- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:45 am to C
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:45 am to C
quote:
Probably depends on what you mean by being gay. Having homosexual thoughts isn't likely a choice no more than having heterosexual thoughts is IMO. Acting on it is a choice.
Why, if you're only sexually attracted to the same sex wouldn't you act on it?
Should they just never have sexual contact? I don't follow the choice there.
I didn't make a choice ever to be heterosexual, why would I think gays made a choice to be homosexual?
0
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:47 am to klrstix
quote:
ave not read through the entire thread, so someone may have already responded to this... This rational is not in an of itself a validation of being gay as being an acceptable alternative sexual preference. Cancer is naturally occurring so are we to assume that Cancer is OK, of course not! My point is only that in and of itself this rational is not validate the homosexual lifestyle.
Cancer is a pretty absurd comparison. Cancer hurts people, so that explains why it isn't ok.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:57 am to DelU249
If being gay is a choice, then so is being straight. I'll prove it to you but you'll have to help me in my experiment.
Ok here goes, you will have to vow never to have sex with a woman, never to be sexually attracted to a woman and never to be in a relationship with a woman. At the same time, you will start dating men, having sex with them, fall in love with one.
I'll do the opposite.
Let's see if it's possible to keep our "choices".
Ok here goes, you will have to vow never to have sex with a woman, never to be sexually attracted to a woman and never to be in a relationship with a woman. At the same time, you will start dating men, having sex with them, fall in love with one.
I'll do the opposite.
Let's see if it's possible to keep our "choices".
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:00 am to klrstix
quote:
This rational is not in an of itself a validation of being gay as being an acceptable alternative sexual preference. Cancer is naturally occurring so are we to assume that Cancer is OK, of course not!
My point is only that in and of itself this rational is not validate the homosexual lifestyle.
i take back what i said. this is the new dumbest argument.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:02 am to DelU249
Some people choose to be perverts just as some choose to be thieves.
When judgement day comes their “we were made like this” claims will be refuted.
When judgement day comes their “we were made like this” claims will be refuted.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:03 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
When judgement day comes their “we were made like this” claims will be refuted.
Bookmarked for day after judgement day.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:05 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
When judgement day comes their “we were made like this” claims will be refuted.
Joke will be on you when there is no judgment day and you missed out on all that fabulous butt play.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:06 am to TexasTiger1185
quote:
Cancer is a pretty absurd comparison. Cancer hurts people, so that explains why it isn't ok.
I was not comparing the outcome, rather illustrating the limit of the argument in and of itself.
However, you have imo touched on what the discussion should be centered around and that is the question of what are the outcomes in the personal lives of individuals and in society as a whole of homosexuality.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:09 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:and you're an example of someone who chooses to be stupid. Or were you born this way?
Some people choose to be perverts just as some choose to be thieves.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:14 am to 3nOut
quote:
i take back what i said. this is the new dumbest argument.
LOL... I was not making an argument at all!
Rather, illustrating how absurd the rational of "we see it in nature" without further clarification as to its application is erroneous.
As has been pointed out, there are many things that are present in nature that are bad for human experience and society in general.
Also as others have already stated, any issue such as this is going to have many factors that come to bear.
This post was edited on 9/4/14 at 10:16 am
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:20 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Some people choose to be perverts just as some choose to be thieves.
There's clear incentive to perv or steal what is the incentive for a straight man to choose to be genuinely gay?
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:29 am to DelU249
Haven't they nearly proven it's not genetic? Wasn't there like conjoined identical twins where one was gay and the other was straight? I don't think it's encoded in your DNA but I think early development plays a large role in it. I think if you could rewind a homosexual's past and bring them up in an entirely different setting that they would grow up to be straight. So I guess that means I don't really think it's a choice either.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:33 am to LSUsuperfresh
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:56 am to PuntBamaPunt
Quite a statement in your link. "Gay men have fewer children." Really? Without a female surrogate it's impossible. Funny how nature works, isn't it?
And this brings up another question. There was a thread not long ago, maybe last week, about people having the choice to abort if it was shown in testing that there was something wrong with the baby in the early development. So if there is a "gay" gene, will couples be given the choice to abort if a "gay" gene can be detected? And how would that affect the "pro life" "pro choice" sides?
