Mormon forum lights up over California gay change
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
In another 10 or 20 years when the percentage of homosexuals in America has tripled, people will start to realize that culture obviously has an effect on this and that homosexuality is a learned condition and above all, a choice. But that isn't to say some are truly homosexual because they are born that way. I believe many are. But they do a good job of converting liberal minded people who are willing to experiment with anything.
You even hear about some gays competing with one another in their attempts to convert straight people. When living in Orlando, it didn't seem to matter how many times I told the gay people I knew I wasn't gay. They kept trying to convince me to give it a shot, and they promised I would never go back, etc. And with today's society celebrating homosexuality, this only makes it more attractive for those with existing gender identity issues.
First, you accused me of misrepresenting your thoughts. For example, according to you, you never said anal sex was disgusting. Forgive me for assuming that your frequent mention of excrement probably indicated you found it disgusting. But some people do like excrement, so I should not have jumped to conclusions.
Second, it is clear, by now, that my earlier hunch was correct. You're worried about children being "converted" to homosexuality, and the percentage of homosexuals increasing. Don't try to pretend otherwise, your own words betray you.
There is probably some truth in Kinsey's scale:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resource ... scale.html
Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist, (pp. 639, 656)
Kinsey, et al. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
What Kevin refers to as "gender confusion" may just be an individual who really isn't clearly heterosexual OR homosexual, but somewhere in-between. There are plenty of people like that around. A young male who can experience sexual attraction and desire for another male is definitely not a "0" on the Kinsey scale. Males who ARE "0" on the Kinsey scale would respond, as Gad did, by asserting there is simply no way any cultural influence could push him to experience sexual attraction to another male. My boyfriend is the same way. It just ain't happening. My boyfriend has nothing against homosexuality or homosexuals, but he is a 0 on the Kinsey scale, and just not able to feel sexual attraction to another male.
A male who is a 0 on the Kinsey scale is not going to be experimenting sexually with other young men, no matter how gay his parents are. He is not going to be experimenting with other young men no matter if he lives smack in the middle of San Fransisco, with gay parents, gay aunts and uncles, and gay teachers. It ain't happening, because the prerequisite ability to feel sexual attraction AT ALL to another male is simply not present.
So a young male who even considers, whether due to cultural influences or some purely internal pressure, to experiment with other young males is already at least a 1 on the Kinsey scale. And definitely someone who can enjoy sexual attraction to men and women on a regular basis is going to rate around a 3 (and these are candidates for being "cured" of homosexuality).
Look at this statement of Kevin's:
I already touched on this. First of all, some really are homosexuals. Others rebel against their parents based on their prejudices. If a kid hates the religious bigotry in his family he will be inclined to rebel accordingly. My uncle married a chinese woman because my grandfather hates asians. The fact that my parents hated Mormonism only made me want to investigate it more. I have seen children respond to stressors in the wierdest ways. One 6th grader started cutting his arm with a razor blade. So I can easily see how disturbed children in dysfunctional households would experiment with things like drugs or even homosexuality, for similiar reasons. And don't forget, a human's first orgasm is his/her best and most memorable. If this happens to come prematurely by way of homosexual experimentation as a kid, then one is likely hooked. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Kevin, I'm sorry, but there is no way someone who is a 0 on the Kinsey scale is going to have a "memorable orgasm" within a same sex experience. The sexual attraction is not present sufficiently to create a memorable orgasm.
Given how human societies have always had a homosexual element, no matter how hard they try to purge society of it, no matter how persecuted and hated homosexuals may have been in that particular society, I think it's a given that a certain percentage of the human population is born a 6 on the Kinsey scale. I suppose the question for Kevin is whether or not having gay parents will push children who are not 0s on the Kinsey scale to experiment with the same sex, and eventually decide that's the sex they want to mate with.
I do believe that children of gay parents will be more open to any possible same sex attraction they may feel. And maybe some that are 3s on the Kinsey scale will opt for total homosexuality instead of bisexuality. But who cares??? Would having a higher percentage of homosexuals doom the planet or something? I would guess there would only be two reasons to care so much about that small possibility that one would exclude loving potential parents from the adoptive pool - either one believes God is really displeased with homosexuality, or one is uncomfortable with gay people and would like not to see them around.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm
harmony wrote:Actually, according to marg, a higher percentage of homosexuals in the earth's population could only be a good thing, ecologically speaking.
