Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:If there was a genetic mutation or a hormonal imbalance that causes body integrity disorder (The blind lady) does that make it any less of a disorder?

 

It took you three days to formulate this response?  You are looping back in the blind lady who has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion?

 

Okay..  here's my answer.  I have seen no evidence that BIID is biological. Have you?  It's widely recognized as a mental disorder.  There is a lot of evidence that points to transgender to being biological.  You are really reaching trying to continually tie these two together.

 

Now how about you take a step back and pretend you are willing to consider the position I posed in my last post.  

 

How did I know I was straight at the age of 3?  I didn't choose. I just knew.  My brain was still developing, but I was quite sure I liked the female form with no clothes on. When you realized you like women, was "liking guys" in the same way even on the table for you?  Probably not.  You probably just knew one day too. You didn't choose either. (Could you choose all of a sudden one day to just be okay with having sex with a man?  If the answer is no, why do you cling to this idea that gay or trans people could just choose to be straight?)   Why couldn't a trans or gay person make a similar self realization and "just know" one day that they are what they are?  As was the case with my friend's daughter and countless other gay and trans youth who have parents who aren't afraid to love their kids as they are?  

 

If you say you don't reject the concept of a biological explanation, that gay or trans people can be just "born that way," then where is the hang up for you? In truth, I am not sure you even know what you think aside from "It's wrong."  You have done a masterful job of not answering direct questions.  Is it because you realize giving honest answers to some of these may force you to admit your preconceived ideas on the subject may be flawed?  

Quote:It took you three days to formulate this response?  You are looping back in the blind lady who has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion?

 

Okay..  here's my answer.  I have seen no evidence that BIID is biological. Have you?  It's widely recognized as a mental disorder.  There is a lot of evidence that points to transgender to being biological.  You are really reaching trying to continually tie these two together.

 

Now how about you take a step back and pretend you are willing to consider the position I posed in my last post.  

 

How did I know I was straight at the age of 3?  I didn't choose. I just knew.  My brain was still developing, but I was quite sure I liked the female form with no clothes on. When you realized you like women, was "liking guys" in the same way even on the table for you?  Probably not.  You probably just knew one day too. You didn't choose either. (Could you choose all of a sudden one day to just be okay with having sex with a man?  If the answer is no, why do you cling to this idea that gay or trans people could just choose to be straight?)   Why couldn't a trans or gay person make a similar self realization and "just know" one day that they are what they are?  As was the case with my friend's daughter and countless other gay and trans youth who have parents who aren't afraid to love their kids as they are?  

 

If you say you don't reject the concept of a biological explanation, that gay or trans people can be just "born that way," then where is the hang up for you? In truth, I am not sure you even know what you think aside from "It's wrong."  You have done a masterful job of not answering direct questions.  Is it because you realize giving honest answers to some of these may force you to admit your preconceived ideas on the subject may be flawed?  

 

Not at all.  

 

In my opinion BIID does bare relevance to the conversation.  Why?  Becuase it is an example of a disorder that is another expression of a "crisis of self."  The person exhibiting this behavior developed an archetype that they thought would be a better expression of their "INNER SELF," not based on their biology (the absence of the physical ailment that becomes central to the delusion).   The patients often talk about being trapped in a body that is not disabled.  This speaks to the idea that it is at least possible to have a disorder of self that creates the intrinsic desire, compulsion, or addiction to be a part of an archetype that may be antithetical to the birth of the patient.  

 

Going back to the biological explanations themselves, for me they fit into two categories: 1.) the fundamental ambiguation of the sex of the child, 2.) Malformations in the brain or hormonal imbalances through development of the child.  It is my OPPINION that someone suffering from an ambiguation of their sex: Hermaphroditism, malformation of the genitals, or chromosomal error on the 23rd pair doesn't fit into the larger conversation of TRANS.  To borrow from the blind lady, this is actually someone who has a physical problem with their eyes.  The second group that may have brain or hormonal abnormalities, these are biological causes that lend themselves to a greater likelihood of a psychological disorder (like a gene that causes schizophrenia, or the chemical imbalance that leads to bipolar disorder.)  

 

Now let's talk about the concept of "biological explination."  I don't fully reject out of hand the idea that transgenderism may have a myriad of biological factors, precursors, or even direct causes.  What i do reject is the idea that a biological explanation makes a set of behaviors, compulsions, or addictions healthy or inherently moral.  In other words, if it was proven tomorrow that there was a direct genetic mutation or specific brain malformation in utero that caused the disorder i would not then believe that transgenderism was inherently a good and healthy thing.  

