Y DNA R1b and homosexuality

[mr_y82]

edit: I wrote the below before I read Maleth's post, so I apologize for the redundancy!

1)"What circumstances?" Are you kidding? Um...., being surrounded by only men for years. If a man doesn't ejaculate for a few months straight, he'll get blue balls. It's unhealthy. Humans have to be sexually-stimulated on a regular basis. If there's no women around, they resort to the closest thing a human woman, a human man.

2) Any society where most men are homosexual, clearly is in circumstances which leads to sexual-perversion. Yes Sexual perversion, exists! The science of Sex is male-female. We need it to reproduce. So, any group of humans where most are homosexual, won't last long and their genes won't be passed down.

3) LOL. A dude left his family and kids because he thinks he's gay, and you assume he's biologically gay and has every right to end a life-long commitment he made to his wife? First you should condemn and question him. Anyone who suddenly leaves their spouse, should be condemned, because they made a commitment.You should first ask: "If you are gay, why did you get married?" And how do I know if you're gay? You had consensual sex with your wife, there were definitely two-way feelings between you and your wife. Did you love your wife? If not, did you actually believe you could fake a marriage for social acceptance?"

The fact you didn't ask any of these questions, to me proves you're bias.

Lebrok, could you imagine faking being attracted to a man and having sex with him? Didn't think so. That life would be hell. Any married man who claims to be gay, can't be completely gay, he must have some attraction to women.

A few of us have addressed each of the things above, but you still demonstrate you don't get it... Maybe you didn't read? Maybe you didn't think it was worth responding... Anyway, provide some sort of evidence of your position and I may take the time to respond to you again... otherwise it's a waste of time when I could be on another thread learning from people who use data rather than prejudice and judgement to fuel their posts... but I will take the time to reiterate a few concise points so maybe you will take the time to consider...

1) Blue balls, from my understanding, if the result of nearly reaching climax and then not actually ejaculating, esp. if you are turned on for a long time... And to your statement about men resorting to doing whatever is available... I was an awkward, introverted teen... I may have tried some slightly odd things, but my own hand seemed to tide me over until my sexual awakening... I never was inclined to have sex with men just because I was too shy and awkward to figure it out with girls... never felt the need to boink any animals either... How odd?

2) Theories explaining this have been proposed in previous posts...

3) Ask my 1st cousin once removed... he was gay and miserable through decades of marriage (as stated in previous post)... in the nature versus nurture debate sexual preference falls on the nature side... Read.

 

[Fire Haired14]

@mr y82,

Not having sexual activity and sexual stimulation are two differnt things. If a human doesn't see their opposite gender for years and is surrounded by the same gender, there's a good chance they'll resort to homosexuality. If a human doesn't see humans for years and surrounded by animals, chances are they'll resort to motor-sexuality. If a human doesn't see living creatures for years and surrounded by trees, chances are they'll resort to tree-loving.

Homosexuality wasn't seen as very differnt from motorsexuality just 60 years ago. In most human societies that's still the case. So, just because social norms today see motorsexuality as horrible and homosexuality as okay, doesn't mean it is completely impossible for a human to resort to it. Lebork, Angala, and others ignore motorsexuality or other forms of sexuality(there's even a who's inlove with his car and has sex with "him", and his therapist said it was okay like being gay is okay) by calling them mental-disorders, because they don't want to admit sexuality can be perverted. Sexuality can be perverted! That's all I'm saying. So, the high amounts of homosexuality among Spartans Lebork loves mentioning, are certainly largely the result of sexual-perversion.

@Melth,

IMO, In America there isn't enough social pressure to get married, for there be to be many truly gay people who are married. Getting married isn't just signing a paper and saying I do. You can't convince your spouse you're attracted and inlove with them, without actually being attracted and inlove with them, unless you're the greatest actor in the world. People who leave their spouses because they say they're gay, had to at least at some level wanted to get married, wanted to date that person, was sexually attracted to that person, was inlove with that person. I don't but it, that they get married just to cover up that they're gay. In conclusion, I find it hard to belive anyone who leaves a marriage for being gay, is completely gay.

You and Lebrok not questioning whether or not these people are completely gay at all, after they leave their families and commitments, is very wrong. Can anyone say they're gay, and you'll believe them? I'm not saying this because they're gay. If someone were to leave their family because they say they never wanted to get married or did it for financial reasons or because of social pressure to get married, I'd be angry. They need to be condemned and understand they did something wrong.

 

[LeBrok]

As usually very well said, Meleth.

I spoke openly with so I am really not sure how the whole subject fascinates you so much and perceive it enough.

I suspect the same thing. Most likely biosexualism being supressed by strong religious convictions. I wonder how long he will be able to fight his nature?

 

[LeBrok]

introverted teen... I may have tried some slightly odd things, but my own hand seemed to tide me over until my sexual awakening... I never was inclined to have sex with men just because I was too shy and awkward to figure it out with girls... never felt the need to boink any animals either... How odd?

I subscribe to this.

 

[mr_y82]

^cheers!

