Gay?

[unriggable]

and get this: if it weren't for the basic reproduction ability that straight humans had, gays wouldn't exist because humanity would have become extinct!

News flash! Gayosity is a recessive trait. It can go from one generation to the next and not really work. There will always be gays. Forget about 'the final solution'. Eugenics never wins. You dont need to cure gays because gays dont need a cure. They are fully functional humans. Just, seriously, stop talking about this like you know it inside and out.

[hecter]

Every non-sterile male has the ability to reproduce. It doesn't matter whether or not they are gay or straight.
In terms of you "convex" and "concave" "arguement", assholes can have more than one use
How do you know there are no gay plants? Have you studied extensively into it?
And please don't give me the whole "Humans are meant to reproduce" crap. If that's all humans were meant to do with our lives, then there would be a whole lot more people in the world, not to mention the fact that everybody who doesn't have a child's life would be rendered completely useless by that minor detail. As well as the fact that sterile people should just kill themselves because they can never perform what they were "meant" to do.

[Guiscard]

Static-Ice... you're still a kid, right?

Firstly, I doubt you've really had much contact with homosexual adults.

Secondly, I doubt you've really explored the whole reproduction thing yourself yet...


Come back to us in ten years when you've got out of your little childish prejudice box and experienced the world a little. If you still have to lie to your parents for them to let you go to the movies...

men are "convex" and women are "concave" for a reason!

Have you seen the concave bit yet?

Maybe you won't be a fan and it'll be convex all the way for you my lad!

[static_ice]

Static-Ice... you're still a kid, right?

Firstly, I doubt you've really had much contact with homosexual adults.

Secondly, I doubt you've really explored the whole reproduction thing yourself yet...


Come back to us in ten years when you've got out of your little childish prejudice box and experienced the world a little. If you still have to lie to your parents for them to let you go to the movies...

men are "convex" and women are "concave" for a reason!

Have you seen the concave bit yet?

Maybe you won't be a fan and it'll be convex all the way for you my lad!

dude, obviously you haven't had health class in a while, its not like you have to literally feel the damn thing to know about it jeez

... all those projecter pictures of STD's...

and making fun of someone for "not being experienced in this field" isn't a real argument, if you want to win you have to argue against my reasons.

[static_ice]

and get this: if it weren't for the basic reproduction ability that straight humans had, gays wouldn't exist because humanity would have become extinct!

News flash! Gayosity is a recessive trait. It can go from one generation to the next and not really work. There will always be gays. Forget about 'the final solution'. Eugenics never wins. You dont need to cure gays because gays dont need a cure. They are fully functional humans. Just, seriously, stop talking about this like you know it inside and out.

are you saying that the gay gene (which I don't believe in don't argue with that) was present in all generations of mankind, even since the beginning of life in plants?

and I never said anything about the final solution dude whoa

(but that does remind of that jamie quote something like: I tolerate gays and I do not think they should be put to death)

[hecter]

We do argue against your reasons quite well. You just can't accept that. You also never know what a little experience can do.

[static_ice]

We do argue against your reasons quite well. You just can't accept that. You also never know what a little experience can do.

yes I know YOU argue, but I think guiscard's was a little uncalled for don't you think? I mean HE didn't argue very well...

[Guiscard]

Well dismissing 'free sex' because of STDs is invalid.

When you've tried it you'll understand... Shit, at 16 I would have thought you'd be all for it! I know I was!

All it takes is to be sensible, use protection, not sleep with obviously skanky bints...

AIDS as the answer to too much free sex is absolutely absurd. We have more protection against STDs now than we have ever had before in history. There have always been epidemic diseases, be they bubonic plague, cholera or whatever. It just so happens that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease which humanity has not evolved an immunity to yet. Diseases which are transmitted sexually are just like any other. They're not any 'worse' or 'more dirty' than anything esle.

Aan as for the argument that you're meant to be with one person your whole life... Much of the non-Christian world did until maybe a couple hundred years ago... Whatever it may say in the Bible, a single partner has only become the norm in the modern period (compared to millions of years of human history). As much as I love my girlfriend, it is a psychological construct which has developed pretty much alongside Christianity for various reasons, but monogamy being 'natural' or 'right' is not one of them I'm afriad.

