot picture himself having sexual feelings toward them? There is such a thing as "personality attraction," which is how people fall in love anyway. People can have a perfectly fine and mutual relationship without ever involving sex, if that's just how they feel about it.
People may have their urges, but sex isn't the foundation to most relationships... well... it shouldn't be, either. >>[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Purple]Presicely. I can fall in love with a guy, hell I'd probably be better off with one but I could never see myself sexorsizing a dude.

To all those people who were talking about autosexuality and bestality, all I have have to say is if you fall in love with an animal, that's your problem (and I say problem because loving something that doesn't love you back sucks) but if you have sex with an animal, thats freakin rape right there, throw your *** in prison! As for autosexuality, I pity the fool who falls in love with himself!

Also, if homosexuals are gay and heterosexuals are strait, what are bisexuals? bi is dumb, we should have some kind of weird title too! >:O[/COLOR]

[Solo Tremaine]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][color=teal]It's funny how many people's opinions and facts arise only from questionable propaganda, lol. Always question facts and sources that you only hear of (and yes, that can go for what I'm saying here too). This makes no sense. So just because - say - a dog can't speak, he has no ability to show approval or disapproval? I'd say initiating the act with a human is consent, but that's just me. There is a double standard. A big one. If you are going to say "what is wrong with letting any two people regardless of gender love," why does that not extend out to other species? Why are you restricting love when some people believe it is an abstraction that transcends even species?

It's the same reasoning, really.

Solo, I don't understand what you mean about forming stable relationships with other species. I'd argue otherwise, but I'm not sure if you mean what I think you mean.[/color][/QUOTE][color=#503f86]What I mean is that you can't form a meaningful, successful or even beneficial relationship with an animal. The most you can get is physical comfort and you might be able to delude yourself into thinking that the animal can communicate and understand what you're saying, but the actual state of the relationship is far below the levels of a homosexual relationship, where partners can converse on equal terms and gain emotional security and support each other in a beneficial relationship.

Bestiality is a [b]Paraphilia- [/b]a mental health term used to indicate sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for [i]reciprocal affectionate sexual activity[/i], which is why it is separated from homosexuality. They're fetishes and mental disorders, and include exhibitionism, pedophilia, masochism and sadism, among other things. The fact that most bestialists often have long-term relationships with humans as well should prove this well enough.

What you're ignoring is the fact that even if an animal did object to the treatment it's being given, a human could easily overpower it anyway (depending on the animal). What you're effectively comparing homosexual sex to, which is usually consencsal and has a deeper emotional understanding behind it on a two-way level, is bestiality whereby the animal doesn't fully comprehend the situation it's in. The vast majority of animals don't even have sex for pleasure, and males will often hump each other as a sign of dominance.

[i]That[/i] is the difference. Loving someone is one aspect of sexual preference, sex is another. While they're both intertwined and intrinsically connected, you're trying to use the same argument to confuse the two which are still fundamentally different.[/color]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Hug Monster][COLOR=Purple]
Also, if homosexuals are gay and heterosexuals are strait, what are bisexuals? bi is dumb, we should have some kind of weird title too! >:O[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Those are just nicknames for the longer terms. In Finnish there's no corresponding word to "gay" or "straight", it's just "homo" and "hetero". Bisexuals are "bi" for short, you can't change it yourself so just suck it up. ;P

And please, I [I]shouldn't[/I] have to tell you this because English is your native language and not mine, but it's strai[B]gh[/B]t, not strait! [I]Strait[/I] is a big canal, like the Gibraltar or Bering, not sexuality! :P

[Shane12_01]

well the way I think is sex is sex everyway you think about it. oral, anal, and vaginal, then there others, but I dont want to get into that. we'll just stay with the basics.
I still dont understand why you persist in this argument its your life your oppinion and your sexuality and nothing and no one is going to change the minds of those who want to be gay, bi, or strait.

