aparently im a homophobe @_@

[soma_stardust]

is that for real? pray away the gay? wow.i don't pay much attention to american politics.

i don't pay attention to the right-wing conservative religious assholes.
this is infuriating and must be stopped.

~soma~

[soma_stardust]

It's the need for knowledge and understanding. I find it amazing and beautiful.

same here. you're awesome.
whether it's scientifically, spiritually, socially, whatever... as humans, we always try to find ways to explain our surroundings and the mysteries of life.
it's fascinating.

~soma~

[soma_stardust]

Also, Soma and Olix's side-conversation was the best derailment I've seen on these forums so far.

And that's -really- saying something. XD

yey! i'm contributing!

~soma~

[OliX]

Assuming someone -does- get a gay-gene... there's no reason to believe they're gay before they prove it. I don't see this as a nature vs. nurture argument at all, because if someone is truly, definitively gay their entire life, but believes themselves to be straight, who's to call them gay? True enough it would be more fair to judge people on their thoughts than their actions, but we can't do that. Social-conditioning ate your god.

And yes, in the end it isn't important at all, but it -is- the topic of the thread.

Also, Soma and Olix's side-conversation was the best derailment I've seen on these forums so far.

And that's -really- saying something. XD

Glad to be entertaining

[OliX]

yey! i'm contributing!

~soma~

Oh no! You again, now I'll be sleepy at work tomorrow too :/ (It's 0012 here)

[Raza]

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine when the topic of gay marriage just sortof came up. she thinks gay peoples rights are bein infringed upon but i think they are asking too much for somethin they do for fun. i just find it hard to beleive people are bprn gay , i think its just somethin you grow into right? or am i way wrong on this?

It can be, but most of the time I don't think so. Human sexual tastes are dynamic and change throughout one's lifetime, and they have the potential to cover a wide range of 'orientations' - but most of us are born with a strong sexual desire for one sex or the other; usually the opposite, for obvious evolutionary reasons. It is possible to develop both repulsions and other turn-ons (and we all do so all the time), but it's extremely difficult, maybe even impossible, to negate the reproductive instincts we're born with. We may contradict them, being both aroused and repulsed by the same things, but this tends to create a lot of angst - a sort of sexual cognitive dissonance - and therefore isn't very healthy.

Today's social norms for the most part insist that we're probably either 'straight' or 'gay', and since conviction is the bigger part of how our feelings develop during our lifetimes, most people pick up the label that fits their reproductive instincts. Most people probably have the potential to be effectively bi, although our culture weights heavily against this (mainstream culture, that is - goth culture is an obvious exception, and the effects of this on its population are noticeable). However, I speculate that it would be quite impossible for the average 'gay' to become truly 'straight'; conservatively inclined homosexuals have tried and failed miserably.

well i have some friends that are gay and i dont think theres anything wrong with them. but the way i see it the whole reason men aand women are atracted to each other at its core is to reproduce. since 2 men and 2 women cant do that that would imply that theres something wrong with them. I just figured it was all about the fun of it wich i have no problem with

You're on to something, but you have to keep in mind that human psychology goes beyond basic instinct. Reproduction is the evolutionary cause of our sexual instincts and mechanics being what they are, but that doesn't mean it's the exclusive reason for human beings to act in this context, or the only 'proper' one. Just like you can use a knife - which was made into what it is in order to cut things - to drive in a screw, we humans can take the psychological mechanics evolution has granted us and turn them to an infinite list of other applications - none of which are less valid than the one that originally turned out useful enough to cause it to 'evolve in'.

The important thing is that people have the ability to fall in love or lust after each other. How this came to be from an evolutionary perspective is irrelevant to the ethics of what we do with it, just like the fact that the water in a bucket we're holding at one point vaporised from the sea and then rained down has nothing to do with whether we should drink it or use it to wash our car. Reproduction may have caused our feelings to work as they do, but this doesn't make it a 'better' reason for having those feelings, and we don't need a special ceremony like marriage to exclusively honor people that indulge love and lust for that reason rather than the bazillion other possible ones.

Now, you can argue that all other reasons come down to 'fun', insofar as that every action we take is motivated by feelings that could be categorised as either pleasant or unpleasant, and we generally act to stimulate the pleasant ones while avoiding the unpleasant. But by this reasoning, seeking to reproduce is also 'just for fun', because the only underlying reason we act on our productive instincts is because they feel good to us. Most people choose to believe that they do things for reasons other than fun - even if it secretly does come down to this in the end - and they want ceremonies like marriage to make it feel significant and meaningful. I say none of these illusions are any better than the others, so either they all have marriage, or none do. And banning marriage for the sake of it would be pretty silly.

