Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

banning same-sex marriage: first hetero impact

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?id=15513&sd=03/25/05

interesting happening. I'll post here in case the link dies at any point.

GE

<font color="blue"> Judge cites Ohio gay marriage ban in disallowing unmarried people from filing domestic violence charges
A judge has ruled that Ohio's new constitutional ban on same-sex marriage prohibits unmarried people from being able to file domestic violence charges, a decision that has prompted an immediate appeal by prosecutors.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage, among the nation's broadest, would affect the state's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Wednesday's ruling by Cuyahoga County common pleas judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local government from enforcing a law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Prior to the amendment's approval, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The new amendment banning same-sex marriage no longer allows that.

John Martin, who supervises appeals in the public defender's office, said the office was pleased with the ruling but would not comment further because of the appeal.

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony, which could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months. "This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," prosecutor Matt Meyer said.

Some opponents of the amendment have said they hope the conflict over the domestic violence law would result in the same-sex marriage ban being repealed. Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest amendment of those passed by 11 states on November 2 because it bans civil unions and legal status for all unmarried couples, gay and straight. (AP)
</font>

 

[ QUOTE ]
By SgtRamrod
You are being a fucking moron. People who study human sexualty (this is a scientific field, the existence of which you seem to be unaware of) recognize that sexual orientation is a complex entity with near infinite gradations and variations. The fact that bisexuality exists is not even in dispute. And yet you continue to bloviate. You may as well join the Flat Earth Society while you're at it.

Perhaps the good sir doth protest too much...

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't heard about it....except for the class I took on it in college....and the book I have on the topic at my house. I am not saying that there are no bisexual people, I'm saying that bisexuals are gay people too. I'm saying there is no separate bisexual classification. "Gay" is a broad category that includes Homosexuals and Bi-Sexuals.

[ QUOTE ]
By Plague
You can't know this about me. You are not me. You are you. You can know it about yourself. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I can. If you make that choice. Do you think that you are so different from every other man on the planet? Do you think you invented erections? Sex is not new. Homosexuality is not new. Men all respond largely the same way. We have different tastes, fetishes, and some men are even gay, but the plumbing is all the same. If you have sex with it, you were attracted to it.

[ QUOTE ]
In your posts, I hear you screaming: "I'M NOT GAY!"

It's ok.

I believe you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one who keeps saying he has never had sex with a man. I don't need you to believe I'm not gay. Believe what you will. It doesn't matter to me. I don't need to prove it to you, myself, or anyone else and I haven't been trying to. It is what it is. As I have been trying to tell you, whatever you believe, your belief doesn't change the reality.

[ QUOTE ]
I am confident that if someone were to pay me $53 million for doing it, I could think of a hot chick, get hard, stick my dick in a man, get no gratificaton, and get paid a ton of cash, and not be gay. Hell, even without the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

The money has nothing to do with it. If you did it you would do it because you want to, not because you were paid to.

If you went to the hospital the day after you have had sex with this man for $53 million dollars and came out not being gay, how would you answer when the doctor asked you if you have sex with men, women or both?

 

Yeah, seriously mcoleman, that is some pretty ****ed up stuff.

I think you might need help - seriously.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Plague said:

I've only been attracted to women. I've never fucked a man. If I did decide to do it, I can assure you I would not come out sexually attracted to men and not aroused by women.


Mcoleman2 said:

I can assure you that if you decide to have sodomy with a man that you will come out aroused by men. I can be certain, because I know you will go in aroused by men. I know it, even if you don't. Your desires toward women will be largely unchanged as well.


Plague said:

You can't know this about me. You are not me. You are you. You can know it about yourself. That's all.


Mcoleman2 said:

Yes, I can. If you make that choice.

[/ QUOTE ]



Bullshit.

The subject matter could be homsexuality, videogames, car engines, whatever. You do not know what is in my head... "I can assure you that if you decide to have sodomy with a man that you will come out aroused by men." - That statement is total arrogance, man.

You can not know what goes through my brain unless you somehow meld with my consciousness. You can guess based on your own experiences/thoughts/etc.

Speak for yourself.

I don't claim to know what you think. I don't make absolute statements regarding things not my own. I extend effort to make sure I am not speaking for you or anyone else. Please afford me the same courtesy.

 

Mcoleman2, you have said so many blatanly wrongs things in this thread that, even after months of not posting on this entire forum, I am compelled to do so in this thread.