 

Another topic of conversation is the idea of CHOICE.  First off, let me clarify that when i refer to choice in our conversations (especially in the more global sense of same sex attraction) I don't mean that someone just walked into their bedroom one day and decided to be LGBT because of the weather.  The basic Impulse, by birth, psychological disorder, physical disorder, subconscious environmental conditioning, whatever is intrinsic and sincere.  When I say choice I am describing the difference between a sincere intrinsic desire, or even addiction to a piece of chocolate cake and actually going out to buy and eat said cake.  

 

You asked me when I chose to be straight.  That's a big word.  You known me long time, you know that i am a part time bible thumper by trade.  While this board doesn't allow me to go into great detail about that, the way that it shapes my global opinion on morality and certain constructs will probably be a bit shocking but you asked so we'll try to get through it together.  The simple answer is that I'm not STRAIGHT.  Take a second...  walk back to the keyboard.  It all depends on how you define the term, and how that plays into a larger construct of what's healthy for heterosexual relationships (to be straight.)  

 

You mentioned girly magazines.  I found those when I was a kid too, I liked them too, a LOT!!!  But those magazines were in large part written, photographed, and assembled by MEN.  They depict a male view of sexuality that is antithetical to the way that most women view the idea of intimacy.  In essence, it's a homo-erotic act.  Why does this matter?  Because to be STRAIGHT a man has to be attracted to women and seek out what a woman desires and work to achieve those needs.  That's at odds with the idea of taking alone time with a playboy depicting the fantasies of other men.  In reality, there are a lot of men who exhibit an inability to relate to and become intimate with REAL WOMEN.  The internet has only every increased this particular issue.  There are also large groups of men who are biologically attracted to women but find it incapable to relate to them on any meaningful emotional level and instead seek out other men to form intimacy with.  I personally coined the phrase homo-emotionalism.  

 

What about fantasizing about two girls together.  What does it say about a man views his own sense of maleness?  Is it possible that on some level he may view his masculinity as too authoritative or intrusive to warrant female attention?  What about guys who fantasize about seeing their significant other with another man?  This is an expression of a masochistic desire based on the idea that we as men are not enough for our partners and that someone better should, in reality, be appointed to please them.  

 

So from my perspective, no one is BORN straight.  Just because you may not have intrinsic same sex attraction doesn't mean that your sense of self or your sexual desires inherently line up with the concept of healthy heterosexual interaction (being straight.)  So to answer your question, i CHOSE to be straight when I was about 14 my mom left and my father and I spent way too much time talking about all this stuff as you can see.  I developed a higher definition of who i was, who i wanted to be, and the role that would play in the way i conducted myself interacting with the rest of the world.  That's why when my GF crawled into bed naked with me when i was in college i was able to say "no thank you, not ready for that yet, call me if we get married."

 

So in summation, I don't believe that the way you are born means that your natural inclinations are inherently right.  That's not to belittle or diminish the challenge that is presented to people who are afflicted with same sex attraction or gender identity issues in the classical sense.  I can empathize that the choices I am forced to make are a lot easier than the choice that I would ask of them.  As it relates to this discussion, I do not, nor do i condone throwing rocks in anyone's direction.  I don't really care if someone who is sincerely trans uses a particular restroom.  I'm naturally inclined to just leave the system the way it is.  At the same time as you have said time and time again there are dudes out there with bad intentions.  I don't want any policy to lead to someone being hurt of having their privacy violated by someone falsely claiming transgender status to enter a restroom that doesn't correspond to their birth sex.  And to your point, that's mostly focused on predators who aren't TRANS at all.  

 

So what's my idea?  I think that if an adult is legitimately TRANS then they should be able to change their legal designation.  That way if someone raises concern in a public place about their presence in a restroom then they can simply present their ID and the problem will be resolved.  I would also make sure that if someone raises concern about someone in a bathroom that they aren't going to be faced with a bunch of silly lawsuits or called out in the media.  Even you pointed out that someone just buying a wig at 2:00 doesn't mean that they are a TRANS PERSON that doesn't feel comfortable in the mens room.  I don't think that these kind of common sense approaches are too much to ask.  

