Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A question to all gays

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 10:46:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

I think you first need to explain why you are attracted to women. It is not that you choose to.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:07:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 10:46:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

I think you first need to explain why you are attracted to women. It is not that you choose to.

honestly, aside from sex being a women gave no advantage in relationship to me.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:10:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:07:53 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/26/2013 10:46:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

I think you first need to explain why you are attracted to women. It is not that you choose to.

honestly, aside from sex being a women gave no advantage in relationship to me.

why are you attracted to sex with women? Did you choose or does your brain have a biological reason the compeles you?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:20:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:10:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 11:07:53 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/26/2013 10:46:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

I think you first need to explain why you are attracted to women. It is not that you choose to.

honestly, aside from sex being a women gave no advantage in relationship to me.

why are you attracted to sex with women? Did you choose or does your brain have a biological reason the compeles you?

I guest it mostly biological, I just feel like men's butt or month is utterly disgusting for no reason.

No offence.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:40:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:20:02 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/26/2013 11:10:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 11:07:53 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/26/2013 10:46:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

I think you first need to explain why you are attracted to women. It is not that you choose to.

honestly, aside from sex being a women gave no advantage in relationship to me.

why are you attracted to sex with women? Did you choose or does your brain have a biological reason the compeles you?

I guest it mostly biological, I just feel like men's butt or month is utterly disgusting for no reason.

No offence.

That is because you don't have the biology to be attracted to men whether it was given when you were born or learned later in life.

There should be nothing surprising about a man being attracted to another man, especially when one starts listing out the multitudes of things that people are attracted to.

You got trash gays for their attraction, but say nothing to people who are attracted to the opposite sex peeing or defecating on them or all the other crazy shXt that hetrosexuals/homosexuals can be attracted to.

Fundamentally, let's imagine you don't like peanut butter. Is there even a point to asking people who like peanut butter why they like such a disgusting thing?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:50:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That is because you don't have the biology to be attracted to men whether it was given when you were born or learned later in life.

There should be nothing surprising about a man being attracted to another man, especially when one starts listing out the multitudes of things that people are attracted to.

You got trash gays for their attraction, but say nothing to people who are attracted to the opposite sex peeing or defecating on them or all the other crazy shXt that hetrosexuals/homosexuals can be attracted to.


Ok that's crystal clear, now I understand it's like those who are attractive to sh1t and pee...

I.. I don't know what to say...

Fundamentally, let's imagine you don't like peanut butter. Is there even a point to asking people who like peanut butter why they like such a disgusting thing?

Is it really that mush? Do a gay felt a women breast and sexual organ as mush disgusting as we found the man's penis is?

Or did they just found the women sexual organ simply unattractive or not as attractive as those of their male partners?
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:58:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:50:37 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
That is because you don't have the biology to be attracted to men whether it was given when you were born or learned later in life.

There should be nothing surprising about a man being attracted to another man, especially when one starts listing out the multitudes of things that people are attracted to.

You got trash gays for their attraction, but say nothing to people who are attracted to the opposite sex peeing or defecating on them or all the other crazy shXt that hetrosexuals/homosexuals can be attracted to.


Ok that's crystal clear, now I understand it's like those who are attractive to sh1t and pee...

I.. I don't know what to say...

Fundamentally, let's imagine you don't like peanut butter. Is there even a point to asking people who like peanut butter why they like such a disgusting thing?

Is it really that mush? Do a gay felt a women breast and sexual organ as mush disgusting as we found the man's penis is?

Or did they just found the women sexual organ simply unattractive or not as attractive as those of their male partners?

There are clearly many hetrosexual men who are not disgusted at looking at penises as you think. Just the sheer number of men who watch videos of other men have sex with women prove that.

Why do you find the male penis so disgusting?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 9:59:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

I find some men sexually attractive for the same reason that you find some women sexually attractive.

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

I don't understand how you could want to have sex with women. I get the reproductive impulse, on a logical level... but on a conjugal level, not a chance.

And don't even start on "proper use" bullsh!t.
Tsar of DDO
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 5:59:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 12:58:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 11:50:37 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
That is because you don't have the biology to be attracted to men whether it was given when you were born or learned later in life.

There should be nothing surprising about a man being attracted to another man, especially when one starts listing out the multitudes of things that people are attracted to.

