Of course there was nothing to hide. ...In Rome. Elsewhere there was. Some places they took big ol' rocks and threw them at you until you stopped moving if you were homosexual. They would convert you from homosexual to corpse. Rome was more open about it, so gay people there felt more free to be gay. Some were probably experimenting with their sexuality. Throughout History a lot of people hid the fact that they were gay. Even today some people hide the fact that they're gay because they fear repercussions.

I would argue that this would be an example that gay people arn't all born gay,some of it is circumstance/environment/culture.

---

So... what part of the post in question was pertinent to the discussion of why a person is gay or transgender. If it's that obvious, you wouldn't be ducking a direct response to that simple question in two separate posts. It's pretty clear. Look at the post. Tell me what is related to the topic of why a person is LGBT. Don't tell me I "can't see the forest" if you won't even tell me what point I am missing.

None of it. I agree with you 100%.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

So I'll say it again. Its common knowledge amongst ancient historians that in Ancient Rome there was no social prejudice against males having sexual relations with other males as long as they were free men,many famous leaders and powerful men were known to have sex with men and women as did many of the free people. It was a normal thing to happen. Now I'll ask you did a huge amount of gay men just happen to be born then or did people adapt to the culture/environment they lived in? The answer is obvious to me and most people.


What do you think? That a huge spike of gay births randomly happened in Rome around those times or that peoples developed their sexuality and sexual practices based on their culture and environment.


You don't need to write an essay just answer which one you think is true.

 

What if I told you I thought the percentages of people who were openly gay in Ancient Rome is about the same as it is today and that people then simply did not have the moral internal struggle with it as they they viewed being gay as a natural phenomenon.  

 

I know that men were not in any way sullied socially for having relations with another man, but that women were intended to remain virginal until marriage. Slaves were occasionally used as "property" in that period as well.  

 

Since the fall of the Roman Empire, the world has changed dramatically.  Most notably with the rapid growth of the two major religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam), which has created a moral taboo against homosexuality.  It is not hard for me to imagine Ancient Rome being less morally uptight about homosexuality as these major religions really only started to take off towards the tail end of the Empire.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

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?

Sorry Kotite but you can't have it both ways.  Do you think a pedophile wants to destroy their life by engaging in intimate acts with children?  How do YOU separate the two issues?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Sorry Kotite but you can't have it both ways.  Do you think a pedophile wants to destroy their life by engaging in intimate acts with children?  How do YOU separate the two issues?

And we reach the crux (finally), my deviant behavior is ok because I say it is but yours isnt for the same reason.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

And we reach the crux (finally), my deviant behavior is ok because I say it is but yours isnt for the same reason.

It only took us 32 pages.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

We may not consciously choose certain intrinsic sincere impulses but that doesn't mean that they should all be expressed and or celebrated.  <b>This entire first line just reinforces your degree of sexual repression.  "I felt something..  but it was bad.  I should not think lustful thoughts."  Of course you are not talking about being LGBT here..  (or that ol' devil masturbation).  No.  You are so morally conflicted with the idea a person could simply and harmlessly be born gay or trans that you will not click on any of the links I have listed in this thread for supportive evidence and will still cling to this false argument that being LGBT is explained in the same exact way being a pedophile, rapist or incestuous is.  You are wrong.  It isn't the first time.</b>



In your personal analysis you see same sex attraction as wholly separate from ANY OTHER form of sexual attraction that deviates from the heterosexual norm. That's fine. You are entitled to your oppinionon the matter.  It's not my opinion or my oppinionon (even your spellcheck is sick of your [BAD WORD REMOVED]).  I will explain, but you will reject my explanation.  Because.. it's what you do.



At the same time you can't use the argument "they don't have a choice who they are attracted to" to justify one deviation while wholly excluding someone that "doesn't have a choice" in their attraction to per pubescent boys or girls.  <b>Indulge me and let's see if you are capable of realizing how your insistence of going to this well time and time again only shows your ignorance on the matter.  I have already mentioned it is a level of ignorance that is also viewed as highly offensive.  You obviously don't care.</b>



Neither has a "choice" both would report the same intrinsic and sincere desire from birth. 