 

As for schools and kids locker rooms, I just can't do it.  I was reading the other day about a school in Illinois and you have girls wearing their gym clothes under their normal clothes so they don't have to change.  Kids aren't ready to deal with this stuff.  If you want to increase penalties for violence against trans kids, i wouldn't have a problem.  ZERO TOLERANCE i hate violence etc.  You want to have a gender neutral area like a specific restroom or something i can even deal with that.  I can't support the idea of having teenagers put in that situation.  

 

I hope that was helpful.  

Quote:Not at all.


In my opinion BIID does bare relevance to the conversation. Why? Becuase it is an example of a disorder that is another expression of a "crisis of self." The person exhibiting this behavior developed an archetype that they thought would be a better expression of their "INNER SELF," not based on their biology (the absence of the physical ailment that becomes central to the delusion). The patients often talk about being trapped in a body that is not disabled. This speaks to the idea that it is at least possible to have a disorder of self that creates the intrinsic desire, compulsion, or addiction to be a part of an archetype that may be antithetical to the birth of the patient.


Going back to the biological explanations themselves, for me they fit into two categories: 1.) the fundamental ambiguation of the sex of the child, 2.) Malformations in the brain or hormonal imbalances through development of the child. It is my OPPINION that someone suffering from an ambiguation of their sex: Hermaphroditism, malformation of the genitals, or chromosomal error on the 23rd pair doesn't fit into the larger conversation of TRANS. To borrow from the blind lady, this is actually someone who has a physical problem with their eyes. The second group that may have brain or hormonal abnormalities, these are biological causes that lend themselves to a greater likelihood of a psychological disorder (like a gene that causes schizophrenia, or the chemical imbalance that leads to bipolar disorder.)


Now let's talk about the concept of "biological explination." I don't fully reject out of hand the idea that transgenderism may have a myriad of biological factors, precursors, or even direct causes. What i do reject is the idea that a biological explanation makes a set of behaviors, compulsions, or addictions healthy or inherently moral. In other words, if it was proven tomorrow that there was a direct genetic mutation or specific brain malformation in utero that caused the disorder i would not then believe that transgenderism was inherently a good and healthy thing.


Another topic of conversation is the idea of CHOICE. First off, let me clarify that when i refer to choice in our conversations (especially in the more global sense of same sex attraction) I don't mean that someone just walked into their bedroom one day and decided to be LGBT because of the weather. The basic Impulse, by birth, psychological disorder, physical disorder, subconscious environmental conditioning, whatever is intrinsic and sincere. When I say choice I am describing the difference between a sincere intrinsic desire, or even addiction to a piece of chocolate cake and actually going out to buy and eat said cake.


You asked me when I chose to be straight. That's a big word. You known me long time, you know that i am a part time bible thumper by trade. While this board doesn't allow me to go into great detail about that, the way that it shapes my global opinion on morality and certain constructs will probably be a bit shocking but you asked so we'll try to get through it together. The simple answer is that I'm not STRAIGHT. Take a second... walk back to the keyboard. It all depends on how you define the term, and how that plays into a larger construct of what's healthy for heterosexual relationships (to be straight.)


You mentioned girly magazines. I found those when I was a kid too, I liked them too, a LOT!!! But those magazines were in large part written, photographed, and assembled by MEN. They depict a male view of sexuality that is antithetical to the way that most women view the idea of intimacy. In essence, it's a homo-erotic act. Why does this matter? Because to be STRAIGHT a man has to be attracted to women and seek out what a woman desires and work to achieve those needs. That's at odds with the idea of taking alone time with a playboy depicting the fantasies of other men. In reality, there are a lot of men who exhibit an inability to relate to and become intimate with REAL WOMEN. The internet has only every increased this particular issue. There are also large groups of men who are biologically attracted to women but find it incapable to relate to them on any meaningful emotional level and instead seek out other men to form intimacy with. I personally coined the phrase homo-emotionalism.


What about fantasizing about two girls together. What does it say about a man views his own sense of maleness? Is it possible that on some level he may view his masculinity as too authoritative or intrusive to warrant female attention? What about guys who fantasize about seeing their significant other with another man? This is an expression of a masochistic desire based on the idea that we as men are not enough for our partners and that someone better should, in reality, be appointed to please them.