[Fyxe]

[QUOTE=hentai#1]
I still dont understand why you persist in this argument its your life your oppinion and your sexuality [B]and nothing and no one is going to change the minds of those who want to be gay, bi, or strait.[/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][color=slategray]>.<

How many times does this need to be said? (For those of you who haven't let it sunk in, anyway....) Sexuality is not determined by the mind's free will. If someone goes out with the same gender just because they 'want to' or 'feel like it,' makes it so they truly aren't gay/bisexual. If they don't actually feel attraction, sexual, personal, or otherwise... they are just doing it for the hell of it.
People who are gay/bisexual [I]cannot[/I] control it. But most straight people that are against it think that they [I]can[/I] control it. Therefore, they try to stamp it out of them... tell them to stop... etc.
So... just... stop saying those who [I]'want'[/I] to be gay/bisexual. It grates on my nerves. Lol.

And I'm not even going to venture into the realms of animal and human relationships... it's just... weird... XD[/color][/size]

[Saya]

[QUOTE=Lix][size=1][color=slategray]>.<

How many times does this need to be said? (For those of you who haven't let it sunk in, anyway....) Sexuality is not determined by the mind's free will. If someone goes out with the same gender just because they 'want to' or 'feel like it,' makes it so they truly aren't gay/bisexual. If they don't actually feel attraction, sexual, personal, or otherwise... they are just doing it for the hell of it.
People who are gay/bisexual [I]cannot[/I] control it. But most straight people that are against it think that they [I]can[/I] control it. Therefore, they try to stamp it out of them... tell them to stop... etc.
So... just... stop saying those who [I]'want'[/I] to be gay/bisexual. It grates on my nerves. Lol.

And I'm not even going to venture into the realms of animal and human relationships... it's just... weird... XD[/color][/size][/QUOTE]You do know there are people that disagree with you on that right? I'm not saying I'm one of them but to answer your rhetorical question, it probably needs to be said an infinite amount of times to an individual with no interest in changing their minds. This doesn?t make the individual stupid or their opinions less informed, in fact, to the contrary educated minds stand either way with the issue.

Last I checked there was no concrete evidence to indicate that sexuality is or is not determined by free will. You've just completely blown about a hundred schools of thought out of the water that run contrary to that belief (behavioral perspectives, biological ones, and so on typically find sexuality to be pre-determined, without free will).

A lot of what you said is opinion, I certainly hope you are not implying otherwise... are you?

Many opinions in this thread have seemingly been proposed or brought forth as though they were fact, I have no problem with factual evidence, but I do have a slight problem with opinion which are presented as fact (ask a doctor, for instance, firmly rooted in biology and biogenics whether or not it is a fact that sexual preference is pre-determined biologically [i]instead of an individuals sudden free will[/i] and he'll gladly tell you it is his opinion that he thinks it is... an opinion which is well substantiated in his opinion, yet not a fact).

And about the hormonal aspect (which was mentioned earlier), I'm certainly aware of many case studies in which biological indicators for sexual preference were tested... however this is highly debatable since many tests were inconclusive at best - certainly a consideration, but not written in stone either. I'm fine with things so long as they are noted as being opinions, not facts.

[Attimus331]

[QUOTE=Sandy][B]Attimus:[/B] Yes, there has actually been wide researches on animal homosexuality, and it has been witnessed to exist among many species - especially mammals. Google it to find out more, if you will.

Also, I only responded to your argument that sex is only meant for breeding (a medieval conception, by the way, that has little base in modern western society). Obviously two guys or two girls can't have children in their sexual relationship, so is it wrong then for them/us to make love? Especially when most heterosexual couples also do it "for fun". Don't be a double-standardist, please!

And when you are disgusted by your friends' homosexuality, you are [I]not[/I] just appalled by what they [I]do[/I], but also who they [I]are[/I].

Sex is a natural thing to all lifeforms, and to expect somebody to live in selibacy just because you're grossed out by the act shows uttermost neglection and disrespect - not to mention it makes [I]you[/I] look stuck-up and proud.

You say you aren't judging anybody, but actually you're doing it constantly! Gay sex doesn't [I]hurt[/I] anybody, it has no consequences if proper protection is used, and the love between two guys or girls can be just as affectionate as "straight love" - trust me, a dating gay guy, on that - so [i]why are you so bothered by it?![/i] Can't you just let everybody be who they are, without condemning or moralizing?