You got trash gays for their attraction, but say nothing to people who are attracted to the opposite sex peeing or defecating on them or all the other crazy shXt that hetrosexuals/homosexuals can be attracted to.


Ok that's crystal clear, now I understand it's like those who are attractive to sh1t and pee...

I.. I don't know what to say...

Fundamentally, let's imagine you don't like peanut butter. Is there even a point to asking people who like peanut butter why they like such a disgusting thing?

Is it really that mush? Do a gay felt a women breast and sexual organ as mush disgusting as we found the man's penis is?

Or did they just found the women sexual organ simply unattractive or not as attractive as those of their male partners?

There are clearly many hetrosexual men who are not disgusted at looking at penises as you think. Just the sheer number of men who watch videos of other men have sex with women prove that.

Why do you find the male penis so disgusting?

err I think because mostly felt like penis gave a very strong sense of masculinity and when they are screaming effeminately in pleasure, I just feel very disgusting like I am hearing a women who scream with a muscle of superman... also because it is a peeing organ and but is where you excrete so it just feel very unclean for me to watch.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 6:02:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 9:59:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

I find some men sexually attractive for the same reason that you find some women sexually attractive.

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

I don't understand how you could want to have sex with women. I get the reproductive impulse, on a logical level... but on a conjugal level, not a chance.

And don't even start on "proper use" bullsh!t.

of course not, this is not even an argument in the first place what you are doing with your only thing is none of my business. Just pure curiosity.

So you can say that women is sexually disgusting to you? My point is that do gay have a different biological sense than straight man who love virginal penetration more than anything or is it simply that you have discover a hidden pleasure?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:50:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

Well, to answer that we must first answer why heterosexuality exists.

Neurologically speaking, the brain and senses are wired in such a way that upon the stimulus of a naked person of the opposite sex triggers sexual excitement. A homosexual would just have their neurological/hormonal systems wired in such a way that he stimulus of a naked person of the same sex triggers sexual excitement.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:57:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 5:59:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/26/2013 12:58:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 11:50:37 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
That is because you don't have the biology to be attracted to men whether it was given when you were born or learned later in life.

There should be nothing surprising about a man being attracted to another man, especially when one starts listing out the multitudes of things that people are attracted to.

You got trash gays for their attraction, but say nothing to people who are attracted to the opposite sex peeing or defecating on them or all the other crazy shXt that hetrosexuals/homosexuals can be attracted to.


Ok that's crystal clear, now I understand it's like those who are attractive to sh1t and pee...

I.. I don't know what to say...

Fundamentally, let's imagine you don't like peanut butter. Is there even a point to asking people who like peanut butter why they like such a disgusting thing?

Is it really that mush? Do a gay felt a women breast and sexual organ as mush disgusting as we found the man's penis is?

Or did they just found the women sexual organ simply unattractive or not as attractive as those of their male partners?

There are clearly many hetrosexual men who are not disgusted at looking at penises as you think. Just the sheer number of men who watch videos of other men have sex with women prove that.

Why do you find the male penis so disgusting?

err I think because mostly felt like penis gave a very strong sense of masculinity and when they are screaming effeminately in pleasure, I just feel very disgusting like I am hearing a women who scream with a muscle of superman... also because it is a peeing organ and but is where you excrete so it just feel very unclean for me to watch.

stahp
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:01:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:50:47 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

Well, to answer that we must first answer why heterosexuality exists.

Neurologically speaking, the brain and senses are wired in such a way that upon the stimulus of a naked person of the opposite sex triggers sexual excitement. A homosexual would just have their neurological/hormonal systems wired in such a way that he stimulus of a naked person of the same sex triggers sexual excitement.

Perhaps but I think most of the time we will be able to rationalize some of the cause of our pleasure. I hate to say this but probably all man are a bit sadistic in nature, we enjoy seeing someone who is weaker than us being bully and I think that is the true cause behind our pleasure through virginal penetration. Man on the other hands didn't really weak, it is also remind all of us that we can also being bully in to submission - which I believe is the true cause of our disgust feeling.

A man who enjoy male homosexuality logic of pleasure is still not understand by me.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:09:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:01:54 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:50:47 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

Well, to answer that we must first answer why heterosexuality exists.