So from my perspective, no one is BORN straight. Just because you may not have intrinsic same sex attraction doesn't mean that your sense of self or your sexual desires inherently line up with the concept of healthy heterosexual interaction (being straight.) So to answer your question, i CHOSE to be straight when I was about 14 my mom left and my father and I spent way too much time talking about all this stuff as you can see. I developed a higher definition of who i was, who i wanted to be, and the role that would play in the way i conducted myself interacting with the rest of the world. That's why when my GF crawled into bed naked with me when i was in college i was able to say "no thank you, not ready for that yet, call me if we get married."


So in summation, I don't believe that the way you are born means that your natural inclinations are inherently right. That's not to belittle or diminish the challenge that is presented to people who are afflicted with same sex attraction or gender identity issues in the classical sense. I can empathize that the choices I am forced to make are a lot easier than the choice that I would ask of them. As it relates to this discussion, I do not, nor do i condone throwing rocks in anyone's direction. I don't really care if someone who is sincerely trans uses a particular restroom. I'm naturally inclined to just leave the system the way it is. At the same time as you have said time and time again there are dudes out there with bad intentions. I don't want any policy to lead to someone being hurt of having their privacy violated by someone falsely claiming transgender status to enter a restroom that doesn't correspond to their birth sex. And to your point, that's mostly focused on predators who aren't TRANS at all.


So what's my idea? I think that if an adult is legitimately TRANS then they should be able to change their legal designation. That way if someone raises concern in a public place about their presence in a restroom then they can simply present their ID and the problem will be resolved. I would also make sure that if someone raises concern about someone in a bathroom that they aren't going to be faced with a bunch of silly lawsuits or called out in the media. Even you pointed out that someone just buying a wig at 2:00 doesn't mean that they are a TRANS PERSON that doesn't feel comfortable in the mens room. I don't think that these kind of common sense approaches are too much to ask.


As for schools and kids locker rooms, I just can't do it. I was reading the other day about a school in Illinois and you have girls wearing their gym clothes under their normal clothes so they don't have to change. Kids aren't ready to deal with this stuff. If you want to increase penalties for violence against trans kids, i wouldn't have a problem. ZERO TOLERANCE i hate violence etc. You want to have a gender neutral area like a specific restroom or something i can even deal with that. I can't support the idea of having teenagers put in that situation.


I hope that was helpful.

Very helpful. Not framed as an attack, but it reveals you are sexually repressed. There is no other excuse for trying to link biological makeup to morality except someone told you your biology is something to be ashamed of.


Of the thousands of species that exhibit homosexual or bisexual behavior, humans are the only ones who persecute other humans for it and it always goes back to morality and sin.


Of the myriad of studies I have read on the subject, yours is the ONLY one trying to equate gay or trans with BIID. You are referencing a biological explanation, but are pretty much explaining you feel being gay or trans being is a mental disorder. You equate gay or trans with self harm. Are those with mutated genes giving them red hair harming themselves for being gingers? No. That's just their biological makeup. But when biological makeup has to do with self identity or sexual attraction, your logic goes straight to the morality of it.


When I was 3 and realized I liked the naked girls in my dad's Playboy mags, it wasn't a crisis of self that created the intrinsic desire. It was a natural reaction to my biological makeup. I didn't know anything about sex. But I liked bare breasts and lady parts.


While I appreciate you claiming NOT to be straight, it was not a trick question. The implication is strictly based on sexual attraction. Straight males like women. If you are implying you are not straight, that means you either ALSO find men sexually desirable or you EXCLUSIVELY find men sexually desirable. If the thought of physical intimacy with another man repulses you or is just not something you can see yourself doing, you are straight.


You say you do not believe the way people are born is intrinsicly right. So again, I imagine when you see two male lizards in your back yard humping, you do not care. But because people have ingrained in you this idea that premarital sex is bad and any non-heterosexual sex is immoral, you are comfortable taking this position (as it relates to humans). To believe that we are born as we should be may contradict some other belief system you have reinforced in your brain. So you call these people "afflicted" for having same sex attraction because TO YOU it may be natural, but it is not right. You don't subscribe to the idea of "ex-gay" conversion therapy, but you still feel that these people, though biologically disposed to certain tendencies are not right or afflicted somehow. You would be much more comfortable if they would just choose to be straight (though you could no easier choose to be gay).


Your post tells me no matter how much you can read or try to rationalize why people are gay or trans, you will always have some degree of cognitive dissonance (it's as if I have been saying this all along) when it comes to fully accepting any argument I pose as your perception of what is logical requires "permission" or "agreement" with your interpretation of a book whose meaning is so contested there are tens of thousands of denominations claiming to know its TRUE interpretation. You can dispute this if you like, but you're the one incapable of separating morality from discussions of biology, choice or psychology.