You have said all of the following things. I quote:
**** 1 ***********************************************
While there are countless wrong answers there is only one right answer
******************************************************

**** 2 ************************************************
.There is no bisexual. There is only heterosexual and homosexual, straight and gay. If a person has sex with both men and women, that person is gay.

I am not saying that there are no bisexual people, I'm saying that bisexuals are gay people too. I'm saying there is no separate bisexual classification. "Gay" is a broad category that includes Homosexuals and Bi-Sexuals.

You can't be straight and gay at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. You are one or the other. Several times you have stated that you don't believe it is true. You asked me where I get the idea from. I get that from simply watching people and nature.
*********************************************************

**** 3 ***************************************************
I say if you knowingly, and willingly put your penis in a man's butt for any reason, you are gay. I get that idea that from this reality: There is really only one reason a man willingly puts his penis in anything; a man puts his penis in something because he wants sexual gratification from it.

A man wanting gratification from a man makes the former man gay.

Homosexuality is the practice of willingly having sex with people of the same sex.

Men and women are different. A woman can just lay there and have sex while she is truly repulsed by you; a man can't do that. You seem to think that this is not true. What part of it is not true?
*************************************************************

There are others, but I simply got tired of hunting through your posts to find them all and these basically summarize your errors.
My responses follow.

**** 1 *****
There is almost never one correct answer. In general, there are multiple solutions to any given problem. Finding an acceptable answer usually involves determining the most effecient solution out of a set of feasible solutions. However, to say that there is one and only one right answer is just short-sighted.

**** 2 *****
The dictionary has 2 definitions for homosexuality.
They are:
1) Sexual orientation with regards to members of the same sex.
2) Congress with a member of the same sex.

Similarly, the definitions of heterosexuality are:
1) Sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex.
2) Congress with a member of the opposite sex.

I'll get to these in a moment.

I also looked up the definition of gay, and was very pleased. Although there are several, only one pertains to this discussion.
1) Relating to a homosexual or the lifestyle thereof.

For thoroughness, the definition of bisexual (for the purpose of this topic) is thus:
1) Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.

So your entire 'gay encompasses both homosexual and bisexual' and 'you can't be straight (hetero) and gay(homo/bi) at the same time' arguments are completely unfounded. Opinion or not, they are simply false. Gay is homosexual, and bi is to be both hetero- and homosexual.

**** 3 ****
These comments are where I want to discuss the previous definition of homo- and heterosexuality. You state that a man putting his penis inside another man, or a woman placing her tongue on another woman's breast makes them homosexual. Wrong. It means they commited homosexual acts. Period. In order to -be- homosexual, those persons must have had sexual desire for the other person. Although it is often included, that desire is not implied in a homosexual act (for example, in a jail-cell rape.) Otherwise, there would only be one definition for homo or heterosexual...the actual congress, for the desire would be a given.

Since you believe that said desire is implicit in congress with another, you would have to concede that a man putting his penis in a woman (and only women) would be heterosexual and have sexual feelings for the woman. I can assure you that many men have managed to have sex with a woman without ever having been physically attracted to them and vice versa. Arousal is not enough to indicate physical attraction or desire. The penis, vagina, breasts, anus and other body parts are simply a collection of nerves that respond to touch. Many gay men are still living their lives never having had sex with a man.

Even straight men and women have slept with a member of the opposite sex they weren't attracted to. Pardon the crudeness, but a hard-on will make a guy fuck damn near anything. For example, a sheep. That man would then have commited a beastual act, but not be beastual unless the sheep made him horny. A man putting his penis into another man for the purpose of ejaculation absolutely commited a homosexual act. However, he is not a homosexual unless he became aroused because of the other man. Nor is a man heterosexual just for placing his member inside a woman's vagina and climaxing. There is a clear distinction.

 

Don't know if there is much more to add on this seeing that this argument seems to be at a deadlock. I agree with what people have posted about things being relative and not black/white. It might not add much but I'd be interested to know if people think someone is 'gay' if they enjoy having a strap on used on them. Or if they were to masturbate with the aid of a dildo. Does it matter it the phallus is in the perfect mould of a penis, or if it's just a cylinder? I can't imagine such questions being so clear cut, trying to define these things seems pointless.