Neurologically speaking, the brain and senses are wired in such a way that upon the stimulus of a naked person of the opposite sex triggers sexual excitement. A homosexual would just have their neurological/hormonal systems wired in such a way that he stimulus of a naked person of the same sex triggers sexual excitement.

Perhaps but I think most of the time we will be able to rationalize some of the cause of our pleasure. I hate to say this but probably all man are a bit sadistic in nature, we enjoy seeing someone who is weaker than us being bully and I think that is the true cause behind our pleasure through virginal penetration. Man on the other hands didn't really weak, it is also remind all of us that we can also being bully in to submission - which I believe is the true cause of our disgust feeling.

A man who enjoy male homosexuality logic of pleasure is still not understand by me.

Well, there is genetic causation for sexual orientation, and much of what causes sexual orientation revolves around prenatal hormones. Therefore the 'logic of pleasure' is heavily based on how the fetus develops.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:18:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

A man who enjoy male homosexuality logic of pleasure is still not understand by me.

Well, there is genetic causation for sexual orientation, and much of what causes sexual orientation revolves around prenatal hormones. Therefore the 'logic of pleasure' is heavily based on how the fetus develops.

and that's mean?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:22:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:18:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

A man who enjoy male homosexuality logic of pleasure is still not understand by me.

Well, there is genetic causation for sexual orientation, and much of what causes sexual orientation revolves around prenatal hormones. Therefore the 'logic of pleasure' is heavily based on how the fetus develops.

and that's mean?

No, why would you think that I am asserting that these factors of homosexuality are mean?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:36:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:22:39 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/27/2013 11:18:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

A man who enjoy male homosexuality logic of pleasure is still not understand by me.

Well, there is genetic causation for sexual orientation, and much of what causes sexual orientation revolves around prenatal hormones. Therefore the 'logic of pleasure' is heavily based on how the fetus develops.

and that's mean?

No, why would you think that I am asserting that these factors of homosexuality are mean?

Sorry I mean the meaning, what so what exactly is that factor? At first I think homosexuality is based on friendships because man-and-man can be closer to one another based on similar social value, so I am quite interest in how they are develop further in to a fully sexual relationship.

although I am sire that there will be no chance in millennial that I would share that development.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:43:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:36:44 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/27/2013 11:22:39 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/27/2013 11:18:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

A man who enjoy male homosexuality logic of pleasure is still not understand by me.

Well, there is genetic causation for sexual orientation, and much of what causes sexual orientation revolves around prenatal hormones. Therefore the 'logic of pleasure' is heavily based on how the fetus develops.

and that's mean?

No, why would you think that I am asserting that these factors of homosexuality are mean?

Sorry I mean the meaning, what so what exactly is that factor? At first I think homosexuality is based on friendships because man-and-man can be closer to one another based on similar social value, so I am quite interest in how they are develop further in to a fully sexual relationship.

although I am sire that there will be no chance in millennial that I would share that development.

By 'factors', I am referring to the genetic causes, which result in the prenatal hormonal releases. You see, in a would-be heterosexual fetus, the hormone that is naturally associated with their sex is released (testosterone for males, and estrogen/progesterone for females). In the case of a would-be homosexual fetus, the hormone that is naturally associated with the opposite sex is released, so that a male would get the estrogen/progesterone, and the female would get the testosterone. This prenatal hormonal release is also responsible for why certain women are very masculine, and certain men are very feminine. I do believe that transgenderism is also the result of this prenatal hormonal release, but I am not certain.

You must understand that while it does make sense that it would be easier to be attracted to a person of the same sex, due to the fact that they are that much more similar, that way of thinking implies that homosexuality is a choice, and that way of looking at homosexuality has very little if no evidence for it.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:51:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:01:54 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:50:47 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

Well, to answer that we must first answer why heterosexuality exists.

Neurologically speaking, the brain and senses are wired in such a way that upon the stimulus of a naked person of the opposite sex triggers sexual excitement. A homosexual would just have their neurological/hormonal systems wired in such a way that he stimulus of a naked person of the same sex triggers sexual excitement.

As simple as that?

Perhaps but I think most of the time we will be able to rationalize some of the cause of our pleasure. I hate to say this but probably all man are a bit sadistic in nature, we enjoy seeing someone who is weaker than us being bully and I think that is the true cause behind our pleasure through virginal penetration. Man on the other hands didn't really weak, it is also remind all of us that we can also being bully in to submission - which I believe is the true cause of our disgust feeling.