@mr y82,

Not having sexual activity and sexual stimulation are two differnt things. If a human doesn't see their opposite gender for years and is surrounded by the same gender, there's a good chance they'll resort to homosexuality. If a human doesn't see humans for years and surrounded by animals, chances are they'll resort to motor-sexuality. If a human doesn't see living creatures for years and surrounded by trees, chances are they'll resort to tree-loving.

Homosexuality wasn't seen as very differnt from motorsexuality just 60 years ago. In most human societies that's still the case. So, just because social norms today see motorsexuality as horrible and homosexuality as okay, doesn't mean it is completely impossible for a human to resort to it. Lebork, Angala, and others ignore motorsexuality or other forms of sexuality(there's even a who's inlove with his car and has sex with "him", and his therapist said it was okay like being gay is okay) by calling them mental-disorders, because they don't want to admit sexuality can be perverted. Sexuality can be perverted! That's all I'm saying. So, the high amounts of homosexuality among Spartans Lebork loves mentioning, are certainly largely the result of sexual-perversion.

@Melth,

IMO, In America there isn't enough social pressure to get married, for there be to be many truly gay people who are married. Getting married isn't just signing a paper and saying I do. You can't convince your spouse you're attracted and inlove with them, without actually being attracted and inlove with them, unless you're the greatest actor in the world. People who leave their spouses because they say they're gay, had to at least at some level wanted to get married, wanted to date that person, was sexually attracted to that person, was inlove with that person. I don't but it, that they get married just to cover up that they're gay. In conclusion, I find it hard to belive anyone who leaves a marriage for being gay, is completely gay.

You and Lebrok not questioning whether or not these people are completely gay at all, after they leave their families and commitments, is very wrong. Can anyone say they're gay, and you'll believe them? I'm not saying this because they're gay. If someone were to leave their family because they say they never wanted to get married or did it for financial reasons or because of social pressure to get married, I'd be angry. They need to be condemned and understand they did something wrong.

That kind of social pressure DID exist not long enough, even if it is being reduced now (how are you not getting this?).... my cousin is a REAL ANECDOTAL example, and I know of many others... My wife's uncle was in the same boat... social/familial pressure to enter into a hetero arrangement that did not last... but he was married for a long time first and banished by the family for years after revealing his true sexuality... You are not making sense, or explaining this away... Stop using all this language about "condemning" and calling it "wrong"... That is subjective and you are close-minded...

On a more humorous note, I had never heard of "motorsexuals" which sounds like car love, but you seem to have possibly associated with bestiality? Or were you just being unclear... I know that being a straight man who loves fast cars, this motorsexual video gets me going! I must be an undiscovered motorsexual!

https://youtu.be/-vgIk_MADYc?t=25s

 

[Angela]

@mr y82,

Not having sexual activity and sexual stimulation are two differnt things. If a human doesn't see their opposite gender for years and is surrounded by the same gender, there's a good chance they'll resort to homosexuality. If a human doesn't see humans for years and surrounded by animals, chances are they'll resort to motor-sexuality. If a human doesn't see living creatures for years and surrounded by trees, chances are they'll resort to tree-loving.

Homosexuality wasn't seen as very differnt from motorsexuality just 60 years ago. In most human societies that's still the case. So, just because social norms today see motorsexuality as horrible and homosexuality as okay, doesn't mean it is completely impossible for a human to resort to it. Lebork, Angala, and others ignore motorsexuality or other forms of sexuality(there's even a who's inlove with his car and has sex with "him", and his therapist said it was okay like being gay is okay) by calling them mental-disorders, because they don't want to admit sexuality can be perverted. Sexuality can be perverted! That's all I'm saying. So, the high amounts of homosexuality among Spartans Lebork loves mentioning, are certainly largely the result of sexual-perversion.

@Melth,

IMO, In America there isn't enough social pressure to get married, for there be to be many truly gay people who are married. Getting married isn't just signing a paper and saying I do. You can't convince your spouse you're attracted and inlove with them, without actually being attracted and inlove with them, unless you're the greatest actor in the world. People who leave their spouses because they say they're gay, had to at least at some level wanted to get married, wanted to date that person, was sexually attracted to that person, was inlove with that person. I don't but it, that they get married just to cover up that they're gay. In conclusion, I find it hard to belive anyone who leaves a marriage for being gay, is completely gay.

You and Lebrok not questioning whether or not these people are completely gay at all, after they leave their families and commitments, is very wrong. Can anyone say they're gay, and you'll believe them? I'm not saying this because they're gay. If someone were to leave their family because they say they never wanted to get married or did it for financial reasons or because of social pressure to get married, I'd be angry. They need to be condemned and understand they did something wrong.

Logic shouldn't only apply to genetics discussions; it should apply to discussions like this, as well.

Of course it's wrong to deceive a woman about your sexuality and marry her and have children with her even though you are more or primarily attracted to men. Explaining why a man might feel pressured to do that doesn't mean that I think it's ok, or that I don't recognize the incredible hurt and damage that is inflicted on the wife and the children in those situations. I know two marriages where that happened, and in both cases the wife and children were devastated. At the same time I recognize how difficult it was for these men to live a lie. In both cases, I think the men actually believed the marriages would work and they could build a new identity. They were wrong, apparently. You also have to recognize that there are plenty of heterosexual men who tell a woman they love her and will be faithful knowing full well that they don't, or even if they do they have no intention of being faithful, or just get tired of it, or need reassurance as they age or whatever, and leave. That's hurtful and destructive too. People don't always live up to their commitments, and that's not limited to homosexual men, Fire-Haired. Understanding that doesn't mean excusing it.