Also:

[ QUOTE ]
Off-topic, but more to the point, this is my personal feeling. I believe you are a young man who is struggling to come to terms with his homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you prefaced it with a sort of warning but Plague put it well:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't claim to know what you think. I don't make absolute statements regarding things not my own. I extend effort to make sure I am not speaking for you or anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Despite the fact someone may think a person is a closet homosexual, or think that you may be a closet homosexual or anyone else in this discussion you can rarely pass that judgement in real life let alone through an internet forum. Considering how people get offended when another person makes assumptions about the nature of their character I don't think it will add much to the conversion no matter how you slice it. (Wait...is this me making a judgement about your character? Hmmm /versus/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

 

DrunkenCat, after my post, I read it and realized it had no place in this thread. It was promptly removed.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if there is much more to add on this seeing that this argument seems to be at a deadlock. I agree with what people have posted about things being relative and not black/white. It might not add much but I'd be interested to know if people think someone is 'gay' if they enjoy having a strap on used on them. Or if they were to masturbate with the aid of a dildo. Does it matter it the phallus is in the perfect mould of a penis, or if it's just a cylinder? I can't imagine such questions being so clear cut, trying to define these things seems pointless.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think it is rather simple. People find sexual satisfaction in a myriad of ways. However, it is the motivation behind such acts that determines sexuality. Does the person simply enjoy having their anus penetrated? The feeling can be quite pleasurable for some. Or does the person become aroused at the thought of a man's penis inside him/her? There is the distinction. A pleasurable feeling is simply that. Same reason lesbians wear strap-ons. It's the filling sensation they crave, but certainly doesn't mean they're closet heteros. ^,^

 

DriftPlusPlus, I see a long post soley in response to my comments and then I see you apologize for and acknowledge deleting this comment.

[ QUOTE ]
Off-topic, but more to the point, this is my personal feeling. I believe you are a young man who is struggling to come to terms with his homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]
It looks like this comment is directed towards me, but I won't assume, I will ask you? Did you direct this comment towards me or towards someone else?

Drift, you are still not grasping my point of view correctly. It lies in the knowledge that there is a natural law; there such a thing as right and wrong, that there is one proper sexual orientation, that being male to female. A person who has only the desire for proper sex would be what I call "straight" or "heterosexual." The exact words that a person uses is not important, you can use different words or use these words in a different order if you want. What is important is what a person will do in the future. If a person will have sex with another person in the future then that person is what I call gay. You may say homosexual, or bi-sexual, or some other word, but it doesn't matter. It makes no difference for the purposes of considering someone gay or straight, for all that is required to be considered "gay" is that a person will have sex with someone of their own gender when given freedom and opportunity.

What you, Plague, and others have been trying to do is convince me that there are circumstances outside of coersion where a man who is straight by my definition, would willingly and knowingly choose to have homosexual sex. This just isn't possible. Such a man is gay by definition.

Another simple truth, people will tell you anything. If you go through life believing what people say you will be disappointed and manipulated more often than not. As I like to put it, Damn what they say, watch what they do. Plague, and now you, are presenting me with this hypothetical of a man who chose to have sex with a man but is in my face telling me, "I'm not gay. I wasn't really turned on by having sex with this man. Sure, I kept my erection beforehand but I wasn't turned on in anticipation." That is just talk. He can tell me anything. He can tell me that he's got ex-ray vision. He can tell me that he can walk on water. His actions say just the opposite of what his mouth says. If you want to prove something, you need evidence not empty words.

Suppose this hypothetical man were to say I don't want to have sex with a man ever again. Even if he believed that and was telling me the truth as he saw it at that moment, that still doesn't mean it was true because the evidence says that if someone replicated the same circumstances that made him commit his last homosexual act that he would committ another homosexual act in the future. People lie to themselves too.

As far a Plague's example. I can say that he (I would not have chosen to use him in such an example, but he chose to use himself) would be aroused by men. I can do this because the best indicator of what is in a person's head is their actions, not what they say, not what they believe, it is what they do that tells the story. I've seen people be in love but not know they were in love. I've seen people be afraid but not be conscious of their fear. Plague, I'm not trying to talk for you. I am simply looking at a hypothetical situation and calling it based on the only thing that matters, the action. That's not being arrogant; that's being observant.

Drift, about the gay men that are living out their lives without ever having had sex with a man, you know they are gay because......God told you they were gay, maybe they told you they were gay. If they are gay then why don't they have sex with men. Just wait, time and action will show you the ones who are truly gay. I say that even though I realize that men are biased against being gay. If a man says he is gay, 99.9% of the time he is.