So gays don't feel like they need to bully their partner and that's what makes them incomprehensible to you... mmm.

At 11/27/2013 11:43:59 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
By 'factors', I am referring to the genetic causes, which result in the prenatal hormonal releases. You see, in a would-be heterosexual fetus, the hormone that is naturally associated with their sex is released (testosterone for males, and estrogen/progesterone for females). In the case of a would-be homosexual fetus, the hormone that is naturally associated with the opposite sex is released, so that a male would get the estrogen/progesterone, and the female would get the testosterone. This prenatal hormonal release is also responsible for why certain women are very masculine, and certain men are very feminine. I do believe that transgenderism is also the result of this prenatal hormonal release, but I am not certain.

You should remember this is a hypothesis and statistical correlation is not proof of causation.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:19:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:51:14 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/27/2013 11:01:54 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:50:47 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:39:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
A question to all gays. why do you ever find a man sexually attractive?

No harm intended but I simply don't understand, how can youn found those thing between our legs attractive without even a proper organ to use it.

Well, to answer that we must first answer why heterosexuality exists.

Neurologically speaking, the brain and senses are wired in such a way that upon the stimulus of a naked person of the opposite sex triggers sexual excitement. A homosexual would just have their neurological/hormonal systems wired in such a way that he stimulus of a naked person of the same sex triggers sexual excitement.

As simple as that?

As far as I know... yep.

Perhaps but I think most of the time we will be able to rationalize some of the cause of our pleasure. I hate to say this but probably all man are a bit sadistic in nature, we enjoy seeing someone who is weaker than us being bully and I think that is the true cause behind our pleasure through virginal penetration. Man on the other hands didn't really weak, it is also remind all of us that we can also being bully in to submission - which I believe is the true cause of our disgust feeling.

So gays don't feel like they need to bully their partner and that's what makes them incomprehensible to you... mmm.

At 11/27/2013 11:43:59 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
By 'factors', I am referring to the genetic causes, which result in the prenatal hormonal releases. You see, in a would-be heterosexual fetus, the hormone that is naturally associated with their sex is released (testosterone for males, and estrogen/progesterone for females). In the case of a would-be homosexual fetus, the hormone that is naturally associated with the opposite sex is released, so that a male would get the estrogen/progesterone, and the female would get the testosterone. This prenatal hormonal release is also responsible for why certain women are very masculine, and certain men are very feminine. I do believe that transgenderism is also the result of this prenatal hormonal release, but I am not certain.

You should remember this is a hypothesis and statistical correlation is not proof of causation.

If a certain gene tends to correlate with a certain action, and genes are what determines much of what happens in the body, it's a correlation that strongly points to causation.

Genes affect the body, not the other way around, so you can't really argue the "well B could cause A instead", or "Well what about an unknown C?" argument, since genes always do cause certain things to happen in the body.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 6:39:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:19:50 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:51:14 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
You should remember this is a hypothesis and statistical correlation is not proof of causation.

If a certain gene tends to correlate with a certain action, and genes are what determines much of what happens in the body, it's a correlation that strongly points to causation.

Genes affect the body, not the other way around, so you can't really argue the "well B could cause A instead", or "Well what about an unknown C?" argument, since genes always do cause certain things to happen in the body.

Genes can be dormant (not expressed) but that is not my point. Correlations can exist due to common causes as opposed to direct causation.

For instance there was a strong correlation between the genes that cause you to have dark skin and the life role of being a slave in the Americas. Being a slave didn't make you black [genes], but they were still correlated.

I would really like to know what the divergence was. How many people who didn't identify has homosexuals or bisexuals share the same genes? Share the same brain structures?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 7:08:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 6:39:19 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:19:50 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:51:14 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
You should remember this is a hypothesis and statistical correlation is not proof of causation.

If a certain gene tends to correlate with a certain action, and genes are what determines much of what happens in the body, it's a correlation that strongly points to causation.

Genes affect the body, not the other way around, so you can't really argue the "well B could cause A instead", or "Well what about an unknown C?" argument, since genes always do cause certain things to happen in the body.

Genes can be dormant (not expressed) but that is not my point. Correlations can exist due to common causes as opposed to direct causation.