If you're a Christian, then you should be aware that Jesus taught people to love, not judge. Besides, that part where one must stone gay guys to death is taken from the Old Testament, from the laws of a long-lost nation.

Why should that one part of the law still apply to our society, when the numerous others (about eating and hygiene and slaves, etc.) don't?[/QUOTE]

I never said sex was only meant for breeding. It's fine to have sex for fun and i plan on doing it a lot, as long as it's with someone i love. Now when i say someone i love, i don't mean i'm gonna go have sex with my best friend, i mean i'll have sex with my wife. See the difference? Of course you do. The whole sex for fun thing is totally off subject i think.

No, i'm not appalled by who they are. Being gay is only one aspect of their lives, one that i happen to not agree with. Just because i disagree with one aspect of a person's life doesn't mean i'm appalled by who that person is. Seriously though, i'm not appalled. I simply think it's wrong. 'Appalled' is too harsh a word in this scenario.

I'm not stuck-up. I just believe homosexuality is wrong, and that sex between two gays is wrong. I don't expect anybody to do anything, quite frankly i don't care. But if you ask me, i'm gonna tell you what i think, and that is homosexuality is wrooooong. As far as sex goes, i believe that a person should only have sex with one other person in that person's lifetime. I believe you should wait for marriage as well. Oh, and obviously i believe that the one person should be of the opposite gender.

Consequences for homosexuality? Are you sure there is none? Positive? Have you died yet? Have you been to heaven? I don't want to sound like a fanatical christian, but according to my beliefs, homosexuals go to hell. That sounds like one hell of a consequence, don't ya think? Baha, gotta love dem puns... Yes, Jesus said you should love not hate, and i totally agree with that. But never did he say you should have sex with everybody you love, which is what it sounds like you're doing. Of course i know you're not, but just because you love somebody doesn't make it alright to have sex with that person.

Slaves and hygiene is nothing like homosexuality and the three should not even be compared. It's absurd. And don't be so hypocritical either. If it's ok to knock off the gay thing, then why not anything else in the old testament? Or heck, what does the bible have to do with anything we do today? Why even read it anymore? (note the sarcasm)

You believe what you want, i'll believe what i want, one day we'll see who was right and who was wrong. I don't hate gays, i just disagree with homosexuality, the idea.

[QUOTE=hentai#1]"I just disagre with being gay in general. God made two sexes, not one, deal with it." -Atttimus331

sorry I didnt want to quote the whole thing... some of you should write a book because you've wrten alot alreadydamn... :animestun

Anyway to the quote above God also gave us a free will and gave us the power to make our own choices... and speaking of God I love Jesus does that make me gay?!? If it does Im proud to be bie... if not Im as strait as an arrow. :p
then to those who make that choice I have to say... whatever make you happy, and have fun. :D[/QUOTE]

Jesus, that was a stupid comment. "... and speaking of God I love Jesus does that make me gay?!? " C'mon, don't be so stupid. It's fine to love jesus, but if you had homosexual relations with him, then there would be a problem.

And also i don't believe you should encourage people to be gay.

Yep, god gave us freewill. So we can do anything, right? And since he gave us freewill, he must think it's ok to be homosexual, right? Otherwise he wouldn't have given us the option to be gay, right? Well...what about killing another person? By what you said, that's ok too. God gave us freewill, we should be able to be gay and kill people! ...do you see the problem with that argument? I hope you do.

[The Newfie]

[QUOTE=Attimus331]
Consequences for homosexuality? Are you sure there is none? Positive? Have you died yet? Have you been to heaven? I don't want to sound like a fanatical christian, but according to my beliefs, homosexuals go to hell. That sounds like one hell of a consequence, don't ya think? Baha, gotta love dem puns... Yes, Jesus said you should love not hate, and i totally agree with that. But never did he say you should have sex with everybody you love, which is what it sounds like you're doing. Of course i know you're not, but just because you love somebody doesn't make it alright to have sex with that person.