While you were going through my posts in attempt to debunk my notion of "the best evidence is action" and replace it with all that matters is what is going on in a person's head did you come across this

[ QUOTE ]
By Plague
I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]
By your logic as long as he doesn't get turned on by the little boy he is not a pedophile. This is clearly flawed logic. The same logic that make him a pedophile makes him gay.

DrunkenCat, It seems to me that when I look at gay people, they seem to require that same types of touch as do straight people. In other words, lesbians get turned on by other women, but once they are turned on they demand vaginal penetration from a penis-like instrument. Gay men are turned on by other men, but once turned on they demand to penetrate someone else. Although it is not absolute, It seems to me that being gay/straight is more a function of what turns you on or off and less of function of what you do after you are turned on.

I personally see this as evidence that there is a natural way to have sex because for the most part even gay people don't truly hunger for the body parts possessed by people of their own gender.

To answer your question, it seems gay to me. But it falls outside of my personal, logical, definition of gay, if the man has no desires toward men and only does this as foreplay with a woman. I do think it matters whether or not the dildo is penis-shaped. On an emotional level it it feels gay to me.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Although it is not absolute, It seems to me that being gay/straight is more a function of what turns you on or off and less of function of what you do after you are turned on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here. That's why I say actions don't define. I can do what I want with my dick - it won't define my sexual orientation.


[ QUOTE ]
...for the most part even gay people don't truly hunger for the body parts possessed by people of their own gender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's why I disagree: I think heterosexuals hunger each other's parts, "I want to suck on your tits..." I can't see why homsexuals wouldn't do the same, "I want to suck on your tits..." I did read the rest of your paragraph. I agree that people are limited by the body parts they posses (a man doesn't normally have a vagina). I just don't think it really matters. Also, the absolutes: "Gay men are turned on by other men, but once turned on they demand to penetrate someone else." Blanket, absolute statement. Maybe it's actually 92% percent true. I don't think you can know. I certainly don't.

Blanket absolute statements: They're not credible to me and they're what I call arrogance. If I preface with "I think that this..." It means I took ownership of my statement.

"I think this."

"I heard you say this."

"I read what you wrote and I think you mean this."

Everything is "I"

This way of thinking sounded weird to me when I learned it. But it makes more sense to me every day.

I'd like it if you changed the way you stated your opinions. For me, being careful with my statements takes effort, but I'm happy with the consequences.

 

[ QUOTE ]
there such a thing as right and wrong, that there is one proper sexual orientation, that being male to female.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wipe your nose little boy, you're full of shit & starting to leak.

"Proper" has nothing to do with what men and women desire. I'm willing to wager that "proper" & "desire" in your upfuck'ded way of looking at things stand perpetually at odds. This is why people are (I will say, rather childishly but who am I to call someone childish) accusing you of being a homosexual deep deep down inside. The animal kingdom, human history and in fact current regular and healthy human sexual expression all find male to male and female to female pairings to be rather common. It's all quite natural enough.

And what does it matter anyway? If you find buttraunching with another dude to be not your idea of fun on a Saturday night, then don't. Go to some other club. Find some quality piece of ass and have proper sex. No cunnilingus though. Or fellatio. Those are improper techniques employed by fags & dykes. No face to face sex either. It's improper. And when you do it doggy style, make sure you hop up on your feet...froggy style. The only proper way to have sex. Don't use a condom & try your damnedest to make sure every drop of semen spills into her most proper folds...you want to maximize your usefulness to the species afterall. Then go have a protein shake and try it with her sister. Keep the species going and spread those proper genes.

 

[ QUOTE ]
By Plague
Here's why I disagree: I think heterosexuals hunger each other's parts, "I want to suck on your tits..." I can't see why homsexuals wouldn't do the same, "I want to suck on your tits..."

[/ QUOTE ]
For the first time in this thread I think you are correct. What I explained was the reverse of the conclusion I drew. Lesbians desire to receive vaginal penetration, which is something that can not be satisfied by female genitalia, and thus indirectly hunger for male genitalia or some artificial substitute, but It does not mean that lesbians don't hunger for female genitalia as well.