When I was 3 I shoved pieces of sponge up my nose and pissed in flower pots.

Quote:Very helpful. Not framed as an attack, but it reveals you are sexually repressed. There is no other excuse for trying to link biological makeup to morality except someone told you your biology is something to be ashamed of.


Of the thousands of species that exhibit homosexual or bisexual behavior, humans are the only ones who persecute other humans for it and it always goes back to morality and sin.


Of the myriad of studies I have read on the subject, yours is the ONLY one trying to equate gay or trans with BIID. You are referencing a biological explanation, but are pretty much explaining you feel being gay or trans being is a mental disorder. You equate gay or trans with self harm. Are those with mutated genes giving them red hair harming themselves for being gingers? No. That's just their biological makeup. But when biological makeup has to do with self identity or sexual attraction, your logic goes straight to the morality of it.


When I was 3 and realized I liked the naked girls in my dad's Playboy mags, it wasn't a crisis of self that created the intrinsic desire. It was a natural reaction to my biological makeup. I didn't know anything about sex. But I liked bare breasts and lady parts.


While I appreciate you claiming NOT to be straight, it was not a trick question. The implication is strictly based on sexual attraction. Straight males like women. If you are implying you are not straight, that means you either ALSO find men sexually desirable or you EXCLUSIVELY find men sexually desirable. If the thought of physical intimacy with another man repulses you or is just not something you can see yourself doing, you are straight.


You say you do not believe the way people are born is intrinsicly right. So again, I imagine when you see two male lizards in your back yard humping, you do not care. But because people have ingrained in you this idea that premarital sex is bad and any non-heterosexual sex is immoral, you are comfortable taking this position (as it relates to humans). To believe that we are born as we should be may contradict some other belief system you have reinforced in your brain. So you call these people "afflicted" for having same sex attraction because TO YOU it may be natural, but it is not right. You don't subscribe to the idea of "ex-gay" conversion therapy, but you still feel that these people, though biologically disposed to certain tendencies are not right or afflicted somehow. You would be much more comfortable if they would just choose to be straight (though you could no easier choose to be gay).


Your post tells me no matter how much you can read or try to rationalize why people are gay or trans, you will always have some degree of cognitive dissonance (it's as if I have been saying this all along) when it comes to fully accepting any argument I pose as your perception of what is logical requires "permission" or "agreement" with your interpretation of a book whose meaning is so contested there are tens of thousands of denominations claiming to know its TRUE interpretation. You can dispute this if you like, but you're the one incapable of separating morality from discussions of biology, choice or psychology.

 

1.) From a purely Darwinian standpoint, the healthiest set of behaviors for any given organism are those behaviors that enable the passing along of their genetic material to the next generation and providing the best environment for their offspring to thrive.  

 

Same Sex attraction hinders an organism from being able to pass on their genetic material.  

 

We know that the most beneficial construct for the raising of offspring is the biological two parent household.  '

 

2.) If you were born with a hand that was deformed, would you not look to have it made whole? If you were born with a cleft palot would you not seek to be made whole?  

 

3.) Same Sex Attraction isn't the only intrinsic form of sexual attraction that deviates from the norm.  There are men who cannot achieve orgasm or arousal if the woman that they are with demonstrates any form of consent or enjoyment (The most extreme form of Sadism expressed my the Marquis De Sade himself.)  Does that mean that we should look at Rapists as predators sent from on high?  There are some men who cannot achieve arousal with a partner that has passed the age of puberty.  NAMBLA would tell you that because these people have a sincere intrinsic desire that pedophilia is okay?  There are some people who don't have the natural filter that makes nuclear family members sexually off limits.  Does that mean that we lift up incest?  There are some people that fantasize about dead people and dead things in order to achieve arousal.  I know that i never fantasized about dead things when i was a young child.  Does that Make Dahmer Bundy and the like beings of a higher calling?  

 

Sexual addictions or compulsions are the hardest in the world to deal with, but that doesn't mean that just because they are intrinsic or sincere that they are to be both indulged and emotionally subsidized by society at large.  

 

4.) To a certain degree we are all sexually repressed.  I don't know how your marriage works, but I'm pretty sure you don't relieve yourself in public every time you see a woman's top open or her dress too short.  