But both do have a CHOICE in acting on their desires. We have no problem as a society condemning the pedophile to a lifetime of bad sex. Why the double standard?  Here you only reinforce your personal belief that  an LGBT person acting on their biological impulses is morally "not right. "  You absolutely MUST associate being LGBT with something you find repulsive and despicable.  If we are talking nature vs. nurture, this obviously falls under your learned behavior.  You simply cannot remove this moral impediment from your ability to reason logically.  (There's a name for that.. what was it again?)  Pedophilia is a mental illness which requires a participant too young to willfully consent.  I don't see how being accepting of gay couples who have long, healthy, monogamous sexual relationships is creating a double standard.  Maybe I am not dumb enough to see it.

 

Does "unrelated" mean something else in your language?  

 

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder which produces sexual urges or fantasies about prepubescent kids. Though inconclusive as to it's cause, many argue pedophilia is caused by neurological abnormalities or psychological pathologies.    Though no conclusive evidence has been found for this, there are also those who believe pedophiles are "created" by confused kids who are molested and get their souls stolen from them who grow older and think..  "this is what I am supposed to do."   [molest littler kids]  

 

How is that related to biological makeup?  Oh it isn't?  So if I am arguing that I feel being LGBT is most easily explained through a biological explanation and that being gay or trans is NOT a psychological disorder, can you understand why I can continue to take the position that they are UNRELATED?  

 

This article is not talking about being gay having anything to do with a psychological disorder.  Do you reject it's validity?  

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/h...ations-dna

 

What about the thousands of species that also exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild?  Is it such a wide gap in logic to say...  hmmm..  all these animals are doing it..  surely they are not doing it due to societal pressures.  Maybe some of their brains are not developed enough for it to be psychological..  If thousands of species do it and humans do too...  maybe it's biological?  I assume you don't reject that lions and penguins and swans and well..  pretty much all animals do it despite the fact there is no genetic passing of the torch which can ever come from it.

 

Your moral impediment tells you that sexuality (straight or gay) is not a normal, healthy part of a person's personality.  I would argue that discovering your sexuality is a rite of passage and a huge building block when discovering your sense of self.  Even if your view of sexuality is so chaste you are only able to accept it for what it is by choosing to be with someone who shares these same conservative views of sexuality.  I know people who remained virgins until marriage.  That worked for them.  It doesn't work for the majority of people.

 

The issue with you is that you view all sexuality as immoral unless it fits the constructs of your chosen belief system (i.e. - one man/one woman, no premarital sex, etc.)  Therefore it is easy for you to link being LGBT with any number of despicable sexual perversions like pedophilia, incest and rape. Despite the fact the leading theories for the cause of being LGBT are biological in nature and the leading theory for the cause of pedophilia is psychological.

 

If a gay or trans person acts on their desires, they are not doing anything different from what every teenager in the world goes through.  If/when a pedophile acts on their desires they are committing a heinous and unforgivable crime. There are some pedophiles who acknowledge this and confess to their urges publicly as they know they are thoughts that are not right and acting on them harms innocent kids.  Any LGBT person who confesses publicly their urges which they feel are not right are doing so to appease others (usually a congregation or their family) because they have been indoctrinated with this same belief system which tells them they are morally unclean or impure. This explains the statistics of drug/alcohol abuse, depression, homelessness and suicide among the LGBT community.  They are told by parents, society and church leaders just where they are going and why, despite the fact they never had a say in who they are.

 

So pretty please with sugar on top..  STOP trying to link these two vastly different classifications.  It is offensive.  It is ignorant.  You can say...  well neither has a choice.  That is the only remote similarity.  I would argue the reasons why could not be further from the same.

 

I would also argue people do not have a choice in their natural hair or eye color or skin tone. It is in their biological makeup. People DO however have a choice regarding what faith to follow or not follow (and I could make an argument that people who are fanatical religious zealots also suffer from a psychological disorder despite the fact their condition is one of choice.).  People also have a choice on whether or not they are willfully ignorant. Continuing to link being LGBT to pedophilia would only reinforce the perception I have that you are willfully ignorant.  I would love for you to prove me wrong.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Sorry Kotite but you can't have it both ways.  Do you think a pedophile wants to destroy their life by engaging in intimate acts with children?  How do YOU separate the two issues?