Also, a higher percentage of gay men (without a corresponding increase in lesbians) would help cut down on competition between males for females. That can only be a good thing for men. :D
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9826
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm
Now, as to your tyranny of the majority lack of knowledge. Please do explain why the founding fathers created the electoral college and were terrified of the masses? Go google and get back to me on that, would you know it all of poli-sci 101? I never wrote that the constitution was merely to protect the minority! It's a constant interplay between majority and minority -- yet, if the majority ruled (as in the case of racial integration, women's rights, homosexual rights, disability rights, etc...) and there was not the ability to go against the will of the people then it would be tyranny of the majority. Then try to get it through your skull that the only things that are deemed constitutional or unconstitutional are what the justices decide -- you don't decide that. They do!
Wrong. Justices do not get to decide what is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Constitution decides that, not judges. The federal judiciary and its judges were created to interpret the law, not make law or overturn the will of the people in areas well outside their constitutionally delimited function. If justices decide what is or is not constitutional, then we are living in a lawless oligarchy run by around 1,200 federal judges and nine supreme court justices and there personal ideological whims.
This constitutional reality here is simple: the California supreme court has no business deciding what the nature of homosexual relationships are or are not, or how open homosexuals shall be integrated into the larger community and culture. They have no business whatever ruling on what the nature of marriage shall be in western/American society. They have neither the competence to do so, or the legal mandate. That is for the people through deliberative democratic legislatures to decide, not unaccountable legal oligarchs.
The Supreme Court was never intended by the founders as the lasts appeal for special interest groups seeking legitimization they cannot achieve through the deliberative democratic process. That process is intended to protect both majorities and minorities from each other, which is why the Constitution makes government small and strictly limited in its scope, and reserves, in the 10th amendment, any thorny issues such as Gay marriage to the states and to the people to decide for themselves.
The Constitution is, at its core, one overarching protection of the people from government, and from those, such as the homosexual lobby, who would use government to impose by force their own values and cultural standards upon others and their children (the "majority").
And please stop throwing the term "rights" around so freely, as you clearly haven't thought very long or very hard regarding its meaning.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
Moniker wrote:First off I'm not a liberal. From 18 to late 20's I voted Libertarian in every single election. In my early 20's I was deeply involved in the grass roots aspect of the Libertarian party. Secondly I support women's rights and these are not necessarily linked to liberal or conservative mandates in the way that I support them. Thirdly, I was against going into Iraq because I was actually well aware of what the Powell Doctrine was and is and so I held fast to my support of what I considered wise conservative policy when it came to war -- those that went against this were the ones that flipped over. Fourthly, I'm tired of you lecturing me on political whatever and assuming I had a poor upbringing. I've told you numerous times my father is a staunch conservative that writes for those rags you soak up with little thought -- our family get togethers are fun. :)
Now, as to your tyranny of the majority lack of knowledge. Please do explain why the founding fathers created the electoral college and were terrified of the masses? Go google and get back to me on that, would you know it all of poli-sci 101? I never wrote that the constitution was merely to protect the minority! It's a constant interplay between majority and minority -- yet, if the majority ruled (as in the case of racial integration, women's rights, homosexual rights, disability rights, etc...) and there was not the ability to go against the will of the people then it would be tyranny of the majority. Then try to get it through your skull that the only things that are deemed constitutional or unconstitutional are what the justices decide -- you don't decide that. They do!
As I recall the President wasn't really directly elected until Jackson right? As I recall the electoral college voted their conscience as opposed to the winner take all system we have now where each candidate nominates a number of delegates who he is certain will support him within each state right? Thus the system was originally much more conservative and kept decisions to a much smaller group of people than today. But I might be wrong (Early US History after the Founding isn't my strong suit so I may be wrong).
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4004
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm
Droopy wrote:Now, as to your tyranny of the majority lack of knowledge. Please do explain why the founding fathers created the electoral college and were terrified of the masses? Go google and get back to me on that, would you know it all of poli-sci 101? I never wrote that the constitution was merely to protect the minority! It's a constant interplay between majority and minority -- yet, if the majority ruled (as in the case of racial integration, women's rights, homosexual rights, disability rights, etc...) and there was not the ability to go against the will of the people then it would be tyranny of the majority. Then try to get it through your skull that the only things that are deemed constitutional or unconstitutional are what the justices decide -- you don't decide that. They do!
