|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:29 pm
i notice a lot of people claim to be bi because it's cool- that's not acceptable, i hate that- the ones who are just trying to be different in any way possible, the more taboo the better- they're the same types to pretend to be wiccan... not to diss truly bi people, or real wiccans, just the ones who do it for shock value. anyway, no problem with gay people, i just think that marriage is a sacred thing, to promote procreation- i don't know, i'm really undecided on this, it's not like if someone gay gets married anyone will die, but i also find marriage to be sort of... sacred- then again, of course, gay couples can love just as well as straight couples...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:05 am
It goes against my conscience, and that is all I am going to say on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:53 am
divineseraph i notice a lot of people claim to be bi because it's cool- that's not acceptable, i hate that- the ones who are just trying to be different in any way possible, the more taboo the better- they're the same types to pretend to be wiccan... not to diss truly bi people, or real wiccans, just the ones who do it for shock value. anyway, no problem with gay people, i just think that marriage is a sacred thing, to promote procreation- i don't know, i'm really undecided on this, it's not like if someone gay gets married anyone will die, but i also find marriage to be sort of... sacred- then again, of course, gay couples can love just as well as straight couples...
As for marriage, in legal terms marriage isn't specifically Christian. I'm Pagan and yet legally when I become "hand-fasted" to my partner, legally I'll be married. That means that legally marriage isn't a religious or a sacred term, unless you want to say that only Christian's can marry as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:58 am
I think he's talking about the fluffs.
Like, the people who are bi or gay one week and straight the next. I've known a LOT of those. They kinda make me go, GAH! Because those are the ones that give everyone the impression that homosexuality is a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:36 pm
yeah... i know a few who do it for attention, pretty much. because it's different or shocking or whatever... much like that time a few years ago when EVERY angsty teen female decided to become "wiccan", though very few of them actually knew what they were doing. not that all wiccans are bad, just the ones who do it for shock value, or for the sole reason that it isn't christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:38 pm
Beware the Jabberwock There are actually studies that show that an extreme amount of women are bisexual. I think that it's just us not understanding the sheer amount of people who are actually gay, lesbian or bisexual that leads us to believe that they're saying they're "bisexual because it's cool". Being bisexual doesn't mean you want to date someone of the same sex, it means that you're attracted to someone of the same sex. If a gay person marries someone of the opposite sex it doesn't make them straight it means they're trying to act straight, or pretending to be straight.. I would wonder at those studies... I mean, if you are going to say, "If you are attracted to any woman/man, but no men/women, you are lesbian/gay. If you are attracted to at least one woman and man, then you are bi," then I would say that almost everyone in the world is bi. And those who aren't, well, they just haven't run into the person of the same/opposite gender who they are attracted to. What I mean to say is, what is their criteria for, "This woman/man is bisexual."? As I said, there are a few men who I could say I've been "attracted" to, but I would not say that I am bi. Because I would never act on such attractions, and they aren't really strong attractions. But they are there. Also, there is the fact that environment needs to be taken into account; Are all those women born bi? Or were there circumstances in their lives that led them to be attracted to a certain kind of woman? There's also women who kiss other women or whatever, not because they are attracted to other women, but because of the shock value. I'm not trying to belittle bisexuality or homosexuality, I'm just saying I would doubt that study, personally... I mean, there is a good possibility that it's true. Women are much more social creatures then men are. The probability of a woman coming to be attracted to another woman is greater because of that, I think. But that could very well be environment coming into play, that she hangs out with this other woman so much that they become like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:35 pm
I.Am Beware the Jabberwock There are actually studies that show that an extreme amount of women are bisexual. I think that it's just us not understanding the sheer amount of people who are actually gay, lesbian or bisexual that leads us to believe that they're saying they're "bisexual because it's cool". Being bisexual doesn't mean you want to date someone of the same sex, it means that you're attracted to someone of the same sex. If a gay person marries someone of the opposite sex it doesn't make them straight it means they're trying to act straight, or pretending to be straight.. I would wonder at those studies... I mean, if you are going to say, "If you are attracted to any woman/man, but no men/women, you are lesbian/gay. If you are attracted to at least one woman and man, then you are bi," then I would say that almost everyone in the world is bi. And those who aren't, well, they just haven't run into the person of the same/opposite gender who they are attracted to.
All of these things are markers for sexual attraction.