 

Please feel free to respond to my last post as to how I separate the two issues.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

And we reach the crux (finally), my deviant behavior is ok because I say it is but yours isnt for the same reason.

 I am sorry you view two consenting homosexual adults doing whatever they do or don't do behind closed doors "deviant behavior."

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Does "unrelated" mean something else in your language?  

 

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder which produces sexual urges or fantasies about prepubescent kids. Though inconclusive as to it's cause, many argue pedophilia is caused by neurological abnormalities or psychological pathologies.    Though no conclusive evidence has been found for this, there are also those who believe pedophiles are "created" by confused kids who are molested and get their souls stolen from them who grow older and think..  "this is what I am supposed to do."   [molest littler kids]  

 

How is that related to biological makeup?  Oh it isn't?  So if I am arguing that I feel being LGBT is most easily explained through a biological explanation and that being gay or trans is NOT a psychological disorder, can you understand why I can continue to take the position that they are UNRELATED?  

 

This article is not talking about being gay having anything to do with a psychological disorder.  Do you reject it's validity?  

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/h...ations-dna

 

So wait a minute.  Any sexual behavior you don't like you attribute to extreme environmental trauma and then when someone insinuates that same sex attraction could be the result of some form of psychological abnormality you brow beat them as ignorant and not worthy of the air you breathe.  Hypocritical much?


 

What about the thousands of species that also exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild?  Is it such a wide gap in logic to say...  hmmm..  all these animals are doing it..  surely they are not doing it due to societal pressures.  Maybe some of their brains are not developed enough for it to be psychological..  If thousands of species do it and humans do too...  maybe it's biological?  I assume you don't reject that lions and penguins and swans and well..  pretty much all animals do it despite the fact there is no genetic passing of the torch which can ever come from it.

 

A female praying mantis eats the head of her male suitor during intercourse.  Do you want to follow that example?  


 

Your moral impediment tells you that sexuality (straight or gay) is not a normal, healthy part of a person's personality.  

 

Now, you're just exposing your own insecurities in your argument.  Sexuality is a vital part to everyone's personality.  Does that mean that we should have sex in the middle of math class?  What about on a crowded train?  Or would you concede that as healthy as sex can be it still has its place in society.  If you disagree with how i position sex in my personal moral hierarchy then that's fine, but childish name calling (sexually repressed) and exaggeration (YOU MUST HATE ALL SEX) just illustrates to me and everyone here that you are still incapable of rationally dealing with someone who doesn't share your basic moral programming.  


 

I would argue that discovering your sexuality is a rite of passage and a huge building block when discovering your sense of self.  Even if your view of sexuality is so chaste you are only able to accept it for what it is by choosing to be with someone who shares these same conservative views of sexuality.  I know people who remained virgins until marriage.  That worked for them.  It doesn't work for the majority of people.

 

Yes it does.  You can choose to express yourself in any way that you want with consenting adults, but that doesn't change the basic facts.  In the case of sex in the absence of monogamy there are actually a myriad of negative psychological issues specifically with self esteem.  In the case of heterosexual women they are hard wired to function sexually in a secondary role to a more global sense of safety and security associated with monogamy.  The more that you break that fundamental bond over time then the ability to trust her partner and function in a monogamous relationship degrades over time.  

 

I have already covered why monogamous marital relationships are the most beneficial in my DARWINIAN HEALTH SECTION ABOVE.  

 

Also, not to mention the fact that your pre-marital free love society has become riddled with Aids, STD's broken families and what 50 million abortions in the last 40 years...  but hey, at least you scored on prom night.  


 

The issue with you is that you view all sexuality as immoral unless it fits the constructs of your chosen belief system (i.e. - one man/one woman, no premarital sex, etc.)  Therefore it is easy for you to link being LGBT with any number of despicable sexual perversions like pedophilia, incest and rape. Despite the fact the leading theories for the cause of being LGBT are biological in nature and the leading theory for the cause of pedophilia is psychological.

 

again, for all interested please reffer to the section about DARWINIAN HEALTH.  


 

If a gay or trans person acts on their desires, they are not doing anything different from what every teenager in the world goes through.  If/when a pedophile acts on their desires they are committing a heinous and unforgivable crime.