 

5.) Last but not least, the tale of two marshmallows.  The marshmallow test is the single greatest indicator of the success of a child.  You give the child a marshmallow on his or her plate and you tell them that if they don't eat the marshmallow for 20 minutes they will get a second marshmallow.  It's a test designed to examine the ability of the child to manage their short term desires vs. long term gain.  As the stewards of the planet its not only within our grasp but our responsibility to strive beyond our basic programming for the betterment of ourselves and society.  

JJ coming in strong today.

Quote:1.) From a purely Darwinian standpoint, the healthiest set of behaviors for any given organism are those behaviors that enable the passing along of their genetic material to the next generation and providing the best environment for their offspring to thrive.


Same Sex attraction hinders an organism from being able to pass on their genetic material.


We know that the most beneficial construct for the raising of offspring is the biological two parent household. '


2.) If you were born with a hand that was deformed, would you not look to have it made whole? If you were born with a cleft palot would you not seek to be made whole?


3.) Same Sex Attraction isn't the only intrinsic form of sexual attraction that deviates from the norm. There are men who cannot achieve [BAD WORD REMOVED] or arousal if the woman that they are with demonstrates any form of consent or enjoyment (The most extreme form of Sadism expressed my the Marquis De Sade himself.) Does that mean that we should look at Rapists as predators sent from on high? There are some men who cannot achieve arousal with a partner that has passed the age of puberty. NAMBLA would tell you that because these people have a sincere intrinsic desire that pedophilia is okay? There are some people who don't have the natural filter that makes nuclear family members sexually off limits. Does that mean that we lift up incest? There are some people that fantasize about dead people and dead things in order to achieve arousal. I know that i never fantasized about dead things when i was a young child. Does that Make Dahmer Bundy and the like beings of a higher calling?


Sexual addictions or compulsions are the hardest in the world to deal with, but that doesn't mean that just because they are intrinsic or sincere that they are to be both indulged and emotionally subsidized by society at large.


4.) To a certain degree we are all sexually repressed. I don't know how your marriage works, but I'm pretty sure you don't relieve yourself in public every time you see a woman's top open or her dress too short.


5.) Last but not least, the tale of two marshmallows. The marshmallow test is the single greatest indicator of the success of a child. You give the child a marshmallow on his or her plate and you tell them that if they don't eat the marshmallow for 20 minutes they will get a second marshmallow. It's a test designed to examine the ability of the child to manage their short term desires vs. long term gain. As the stewards of the planet its not only within our grasp but our responsibility to strive beyond our basic programming for the betterment of ourselves and society.

If there's one thing you are consistent with, it's providing responses to my posts which barely, if ever, touch upon what was being discussed.


This post just reinforces what I stated in my last post. Your moral filter prevents you from processing WHY a person could be gay or transgender without there having to be something more to it. Because, as you admit, your upbringing has TOLD you that being gay or trans is immoral or not right. So you pull in all this other stuff. Pedophilia, rape, incest, etc. and try to rationalize these as relative to the discussion. NOBODY is asking for these things to be normalized by society. It's a hollow argument you keep reverting to. You are capable (if you try) of formulating an argument (even one I will disagree with) without lumping gay or trans people in with the most despicable elements of society.


I argue there is a biological explanation why a consistent percentage of the world is gay or trans and the closest you can come to accepting that explanation is saying, "That doesn't make it right."


So you pull in all these other, unrelated bullet points.. You reference Darwin, but don't explain how come thousands of species exhibit bisexual or homosexual behavior. I can link to lions, rams, deer, pick an animal and I bet I can find you examples of them in nature doing the same exact thing you call immoral in humans.


Your story of being 14 and telling a female that you want to wait for marriage. That was a morality issue for you which animals (and many humans) simply don't deal with. I would argue your biology says YES but your morality says NO. The point being, the biological desire is there all along. Your morality (driven by your religious upbringing) repressed that desire as you could not have done that without feeling unclean or sinful. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just that your biological makeup put you in a situation where you said.. I am straight. I do have desires to be physical with a woman. I'm just not going to do that right now.


That's all we are talking about. Making the self discovery of who/what you are.


When I claimed you were sexually repressed, it was something I suspected for a while which was validated by your recent statements. It doesn't mean that my marriage is such that I cannot find other women attractive and I am not a ball of id who feels the impulse to skeet on every woman I find attractive (man, would I need a good lawyer if that were the case). My point is, I can accept the natural attraction or desires I have (even the really far-fetched ones) without feeling they make me somehow morally inadequate.