[ QUOTE ]
By Sanjuro
Wipe your nose little boy, you're full of shit & starting to leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save the insults and name calling. You may have been the class clown when you were in the fifth grade but we are grown now. Your name calling and insults don't add anything and cursing when you state your points doesn't make them any more valid.

I never said anything about whether what you did once you chose your partner was proper or not. I merely said (in many different ways) choosing a partner of the same gender means one is gay.

[ QUOTE ]
By Sanjuro
"Proper" has nothing to do with what men and women desire. I'm willing to wager that "proper" & "desire" in your upfuck'ded way of looking at things stand perpetually at odds. This is why people are (I will say, rather childishly but who am I to call someone childish) accusing you of being a homosexual deep deep down inside.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are probably accusing me of homosexuality because they don't understand me. I steadfastly hold to the same somewhat absolute point. My accusers appartently think sexual orientation is relative to what a person thinks about themselves and they don't understand why I don't see it the way they see it. So in their attempt to understand me they are attempting to explain me in a way they do understand, by accusing me of having repressed homosexual desires. Apparently they understand people of fluid sexuality better than I do. You apparently agree with them, but you all have to look a little farther, because I don't have any repressed desires.

What I understand about the people debating me on this simple point is that they don't want to take responsibility for their sexuality. I don't understand how they can look at it honestly and miss this point, that being that your actions bring consquences. I personally believe that they don't WANT to understand it, so that they can do whatever they want with clear conscience.

Since Plague brought up taking ownership of one's own statement, I'll ask him again to take ownership of this.
[ QUOTE ]
By Plague
I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read this to mean that you don't think that a man who has sex with a 7 year-old boy is a pedophile. How's about taking ownership of your statement and clarifying. How about you go into the police station, or better yet, the district attorney's office and say you believe that statement.

This is the 2nd or 3rd time I asked for explanation on this. I suspect Plague's fear (or reason) has overcome lunacy and that he won't support that belief out loud any more. So how about you Sanjuro, my "upfuck'ded way of looking at things" says that such a man would be a pedophile. My "upfuck'ded way of looking at things" says that all the evidence I need is that he chose to stick his dick in a little boy's ass. My "upfuck'ded way of looking at things" says that a man that did this can never be trusted around little boys again, because my "upfuck'ded way of looking at things" says sticking your dick in a little boy means you are turned on by little boys. My "upfuck'ded way of looking at things" even says that opinions like the one above matter. But what do I know, I'm sure you have a different, very enlightned way of looking a things. Since my way of looking a things is so "upfuck'ded" you must have a better way of looking at it, why don't you share it with me because I don't understand.

 

[ QUOTE ]
So in their attempt to understand me they are attempting to explain me in a way they do understand

[/ QUOTE ]

that's something we're all guilty of; it is no different from the way you are approaching homosexuality in this thread (and in life I'm sure, I doubt you are playing devils advocate). Really, its why there's so much butting of heads. you are approaching the puzzle based on your experiences/understanding of sexuality and they conflict with that of (some of) the other posters.

no way to escape it. Plague would prefer a much more open dialogue rather that the genre specific, reductionist stuff you get behind but that's debate in an open forum.

I think the issues of identification--sexual or otherwise--are far more complex than people would like to believe, for good or bad.

GE

 

[ QUOTE ]
Since Plague brought up taking ownership of one's own statement, I'll ask him again to take ownership of this.
[ QUOTE ]
By Plague
I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read this to mean that you don't think that a man who has sex with a 7 year-old boy is a pedophile. How's about taking ownership of your statement and clarifying. How about you go into the police station, or better yet, the district attorney's office and say you believe that statement.

This is the 2nd or 3rd time I asked for explanation on this. I suspect Plague's fear (or reason) has overcome lunacy and that he won't support that belief out loud any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statement without ownership: "It's like this."
Statement with ownership: "I think it's like this."

Regarding my statement (which I've already taken ownership of by wording it how I did):
I think homosexuality and pedophilia are the desires for the same sex and sexual attraction to children. I do not have those desires. Even if I perform the mechanical acts related to those desires, I do not have the desires themselves. I have enough control of my dick to make it hard and put it where I choose. It's OK if you don't believe me.


"I read this (the above) to mean that you don't think that a man who has sex with a 7 year-old boy is a pedophile."

I disagree with you. I'm not talking about another man. I'm talking about me. Regarding the other man: you've described a man who fucked a boy. He could be a pedophile or a non-pedophile guy in a blind drunk stupor who put his dick in a hole attached to the nearest boy. Who knows?