I think you also are drawing a line between straight and gay that in real life can be rather blurry. From everything I've read and everything I've seen and experienced, human sexuality is on a continuum. There are many people who really would never, absent really exigent circumstances, have sex with a partner of the same sex, and people, men really, since all women need to really do is lie there if necessary, who can only perform with a person of the same sex. There are people, however, who are sort of in the middle, in that they might have an affair with a person of the same sex given the right circumstances, or dabble with it in young adolescence, but that are basically heterosexual. There are likewise people who can perform with a member of the opposite sex but whose orientation is undeniably homosexual. It's just the way that people are made, Fire-Haired. It's a complicated business, like everything to do with human beings. Denying it does no good.

As for ancient societies, you're judging them based only on the limited prism of your own culture and experience. You do the same whenever the discussion veers from the mathematical, as in the discussions about pigmentation. You have to recognize that cultures are different, particularly cultures far separated in time and place from our own. There was no shame about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome, although it depended on the context and position. It wasn't just when they were on campaign and there were no women around, and it happened in Athens where men lived with their families as well as in the always barracks living Spartans, for what that's worth. There was also no shame about it in Celtic culture, or other Indo-European cultures, or Canaanite society, or on and on. It doesn't mean that the majority of men even in those cultures practiced homosexuality throughout their lives. It's just that the practice of it was open and accepted. Those are just facts. If you do some reading about those cultures you'll see that.

I'm not saying, by the way, that I approve of the sexual exploitation of minors, or non-consensual sex, or anything of the kind. Far from it, believe me.

 

[mr_y82]

^very well said... Thanks for your patience in pointing out these nuances...

"You also have to recognize that there are plenty of heterosexual men who tell a woman they love her and will be faithful knowing full well that they don't, or even if they do they have no intention of being faithful, or just get tired of it, or need reassurance as they age or whatever, and leave. That's hurtful and destructive too. People don't always live up to their commitments, and that's not limited to homosexual men, Fire-Haired. Understanding that doesn't mean excusing it.

I think you also are drawing a line between straight and gay that in real life can be rather blurry. From everything I've read and everything I've seen and experienced, human sexuality is on a continuum. "
-Angela

Great points... Immorality is immorality whether you are gay, straight, in in between... I'm tired of the common attitude that it's a defect, or inferior in some way... I may be even more fed up, if I was gay, facing so much ignorance and intolerance (that often is not even acknowledged)...

About your spectrum... This is my understanding too (my own wife being another anecdotal example). But, as I have been saying in other posts/threads, here in the South you realize that it's taboo to even admit that you can recognize that another man is attractive among many conservative circles... People are incredibly threatened and close-minded in many cases... As I said, it is improving among the younger generation, but it will take time... They support more personal liberties (and are more used to it due to a shifting culture that is more open, which is exactly what FireHaired wants to stop... A Trump supporter?)... I think this generation may end prohibition of marijuana here also, at some point.

 

[LeBrok]

Lies. You're clearly very happy to discuss rare examples of an naturally high frequency of homosexuality. You chose to discuss those rare cases because of your bias. Stop lying, man.

You'll never going to understand the world if you extrapolate your personal feelings on everything and everyone.
Now try to understand others, like me: I really love the discovery process which consists of, thinking, talking, argumenting, figuring out how stuff works, where it comes from, etc. Once I figured it out, or learned from others, I like sharing, presenting and explaining to others. I'm impartial to conclusions. Whatever it is, it is.
Does it make sense now?

"What circumstances?" Are you kidding? Um...., being surrounded by only men for years. If a man doesn't ejaculate for a few months straight, he'll get blue balls.

Did you learn about this from your preacher? Total bollocks, lol, pun intended. As valid as a story that masturbation makes you blind. Embrace science, not folklor, to understand.
Did you hear about "wet dreams"? And no, it is not about urine.

LOL. A dude left his family and kids because he thinks he's gay, and you assume he's biologically gay and has every right to end a life-long commitment he made to his wife? First you should condemn and question him. Anyone who suddenly leaves their spouse, should be condemned, because they made a commitment.You should first ask: "If you are gay, why did you get married?" And how do I know if you're gay? You had consensual sex with your wife, there were definitely two-way feelings between you and your wife. Did you love your wife? If not, did you actually believe you could fake a marriage for social acceptance?"

Listen to experienced people who went through the process. Perhaps you wouldn't be so confused at "ripe" age of 16.

The fact you didn't ask any of these questions, to me proves you're bias.

Read this thread again. All was explained many times.

Lebrok, could you imagine faking being attracted to a man and having sex with him? Didn't think so. That life would be hell. Any married man who claims to be gay, can't be completely gay, he must have some attraction to women.