Getting back to the actual debate. Why are people gay or trans? Is it biological? Is it a conscious choice? Is it a psychological issue?


I have presented some pretty healthy arguments that it is biological. I linked to multiple articles and studies to support this position. Your best defense of these is that it does not make it morally right. That is your limitation on being able to debate this on the same level. I am not concerned with what is morally right or wrong. Just what is or isn't. As I stated before, this is where I feel the root of your cognitive dissonance on this subject lies. You are not capable of dissociation between the biological fact and the moral implication. Which is why you persist in pulling in all manner of unrelated topics to try to challenge my position.


I argue a person IS just born gay or trans and some day, just like you made the self discovery of your sexual identity and sexual attraction, they make the same self discovery. If you dispute this, tell me how you can be so sure. Don't talk to me about pedophiles or Darwin. Address the point I make head on.


Again.. I am also able to pull from the first hand accounts of several gay and trans people, many of which who were raised within a church structure (I actually know two "preacher's kids" who are gay). People who struggled internally with the moral issues of their self discovery. Eventually they came to the realization that they are what they are. Some are still quite active in the church. Whereas you, as far as I know, have never had a meaningful discussion with a gay or trans person about the nature of why they are gay or trans.


So all distraction and unrelated falsehoods aside, why can a gay or trans person simply NOT be born that way?

Quote:JJ coming in strong today.

Yeah.. he's full of words today. Sure, none of them are relative to the discussion, but when has that ever stopped him?

Quote:Yeah.. he's full of words today. Sure, none of them are relative to the discussion, but when has that ever stopped him?

In your opinion.

Quote:In your opinion.

Ok.. in your opinion, what part of his last post was relative to the topic? It surely wasn't the marshmallow bit.


What does pedophilia or incest have to do with being gay or trans? How about Darwin?

Quote:Ok.. in your opinion, what part of his last post was relative to the topic? It surely wasn't the marshmallow bit.


What does pedophilia or incest have to do with being gay or trans? How about Darwin?

You continually beg for logic and and thought out posts. When presented with it you find something else to complain and moan and groan about. Same story, different day.

I don't really give a flute about gay/trans people,people can live however they want it doesn't effect me in the slightest.


What I will say is I don't think every gay person is born that way,I think their environment and upbringing can effect their sexuality.

Quote:I don't really give a flute about gay/trans people,people can live however they want it doesn't effect me in the slightest.


What I will say is I don't think every gay person is born that way,I think their environment and upbringing can effect their sexuality.

I don't think there is any question about that. Among other factors, these factors play a large role.

Quote:If there's one thing you are consistent with, it's providing responses to my posts which barely, if ever, touch upon what was being discussed.


This post just reinforces what I stated in my last post. Your moral filter prevents you from processing WHY a person could be gay or transgender without there having to be something more to it. Because, as you admit, your upbringing has TOLD you that being gay or trans is immoral or not right. So you pull in all this other stuff. Pedophilia, rape, incest, etc. and try to rationalize these as relative to the discussion. NOBODY is asking for these things to be normalized by society. It's a hollow argument you keep reverting to. You are capable (if you try) of formulating an argument (even one I will disagree with) without lumping gay or trans people in with the most despicable elements of society.


I argue there is a biological explanation why a consistent percentage of the world is gay or trans and the closest you can come to accepting that explanation is saying, "That doesn't make it right."


So you pull in all these other, unrelated bullet points.. You reference Darwin, but don't explain how come thousands of species exhibit bisexual or homosexual behavior. I can link to lions, rams, deer, pick an animal and I bet I can find you examples of them in nature doing the same exact thing you call immoral in humans.


Your story of being 14 and telling a female that you want to wait for marriage. That was a morality issue for you which animals (and many humans) simply don't deal with. I would argue your biology says YES but your morality says NO. The point being, the biological desire is there all along. Your morality (driven by your religious upbringing) repressed that desire as you could not have done that without feeling unclean or sinful. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just that your biological makeup put you in a situation where you said.. I am straight. I do have desires to be physical with a woman. I'm just not going to do that right now.


That's all we are talking about. Making the self discovery of who/what you are.


When I claimed you were sexually repressed, it was something I suspected for a while which was validated by your recent statements. It doesn't mean that my marriage is such that I cannot find other women attractive and I am not a ball of id who feels the impulse to skeet on every woman I find attractive (man, would I need a good lawyer if that were the case). My point is, I can accept the natural attraction or desires I have (even the really far-fetched ones) without feeling they make me somehow morally inadequate.