They did the same test on men, and found that the rate of men who were sexually attracted to other men than women who were sexually attracted to other women.Quote: What I mean to say is, what is their criteria for, "This woman/man is bisexual."? As I said, there are a few men who I could say I've been "attracted" to, but I would not say that I am bi. Because I would never act on such attractions, and they aren't really strong attractions. But they are there. Quote: Also, there is the fact that environment needs to be taken into account; Are all those women born bi? Or were there circumstances in their lives that led them to be attracted to a certain kind of woman?
Basically a lesbian's brain is different from a straight female's brain, and a gay male's brain is different from a straight male's brain. Same as transsexuals have a different brain than that of their biological sex. Quote: There's also women who kiss other women or whatever, not because they are attracted to other women, but because of the shock value. I'm not trying to belittle bisexuality or homosexuality, I'm just saying I would doubt that study, personally... I mean, there is a good possibility that it's true. Women are much more social creatures then men are. The probability of a woman coming to be attracted to another woman is greater because of that, I think. But that could very well be environment coming into play, that she hangs out with this other woman so much that they become like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:36 am
Beware the Jabberwock Quote: Also, there is the fact that environment needs to be taken into account; Are all those women born bi? Or were there circumstances in their lives that led them to be attracted to a certain kind of woman?
Basically a lesbian's brain is different from a straight female's brain, and a gay male's brain is different from a straight male's brain. Same as transsexuals have a different brain than that of their biological sex. I don't really see how it's a silly argument... I mean, has it not been shown that environment can affect your desires and actions? For instance, someone who is molested as a child is more likely to molest their children or commit rape, or someone who is beaten as a child is more likely to beat their wife, women who are molested as children are more likely to become more sexually active, etc. etc. etc. Why should there not be an environmental aspect to sexuality? Quote: My friend Nawal kisses other girls, not because she's attracted to them just because she gets drunk and she enjoys kissing. I've made out with a couple guys who I haven't really been attracted to, I was just bored and they happened to be there. The point is the study had nothing to do with what the women were doing conciously but how their bodies were reacting. 'K, as far as all that goes, I was just asking how the study was performed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:05 am
Since it was off topic, I'm replying to something Divine said in the death penalty thread... divineseraph anyway, how are they different? i believe that ***** is a fetish for younger people. how is it defined as a dysfunction? because it's harmful to others? that doesn't make it less of a fetish. it also doesn't make it right. they need to learn to control their fetish and not take part in it, just like people turned on by blood have to learn not to stab random people on the street for their buzz. Thank you! That is exactly what I would like to know... How do you define the difference between a sexuality and a dysfunction? What makes liking other wo/men okay, but liking children not? Ignoring the rape part of it. That is obvious in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:01 am
I.Am Beware the Jabberwock Quote: Also, there is the fact that environment needs to be taken into account; Are all those women born bi? Or were there circumstances in their lives that led them to be attracted to a certain kind of woman?
Basically a lesbian's brain is different from a straight female's brain, and a gay male's brain is different from a straight male's brain. Same as transsexuals have a different brain than that of their biological sex. I don't really see how it's a silly argument... I mean, has it not been shown that environment can affect your desires and actions? For instance, someone who is molested as a child is more likely to molest their children or commit rape, or someone who is beaten as a child is more likely to beat their wife, women who are molested as children are more likely to become more sexually active, etc. etc. etc. Why should there not be an environmental aspect to sexuality?
Also when someone is born a psychopath they're never going to be average joe, no matter how normal, stable and loving your family is. There are different degrees of psychopathy as well, not all of them are going to turn into ritualistic murderers. However nothing you can do is ever going to make them not a psychopath.
Rape has nothing to do with biology, it has to do with power. This is something that is quite obviously directly corrolated with your views and environment. Same with being abusive and same with being a child molester.Quote: Quote: My friend Nawal kisses other girls, not because she's attracted to them just because she gets drunk and she enjoys kissing. I've made out with a couple guys who I haven't really been attracted to, I was just bored and they happened to be there. The point is the study had nothing to do with what the women were doing conciously but how their bodies were reacting. 'K, as far as all that goes, I was just asking how the study was performed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:18 am
I.Am Since it was off topic, I'm replying to something Divine said in the death penalty thread... divineseraph anyway, how are they different? i believe that ***** is a fetish for younger people. how is it defined as a dysfunction? because it's harmful to others? that doesn't make it less of a fetish. it also doesn't make it right. they need to learn to control their fetish and not take part in it, just like people turned on by blood have to learn not to stab random people on the street for their buzz. Thank you! That is exactly what I would like to know... How do you define the difference between a sexuality and a dysfunction? What makes liking other wo/men okay, but liking children not? Ignoring the rape part of it. That is obvious in itself.