Wrong. Justices do not get to decide what is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Constitution decides that, not judges. The federal judiciary and its judges were created to interpret the law, not make law or overturn the will of the people in areas well outside their constitutionally delimited function. If justices decide what is or is not constitutional, then we are living in a lawless oligarchy run by around 1,200 federal judges and nine supreme court justices and there personal ideological whims.
Did the Constitution outline many things legislatively that were later decided constitutional according to the justices, Coggins? I bet you love the Interstate Commerce Clause, eh?
This constitutional reality here is simple: the California supreme court has no business deciding what the nature of homosexual relationships are or are not, or how open homosexuals shall be integrated into the larger community and culture. They have no business whatever ruling on what the nature of marriage shall be in western/American society. They have neither the competence to do so, or the legal mandate. That is for the people through deliberative democratic legislatures to decide, not unaccountable legal oligarchs.
That there are families that currently raise children that get tax breaks, and other benefits from the federal and state governments because they are a family unit and that other families that only differ 'cause two of the parents are the same sex is clearly discrimination. Your notion that families are only 2 parents of opposite sex and that they raise children and get all the benefits from the local and federal government where as others do not is not very well thought out. If the government wants to get rid of giving perks to all families I'm cool with that -- just be across the board with it. Obviously the California Supreme Court feels differently than you do -- go to law school, work your ass off and get appointed to a Supreme Court and then deal with it. Or vote for representatives that will appoint judges that will rule according to your social conscience -- yet, the idea that those things you disagree with are somehow unconstitutional just because you deem them so is not reality. Every time the court sneezes SOMEONE says it's unconstitutional -- nope! That the courts overturn earlier decisions shows how with the time and social conscience things change anyway. If you want to be a strict interpretor of the constitution then you need to stop receiving any federal aid from the college you attend. Send back all federal money that helped pay your children's way through school. The special education kids used to be kicked out of schools or those with disabilities. Oops, those darn justices somehow or another found a way to say that was unconstitutional even though it's not in the damn constitution.
And please stop throwing the term "rights" around so freely, as you clearly haven't thought very long or very hard regarding its meaning.
Stop pretending you live up to your conservative principles when you received a public education, attend a state college where you receive part of your tuition paid for by the state, and that you don't get tax breaks 'cause you're married. You just don't like it when other folks get the same breaks you already enjoy!
by the way, Coggins were you cool with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down interracial marriage laws and deeming them unconstitutional in the late 60's??? The will of the people was overturned. Gasp! Horror!
Get your knickers in a bunch over this Coggins:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2136.cfmA more detailed look at the state level hints at a grim future for state fiscal independence. North Carolina is a telling example. In 1997, federal funds paid approximately one-fourth of state spending. In 2007, according to a 2006 budget estimate, the federal government paid one-third of the state's expenditures.[14] If this trend continues, the federal government will become the largest revenue source for North Carolina by 2017, paying 44 percent of the state's expenditures. In 2022, federal funds will account for more than half of state revenues, with state taxes, including income taxes, providing only 41 percent of state revenues.
Stop accepting those funds! It's unconstitutional and pay your own damn way! :)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
Chap,
I'm just responding to questions and comments from others.
Was this supposed to make any sense?
Maybe you should pay closer attention to what's being argued. I certainly haven't argued against this.
And I have made it clear that I agree with this point as well. But of course, you already knew that.
Schmoster,
What ever in the hell are you talking about? Did you make some kind of reference to Happy Gilmore that I missed?
Another repeated false statement that you have never been able to substantiate. Stop trying to include everyone else with you.
Those who understand what I am actually saying are those who appreciate or at least understand what I say. CK, Gadianton and Jersey Girl and probably a few others, know I am not a homophobe. Repeating it over and over makes you seem desperate. If you have an intellectual argument, then make it. Stop expecting all your points to come from bigot-baiting remarks. The longer you persist in this the more support you lose from your fan base.
Beastie,
You misrepresented what I said. Yes, you did. Now you refer to my thoughts? You're admittedly engaging in psychanalysis then? One has to appreciate the context of my remarks in order to understand them. I was trying to explain how this would be a natural question from any child who understands exactly what the anus is for. Girl or boy, he or she has one, and uses it on a regular basis. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out what kind of questions will ensue from an inquiring infant.