Sure, it depends on personal feelings. Sexual orientations varies from man to man. Look at this as a spectrum. For example, if we could measure sexuality precisely, it might turn that some man are 70% homosexual and 30% hetero. But even for 100% homosexual man, it isn't impossible to have sex with a woman. Imagine this, you (as gay) were forced into a marriage. You sleep with your wife every night in same bad anyway. Pressure, from your parents and your wife is mounting to finally deliver a baby. A thought of having your own offspring is attracted to you too. You have to do it then. You probably tried few times but nothing happened. Finally, you found the way. You turned off the light to eliminate visual cues, hugged your wife from behind, imagined a beautiful boy and interaction with him, insert, few moves, and vue a la. Enough to make a baby. To make it easier, imagine that you could "warm up" yourself for this intercorse, playing in your mind scenes with boys and masturbating. Imagine you could ejaculate with just masturbating and introduce your semen with your hand?
In case of hetero man and lesbian wife it is even easier to conceive a baby.
You still think it is impossible?

 

[mr_y82]

LeBrock, my wife is as bisexual as the day is long and I don't hold it against her! I was also raised Catholic and wear glasses!!! haha... I remember a Catechism classmate that engaged me in a very serious conversation at about age 13-14... He was incredibly worried that his masturbating had him on the fast track to hell! LOL... I told him that God didn't send good people to Hell (this is what my mom told us growing up when my non-practicing Amish-Lutheran-Buddhist father never went to church)... I think my Catechism mate kept wanking! I know I did!

 

[Fire Haired14]

Me vs Lebrok+Angela+Maleth,+mr Y82. LOL.

Anyways, stop treating me like I'm an idiot(xAngela who has been respectful). Be respectful. All I'm arguing is sexuality can be perverted. That's it!!! Stop stirring off topic. Directly respond to that argument. There's really no point to arguing this, because we know human sexuality can infact be perverted. There are known examples. You guys ignore this fact, because of your fear it means some gay people aren't gay. But you're perfectly ok with saying some straight people are actually gay or bi. That's a double standard.

I think you also are drawing a line between straight and gay that in real life can be rather blurry. From everything I've read and everything I've seen and experienced, human sexuality is on a continuum.

I never disputed this. I'm not saying I completely agree, but this wasn't something I was arguing against. I said I don't believe men who leave their families because they say they're gay "are completely gay".

As for ancient societies, you're judging them based only on the limited prism of your own culture and experience. You do the same whenever the discussion veers from the mathematical, as in the discussions about pigmentation.

My culture is the most accepting culture of gays in the world. Many other cultures kill gays. Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't a cultural trait, like wearing a certain style of clothing. It is a consistent trend in humans, and there's must be an inborn not cultural reason. Cultural relativism doesn't work for homosexuality. There are countless cultures who have no or little contact with each other, and see homosexuality as strange or immoral.

I never read ancient writings, but I have read a few. Pre-Christian Germania didn't allow sex before 18, polygamy was looked down on and less popular than monogamy, and women were flogged if caught in adulterous acts. Tacuitus, who was Roman, praised Germans for this. He, and therefore Roman culture, clearly understood the idea of adultery. They committed adultery, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a concept of it. I once read writings from a famous Roman poet. He called his books "Dirty little books" and wrote that young girls shouldn't read them, and it was nothing compared to the sexuality in TV shows around today. Like I've described before, all humans see certain sexual acts as appropriate or inappropriate. Inappropriate acts are adulterous. If you want to argue with me, respond only to that. I'm not being rude.

You do the same whenever the discussion veers from the mathematical, as in the discussions about pigmentation.

How do I do this? Genetic discussion is 100% numbers. Anyways, I'm against putting personalities and characters on long-dead ancient people, like Goddess-worshiping feminist matriarch of Neolithic Romania or stupid caveman Cro magnon or Roman with a British accent. I never do that. I definitely never do that for pigmentation discussion. All I do is point out origins of traits and where selection happened. Is this about me saying Blonde hair, is more colorful and feminine than Brown hair? Don't take that personally, I didn't consider how a girl would think of that. I never said Blonde women are more attractive or that Brown hair is masculine and ugly. Girls dye their hair more than men, no matter what the color is, because girls like being colorful more than men. IMO, Purple hair is colorful and feminine, it doesn't mean it's more attractive or non-purple hair is masculine

As usually very well said, Meleth.
I suspect the same thing. Most likely biosexualism being supressed by strong religious convictions. I wonder how long he will be able to fight his nature?

Dude, just stop it. Stop, making lies about me. You should get an infraction if you keep posting lies about me. I'm fascinated by a lot of topics. That's how my brain works, and I've always been like this. Before DNA, it was baseball. Before Baseball, it was Mario/Luigi and Sesame street. IMO, Angela is similar in being ultra-into subjects, or even more extreme than me. Do you think she's gay to, because she writes a lot about it?

Stop using all this language about "condemning" and calling it "wrong"... That is subjective and you are close-minded...

So, if your wife cheated on you, you wouldn't say she did something wrong? Condemnation and any mention to morality(wrong), is subjected and close minded?

 

[Maleth]

Angela is similar in being ultra-into subjects, or even more extreme than me. Do you think she's gay to, because she writes a lot about it?

fascination does not come from participating in discussing a subject but its what you say and how you say it. Im not aware that Angela has been extreme in any of her posts, to the contrary always had sound scientific basis / personal experiences with much logic and common sense.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/reaction_formation.htm

 

[Angela]

Fire-Haired: Like I've described before, all humans see certain sexual acts as appropriate or inappropriate.