 

Depending on the state, you just contradicted yourself.  you beleive that teenagers should be engaged in free sex?  how young.  I think that someone should swipe this guys computer.  


 

There are some pedophiles who acknowledge this and confess to their urges publicly as they know they are thoughts that are not right and acting on them harms innocent kids.  Any LGBT person who confesses publicly their urges which they feel are not right are doing so to appease others (usually a congregation or their family) because they have been indoctrinated with this same belief system which tells them they are morally unclean or impure. This explains the statistics of drug/alcohol abuse, depression, homelessness and suicide among the LGBT community.  They are told by parents, society and church leaders just where they are going and why, despite the fact they never had a say in who they are.

 

Because obviously same sex attraction mandates a healthy psyche to begin with.  


 

So pretty please with sugar on top..  STOP trying to link these two vastly different classifications.  It is offensive.  It is ignorant.  You can say...  well neither has a choice.  That is the only remote similarity.  I would argue the reasons why could not be further from the same.

 

I would also argue people do not have a choice in their natural hair or eye color or skin tone. It is in their biological makeup. People DO however have a choice regarding what faith to follow or not follow (and I could make an argument that people who are fanatical religious zealots also suffer from a psychological disorder despite the fact their condition is one of choice.).  People also have a choice on whether or not they are willfully ignorant. Continuing to link being LGBT to pedophilia would only reinforce the perception I have that you are willfully ignorant.  I would love for you to prove me wrong.

 

Close your eyes.  What do you see.  That's how much i value your perceptions.  

 

You're a naturalist.  You think that if anything can be explained by a "biological explanation" then that means that it should be accepted as a part of who someone is.  

 

Nevermind the fact that there are certain psychological disorders that have genetic precursors, that's too easy.  

 

One of the first ittirations of Heart surgery was to correct a naturally occurring genetic defect in the aortic arch.  Since this had a biological explanation should we have just sat back as a  society and let these kids die while we bloviate about how they must have been sent as messangers from God about how short life is and that we should enjoy it?  If i have a tumor caused by a genetic deformation does that mean that i shouldn't seek treatment.  

 

Just because something biologically doesn't mean that it is beneficial or healthy.  

 

As for your whole inability to reconcile that you have relieved yourself in whole or in part based on the fantasies of another man...  I'm sorry it's so hard for you bruh.  It takes time.  but one day...  maybe you can live your truth!

---

I am sorry you view two consenting homosexual adults doing whatever they do or don't do behind closed doors "deviant behavior."

Different from the norm is exactly that.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What if I told you I thought the percentages of people who were openly gay in Ancient Rome is about the same as it is today and that people then simply did not have the moral internal struggle with it as they they viewed being gay as a natural phenomenon.


I know that men were not in any way sullied socially for having relations with another man, but that women were intended to remain virginal until marriage. Slaves were occasionally used as "property" in that period as well.


Since the fall of the Roman Empire, the world has changed dramatically. Most notably with the rapid growth of the two major religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam), which has created a moral taboo against homosexuality. It is not hard for me to imagine Ancient Rome being less morally uptight about homosexuality as these major religions really only started to take off towards the tail end of the Empire.

Your lack of a real answer let's me know everything I need to know.


I'm sure you think anti-gay people are very close minded and stubburn but to me,an objective thinking person with no qualms about either side of the debate ,you are exactly the same kind of ignorant and stubborn.


What make it worse is you are a hypocrite because you denounce close mindedness and people avoiding answers/being stubborn when you practice your own brand which makes it okay.

---

Close your eyes. What do you see. That's how much i value your perceptions.


You're a naturalist. You think that if anything can be explained by a "biological explanation" then that means that it should be accepted as a part of who someone is.


Nevermind the fact that there are certain psychological disorders that have genetic precursors, that's too easy.


One of the first ittirations of Heart surgery was to correct a naturally occurring genetic defect in the aortic arch. Since this had a biological explanation should we have just sat back as a society and let these kids die while we bloviate about how they must have been sent as messangers from God about how short life is and that we should enjoy it? If i have a tumor caused by a genetic deformation does that mean that i shouldn't seek treatment.


Just because something biologically doesn't mean that it is beneficial or healthy.