Don't be a smart ass. Yes, anal sex can be disgusting if messy. But it isn't always messy, apparently. That's what the enema kit is for. But unless a child is explained the function of the enema kit and sanitary procedures of the participants, a mess is what would be naturally understood.
Ok, now you're flat out lying. You heard me. You are trying so desperately to twist this in a manner that suits your purpose. So much so that actually you're willing to sit there and accept the fact that I never said what you attribute to me, but insist now that you're misrepresentation is justified because you now believe those were my "thoughts." And now being intellectually dishonesty by insisting my "words betray" me.
What a joke beastie. Provide the citation where I stated this was my concern or fear. Show where my "words betray" me. I explained my position to you twice now. A third time won't do any good because at this point you're beyond reasoning with. I never said I was "afraid" or "concerned" or "worried" about an increase in homosexuals. I already know an increase will occur, and this is because I know homosexuality is spreading due to modern culture. If I do not think homosexuality is "bad" then how can you maintain this nonsense about me being "worried" about it increasing?
There are some, sure. And that is essentially what I said. I believe sexual preference is passed down through the genes, but most humans are heterosexual. Some are homosexual and others are a mixture of something inbetween, who eventually have to choose to go one way or the other. This proves that in many cases homosexuality is a choice. And you cannot really say they were "born gay" either since you have now wedded yourself to Kinsey as an authority.
And just because Kinsey created 7 different categories for his own survey purposes, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority fall into category 0. (Incidentally, Kinsey's report is a little unrealistic anyway since 25% of his male test group was comprised of convicted criminals. As we all know, the higher the percentage of prison inmates, the higher the percentage of homosexual activity one might expect. I suspect the true homosexual population in America is around 1-3%. But that is neither here nor there.)
So what are you saying here, that since some of the children might qualify as a 1-6, then my argument isn't valid? Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. So what about the rest of the majority of orphaned children who do falling into the 0 category? If my concerns are valid for even one instance among hundreds of adoptions, then I think that is reason enough to have and consider them.
"Young" male? Is this your way of trying to squirm around the fact that Kinsey isn't talking about children? We are talking about children beastie. Kinsey did not test or interview small children and you know this. Kinsey was not a child psychologist but rather a zoologist who took a hobby interest in sexual behavior of all creatures, and he ended up spending the rest of his life taking polls and doing interviews.
Do you actually read what you type before posting? Think about what you just said. You're telling me humans could their forget orgasm, in any circumstance? A person's first orgasm is always going to be memorable. Does anyone here not remember his or her first orgasm? Nothing you have presented suggests the opposite. You just keep making wild assertions as though they are fact, and now you're decorating them with irrelevant data from Kinsey to make it sound scientific. Nothing from Kinsey's figures/categories, even addresses this issue.
The sexual attraction is not present sufficiently to create a memorable orgasm? Was that supposed to be a coherent statement? Who ever said memory is "created" by sexual attraction? Anyone's first orgasm is going to be memorable no matter who it is with. If it is inside a woman or a man or in the bathroom shower, it will be remembered and the immediate context will be remembered as well. But if a child engages in homosexual activity at an early age and manages to orgasm during homosexual activity, he will naturally be inclined to continue whether he is "born that way" or not. All humans are orgasm junkies. When I had my first orgasm, it was the greatest feeling I had ever felt. It happened through masturbation and it caught me by surprise. I didn't know there was a final finale to be had (grin). I think I was 14 at the time.
What percentage is that?
You speak as though children fall into Kinsey's scale in the first place. They don't. Kinsey didn't include children. And he had no way of knowing how or why some people lingered between 0 and 6. All he did was take interviews and report a census. He reported what was, while doing no science to explain how or why. And I never said gay parents would "push" their kids to do anything. Here you are again with another misrepresentation.
Kids naturally want to look to their parents as role models. They will mimick what they see whether the parent likes it or not. It is a matter of circumstance, and putting newborns into those circumstances is avoidable by allowing them to be adopted by heterosexual couples instead. It shoudl be taken for granted that any newborn orphan will be a 0 on the Kinsey scale. Why? Because that is about 95% of the population. We as humans take all sorts of precautions based on non-scientific speculation. That's why we sent a monkey into space before man. We assumed that there might be something about space that would prove harmful to man. This was based on zero evidence. So what is so outrageous about taking precautions when the subject at hand is America's orphaned newborns? Because we can't make a homosexual feel excluded in any way? Maybe we're just homophobic and filled with "hatred." I mean it can't possibly have anything to do with a genuine concern for children, right?