Slaves and hygiene is nothing like homosexuality and the three should not even be compared. It's absurd. And don't be so hypocritical either. If it's ok to knock off the gay thing, then why not anything else in the old testament? Or heck, what does the bible have to do with anything we do today? Why even read it anymore? (note the sarcasm)[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=SeaGreen]
Now, I'm not expert on Christians, but I do seem to recall somthing about the Old Testement and the God portrayed in the Old Testement as the 'Mean God' who killed people and flooded things etc etc, and than after the Crucifixion he became the 'Loving God', thereby making the Old Testement obsolete in the modern world. The part about how evil Gays are is in the Old Testement.

They are not alike superficially, but they are the same in a way - all were things considered right/wrong in the Old Testement, but aren't any more. The Old Testement does not, was not meant to, and should not apply to Modern Life. I mean, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' doesn't exactly apply anymore.

'Da Newf [/COLOR]

[Princess_Keiko]

Hmm. Hug monster or tical O.o dunno what you like being called. I think you shouldn't worry about if you're bi or gay, just live your life and when you meet the right person (could be male or female) as long as you're happy don't worry about what sexuality you are.

Also I think you guys shouldn't get so bent out of shape about Attimus331 opinion, just cause Attimus view is different, shouldn't bother trying to change it.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[QUOTE=Princess_Keiko]Hmm. Hug monster or tical O.o dunno what you like being called. I think you shouldn't worry about if you're bi or gay, just live your life and when you meet the right person (could be male or female) as long as you're happy don't worry about what sexuality you are.

Also I think you guys shouldn't get so bent out of shape about Attimus331 opinion, just cause Attimus view is different, shouldn't bother trying to change it.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Purple]^_^ Thanks I realise that now. Now I just need to fiqure out if I'd rather by called Tical or Kiala... I guess Ill sttick with Tical since I am, technically a guy (how boring <_<) XD Well Im leaving this discussion before a flame war starts. Sheesh you guys need to lighten up.[/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Solo Tremaine][color=#503f86']What I mean is that you can't form a meaningful, successful or even beneficial relationship with an animal. The most you can get is physical comfort and you might be able to delude yourself into thinking that the animal can communicate and understand what you're saying, but the actual state of the relationship is far below the levels of a homosexual relationship, where partners can converse on equal terms and gain emotional security and support each other in a beneficial relationship.[/COLOR][/quote][COLOR=teal]This is the problem I'm getting at. You are saying you cannot know anything about an animal: it's feelings, ideas, and thoughts. Yet at the same time, you are saying it is not capable of experiencing the same things as humans do merely because it cannot communicate them in the same manner - but how do you know if we don't know? If you do believe animals can feel love and/or affection, you are saying it's not on the same level, which is contradictory. You can't "not know anything" and "know it's not the same" at the same time.

You are becoming very teleological, which is fine. However, you can't stop halfway. Ok, so you are saying beastiality is below homosexual love, but since you are saying that, what gives you the right to arbitarily assign value when you were (basically) saying only those in love can determine what the weight of their relationship is? Worse, let's make an exaggerated hierarchery: why can't homosexual love be lower than heterosexual love? How do you know otherwise?

Again, I'm being extreme to show the problems with the reasoning. I mean no disrespect. [QUOTE]Bestiality... They're fetishes and mental disorders, and include exhibitionism, pedophilia, masochism and sadism, among other things. The fact that most bestialists often have long-term relationships with humans as well should prove this well enough.[/QUOTE]The same merits apply to homosexuality. It's not separated because it's a disorder and homosexuality is not: it's because sex is directed towards a different object. The pronouns "he" and "she" both refer to persons, but indicate gender. "Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" both refer to sexuality, but indicate preference. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are making arguments and substance out of nothing. Many scientists see homosexuality as a disorder/abnormality, and some of those that believe so also believe its a disorder that's not life-threatening so it's ok to have. But even then, labelling something as a disorder or natural (or whatever you want to classify it as) is merely being politically correct and doesn't get to the core of why it's right. It's all relative, afterall. You can say something is to the right, or something is left, depending on your reference point. Likewise, something can be abnormal or normal depending on what your reference for "normal" is. But again, which category you want to toss it in for the sake of being politically correct is weightless. [QUOTE]What you're ignoring is the fact that even if an animal did object to the treatment it's being given, a human could easily overpower it anyway (depending on the animal). What you're effectively comparing homosexual sex to, which is usually consencsal and has a deeper emotional understanding behind it on a two-way level, is bestiality whereby the animal doesn't fully comprehend the situation it's in. The vast majority of animals don't even have sex for pleasure, and males will often hump each other as a sign of dominance.[/QUOTE]We have the contradiction from the beginning again. You have to admit wrong on one side: we don't know or we do know - not both. Pleroma is an abstract concept that has NOT been proven, so unless you have proven it, you have to admit wrong somewhere.[/COLOR]