"How's about taking ownership of your statement and clarifying."

How's about not patronizing me. And leave your lunacy label someplace else, too, please. I don't label you.


"How about you go into the police station, or better yet, the district attorney's office and say you believe that statement."

I'm not questioning the legality of the act nor implying it's an OK thing to do. Please stop adding things.


I agree with some things you've brought up. I think you can tell a lot about people by observing their actions. I believe you when you say you can look at your friend and know they love someone even though they have trouble expressing it and will deny it. I'm glad you have empathy and awareness. I think those are cool qualities. Those qualities end up as liabilities when mis-used. I don't like it when you make blanket absolute statements: "Things usually happen this way" does not mean "Things always happen this way." I want you to make that distinction. Remember that your perception is not always shared by others. Please don't think people are wrong if they disagree. "I disagree with you," does not translate to "You are wrong," - it simply means "I disagree."

Sample conversation:

"2+2 = 4"
"I disagree"
"I think you're crazy"
"That's OK"

Yah, there's no winner here. There is also a tremendous amount of clarity, honesty, and ownership.


One of our discussions can be boiled down to this:

Plague: "I think this"
Mcoleman2: "No you don't. I know you're really thinking this."

That sounds ridiculous to me and I don't find it credible or constructive to discussions. If I say "I think this," and you say I don't, well, I don't have a response for that other than "you are not me, you don't KNOW what I am thinking."

When I debate things with you, I'm not out to "win." I want you to see things the same way I do. I don't resort to name calling or shouting you down cause I don't think those things really work. If you don't see things the way I do, well, then maybe you will some time down the road. I don't know. I'm OK with expending my efforts in hopes that you do.

 

Re: Mcoleman2

Dude, you have issues. Why would you take the time to so tediously expound on your backward point of view? All of your arguments fly in the face of all the science regarding the issues here and they would give offense to all but the most unenlightened. And yet you rhetorically sally forth. This battle seems to mean a lot to you.

You need help. I recommend seeing a psychiatrist. Just don't be surprised when he or she prescribes 200cc of semen to be adminstered rectally via hot-beef injection.

 

Wow...

Ok... first of all, this is all of the stuff I 'think'. All my personal opinions.

[ QUOTE ]
There is really only one reason a man willingly puts his penis in anything; a man puts his penis in something because he wants sexual gratification from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, why can't a man do this? Is there something concrete that you pulled this from? Or is this what you think? Clarify.

[ QUOTE ]
Men all respond largely the same way. We have different tastes, fetishes, and some men are even gay, but the plumbing is all the same. If you have sex with it, you were attracted to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that 100% absolutely true? Like... 100%? Whats to say you don't do it for money, or something completely unrelated to a homosexual desire? If your dick is hard does that equal 100% of the time that you're attracted to whatever is in front of you? It's like Plague said, if you are paid 10 million dollars on the spot to touch a guy's ass with your dick, you can visualize a pretty girl and make yourself hard pretty quick. It's not that hard.

[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuality is not new. Men all respond largely the same way. We have different tastes, fetishes, and some men are even gay, but the plumbing is all the same. If you have sex with it, you were attracted to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is not new, so why hasn't it gone extinct yet? They were having huge gay orgies in Greece thousands of years ago from what I remember reading in history class.

Men respond largely in the same way? So 'largely' meaning, not all the same? So then, if you have sex with something even though we're not ALL the same, you're attracted to it? 100%? I just want to clarify what percentage this one is... where do you get these percentages again?

[ QUOTE ]
It lies in the knowledge that there is a natural law; there such a thing as right and wrong, that there is one proper sexual orientation, that being male to female.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok... natural law? Is this a law that you've verified through experimentation? Have you traveled throughout the world, doing surveys, observing people's natural behavior? What does 'proper' mean? Is there only one 'proper' way to live, to use the parts of my body? So in that case, masterbation is wrong, because the purpose of my penis is to impregnate. Where do we find out what the 'proper' way is?

[ QUOTE ]
...all that is required to be considered "gay" is that a person will have sex with someone of their own gender when given freedom and opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this? A guy thinks he might be homosexual, so he freely finds an opportunity to have sex with another man. He ends up hating it and not enjoying it at all. He never does it again. He gets married with his highschool sweetheart and lives happily ever after. Is he still gay? Is it 100% that he will repeat his action?