Glancing through the long. long preceding pages, is good to see that dartagnan is doing such a lot of detailed thinking and really copious writing about what other people choose to get up to in bed.
I'm just responding to questions and comments from others.
In fact, I am so sure of the pre-eminent value of dartagnan's detailed information and pithy analysis regarding all such matters that I feel I don't even need to read his posts. After all 'the thinking has been done'.
Was this supposed to make any sense?
1. I haven't seen anything on this thread to convince me that two adults who love each other and wish to form a legally sanctioned partnership for mutual support should not be able to do so, whatever their genders or tastes in bedroom recreation.
Maybe you should pay closer attention to what's being argued. I certainly haven't argued against this.
2. Given the chronic shortage of adoptive parents for all but the newborn, I haven't seen anything on this thread to convince me that it is not far, far better for a child in an institution to be adopted by a homosexual couple or individual (assuming that couple or individual to have been vetted as carefully as if they were heterosexual) than to remain in institutional care.
And I have made it clear that I agree with this point as well. But of course, you already knew that.
Schmoster,
Ever notice how darte tends to echo the kinds of things I just said moments after I've said them. And he actually appears to think he's being original. Parsed to their most rudimentary level, the best he's got is, "I know you are but what am I?"
What ever in the hell are you talking about? Did you make some kind of reference to Happy Gilmore that I missed?
Also, ever notice how the people who don't, at least to some degree, validate his thoughts are all morons and idiots?
Another repeated false statement that you have never been able to substantiate. Stop trying to include everyone else with you.
One day, his head will explode because people simply don't respect what he thinks of as his own "intelligence." It's pitiable that the thing he lacks most is the thing on which his ego most depends.
Those who understand what I am actually saying are those who appreciate or at least understand what I say. CK, Gadianton and Jersey Girl and probably a few others, know I am not a homophobe. Repeating it over and over makes you seem desperate. If you have an intellectual argument, then make it. Stop expecting all your points to come from bigot-baiting remarks. The longer you persist in this the more support you lose from your fan base.
Beastie,
First, you accused me of misrepresenting your thoughts. For example, according to you, you never said anal sex was disgusting. Forgive me for assuming that your frequent mention of excrement probably indicated you found it disgusting.
You misrepresented what I said. Yes, you did. Now you refer to my thoughts? You're admittedly engaging in psychanalysis then? One has to appreciate the context of my remarks in order to understand them. I was trying to explain how this would be a natural question from any child who understands exactly what the anus is for. Girl or boy, he or she has one, and uses it on a regular basis. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out what kind of questions will ensue from an inquiring infant.
But some people do like excrement, so I should not have jumped to conclusions.
Don't be a smart ass. Yes, anal sex can be disgusting if messy. But it isn't always messy, apparently. That's what the enema kit is for. But unless a child is explained the function of the enema kit and sanitary procedures of the participants, a mess is what would be naturally understood.
Second, it is clear, by now, that my earlier hunch was correct. You're worried about children being "converted" to homosexuality, and the percentage of homosexuals increasing. Don't try to pretend otherwise, your own words betray you.
Ok, now you're flat out lying. You heard me. You are trying so desperately to twist this in a manner that suits your purpose. So much so that actually you're willing to sit there and accept the fact that I never said what you attribute to me, but insist now that you're misrepresentation is justified because you now believe those were my "thoughts." And now being intellectually dishonesty by insisting my "words betray" me.
What a joke beastie. Provide the citation where I stated this was my concern or fear. Show where my "words betray" me. I explained my position to you twice now. A third time won't do any good because at this point you're beyond reasoning with. I never said I was "afraid" or "concerned" or "worried" about an increase in homosexuals. I already know an increase will occur, and this is because I know homosexuality is spreading due to modern culture. If I do not think homosexuality is "bad" then how can you maintain this nonsense about me being "worried" about it increasing?
What Kevin refers to as "gender confusion" may just be an individual who really isn't clearly heterosexual OR homosexual, but somewhere in-between. There are plenty of people like that around.
There are some, sure. And that is essentially what I said. I believe sexual preference is passed down through the genes, but most humans are heterosexual. Some are homosexual and others are a mixture of something inbetween, who eventually have to choose to go one way or the other. This proves that in many cases homosexuality is a choice. And you cannot really say they were "born gay" either since you have now wedded yourself to Kinsey as an authority.