[Solo Tremaine]

[quote name='AzureWolf][color=teal']This is the problem I'm getting at. You are saying you cannot know anything about an animal: it's feelings, ideas, and thoughts. Yet at the same time, you are saying it is not capable of experiencing the same things as humans do merely because it cannot communicate them in the same manner - but how do you know if we don't know? If you do believe animals can feel love and/or affection, you are saying it's not on the same level, which is contradictory. You can't "not know anything" and "know it's not the same" at the same time.[/color][/quote][color=#503f86]I really feel like you're splitting hairs hairs here, but fair enough. But if [i]you[/i] can't tell how an animal's reacting to the situation it's being put in either, how exactly can you be comparing it to a homosexual human relationship where the feelings on both sides are obvious? The whole argument grinds to a stalemate on both sides if you look at it that way.[/color]
[color=teal]
[/color][QUOTE][color=teal]You are becoming very teleological, which is fine. However, you can't stop halfway. Ok, so you are saying beastiality is below homosexual love, but since you are saying that, what gives you the right to arbitarily assign value when you were (basically) saying only those in love can determine what the weight of their relationship is? Worse, let's make an exaggerated hierarchery: why can't homosexual love be lower than heterosexual love? How do you know otherwise?[/color][/QUOTE][color=#503f86]The fact that bestialists can and do often form long-term human relationships as well as engage in sexual intercourse with animals proves the difference in levels- they gain something from one relationship on one hand, and something else on another. Hence, the 'sexuality' you're indicating towards animals in this case appears to be only as a sex aid (albeit a living one) rather than a life partner. It's exactly the same as pedophilia- perhaps that'd be a better comparison for me to argue against your reasoning, but I don't particularly want to.

While you can compare the sex in a homosexual relationship to that conducted by bestialists, the relationship is fundamentally different simply because they are members of different species, in the same way that homosexual relationships are different to heterosexual ones because the genders of each partner vary. As much as you can pick holes and assign morals and scientific logic to it all, in a bestial relationship the partners [i]are not equal[/i] and as such can never be seen to be, whether the physical interactions between them and their humans appears to be or not. It's an irrational concept trying to be defined by logical terms, which doesn't work.[/color]
[QUOTE][color=teal]I don't mean to be rude, but you are making arguments and substance out of nothing. Many scientists see homosexuality as a disorder/abnormality, and some of those that believe so also believe its a disorder that's not life-threatening so it's ok to have. But even then, labelling something as a disorder or natural (or whatever you want to classify it as) is merely being politically correct and doesn't get to the core of why it's right. It's all relative, afterall. You can say something is to the right, or something is left, depending on your reference point. Likewise, something can be abnormal or normal depending on what your reference for "normal" is. But again, which category you want to toss it in for the sake of being politically correct is weightless. We have the contradiction from the beginning again. You have to admit wrong on one side: we don't know or we do know - not both. Pleroma is an abstract concept that has NOT been proven, so unless you have proven it, you have to admit wrong somewhere.[/color][/QUOTE][color=#503f86]You're reading too much into my arguments, heh. While I'm honoured to have had this much time spent on me (and to be honest, this is the best debate I've ever had), all I'm trying to say is that comparing a homosexual relationship to a bestial one is an unbalanced equation. I don't have scientific evidence for animal emotions during bestial sex with humans, and I don't mean to sound rude but asking for it is being rather anal. I don't know how they react, but unless you do you can't say that I'm unequivocally wrong. Besides, it's not something you can easily quantify even on a human scale. You're a scientist, though, and a good one, so I can understand why you want to know.