For instance there was a strong correlation between the genes that cause you to have dark skin and the life role of being a slave in the Americas. Being a slave didn't make you black [genes], but they were still correlated.

Being a slave is outside of your body, I was referring to bodily characteristics that aren't caused by external reasons (disease, injury, etc).

I would really like to know what the divergence was. How many people who didn't identify has homosexuals or bisexuals share the same genes? Share the same brain structures?

I don't know, as I haven't seen the details of the study(ies). It would be an interesting thing to find out though.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:21:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 7:08:28 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 6:39:19 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:19:50 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:51:14 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
You should remember this is a hypothesis and statistical correlation is not proof of causation.

If a certain gene tends to correlate with a certain action, and genes are what determines much of what happens in the body, it's a correlation that strongly points to causation.

Genes affect the body, not the other way around, so you can't really argue the "well B could cause A instead", or "Well what about an unknown C?" argument, since genes always do cause certain things to happen in the body.

Genes can be dormant (not expressed) but that is not my point. Correlations can exist due to common causes as opposed to direct causation.

For instance there was a strong correlation between the genes that cause you to have dark skin and the life role of being a slave in the Americas. Being a slave didn't make you black [genes], but they were still correlated.

Being a slave is outside of your body, I was referring to bodily characteristics that aren't caused by external reasons (disease, injury, etc).

Those who enslaved them said it was a bodily characteristic, a disproportionate physical strength to intelligence that made slavery the ideal 'social benefit' to be gained from such individuals.

And indeed slaves tended to be strong and less intelligent/knowledgeable.

So what you got here is a true and real statistical association between the low measurable intelligence, black skin, and slavery. One of which is certainly a well known genetic trait. Yet it is now fully rejected assertion to say that genes caused lower intelligence.

It is 'obvious' that it was the lack of education and indeed intentional deprivation of all intellectually stimulating social factors that caused the lack of intelligence.

So look at what we've got here, we have the claim that homosexuality is genetic yet it does not follow Mendelian inheritance patterns... just like the low intelligence of slaves/blacks. We have the statistical correlation of genes and behavior/traits. Yet no one is willing to make absolute predictions. We have an important (relatively) political issue revolving around the nurture/nature perception of the trait, just as there was for racial slavery.

The one significant difference here is that the people with the traits would rather think of them as genetic than not while their opponents would rather think of them as the result of nurture than nature.

I think the truth is a good deal more complicated than a 'gay gene' and that even if genetics is important (that's actually a given, everything including how the brain processes stimuli is ultimately genetic) it's not a simple as gene X makes homosexuals. If it was then we could make predictions about orientation and we would have observed a standard Mendelian inheritance pattern a long time ago.

I don't know, as I haven't seen the details of the study(ies). It would be an interesting thing to find out though.

yes...
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:21:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/29/2013 7:08:28 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 6:39:19 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:19:50 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:51:14 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
You should remember this is a hypothesis and statistical correlation is not proof of causation.

If a certain gene tends to correlate with a certain action, and genes are what determines much of what happens in the body, it's a correlation that strongly points to causation.

Genes affect the body, not the other way around, so you can't really argue the "well B could cause A instead", or "Well what about an unknown C?" argument, since genes always do cause certain things to happen in the body.

Genes can be dormant (not expressed) but that is not my point. Correlations can exist due to common causes as opposed to direct causation.

For instance there was a strong correlation between the genes that cause you to have dark skin and the life role of being a slave in the Americas. Being a slave didn't make you black [genes], but they were still correlated.

Being a slave is outside of your body, I was referring to bodily characteristics that aren't caused by external reasons (disease, injury, etc).

Those who enslaved them said it was a bodily characteristic, a disproportionate physical strength to intelligence that made slavery the ideal 'social benefit' to be gained from such individuals.

And indeed slaves tended to be strong and less intelligent/knowledgeable.

So what you got here is a true and real statistical association between the low measurable intelligence, black skin, and slavery. One of which is certainly a well known genetic trait. Yet it is now fully rejected assertion to say that genes caused lower intelligence.

It is 'obvious' that it was the lack of education and indeed intentional deprivation of all intellectually stimulating social factors that caused the lack of intelligence.

Yep, external causes affected the apparent causation.