And just because Kinsey created 7 different categories for his own survey purposes, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority fall into category 0. (Incidentally, Kinsey's report is a little unrealistic anyway since 25% of his male test group was comprised of convicted criminals. As we all know, the higher the percentage of prison inmates, the higher the percentage of homosexual activity one might expect. I suspect the true homosexual population in America is around 1-3%. But that is neither here nor there.)
A young male who can experience sexual attraction and desire for another male is definitely not a "0" on the Kinsey scale. Males who ARE "0" on the Kinsey scale would respond, as Gad did, by asserting there is simply no way any cultural influence could push him to experience sexual attraction to another male. My boyfriend is the same way. It just ain't happening. My boyfriend has nothing against homosexuality or homosexuals, but he is a 0 on the Kinsey scale, and just not able to feel sexual attraction to another male.
So what are you saying here, that since some of the children might qualify as a 1-6, then my argument isn't valid? Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. So what about the rest of the majority of orphaned children who do falling into the 0 category? If my concerns are valid for even one instance among hundreds of adoptions, then I think that is reason enough to have and consider them.
So a young male who even considers, whether due to cultural influences or some purely internal pressure, to experiment with other young males is already at least a 1 on the Kinsey scale.
"Young" male? Is this your way of trying to squirm around the fact that Kinsey isn't talking about children? We are talking about children beastie. Kinsey did not test or interview small children and you know this. Kinsey was not a child psychologist but rather a zoologist who took a hobby interest in sexual behavior of all creatures, and he ended up spending the rest of his life taking polls and doing interviews.
Kevin, I'm sorry, but there is no way someone who is a 0 on the Kinsey scale is going to have a "memorable orgasm" within a same sex experience.
Do you actually read what you type before posting? Think about what you just said. You're telling me humans could their forget orgasm, in any circumstance? A person's first orgasm is always going to be memorable. Does anyone here not remember his or her first orgasm? Nothing you have presented suggests the opposite. You just keep making wild assertions as though they are fact, and now you're decorating them with irrelevant data from Kinsey to make it sound scientific. Nothing from Kinsey's figures/categories, even addresses this issue.
The sexual attraction is not present sufficiently to create a memorable orgasm.
The sexual attraction is not present sufficiently to create a memorable orgasm? Was that supposed to be a coherent statement? Who ever said memory is "created" by sexual attraction? Anyone's first orgasm is going to be memorable no matter who it is with. If it is inside a woman or a man or in the bathroom shower, it will be remembered and the immediate context will be remembered as well. But if a child engages in homosexual activity at an early age and manages to orgasm during homosexual activity, he will naturally be inclined to continue whether he is "born that way" or not. All humans are orgasm junkies. When I had my first orgasm, it was the greatest feeling I had ever felt. It happened through masturbation and it caught me by surprise. I didn't know there was a final finale to be had (grin). I think I was 14 at the time.
Given how human societies have always had a homosexual element, no matter how hard they try to purge society of it, no matter how persecuted and hated homosexuals may have been in that particular society, I think it's a given that a certain percentage of the human population is born a 6 on the Kinsey scale.
What percentage is that?
I suppose the question for Kevin is whether or not having gay parents will push children who are not 0s on the Kinsey scale
You speak as though children fall into Kinsey's scale in the first place. They don't. Kinsey didn't include children. And he had no way of knowing how or why some people lingered between 0 and 6. All he did was take interviews and report a census. He reported what was, while doing no science to explain how or why. And I never said gay parents would "push" their kids to do anything. Here you are again with another misrepresentation.
Kids naturally want to look to their parents as role models. They will mimick what they see whether the parent likes it or not. It is a matter of circumstance, and putting newborns into those circumstances is avoidable by allowing them to be adopted by heterosexual couples instead. It shoudl be taken for granted that any newborn orphan will be a 0 on the Kinsey scale. Why? Because that is about 95% of the population. We as humans take all sorts of precautions based on non-scientific speculation. That's why we sent a monkey into space before man. We assumed that there might be something about space that would prove harmful to man. This was based on zero evidence. So what is so outrageous about taking precautions when the subject at hand is America's orphaned newborns? Because we can't make a homosexual feel excluded in any way? Maybe we're just homophobic and filled with "hatred." I mean it can't possibly have anything to do with a genuine concern for children, right?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Dart,
I'm not prepared to engage at any length in this discussion though for the most part, I've followed it and particularly your comments regarding children and adoption. I also would like to repeat that while you and I have had our clashes in the past (not necessarily on this board), I do think that you've been treated to your fair share of abuse and then some on this thread.