I never said homosexuality was natural, anyway. But the fact that humans in homosexual relationships can appreciate the choice that either they made or has been made for them should hold it above those who just want physical satiation with anything.

But I'm not admitting I'm wrong. 'Nuff said ^_~[/color]

[Shwa]

Wtf...hormones determine who's gay and straight based on the level of hormones??? Thats a load of bull. I'm gay and I know since I've none since middle school, no confusion about liking girls bcause I was not sexually aroused by them while growing up. Thats it, it wan't due to hormone levels. Chemical or medical analysis wont prove it. Your either born gay or staright.

I'm sorry Hug Monster, but I'm very disbelieving of bisexuals or bi-sexuality, I applaud your concern for the matter of your sexuality though. In my personal opinion I feel like thier people who like to take advantage of both sides of the sex game and manipulate boys and girls until they get what they want. The person who you described that said he'll kill you if you call him gay is probably one of those wannabies who think its cool so swing both ways but doesn't want to be categorized by society's gender role's. I'm friends with plenty of the "confused" bi's but their not the people I trust because at a instance they can turn their back and go the other way. Lastly, their not the ones being made fun of by others about their sexuality like heterosexuals and homosexuals, they dont go through the abuse and ridicule that the others go through because they can either say their both and stay in the middle or choose a side until the arguement calms down.

I dont know how old you are, but maybe your still in the growing process and need some time to think about which gender you would like to have as a life partner and such.

[QUOTE][Quote]Consequences for homosexuality? Are you sure there is none? Positive? Have you died yet? Have you been to heaven? I don't want to sound like a fanatical christian, but according to my beliefs, homosexuals go to hell.[/QUOTE]

Wow......just wow.....and wow again. That has to be the funniest thing I've seen, but seriously, I'm a Catholic (I think) but I make fun of God every damn day of my life because he's got some crazy rules in that book, let me tell ya', lol. The thing is that the "Good Book" is only suppose to guide people to heaven, not give them rules to follow except for the commandments, besides that their stories of who's lives has changed and they show examples in every story that relates to everyday life.

I have to answer a big NO to the consequences for homosexuality, do you see any?? I'm free to be who I am, I have plenty of friends, my family semi-suports me but I could care less if they dont. I'm going to go to college to become a C.S.I and move on with my life, if someone has a problem with me they can get over it and move on. So far no consequences there. Now let me ask you these quesitons: Have YOU gone to heaven?? Do you believe that God is really out to get us and the worst he can do is send us to his hell?? I'm not willing to change my sexuality for the almighty high-strong being of power just because he has daily PMS in the Bibal.

[Attimus331]

[QUOTE]

Wow......just wow.....and wow again. That has to be the funniest thing I've seen, but seriously, I'm a Catholic (I think) but I make fun of God every damn day of my life because he's got some crazy rules in that book, let me tell ya', lol. The thing is that the "Good Book" is only suppose to guide people to heaven, not give them rules to follow except for the commandments, besides that their stories of who's lives has changed and they show examples in every story that relates to everyday life.

I have to answer a big NO to the consequences for homosexuality, do you see any?? I'm free to be who I am, I have plenty of friends, my family semi-suports me but I could care less if they dont. I'm going to go to college to become a C.S.I and move on with my life, if someone has a problem with me they can get over it and move on. So far no consequences there. Now let me ask you these quesitons: Have YOU gone to heaven?? Do you believe that God is really out to get us and the worst he can do is send us to his hell?? I'm not willing to change my sexuality for the almighty high-strong being of power just because he has daily PMS in the Bibal.[/QUOTE]

Before i respond to that, i'd first like to say that your grammar is absolutely horrible. Please fix it, seriously. It's painful to read that *****. Not to say the message wasn't strong, too bad the post itself was mediocre. ^_^

And to the next thing. In all honesty, i'm not very religious, i don't know if gays go to hell or not, i was simply posing it as a hypothetical scenario. If gays did go to hell, would that not be a big consequence? And, if you're not willing to change your sexuality for the allmighty god himself, then i wouldn't say you're christian at all. Especially if he's thretening you with hell.