As for your whole inability to reconcile that you have relieved yourself in whole or in part based on the fantasies of another man... I'm sorry it's so hard for you bruh. It takes time. but one day... maybe you can live your truth!

As expected.. you missed about half of what I said.


I carefully read your responses (you should try that) and did not see where you reference same sex attraction as a psychological abnormality anywhere (is that what you are doing now?). First you posed the idea they were doing it as a choice (for attention --mostly). Then you talked about brain structure. I never attributed homosexuality to trauma and alluded to SOME pedophiles as being possibly explained by undergoing that traumatic experience.


You introduce a female praying mantis which has NOTHING TO DO with the statement I made that pretty much all animals have been documented displaying homosexual or bisexual behavior. It's not the first time you have taken something completely out of context and added a comment that makes no [BLEEP] sense as a retort. At this moment however, I am secretly wishing you married a praying mantis. So there's that.


I said your "moral impediment tells you sexuality (gay or straight) is not a normal, healthy part of a persons personality." Your rant afterwards is so far off base I wonder what nerve I struck. I am talking about the self realization about one's attractions, not boinking on a train or in math class. Or sexual positions.. I was solely referencing a persons sense of self with respect to their sexuality, not any actions taken because of it. If that's what I was saying.. you'd know. (on second thought.. you probably wouldn't.) I'm not being childish by calling you repressed. Your own words admit it. Don't get your panties twisted because you came clean about it. It's part of who you are. Maybe you'll be nominated for a Darwin Award some day.


I never endorsed the idea of polygamy or sleeping around. I agree monogamy is healthy. I also know it's extremely rare for brides to be virigins and that even the most devout religious congregations are filled with sexually active teens and adulterous spouses. That was my only point (though you'll challenge that too I am sure.)


I don't necessarily feel teenagers should be engaged in sexual activity. I simply stated they are. Your morality prevented you from getting your first nut at 14. Not everyone has that same sense of guilt when offered that opportunity at such a young age. I also feel teaching your children to be smart and safe and OVERALL to respect their own bodies is a healthier method of raising them to be self-aware of their sexuality, but you likely prescribe to the "only and not until marriage plan." I won't bore you with statistics of how people who identify as Christians are the leading contributors to teen pregnancy because the abstinence model has been proven ineffective time and time again. You cannot curb sexual desire by whacking a teen boys winky with a ruler every time it fills with blood to get large. Educating them is far more effective. But I know you disagree.


I will sum up with the following.. I posted a link and asked if you rejected its validity. Predictably you didn't answer. It is a yes or no question.


I also pointed out that pretty much every other species on the planet has displayed homosexual or bisexual tendencies as supportive of a biological explanation. Do you reject this as well? Again.. yes or no is all you need to say.


I also posed the theory that pedophilia is NOT biological in nature and is a mental disorder. Do you agree with this? Yes or no?


You do a magnificent job of not answering questions while introducing all manner of [BLEEP] that is not relevant. I used to think this was because you were a troll. Maybe that is the reason. But the more I see your patterns of dodging the questions you don't like or taking benign statements and twisting them into something completely unrelated, the more I think it may be a defense mechanism for your fragile psyche to not allow anything through which might shatter that false perception you have on the real world.


I do not reject that some psychological disorders can have genetic precursors... but SHOW ME where that has been linked to LGBT if your are going to make that leap? I have read far more on the subject than you have (that is obvious) and have never seen that link.


This is what you do. I could say.. that crater was made by an asteroid that fell to earth and you introduce something like.. are you saying aliens couldn't have come to our planet for an interstellar golf tournament and created divots? You reject any possible, logical solution and introduce something which may or may not have validity AND NEVER PROVIDE ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE to back that claim.


The closest you can come to refuting the data I have provided on LGBT being biological is .. just because it's biological, doesn't make it right. Again.. you are so hung up on the morality of the issue, you cannot accept what is and what isn't. Hardly the only reason you are unbearable.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Different from the norm is exactly that.

 

I'm sure two guys boning each other in their Milwaukee apartment has a huge impact on your life.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Your lack of a real answer let's me know everything I need to know.


I'm sure you think anti-gay people are very close minded and stubburn but to me,an objective thinking person with no qualms about either side of the debate ,you are exactly the same kind of ignorant and stubborn.