So look at what we've got here, we have the claim that homosexuality is genetic yet it does not follow Mendelian inheritance patterns... just like the low intelligence of slaves/blacks. We have the statistical correlation of genes and behavior/traits. Yet no one is willing to make absolute predictions. We have an important (relatively) political issue revolving around the nurture/nature perception of the trait, just as there was for racial slavery.

There are inheritance patterns, as it is more likely for a person to be homosexual if their siblings (if not also their parents) were homosexuals.

The one significant difference here is that the people with the traits would rather think of them as genetic than not while their opponents would rather think of them as the result of nurture than nature.

I think the truth is a good deal more complicated than a 'gay gene' and that even if genetics is important (that's actually a given, everything including how the brain processes stimuli is ultimately genetic) it's not a simple as gene X makes homosexuals. If it was then we could make predictions about orientation and we would have observed a standard Mendelian inheritance pattern a long time ago.

From what I have learned, you can't only say that it is one or the other, but rather that both are 100% responsible. As my psychology professor put it (this isn't the exact quote): "If you have all the right ingredients, but you don't cook it right, you don't have bread. If you cook it right, but you don't have the right ingredients, you still don't have bread".

I don't know, as I haven't seen the details of the study(ies). It would be an interesting thing to find out though.

yes...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:42:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:31:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:21:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
So look at what we've got here, we have the claim that homosexuality is genetic yet it does not follow Mendelian inheritance patterns... just like the low intelligence of slaves/blacks. We have the statistical correlation of genes and behavior/traits. Yet no one is willing to make absolute predictions. We have an important (relatively) political issue revolving around the nurture/nature perception of the trait, just as there was for racial slavery.

There are inheritance patterns, as it is more likely for a person to be homosexual if their siblings (if not also their parents) were homosexuals.

Mendelian inheritance patterns occur when only one gene is responsible since chromosomes can only be inherited in discreet sets.

It is more deterministic than a statistical correlation like "family members more likely" especially since parents and siblings often find themselves sharing more than genes.

If you display a trait that your twin does not you have proven that you are not looking at an inherited trait, and that has been demonstrated for homosexuality.


The one significant difference here is that the people with the traits would rather think of them as genetic than not while their opponents would rather think of them as the result of nurture than nature.

I think the truth is a good deal more complicated than a 'gay gene' and that even if genetics is important (that's actually a given, everything including how the brain processes stimuli is ultimately genetic) it's not a simple as gene X makes homosexuals. If it was then we could make predictions about orientation and we would have observed a standard Mendelian inheritance pattern a long time ago.

From what I have learned, you can't only say that it is one or the other, but rather that both are 100% responsible. As my psychology professor put it (this isn't the exact quote): "If you have all the right ingredients, but you don't cook it right, you don't have bread. If you cook it right, but you don't have the right ingredients, you still don't have bread".

A good analogy, and baking is a complicated thing. There are cakes, and pies, and rolls, and a hundred kinds of bread.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 9:13:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:42:54 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:31:32 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:21:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
So look at what we've got here, we have the claim that homosexuality is genetic yet it does not follow Mendelian inheritance patterns... just like the low intelligence of slaves/blacks. We have the statistical correlation of genes and behavior/traits. Yet no one is willing to make absolute predictions. We have an important (relatively) political issue revolving around the nurture/nature perception of the trait, just as there was for racial slavery.

There are inheritance patterns, as it is more likely for a person to be homosexual if their siblings (if not also their parents) were homosexuals.

Mendelian inheritance patterns occur when only one gene is responsible since chromosomes can only be inherited in discreet sets.

It is more deterministic than a statistical correlation like "family members more likely" especially since parents and siblings often find themselves sharing more than genes.

If you display a trait that your twin does not you have proven that you are not looking at an inherited trait, and that has been demonstrated for homosexuality.

As far as I know, isn't Mendelian inheritance the Pundit squares, which would allow for twins to have different traits?


The one significant difference here is that the people with the traits would rather think of them as genetic than not while their opponents would rather think of them as the result of nurture than nature.

I think the truth is a good deal more complicated than a 'gay gene' and that even if genetics is important (that's actually a given, everything including how the brain processes stimuli is ultimately genetic) it's not a simple as gene X makes homosexuals. If it was then we could make predictions about orientation and we would have observed a standard Mendelian inheritance pattern a long time ago.