[batzilla]

It can be, but most of the time I don't think so. Human sexual tastes are dynamic and change throughout one's lifetime, and they have the potential to cover a wide range of 'orientations' - but most of us are born with a strong sexual desire for one sex or the other; usually the opposite, for obvious evolutionary reasons. It is possible to develop both repulsions and other turn-ons (and we all do so all the time), but it's extremely difficult, maybe even impossible, to negate the reproductive instincts we're born with. We may contradict them, being both aroused and repulsed by the same things, but this tends to create a lot of angst - a sort of sexual cognitive dissonance - and therefore isn't very healthy.

Today's social norms for the most part insist that we're probably either 'straight' or 'gay', and since conviction is the bigger part of how our feelings develop during our lifetimes, most people pick up the label that fits their reproductive instincts. Most people probably have the potential to be effectively bi, although our culture weights heavily against this (mainstream culture, that is - goth culture is an obvious exception, and the effects of this on its population are noticeable). However, I speculate that it would be quite impossible for the average 'gay' to become truly 'straight'; conservatively inclined homosexuals have tried and failed miserably.



You're on to something, but you have to keep in mind that human psychology goes beyond basic instinct. Reproduction is the evolutionary cause of our sexual instincts and mechanics being what they are, but that doesn't mean it's the exclusive reason for human beings to act in this context, or the only 'proper' one. Just like you can use a knife - which was made into what it is in order to cut things - to drive in a screw, we humans can take the psychological mechanics evolution has granted us and turn them to an infinite list of other applications - none of which are less valid than the one that originally turned out useful enough to cause it to 'evolve in'.

The important thing is that people have the ability to fall in love or lust after each other. How this came to be from an evolutionary perspective is irrelevant to the ethics of what we do with it, just like the fact that the water in a bucket we're holding at one point vaporised from the sea and then rained down has nothing to do with whether we should drink it or use it to wash our car. Reproduction may have caused our feelings to work as they do, but this doesn't make it a 'better' reason for having those feelings, and we don't need a special ceremony like marriage to exclusively honor people that indulge love and lust for that reason rather than the bazillion other possible ones.

Now, you can argue that all other reasons come down to 'fun', insofar as that every action we take is motivated by feelings that could be categorised as either pleasant or unpleasant, and we generally act to stimulate the pleasant ones while avoiding the unpleasant. But by this reasoning, seeking to reproduce is also 'just for fun', because the only underlying reason we act on our productive instincts is because they feel good to us. Most people choose to believe that they do things for reasons other than fun - even if it secretly does come down to this in the end - and they want ceremonies like marriage to make it feel significant and meaningful. I say none of these illusions are any better than the others, so either they all have marriage, or none do. And banning marriage for the sake of it would be pretty silly.

Thank you!! These are sentiments that I really wanted to convey, but I couldn't muster the energy/eloquence to do it. Bravo.

[Raza]

Thank you!! These are sentiments that I really wanted to convey, but I couldn't muster the energy/eloquence to do it. Bravo.

You can have them if you like; most of the fun is in the first five minutes where I can still edit it, anyway.

[Mr Karl]

The day they find out how to prove, genetically, that gay is inborn,

the Christers will want to make blood tests, so that these children can be aborted.

I don't think it's going to be as easy as that, christers aren't supposed to abort, no they're going to have to arrange marriages based on the chances for producing hetero children......................well that train of thought can be carried for a long time but, well, thier christers so why bother

[Ubiquitress]

I don't think it's going to be as easy as that, christers aren't supposed to abort, no they're going to have to arrange marriages based on the chances for producing hetero children......................well that train of thought can be carried for a long time but, well, thier christers so why bother

Word.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Speaking of which, if you are a Californian you will be tested on this in November.

Prop 8

You should probably vote on this whether you are for it or against it then... aw who am I kidding? I only want you to vote if you are against prop 8.

[Bikerpunk]

I don't think it's going to be as easy as that, christers aren't supposed to abort, no they're going to have to arrange marriages based on the chances for producing hetero children......................well that train of thought can be carried for a long time but, well, thier christers so why bother

You forget their hypocrisy. They tend to be very very pro-life, until it's the issue of the death penalty, dropping bombs on Iran or suchlike.

Or it's their daughter who is pregnant.

[Morning Glory]

you homos are gay.

[~*Sorceress*~]

you homos are gay.

That made no sense whatsoever, my friend.

[Morning Glory]

on the contrary, I think it made perfect sense.

[OliX]

Gay traditionally means 'happy,' so it does .

[Buster Friendly]

John Waters once said that he always thought one of the best things about being gay was not having to get married.

[Bondage Clown]

To be Gay or not to be gay? I blame it on New Wave music. ROFL.
I think that it is no ones business. But i do think that being Bi is the best of both worlds.