Haha, crazy rules in dat book....bahahaha, oh my sides, oh my sides, oh my sides. -____- Can you see the sarcasm? I guess you just had to beat me at my own game, eh? Haha, now that was funny. (i'll explain it to ya if you don't get it, but you have to ask nicely ^_^)

Once again, if you want to be gay, then by all means, be gay. It's your choice, your life. I can only offer my opinion.

Haha, on a side note, i heard a funny 2nd grade joke about gays the other day. Maybe it's not appropriate, but d*mn it do i want to tell you guys about it. Ok, here goes. 'Being gay is such a pain in the butt!' Bahahahaha, oh my sides!

Later.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[QUOTE=Mage15]I'm sorry Hug Monster, but I'm very disbelieving of bisexuals or bi-sexuality, I applaud your concern for the matter of your sexuality though. In my personal opinion I feel like thier people who like to take advantage of both sides of the sex game and manipulate boys and girls until they get what they want. The person who you described that said he'll kill you if you call him gay is probably one of those wannabies who think its cool so swing both ways but doesn't want to be categorized by society's gender role's. I'm friends with plenty of the "confused" bi's but their not the people I trust because at a instance they can turn their back and go the other way. Lastly, their not the ones being made fun of by others about their sexuality like heterosexuals and homosexuals, they dont go through the abuse and ridicule that the others go through because they can either say their both and stay in the middle or choose a side until the arguement calms down.

I dont know how old you are, but maybe your still in the growing process and need some time to think about which gender you would like to have as a life partner and such
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Purple]In that case, what am I? That's what I came here to find out after all, so please, enlighten me. I truly, honestly have an equal attraction to males and females and would be [b]willing[/b] to have sex with either, despite the undelying consistently avoided factoid that [b]I don't want sex at all[/b]. Yeah yeah, growing process my ***, why the hell can't I just be a goddamn frikkin bisexual no growing bullcrap and no it'll change stuff, no. I'm not changing so tell me what I am right now at this second because that's what I'll be.[/COLOR]

[James]

[quote name='Hug Monster][COLOR=Purple]In that case, what am I? That's what I came here to find out after all, so please, enlighten me. I truly, honestly have an equal attraction to males and females and would be [b]willing[/b] to have sex with either, despite the undelying consistently avoided factoid that [b]I don't want sex at all[/b']. Yeah yeah, growing process my ***, why the hell can't I just be a goddamn frikkin bisexual no growing bullcrap and no it'll change stuff, no. I'm not changing so tell me what I am right now at this second because that's what I'll be.[/COLOR][/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Basically, you don't have to even worry about this. If you aren't interested in sex right now - which is probably a good thing - then it really doesn't matter.

If you are equally interested in guys and girls, then that's how it is. Don't worry about whether or not it changes in the future. Chances are it probably won't change much at all anyway.

One day you will come across someone who you really like - whether they are male or female - and you might end up going out with them or something. Their gender is irrelevant, because if you are attracted to them...you are attracted to them. Putting yourself in a particular group just doesn't matter.

I just think it's not something worth worrying about right now. Besides, nobody here can tell you what you are. Even if they knew you in person, they couldn't tell you that. You know your feelings better than anyone. If you are equally attracted to males and females, then that makes you bisexual - if you really want a label for it.

But as I said, I wouldn't worry about the labels or the groups. In that post you've just clearly defined your sexual orientation. So surely that pretty much answers your own question, whether or not a label is applied. :catgirl:

And guys...[b]keep it on-topic[/b]. Debating whether or not you accept homosexuality is totally pointless, because nobody is going to be won over on a thread in a forum, lol. It's a totally circular discussion that can't progress anywhere. Just stick to the original topic at hand, please.[/font]