Having said that, in your posts you mention adoption by same sex couples. Have you addressed biological children of same sex couples and how you think a child might be impacted in that situation?
In that case, assuming (let's make it homosexual males) there is one female role model involved, with a gay couple (males) co-parenting the child, do you feel more confident in a good outcome for the child in that case?
And if so, how would you compare that to a gay couple (males) adopting a child with a female role model in the form of a grandmother, aunt or sister in the picture?
My questions are here for you to respond to someone who isn't going to mock you and also for you to recognize (if you haven't expressed it already on this thread) that it's quite possible that a child of gay parents (males in this case) will not be raised in isolation without opposite sex role modeling for themselves within their extended family and as a matter of fact, in the community as well.
Okay, have at it!
I'm not prepared to engage at any length in this discussion though for the most part, I've followed it and particularly your comments regarding children and adoption. I also would like to repeat that while you and I have had our clashes in the past (not necessarily on this board), I do think that you've been treated to your fair share of abuse and then some on this thread.
Having said that, in your posts you mention adoption by same sex couples. Have you addressed biological children of same sex couples and how you think a child might be impacted in that situation?
In that case, assuming (let's make it homosexual males) there is one female role model involved, with a gay couple (males) co-parenting the child, do you feel more confident in a good outcome for the child in that case?
And if so, how would you compare that to a gay couple (males) adopting a child with a female role model in the form of a grandmother, aunt or sister in the picture?
My questions are here for you to respond to someone who isn't going to mock you and also for you to recognize (if you haven't expressed it already on this thread) that it's quite possible that a child of gay parents (males in this case) will not be raised in isolation without opposite sex role modeling for themselves within their extended family and as a matter of fact, in the community as well.
Okay, have at it!
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 15602
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm
dartagnan wrote:Schmoster,Ever notice how darte tends to echo the kinds of things I just said moments after I've said them. And he actually appears to think he's being original. Parsed to their most rudimentary level, the best he's got is, "I know you are but what am I?"
What ever in the hell are you talking about? Did you make some kind of reference to Happy Gilmore that I missed?Also, ever notice how the people who don't, at least to some degree, validate his thoughts are all morons and idiots?
Another repeated false statement that you have never been able to substantiate. Stop trying to include everyone else with you.One day, his head will explode because people simply don't respect what he thinks of as his own "intelligence." It's pitiable that the thing he lacks most is the thing on which his ego most depends.
Those who understand what I am actually saying are those who appreciate or at least understand what I say. CK, Gadianton and Jersey Girl and probably a few others, know I am not a homophobe. Repeating it over and over makes you seem desperate. If you have an intellectual argument, then make it. Stop expecting all your points to come from bigot-baiting remarks. The longer you persist in this the more support you lose from your fan base.
I have a fan base? I had no idea. I'm certainly not trying for one. See, that's one of many big differences between us: my self-esteem is not dependant on what strangers think of me.
Your memory sucks. You can't seem to remember what you write from one post to the next. And there doesn't seem to be any end to your simplistic outlook on things. Just because you would use a Happy Gilmore reference rather than something else is just window dressing intended to disguise what you're really saying in every post to me, which is essentially the same damn things I just said to you. I guess you're just so incredibly caught up in your own BS, you fail to see it.
And if I were the only one you ever called an idiot or a moron on this board, you might have a point. But again, you don't. Anyone who's been paying attention to your posting habits knows what I'm talking about it, your denials notwithstanding. Now you're trying to claim people can only escape being called an idiot if they "appreciate or at least understand" what you say. LOL... I understand it all too well. It's not as sophisticated as you'd like to believe. I just don't agree. That's where your real problem lies with me... well, that, and that fact that I see easily through your BS and enjoy calling you on it.
I'm certainly not desperate to convince anyone that you're homophobic. There's no need. I'm not the one writing pages in defense of moronic statements made earlier in the thread (now that seems desperate...) You are.
Again, I'll say this for you: you crack me up. If only it were intentional.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.