They're two different things, one involves taking advantage of, and harming a child. The other involves a consentual act between two adults. The dyfunction lies in the mindset that taking advantage of and harming someone else is perfectly acceptable.
There are an extreme amount of *****, however the problem lies with the ones who will act on it. Like these ones.Quote: The reconceptualization of children as willing sexual "partners" along with the decriminalization of consensual sexual relations is perhaps the key change sought by ***** advocates. To counter developmental arguments that children cannot give informed consent, for example, David L. Riegel (2000) stated in his book Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, "Anyone who holds to the idea that a young boy cannot give or withhold informed consent has never taken such a boy shopping for new sneakers" (p. 38 ). Many activists in the childlove movement, amongst them Tom O'Carroll, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, actively campaign against the idea that children are unable properly to consent to sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:03 pm
Beware the Jabberwock None of these things are biological. There are things that can mirror different things, such a a sociopath acts very much like a psychopath however a sociopath is a product of his environment and a psychopath is a product of biology. There are still ways to test for each however, and to figure out whether someone is one or the other. I didn't say anywhere that they were biological. However, they are reactions to stimuli, which is what you said that the study used to decide whether someone is bi, gay, lesbian, whatever. Quote: Also when someone is born a psychopath they're never going to be average joe, no matter how normal, stable and loving your family is. There are different degrees of psychopathy as well, not all of them are going to turn into ritualistic murderers. However nothing you can do is ever going to make them not a psychopath. Rape has nothing to do with biology, it has to do with power. This is something that is quite obviously directly corrolated with your views and environment. Same with being abusive and same with being a child molester. Yes. However, there is a biological aspect to it: Because of your environment, you react to things differently. Your body reacts to things. I wasn't born hating, say, Pro-Choicers, but that doesn't mean that my body doesn't react when I enter the Pro-Choice forums, or a debate thread. Quote: The point of that was people make out with people they're not attracted to, all the time. It's not always for shock value and they're not always pretending to be gay. Nawal is very open about how she's completely straight, and I'm very open about how I'm not straight. I disagree. No offense but, even if you do not realize it yourself, I think that if you are kissing someone of the same sex and you are not gay, then you -are- going for shock value. Otherwise, if you like kissing, you would kiss someone of the opposite gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:05 pm
Beware the Jabberwock I.Am Since it was off topic, I'm replying to something Divine said in the death penalty thread... divineseraph anyway, how are they different? i believe that ***** is a fetish for younger people. how is it defined as a dysfunction? because it's harmful to others? that doesn't make it less of a fetish. it also doesn't make it right. they need to learn to control their fetish and not take part in it, just like people turned on by blood have to learn not to stab random people on the street for their buzz. Thank you! That is exactly what I would like to know... How do you define the difference between a sexuality and a dysfunction? What makes liking other wo/men okay, but liking children not? Ignoring the rape part of it. That is obvious in itself.
They're two different things, one involves taking advantage of, and harming a child. The other involves a consentual act between two adults. The dyfunction lies in the mindset that taking advantage of and harming someone else is perfectly acceptable.
There are an extreme amount of *****, however the problem lies with the ones who will act on it. Like these ones.Quote: The reconceptualization of children as willing sexual "partners" along with the decriminalization of consensual sexual relations is perhaps the key change sought by ***** advocates. To counter developmental arguments that children cannot give informed consent, for example, David L. Riegel (2000) stated in his book Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, "Anyone who holds to the idea that a young boy cannot give or withhold informed consent has never taken such a boy shopping for new sneakers" (p. 38 ). Many activists in the childlove movement, amongst them Tom O'Carroll, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, actively campaign against the idea that children are unable properly to consent to sex. That's exactly it though. Why is it that consenting adults is okay, but consenting children/adults is not? As I said, you have to take the rape part out of the equation. Obviously a man who goes around forcefully sodomizing other men would be dysfunctional. But a man who just likes other men is not. Why is it not the same with ***** that I support it's legalization, mind you. I just want to know how you can define dysfunction and sexuality in such a way as homosexuallity is okay, but ***** or whatever is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:59 pm
Because ***** is done with a consenting child who doesn't understand what he or she is consenting to.
Two adults presumably understand what they're saying yes to.
Children are too young (and I know this is a bit of a blanket statement) to fully comprehend what is happenening to them.
For the same reason that a girl of 13 consenting to an abortion is different than a woman of 23, a boy of 13 consenting to sex is different than a man of 23 consenting to sex, regardless of the partner's gender.
Basically, one is harming another person. The other is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