I totally agree with this.

Fire-Hiared:Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't a cultural trait, like wearing a certain style of clothing. It is a consistent trend in humans, and there's must be an inborn not cultural reason. Cultural relativism doesn't work for homosexuality. There are countless cultures who have no or little contact with each other, and see homosexuality as strange or immora

l.

That's absolutely incorrect. Yes, there are many cultures which see homosexuality as strange or immoral. What you're ignoring is that there are many cultures throughout history which have accepted it in certain situations. That isn't a logical way of looking at the evidence, Fire-Haired. That's not what scientists or disinterested observers would deduce from all the evidence. What is clear if you look at all the cultures both now and in the past is that indeed the level of tolerance is dependent on or relative to the culture.

One has to take the broad as well as the long view, and not just look at this or any issue, really, solely from the vantage point of modern western society. The west's view of homosexuality has been totally conditioned by Judeo-Christian traditions, and the views persist even in people who are no longer actually believers. There was indeed a certain acceptance of homosexual practices among the Canaanites and other farming cultures. For whatever reason, the ancient Hebrews were vehemently against it, as is, officially, Islam. When the "pagans" of ancient Greece and Rome and the Indo-European groups were converted, they adopted that view of homosexuality.

I'm not condescending to you, Fire-Haired, but as to these "softer" less mathematically dependent issues, you have to get out of your own head. You can't assume that your opinion, which is very dependent on your particular cultural and religious experiences, is universal.

That's what I meant about the pigmentation discussion, and believe me, I didn't take anything you said personally and didn't feel insulted in any way. Everyone has a "type" when it comes to the opposite sex, Fire-Haired, and it's totally ok, although people who grow a little more self aware and mature as time goes on realize that it's better to focus on character, common interests, and capacity for love rather than whether they fit your "template" of "hotness". Of course, some people learn that lesson too late.

What isn't ok when you're having a philosophical or quasi-scientific discussion about these issues is to assume that your "type" is everybody's "type", and even less so that what you have been conditioned to find attractive by your particular culture is universally attractive across the whole world and in all time periods.We've had these discussions before, about preferences as to body weight and shape, facial features etc. as depicted in art, and even in videos such as the one about which western women Korean men find attractive. As you learn more about different cultures you'll see that indeed these preferences, beyond certain basic traits which signal health and fertility, are culturally dependent, as is tolerance for certain expressions of sexuality.

If you can't see it, you can't, so I won't be having any more to add.

@Maleth,
Thank you for the kind words. I return the compliment.

 

[LeBrok]

Me vs Lebrok+Angela+Maleth,+mr Y82. LOL.

Anyways, stop treating me like I'm an idiot(xAngela who has been respectful). Be respectful. All I'm arguing is sexuality can be perverted. That's it!!! Stop stirring off topic. Directly respond to that argument. There's really no point to arguing this, because we know human sexuality can infact be perverted. There are known examples. You guys ignore this fact, because of your fear it means some gay people aren't gay. But you're perfectly ok with saying some straight people are actually gay or bi. That's a double standard.

Probability of your point of view being right is very small. You are arguing against 4 very smart people with life of experience and education of many fields. You are 16 with not much education and neither life experience. Also, your way of thinking about genetics has been corrected by others, like Angela, in other threads many times, so we know that your logic is able to trick you sometimes.
Considering all of this, do you understand the odds against you? Simply put, you can't be right on this subject!

 

[Fire Haired14]

Probability of your point of view being right is very small. You are arguing against 4 very smart people with life of experience and education of many fields. You are 16 with not much education and neither life experience. Also, your way of thinking about genetics has been corrected by others, like Angela, in other threads many times, so we know that your logic is able to trick you sometimes.
Considering all of this, do you understand the odds against you? Simply put, you can't be right on this subject!

I'm not usually wrong or corrected in my thinking of genetics. I'm the most up to date person here in that regard. Look at the threads I post. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.What I don't know a lot about is archaeology and history, and I never claim to be an expert in those subjects. Anyways, don't lie about me, to make me appear immature(16) and not intelligent(often corrected in other subjects), to disqualify what I argue here. If you want to argue against me, argue against what i say.

fascination does not come from participating in discussing a subject but its what you say and how you say it. Im not aware that Angela has been extreme in any of her posts, to the contrary always had sound scientific basis / personal experiences with much logic and common sense.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/reaction_formation.htm

It doesn't matter what the word fascination means, what matters is the message I'm communicating. Maybe interested is a better word to use. Starting Over: I'm ultra-interested in some subjects. How does me being interested(I'm not that interested. I never do any research and only care when someone else brings it up) in homosexuality/morality discussions, mean I'm bi? Does this also mean I'm even more gay for DNA?

Im not aware that Angela has been extreme in any of her posts, to the contrary always had sound scientific basis / personal experiences with much logic and common sense.

Her posts are longer than mine. She's ultra-interested into topics to. I could say the same about Tomenable or basically anyone who cares enough to use the internet to learn about genetics. Anyways, Angela not being "extreme" and being "scientific" is just your opinion. Argue with what I say, not my character, if you think I'm unscientific.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I totally agree with this.