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, lesbians get turned on by other women, but once they are turned on they demand vaginal penetration from a penis-like instrument. Gay men are turned on by other men, but once turned on they demand to penetrate someone else. Although it is not absolute, It seems to me that being gay/straight is more a function of what turns you on or off and less of function of what you do after you are turned on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there are gay men who don't like penetrating, but only like to take it. I also think there are lesbians that don't care for penetration. This knowledge is based on talking to friends.

Being Gay/Straight is exactly what you said in this quote, whatever turns you on. But what if you're turned on by both? Why do you slap the 'GAY' label on everything that's not straight? Because it's not 'proper'?

[ QUOTE ]
For a man to have sex with another man and not be gay he must have been forced, raped....As in someone is standing there with a gun to his head telling him to do it or they will shoot. (BTW, a good deal of straight men would tell him to shoot.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't tell him to shoot. 10 minutes fucking a guy, I can deal with that ... I would rather be alive than dead.

You do seem to equate having sex with a man as something worse than death. I mean, for me the 'eww' factor is there, but whatever. Sex is sex, it doesn't define me. If I repeat something over and over, it's more defining, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]

I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all about intention. If you put your dick in a guy's ass with the intention of being turned on, that would probably indicate that you're gay... pedophilia is the same, if you're trying to get turned on by screwing a boy, you're a pedophile.

Just the action of touching skin on skin can't determine your entire mental psyche. It may be a homosexual act. So is kissing a guy if you're a guy. But does that make you gay?

The other day I was arguing with my friend about the same point: Is a pedophile who only rapes boys also 'homosexual'? To me this is a very tricky and difficult question. What if he only seeks out boys, and doesn't go for girls?

My friend had a good point when he said 'Boys and girls aren't men and women, they are children...' but I'm still not sure. It's unfair to slap the 'gay' label on pedophiles though, they are a societal deviation. Difficult to say if pedophiles who only go after boys should be considered 'gay'... I'm still thinking.

Sorry for the long post, and also, let's not insult eachother. It detracts from intelligent debate. It does require effort, but lets try to rebutt opposing arguments in a respectful way. Of course, no one can really win anyway =)

Edit: Made a mistake with my last sentence of my second-to-last paragraph.

 

Re: Wow...

[ QUOTE ]


The other day I was arguing with my friend about the same point: Is a pedophile who only rapes boys also 'homosexual'? To me this is a very tricky and difficult question. What if he only seeks out boys, and doesn't go for girls?

My friend had a good point when he said 'Boys and girls aren't men and women, they are children...' but I'm still not sure. It's unfair to slap the 'gay' label on pedophiles though, they are a societal deviation. Difficult to say if pedophiles should be considered 'straight' or 'gay'. I'm still thinking.



[/ QUOTE ]

Most experts would argue that the majority of pedophiles are not gay. I mean a grown man can rape a young girl or boy. It dosen't matter who they rape, the only fact of the matter is that they find pleasure in having sex with young children. We had a discussion in my class about this and actual studies were conducted on pedophiles. Research psychologists conducted research with pedophiles who were arrested and most of them were straight, be it either men or women, and they said that they performed the act because they got a sort of pleasure "high" off of it. But it also varies from person to person. A gay guy/woman could go and have sex with a young child as well. But it also dosent mean that these people don't have sexual desires for older people as well. They simply have an attraction to both young and older people.

 

Re: Wow...

[ QUOTE ]
A gay guy/woman could go and have sex with a young child as well. But it also dosent mean that these people don't have sexual desires for older people as well. They simply have an attraction to both young and older people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, but the question is whether a person who only has sex with boys and doesn't like little girls is a 'homosexual'. It's a really thin line and a sensitive topic. I really don't know, I wonder what experts in this field say...

 

Re: Wow...

it looks like this is a debate with no ending in sight.

Keep going around in circles folks.

 

Re: Wow...

[ QUOTE ]
like little girls is a 'homosexual'. It's a really thin line and a sensitive topic. I really don't know, I wonder what experts in this field say...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if that person likes little boys, but not girls does not qualify him to be gay. You also have to consider the fact that they might also like older women and not like little girls. There actually are cases like that. Like I said, it all depends on their preference, but the truth of the matter is that most pedophiles have a creepy complex psyche and that is very hard to pinpoint exactly. You can only come to a close speculation.