What make it worse is you are a hypocrite because you denounce close mindedness and people avoiding answers/being stubborn when you practice your own brand which makes it okay.

 

Hah!  How did I not answer your question?  You asked if a bunch of people were born gay then or if people adapted to their culture/environment.  I replied that I didn't think there was such a moral hang up with being gay then as the real stigma on homosexuality came with the two major religions which flourished right as the Empire was drawing to a close.  That was an objective response.  I thought it was on point.  The Romans nicked their culture from the Greeks.  Have you read what Plato, Herodotus, Sappho or Xenophon said about homosexuality?  I wouldn't call it a damning account by any stretch. Read about Achilles and Patroclus. Does that sound at all like the repressed, westernized (influenced by religion) account of homosexuality being taboo? You'll have to explain how my response was a lack of a real answer. 

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Hah! How did I not answer your question? You asked if a bunch of people were born gay then or if people adapted to their culture/environment. I replied that I didn't think there was such a moral hang up with being gay then as the real stigma on homosexuality came with the two major religions which flourished right as the Empire was drawing to a close. That was an objective response. I thought it was on point. The Romans nicked their culture from the Greeks. Have you read what Plato, Herodotus, Sappho or Xenophon said about homosexuality? I wouldn't call it a damning account by any stretch. Read about Achilles and Patroclus. Does that sound at all like the repressed, westernized (influenced by religion) account of homosexuality being taboo? You'll have to explain how my response was a lack of a real answer.

I asked if you thought more gay men were born around that time or if men adapted to their surroundings ,which is it?


Ah yes I see you've dived deep into Google. Plato is an awful example by the way based on my knowledge of him. So we agree homosexuality was common place around that time. So was it a case of more people being born gay or was it a case that it was just freely accepted?


I don't think anybody chooses homosexuality but I do think it is a complex mixture of biological,environmental and psychosocial factors. To say that a person is born gay and that's all there is to it ,is a simplistic view.

---

I asked if you thought more gay men were born around that time or if men adapted to their surroundings ,which is it?


Ah yes I see you've dived deep into Google. Plato is an awful example by the way based on my knowledge of him. So we agree homosexuality was common place around that time. So was it a case of more people being born gay or was it a case that it was just freely accepted?


I don't think anybody chooses homosexuality but I do think it is a complex mixture of biological,environmental and psychosocial factors. To say that a person is born gay and that's all there is to it ,is a simplistic view.

To restate my answer another way. I argue it was more freely accepted then. I think there's enough supportive evidence of that. Am I ducking your question in some hypocritical manner with this response? Because I think that's what I said initially. Unlike others, I am not afraid of questions and have answered my fair share of dumb ones.


As for your last line. Is it a simplistic view to believe people are born straight? I was. That's what I sincerely believe. Am I missing something? Because it's a big reason why I am comfortable with the belief people can also be born gay.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I would also point out your take on the environmental and psychosocial aspect does not explain why there are people who are gay in places where LGBT people are rounded up and killed. That would have a profound influence on me. I would say those instances lend more credibility to the biological explanation.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

As expected.. you missed about half of what I said.


I carefully read your responses (you should try that) and did not see where you reference same sex attraction as a psychological abnormality anywhere (is that what you are doing now?). First you posed the idea they were doing it as a choice (for attention --mostly). Then you talked about brain structure. I never attributed homosexuality to trauma and alluded to SOME pedophiles as being possibly explained by undergoing that traumatic experience.


You introduce a female praying mantis which has NOTHING TO DO with the statement I made that pretty much all animals have been documented displaying homosexual or bisexual behavior. It's not the first time you have taken something completely out of context and added a comment that makes no [BAD WORD REMOVED] sense as a retort. At this moment however, I am secretly wishing you married a praying mantis. So there's that.


I said your "moral impediment tells you sexuality (gay or straight) is not a normal, healthy part of a persons personality." Your rant afterwards is so far off base I wonder what nerve I struck. I am talking about the self realization about one's attractions, not boinking on a train or in math class. Or sexual positions.. I was solely referencing a persons sense of self with respect to their sexuality, not any actions taken because of it. If that's what I was saying.. you'd know. (on second thought.. you probably wouldn't.) I'm not being childish by calling you repressed. Your own words admit it. Don't get your panties twisted because you came clean about it. It's part of who you are. Maybe you'll be nominated for a Darwin Award some day.