That's absolutely incorrect. Yes, there are many cultures which see homosexuality as strange or immoral. What you're ignoring is that there are many cultures throughout history which have accepted it in certain situations. That isn't a logical way of looking at the evidence, Fire-Haired. That's not what scientists or disinterested observers would deduce from all the evidence. What is clear if you look at all the cultures both now and in the past is that indeed the level of tolerance is dependent on or relative to the culture.

Would intolerance of homosexuality be so popular, if it was "relative to the culture", like style of clothing is? I never denied there have been/are cultures which accept homosexuality in some situations. I know they exist. What I'm arguing is, it is popular for humans to see homosexuality as an inappropriate form of sexuality, and therefore there must be something inborn causing unrelated cultures to do this. Would you agree there are enough cultures who see homosexuality as immoral, more than who create pizza, to bring this into consideration? I think the inborn trait, is seeing certain sex as inappropriate, and homosexuality which is rare and goes against the whole idea of what sex is(penis+vagina, reproduction), is going to be seen as abnormal and immoral by many humans.

One has to take the broad as well as the long view, and not just look at this or any issue, really, solely from the vantage point of modern western society. The west's view of homosexuality has been totally conditioned by Judeo-Christian traditions, and the views persist even in people who are no longer actually believers. There was indeed a certain acceptance of homosexual practices among the Canaanites and other farming cultures. For whatever reason, the ancient Hebrews were vehemently against it, as is, officially, Islam. When the "pagans" of ancient Greece and Rome and the Indo-European groups were converted, they adopted that view of homosexuality.

Was Germania Judieo-Christian? Was Tacitus Judeo-Christian? Is India Judeo-Chirtsian(homosexulaity is outlawed there)? These ideas aren't exclusive to Jews. One Greek mention to rampent homosexuality amoung *some* Celts, doesn't mean all Celtic-speakers loved homosexuality. For all we know, this Greek writer exaggerated homosexuality among some Celts(probably ones who lived next door to Greece), because it would be interesting reading. He called their homosexuality, "strange", BTW.

That's what I meant about the pigmentation discussion, and believe me, I didn't take anything you said personally and didn't feel insulted in any way. Everyone has a "type" when it comes to the opposite sex, Fire-Haired, and it's totally ok, although people who grow a little more self aware and mature as time goes on realize that it's better to focus on character, common interests, and capacity for love rather than whether they fit your "template" of "hotness". Of course, some people learn that lesson too late.

I never said I have a type. Anyways, good advice.

What isn't ok when you're having a philosophical or quasi-scientific discussion about these issues is to assume that your "type" is everybody's "type", and even less so that what you have been conditioned to find attractive by your particular culture is universally attractive across the whole world and in all time periods.

I agree with this. I never disputed any of this. I never said I have a type. I gave my opinion, and said it was my opinion not fact. I wasn't conditioned to say anything I did.

 

[mr_y82]

1) Me vs Lebrok+Angela+Maleth,+mr Y82. LOL.

2)Anyways, stop treating me like I'm an idiot(xAngela who has been respectful). Be respectful. All I'm arguing is sexuality can be perverted. That's it!!! Stop stirring off topic. Directly respond to that argument. There's really no point to arguing this, because we know human sexuality can infact be perverted. There are known examples. You guys ignore this fact, because of your fear it means some gay people aren't gay. But you're perfectly ok with saying some straight people are actually gay or bi. That's a double standard.



3)I never disputed this. I'm not saying I completely agree, but this wasn't something I was arguing against. I said I don't believe men who leave their families because they say they're gay "are completely gay".



4)My culture is the most accepting culture of gays in the world. Many other cultures kill gays. Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't a cultural trait, like wearing a certain style of clothing. It is a consistent trend in humans, and there's must be an inborn not cultural reason. Cultural relativism doesn't work for homosexuality. There are countless cultures who have no or little contact with each other, and see homosexuality as strange or immoral.

5)I never read ancient writings, but I have read a few. Pre-Christian Germania didn't allow sex before 18, polygamy was looked down on and less popular than monogamy, and women were flogged if caught in adulterous acts. Tacuitus, who was Roman, praised Germans for this. He, and therefore Roman culture, clearly understood the idea of adultery. They committed adultery, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a concept of it. I once read writings from a famous Roman poet. He called his books "Dirty little books" and wrote that young girls shouldn't read them, and it was nothing compared to the sexuality in TV shows around today. Like I've described before, all humans see certain sexual acts as appropriate or inappropriate. Inappropriate acts are adulterous. If you want to argue with me, respond only to that. I'm not being rude.

6) Dude, just stop it. Stop, making lies about me. You should get an infraction if you keep posting lies about me. I'm fascinated by a lot of topics. That's how my brain works, and I've always been like this. Before DNA, it was baseball. Before Baseball, it was Mario/Luigi and Sesame street. IMO, Angela is similar in being ultra-into subjects, or even more extreme than me. Do you think she's gay to, because she writes a lot about it?

7)So, if your wife cheated on you, you wouldn't say she did something wrong? Condemnation and any mention to morality(wrong), is subjected and close minded?