And this brings up another question. There was a thread not long ago, maybe last week, about people having the choice to abort if it was shown in testing that there was something wrong with the baby in the early development. So if there is a "gay" gene, will couples be given the choice to abort if a "gay" gene can be detected? And how would that affect the "pro life" "pro choice" sides?
Posted on 9/4/14 at 11:15 am to Lg
quote:
And this brings up another question. There was a thread not long ago, maybe last week, about people having the choice to abort if it was shown in testing that there was something wrong with the baby in the early development. So if there is a "gay" gene, will couples be given the choice to abort if a "gay" gene can be detected? And how would that affect the "pro life" "pro choice" sides?
I think you abort for downs and stuff, not "my child is going to be socially different". But what do I care why someone aborts.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 11:21 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
I just know that my heterosexuality was not a choice
or the game was rigged so that you would choose a certain team.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 11:24 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
If being gay is a choice, then so is being straight
while I believe both are biological imperatives, one abnormal by virtue of being a rare characteristic...and it's denial of the most primitive urge (survival/reproduction/proliferation of the species), BUT BUT BUT I don't see how that has to be true at all.
Occam's principle of limited imagination doesn't really jive with mother nature...she's a chaotic and inefficient bitch.
This post was edited on 9/4/14 at 11:46 am
Posted on 9/4/14 at 11:29 am to Iosh
quote:
Uh, quite a few primates fail this criteria (female macaques, bonobos, gorillas), as do sheep (males with exclusive homosexual orientation), penguins (males pair bonding and child-rearing), a bunch of albatrosses and gulls (haha I bet you thought "lesbian seagull" was a Beavis and Butthead joke), you want me to keep going or you want to start walking this back or start on your ridiculous definition of "dominance"?
I want you to provide the links where it is proven that animals, especially males, engage in acts of homosexuality not dominance.
This post was edited on 9/4/14 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 9/4/14 at 2:19 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:LINK
I want you to provide the links where it is proven that animals, especially males, engage in acts of homosexually not dominance.
quote:LINK
Unlike other mammalian models that are in use currently, variations in sexual attraction occur spontaneously in domestic ram populations [4]. Most domestic rams are sexually attracted to and active with estrous ewes and, thus, can be referred to as female-oriented rams. However, it is estimated that as many as 8% of rams exhibit a sexual partner preference for other males classifying them as male-oriented rams [5,6]. Male-oriented rams can be identified through a combination of performance tests conducted with estrous females and preference tests in which the animals are presented with a choice of either an estrous ewe or unfamiliar male as a sexual partner [6].
Zenchak et al. [4] were the first to systematically study the behavior of male-oriented rams. They observed that the occurrence of this trait was not related to a ram's social dominance. Subsequent studies failed to identify any environmental or social variables of rearing that can alter a ram's preference for an estrous ewe [7,7]. Reports that wild male Bighorn sheep display male-oriented sexual partner preference suggest that this trait may not be the result of selective breeding or husbandry [8]. Most domestic rams that are reared in unisexual group after weaning develop a sexual preference for females by 9 months of age [5]. Although rams that perform sexually with estrous ewes occasionally mount other rams, the male-oriented rams selected for our studies are never observed to mount ewes.
quote:LINK
Since the genital stimulation behavior of gorillas has no socio-sexual functions, adult males show such behavior in a purely sexual context. Frequent courtship and chest-beating displays by the two silverbacks around the young partners and intensive fights between them observed in the all-male group show that homosexual behavior did not have a tension-reduction role but, instead, resulted in increased competition between silverbacks over same-sex partners.
quote:
We confirmed that homosexually displaying king penguin couples occurred commonly (over a quarter of displaying pairs) under wild conditions and more rarely become bonded (i.e., learned the vocal signature of a same-sexed partner). These observations support historical suggestions of same-sex display and pairing for penguins by Roberts (1940) and king penguins particularly by Gillespie (1932). While we examined a single penguin species, we suspect that observations of homosexual displays or other sexual activities are of broader occurrence, but seldom reported or otherwise considered anomalous or maladaptive. Of course, the lack of DNA sexing of individuals may have limited the confidence of identifying homosexual display in earlier studies.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 2:19 pm to Iosh
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/4/14 at 2:28 pm
Page 8 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News