I never endorsed the idea of polygamy or sleeping around. I agree monogamy is healthy. I also know it's extremely rare for brides to be virigins and that even the most devout religious congregations are filled with sexually active teens and adulterous spouses. That was my only point (though you'll challenge that too I am sure.)


I don't necessarily feel teenagers should be engaged in sexual activity. I simply stated they are. Your morality prevented you from getting your first nut at 14. Not everyone has that same sense of guilt when offered that opportunity at such a young age. I also feel teaching your children to be smart and safe and OVERALL to respect their own bodies is a healthier method of raising them to be self-aware of their sexuality, but you likely prescribe to the "only and not until marriage plan." I won't bore you with statistics of how people who identify as Christians are the leading contributors to teen pregnancy because the abstinence model has been proven ineffective time and time again. You cannot curb sexual desire by whacking a teen boys winky with a ruler every time it fills with blood to get large. Educating them is far more effective. But I know you disagree.


I will sum up with the following.. I posted a link and asked if you rejected its validity. Predictably you didn't answer. It is a yes or no question.


I also pointed out that pretty much every other species on the planet has displayed homosexual or bisexual tendencies as supportive of a biological explanation. Do you reject this as well? Again.. yes or no is all you need to say.


I also posed the theory that pedophilia is NOT biological in nature and is a mental disorder. Do you agree with this? Yes or no?


You do a magnificent job of not answering questions while introducing all manner of [BAD WORD REMOVED] that is not relevant. I used to think this was because you were a troll. Maybe that is the reason. But the more I see your patterns of dodging the questions you don't like or taking benign statements and twisting them into something completely unrelated, the more I think it may be a defense mechanism for your fragile psyche to not allow anything through which might shatter that false perception you have on the real world.


I do not reject that some psychological disorders can have genetic precursors... but SHOW ME where that has been linked to LGBT if your are going to make that leap? I have read far more on the subject than you have (that is obvious) and have never seen that link.


This is what you do. I could say.. that crater was made by an asteroid that fell to earth and you introduce something like.. are you saying aliens couldn't have come to our planet for an interstellar golf tournament and created divots? You reject any possible, logical solution and introduce something which may or may not have validity AND NEVER PROVIDE ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE to back that claim.


The closest you can come to refuting the data I have provided on LGBT being biological is .. just because it's biological, doesn't make it right. Again.. you are so hung up on the morality of the issue, you cannot accept what is and what isn't. Hardly the only reason you are unbearable.

For someone who rails against analogies you don't like as dodging, you sure spend a lot of time dodging the question about accepting biological or genetic deformity. Which by the way is universal to every organism oorganism planet.


Again, you spend most of your time trying to prove a biological explanation because you have been conditioned to think that anything with a biological explanation should be ACCEPTED (your words) expressed and even celebrated. Any behavior that you don't like you push into the psychological corridor because you think that will save your world view. But that world view FALLS APART WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT OUR BIOLOGICAL MAKEUP CAN BE FLAWED OR UNHEALTHY.


If someone is born with a deformed hand, we look at the design of a healthy hand and try to heal them. If someone is born with a genetic defect that malforms an artery in their heart we look at a healthy heart and we try to heal them. You on the other hand believe that if a to year old boy says he wants a husband that we should put a dress on him and let him use the girls room because he might have a variance in the density of connectors between hemispheres of the brain.


That's literally insane.

---

To restate my answer another way. I argue it was more freely accepted then. I think there's enough supportive evidence of that. Am I ducking your question in some hypocritical manner with this response? Because I think that's what I said initially. Unlike others, I am not afraid of questions and have answered my fair share of dumb ones.


As for your last line. Is it a simplistic view to believe people are born straight? I was. That's what I sincerely believe. Am I missing something? Because it's a big reason why I am comfortable with the belief people can also be born gay.

You havn't picked an answer yet. More gay births or more men adapting to their surroundings (which would include social normality)


People are born straight for a biological reason,if people weren't born straight there would be no human race. Its an essential part of humanity that people are born straight.


I think some people can be born gay or trans. I also think sexuality isn't a rigid "your either born gay or your not gay" thing.

---