1) There is a good reason you are outnumbered, the newer progressive say of thinking it catching on and will gain momentum whether or not you like it... I mean no offense by this, it's simply the way it is...

2) I remember calling you "fire-brained" (which I meant as a reference to a sort of "temper" and, in my mind, a heat that has compromised your rational mind's ability to be objective... Other than that could you refer me to where I have been disrespectful? You have shared your opinions and I have shared mine and tried to explain my reasoning... Even if it is a bit heated that does not equate to disrespect... I was trying to be succinct, blunt, and sometimes humorous, but if I have been disrespectful, I apologize and will keep the tone more civil (and thus hopefully more productive) from here on out.

3) Why do you presume to think for them? What gives you the right to question their homosexuality any more than they have the right to question your hetero nature?

4) You are right that it is still taboo in many places and much more accepted here (we used to have a slave holding democracy... was that not good enough? Should we have stopped progressing then? Should women be allowed to vote?)... But beyond that you are wrong... All kinds of things used to be punishable by death... Apparently you didn't bother to read my post on the evolution of society on the "Brussels" thread, but it applies here too, you have a regressive worldview that thinks it has the right to limit the personal freedoms of others based on your moral preference... You can remain as morally opposed as you want... That is your right, but a majority of Americans do, of will soon, support equal rights, and when they do, those rights should be extended to those people regardless of the feelings of the minority... In fact, even if only 51% of Americans decide, let's say, Cannabis should remain illegal, I feel like it is a bit odd that they can dictate what rights should be extended to the other 49% (it's called tyranny of the majority...)... Why are people so threatened by the rights extended to others? How will it hurt you?

5) Yes, all sorts of sex can be seen as perversion... What's your point? Where or if you draw a line is all subjective... If hetero sex is not a perversion, why is gay sex? What is the difference other than in your mind? Do you have the need/right to force your standards on others? If I were gay I would not care if it was called a civil union of marriage so long as I had the legal rights... I do think it is a little silly to try to force churches to perform ceremonies... If they want to hold on to outdated doctrines and refuse marriage, fine, that is their religious right, go to the magistrate and get married (state reps should NOT be allowed to refuse marriage like some of these southern states were trying to do)... Personally I would not want to get married in a church that did not support my lifestyle anyway... So what is the point in forcing their hand... I see that as a separate issue from the legal policy side... And I think things would progress more quickly for the good of both sides if a compromise was struck... Leave the religious stuff out of the government... That is how this system was intended to run... Obviously some rules like murder and theft have a (essnetiall universal) religious element, but they are clear violations of natural rights and thus are illegal... gayness and gay union/marriage is not a violation of YOUR rights, but trying to prevent it is a violation of homosexual rights...

6) Agreed... We don't have the right, or at least it is not productive, to slander one another... Bear in mind Fire-haired that we also have a different attitude toward gayness, so it's not really as derogatory as someone who thinks it is a perversion might perceive it.

LeBrok, we both know this is no way to change a person's mind even if we get satisfaction resorting to such tactics when someone is seemingly being resistant to a rational argument. Plus I have really enjoyed our interaction, so don't get booted (must be that gay R1b attraction kicking in! j/k)!

7) What the sweet Jesus did I say that implied that cheating is moral? Please quote me saying anything that implies as such and I will clarify what I was attempting to say! I think people have the right to be in open relationships, closed ones, or anything in between so long as it is CONSENSUAL... This is not the same as cheating... Lying, in my mind, is immoral, and cheating is based upon this, not to mention all the interesting infections you could bring home to your partner... But they have the right to have whatever kind of "contract" they want, in my mind... If my wife wants to bring a girlfriend into our bedroom she gets my opinion and then we decide together from there what is appropriate and acceptable to both of us, and it is our right to do so... If she cheats on my I'll show her the door and would expect her to do the same for me...

Lying is wrong and denying people basic rights and equal treatment is also wrong... As Angela eloquently pointed out...

you have to get out of your own head. You can't assume that your opinion, which is very dependent on your particular cultural and religious experiences, is universal.

You are 16 with not much education and neither life experience.

Wait Fire-haired, you are only 16? You have so much time to figure this all out and I think there is still hope! Also, I feel bad for calling a kid less than half my age a name... I thought I was arguing with some older fellow who should know better... I will chalk this up to you being embedded in some regression southern culture that you may still break free from! I am not being sarcastic... many people are "victims" of these kinds of worldviews because they are immersed in it from a young age... I was raised in the south, but by a "libertarian socialist," if you will, so I had a pretty unfair opportunity to develop open-mindedness.

Cheers mate!

 

[mr_y82]

Anyways, don't lie about me, to make me appear immature(16) and not intelligent(often corrected in other subjects), to disqualify what I argue here. If you want to argue against me, argue against what i say.
.

Oops, I thought LeBrok was being literal... Shows how smart I am... suddenly the end of my last post has an air of condescension that I did not intend... Sorry about that!