From what I have learned, you can't only say that it is one or the other, but rather that both are 100% responsible. As my psychology professor put it (this isn't the exact quote): "If you have all the right ingredients, but you don't cook it right, you don't have bread. If you cook it right, but you don't have the right ingredients, you still don't have bread".

A good analogy, and baking is a complicated thing. There are cakes, and pies, and rolls, and a hundred kinds of bread.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 9:47:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wish I knew for sure if this whole thread is just a trollfest or if it's for serious.

But I'll bite, screw it.

I have tried for years to understand the physical attraction to men. I have bugged my friends to explain it to me without joking around - to be for real, and tell me how they see the male body. To sort of take me to that place where I can see their attraction the way they do. The whole thing always ends up with "I don't know; it's a biological thing" like a bio-gravity that they can't escape.

Mansexy is just always going to be a mystery to those of us who can't see it. For me, it's men's faces, hairy feet and fingers that sort of repel me. Also the cocky posture that a lot of men hold. But I have really tried to make myself attracted to guys... Because I love dudes. Growing up, I have ALWAYS connected with guys, and men seem able to almost telepathically put me in a great mood. The way that boys and men stoically just "take it" when they get hurt emotionally is almost devastatingly heartbreaking and sweet. Their tranparant lust is always a great go-to for ego repair.

So I love guys... But, as hard as I try, I cannot get attracted to them physically. I've come to understand that this is part of some hard-wired gender attraction that I'm just not part of. It's not men's "fault" that I see things like rectal hair instead of penis girth. Or nose hair instead of a winning smile. If anything, I'm the one being a total prick to even bring all this up. Especially since if you're a guy, I probably like you. It's just that I want to screw you about as much as you want to screw Mr. What's-his-name, your old history teacher.

Despite all their farty ways, men are still great. They are funny, brave, strong and endlessly flattering. And I've come close to "getting it" about guys. For example, I worked out in a gym a couple of times last month, trying to learn grappling and jiu-jitsu, which is a kind of wrestling. This guy was on top of me (I had him in a hold called a "full gaurd, which is where you lock your legs HARD around your opponents kidneys and try to keep them from lifting their head away from you. It looks exactly like some legs- up variant of the missionary position) my face was buried in his chest, and I was thinking I should bite him, except he wasn't wearing a shirt, (what if he tasted all salty from sweat) when I suddenly realized something: I liked the way he smelled. He was the opposite of what I would think I would be attracted to: he's twice my height nearly, and he told me he weighed like 220 pounds and he was too muscley. But I caught myself kind of sniffing of his chest and his shoulders. I even got shy around him after we worked out. I liked how strong he was, how he could pick me up like I was some cavegirl... which he thought was funny and so he did it a lot. Something about the strength difference between us was alluring. And the way he moved was very athletic and graceful... I'm going to say cat-like even though I know he would be embarrassed by that. But his reflexes and physical power really are attractive.

But still. Not attracted to guys. A few seconds after I got my shoes on to leave I saw his girlfriend, and she instantly reminded me of my orientation: I was suddenly jealous of him and hated him. Any attraction that I have towards men is always like that: transitory and fleeting, I understand it intellectually, sort of. But I really just can't feel it.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 9:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 9:47:04 PM, Beverlee wrote:
I wish I knew for sure if this whole thread is just a trollfest or if it's for serious.

But I'll bite, screw it.

I have tried for years to understand the physical attraction to men. I have bugged my friends to explain it to me without joking around - to be for real, and tell me how they see the male body. To sort of take me to that place where I can see their attraction the way they do. The whole thing always ends up with "I don't know; it's a biological thing" like a bio-gravity that they can't escape.

Mansexy is just always going to be a mystery to those of us who can't see it. For me, it's men's faces, hairy feet and fingers that sort of repel me. Also the cocky posture that a lot of men hold. But I have really tried to make myself attracted to guys... Because I love dudes. Growing up, I have ALWAYS connected with guys, and men seem able to almost telepathically put me in a great mood. The way that boys and men stoically just "take it" when they get hurt emotionally is almost devastatingly heartbreaking and sweet. Their tranparant lust is always a great go-to for ego repair.

Do you think this is a product of your sexual orientation?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."