Getting back to the actual debate. Why are people gay or trans? Is it biological? Is it a conscious choice? Is it a psychological issue?


I have presented some pretty healthy arguments that it is biological. I linked to multiple articles and studies to support this position. Your best defense of these is that it does not make it morally right. That is your limitation on being able to debate this on the same level. I am not concerned with what is morally right or wrong. Just what is or isn't. As I stated before, this is where I feel the root of your cognitive dissonance on this subject lies. You are not capable of dissociation between the biological fact and the moral implication. Which is why you persist in pulling in all manner of unrelated topics to try to challenge my position.


I argue a person IS just born gay or trans and some day, just like you made the self discovery of your sexual identity and sexual attraction, they make the same self discovery. If you dispute this, tell me how you can be so sure. Don't talk to me about pedophiles or Darwin. Address the point I make head on.


Again.. I am also able to pull from the first hand accounts of several gay and trans people, many of which who were raised within a church structure (I actually know two "preacher's kids" who are gay). People who struggled internally with the moral issues of their self discovery. Eventually they came to the realization that they are what they are. Some are still quite active in the church. Whereas you, as far as I know, have never had a meaningful discussion with a gay or trans person about the nature of why they are gay or trans.


So all distraction and unrelated falsehoods aside, why can a gay or trans person simply NOT be born that way?

I never disputed the idea that same sex attraction was not intrinsic and sincere. Your position is that because it is intrinsic and sincere that it should be expressed and accepted as part of someone's truthor self.


I simply pointed out other forms of intrinsic sincere forms of attraction.


If new information, counter to the moral construct of two spiritedness, causes you mental stress then... You get the idea.

Quote:You continually beg for logic and and thought out posts. When presented with it you find something else to complain and moan and groan about. Same story, different day.

All I asked was what he posted about that was relevant. I said it wasn't. You called it my opinion. I asked for you to show me what I may have missed. Predictably you couldn't.

Quote:I never disputed the idea that same sex attraction was not intrinsic and sincere. Your position is that because it is intrinsic and sincere that it should be expressed and accepted as part of someone's truthor self.


I simply pointed out other forms of intrinsic sincere forms of attraction.


If new information, counter to the moral construct of two spiritedness, causes you mental stress then... You get the idea.

What you are doing is lumping in gays and trans people with all manner of sexual deviations (i.e.- pedophilia, incest, rape) and they are NOT related. Bringing in these unrelated and truly offensive comparisons shows your lack of ability to face the questions on the how and the why head on.


My position is they do not have a choice in the matter. They are biologically born that way. WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE ACCEPTED AS LEGITIMATE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR SELF IDENTITY? (for real. Why not? Can your moral barometer allow you to answer this one without meltdown?)


Your position is.. that may be true, but in order for me to accept that they are born that way and NOT worthy of discrimination, I would need to also accept all manner of pedophiles, rapists, etc. It's a manure argument.


They are UNRELATED.


Keep in mind, EVERY other species on the planet displays similar behavior. Why do you hold gay frogs and ducks to a different standard?

Quote:What I will say is I don't think every gay person is born that way,I think their environment and upbringing can effect their sexuality.

So you're saying it's plausible that if I raised you on Judy Garland records and nothing but Glee re-runs, you could be gay?


This is an absurd argument. Furthermore, I defy you to find a single gay person who will confess they are only gay because of their environment and upbringing.


It shows a complete lack of real world experience with LGBT people and a willingness to promote ideas you are thoroughly clueless on.

Quote:I don't think there is any question about that. Among other factors, these factors play a large role.

I'm sure you're chock full of examples to support this truly "rational" theory.


It's not that they were born gay... it was the gay environment's fault. Yeah.. that doesn't make you sound dumb at all.

Even if it were a choice, what would it matter?  They have a right to live their lives however they see fit.  


As long as trans people only go into the bathrooms to apply makeup or you know... actually use the bathroom, I see no harm in using the bathroom they identify with.  Just like I see no harm in same sex couples getting married, or any harm in them adopting a child either.  It confused me as to why people think it being a choice would make it okay to discriminate against them.  There are many things we choose that we don't discriminate against, including politics and religion.  

All of you would have been beaten daily had you gone to my High School.