1)Would intolerance of homosexuality be so popular, if it was "relative to the culture", like style of clothing is? I never denied there have been/are cultures which accept homosexuality in some situations. I know they exist. What I'm arguing is, it is popular for humans to see homosexuality as an inappropriate form of sexuality, and therefore there must be something inborn causing unrelated cultures to do this. Would you agree there are enough cultures who see homosexuality as immoral, more than who create pizza, to bring this into consideration? I think the inborn trait, is seeing certain sex as inappropriate, and homosexuality which is rare and goes against the whole idea of what sex is(penis+vagina, reproduction), is going to be seen as abnormal and immoral by many humans.



2)Was Germania Judieo-Christian? Was Tacitus Judeo-Christian? Is India Judeo-Chirtsian(homosexulaity is outlawed there)? These ideas aren't exclusive to Jews. One Greek mention to rampent homosexuality amoung *some* Celts, doesn't mean all Celtic-speakers loved homosexuality. For all we know, this Greek writer exaggerated homosexuality among some Celts(probably ones who lived next door to Greece), because it would be interesting reading. He called their homosexuality, "strange", BTW.

1) How do you still not get that culture and society evolves and changes? We have explained in many times in many ways... Social norms, mores, values, etc... all change... I mean I am not going to miss the local stoning of the adulterers because I am busy typing this reply... We don't live in a stagnant world... No offense, but I have said my piece, as have others more eloquently, and if you don't get it I think I should stop wasting my time, trying to get you to have a more open mind, when it is clear you will only reiterate points that we have already quashed...

2) History is cool, but who cares in this context? It doesn't matter what their attitude was towards homosexuality in the context of how we will do things today... We are dealing with the present day... present people... present rights... I possibly had some gay ancestors (esp since I am R1b! j/k)... ok? So? What difference does that make now? Let's focus on improving the world now since that is all we have... As we have established, social norms evolve just like everything else... How weird would be if the entire universe evolved except for a few human aspects? Why do people assume consciousness is a flat land? I think some Germanic tribes adopted Arian Christianity before the Romans were Catholic... not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

You have yet to convince us that our plethora of points are wrong... you just keep reiterating the same nonsense... And I mean that in the most constructively critical way possible...

 

[Fire Haired14]

@mr y82,

You're arguing a straw man, because of your prejudices(everyone has them). I am arguing: 1: Sexuality can be perverted. 2: All Humans see some sexuality as inappropriate and therefore immoral.

Only, argue against those opinions. Angela is the only who has done this. Lebork is the worst example. He loves lying, being sarcastic, and stirring off topic. You on the other hand, aren't like that, you just don't understand what I'm saying.

Also, mr y82, I don't believe you'd be ok with your wife bringing a girlfriend to your bed. If so, do you believe in polygamy? BTW, I don't really problem with polygamy. The idea of monogamous marriage, which is the only type of marriage in the US, is the couple stays loyal to each other. They don't have any other sexual partners. I believe you're intentionally shutting off the part of your brain which says, "No she's my woman.", because of fear that makes you closed minded.

 

[mr_y82]

Actually no, I don't have a problem with Polygamy... To each his own... In fact, if it were legal and my wife and I consented to have a "sister-wife" I would accept and embrace this... My sex drive is a little more than hers, haha... In all seriousness though, each couple or group, or whatever, decides what is acceptable for themselves... I would not accept a man into our relationship because I am not interesting in pursuing sexual relations with a man, and my wife understand, accepts, and respects that, as I do her affinity for women... The sexual encounters she has had with women have been in my presence, and we agreed that I would not have direct sexual contact with the "3rd wheel," which I have been fine with... You have to find what is comfortable with both parties and respect those boundaries while being aware of the potential for regret!

My wife is "my woman" in the sense that we make these important life decisions together... And I am "her man" in the same sense... I am not trying to be open-minded, I am... I have a temper that can be triggered, feelings that can get hurt, and my own prejudices (as you pointed out), but that does not change my belief system regarding the extension of rights to others! It's almost like you are looking out for me and worried that I will get hurt because I am not really in touch with how I feel... I actually really appreciate that sentiment... I think you have a kind and good "soul" and I appreciate the cordial back and forth.

As per above... I said "5) Yes, all sorts of sex can be seen as perversion..." I invited you to maintain your right of seeing gay sex in this light... All I did is ask you to respect those who feel differently, and don't think that legal policy should be based on moral grounds that clearly do not infringe upon the rights of others... which they don't... I think you are the one who has not adequately argued to the contrary, but you keep saying we have not instead? I really don't get what else I can say about perversion... You agreed it is subjective... I think people should have the right to practice their "perversions" with other consenting adults, and have legal rights as couples (or more) if they choose to... You apparently do not support this... That does not mean that I am disagreeing that most people think some actions are perversions... That is a totally unrelated issue, in my mind. When I said I have libertarian leanings I meant it! haha... But I also believe the economy must be controlled and taxes are useful (when not used for senseless bombing). I am worried about my own personal rights and others, not about the kind of lifestyle they choose for themselves...

LeBrok's just one of those liberal Canadians, with their universal healthcare, trying to ruffle your feathers, right LeBrok? :grin: Pretty sure LeBrok's a kind soul too, and if more of the world was willing to participate in conversations like this I think, ultimately, the world would be a better place.

Cheers!

 

[Fire Haired14]

@mr y82,

It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.

I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.