[Shaninon]

I'm not a homopobe

God I hate bisexuals.

Explain.

I hate bisexuals too, and I'm not homophobic!

Of course, I -am- bisexual, so yeah... ^.^ b

Then again, I was raised Catholic, so internalized prejudices are to be expected XD That was farily aptly demonstrated earlier ^.^ /

For the argument brewing in the rest of the thread, I honestly believe that the whole origin of human attraction is way too complicated to reduce to a single cause. I also think that far, far more people are in the middle of the spectrum of sexuality than will ever admit it, and that it's really a shame that people on both sides feel so much pressure to hold fast to a binary system that can limit the sources of love and joy in their lives.

[static_ice]

Well dismissing 'free sex' because of STDs is invalid.

When you've tried it you'll understand... Shit, at 16 I would have thought you'd be all for it! I know I was!

All it takes is to be sensible, use protection, not sleep with obviously skanky bints...

AIDS as the answer to too much free sex is absolutely absurd. We have more protection against STDs now than we have ever had before in history. There have always been epidemic diseases, be they bubonic plague, cholera or whatever. It just so happens that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease which humanity has not evolved an immunity to yet. Diseases which are transmitted sexually are just like any other. They're not any 'worse' or 'more dirty' than anything esle.

Aan as for the argument that you're meant to be with one person your whole life... Much of the non-Christian world did until maybe a couple hundred years ago... Whatever it may say in the Bible, a single partner has only become the norm in the modern period (compared to millions of years of human history). As much as I love my girlfriend, it is a psychological construct which has developed pretty much alongside Christianity for various reasons, but monogamy being 'natural' or 'right' is not one of them I'm afriad.

okay, those topics were already covered I think... but just because science can fix it doesn't mean we don't have to worry about it...come on, you've seen enough freaks to know what I mean...

[Guiscard]

What I'm trying to point out is that your arguments are pretty insulated and naive. If you seriously think that human beings are meant to be monogamous (unless from a Biblical stand-point), and that free sex is wrong because of STDs (even though its been the norm for millions of years) then I seriously doubt you've had enough experience of homosexual people, homosexual emotions and the psychological side to your argument to really make any kind of judgement.

At 16 you could quite easily turn out to be gay within the next 5 years... I know very straight people who came out when they turned 21 who thought they definitely knew their sexual preference at your age.

I might have missed it in the thread so far, but why do you think Homosexuality exists if it it so much against nature and the 'right' way of things... Why would we still have it if it hinders the development of man so much?

And as for worrying about disease... obviously we have to worry, but I'm trying to say that free sex and homosexuality have nothing to with the rise of AIDS. Human beings are going to have sex whatever disease is there to scare them off of it.

[static_ice]

What I'm trying to point out is that your arguments are pretty insulated and naive. If you seriously think that human beings are meant to be monogamous (unless from a Biblical stand-point), and that free sex is wrong because of STDs (even though its been the norm for millions of years) then I seriously doubt you've had enough experience of homosexual people, homosexual emotions and the psychological side to your argument to really make any kind of judgement.

At 16 you could quite easily turn out to be gay within the next 5 years... I know very straight people who came out when they turned 21 who thought they definitely knew their sexual preference at your age.

I might have missed it in the thread so far, but why do you think Homosexuality exists if it it so much against nature and the 'right' way of things... Why would we still have it if it hinders the development of man so much?

And as for worrying about disease... obviously we have to worry, but I'm trying to say that free sex and homosexuality have nothing to with the rise of AIDS. Human beings are going to have sex whatever disease is there to scare them off of it.

from a biblical standpoint, a little, I am religious but I try to explain my own religion with science and logic rather than blindfaith so...
has free sex been the norm for millions of years? it definitely is now...and that is a reason IMO for overpopulation. And I don't think it is possible to have enough EXPERIENCE in this lifetime to know that free sex was just as popular back then as it is now...

and as for my lack of experience with gay people...lets just say that I have enough to tell if most people are gay or at least openly gay when seeing them on the street, even without the right earring or flashy clothes...
...I wonder if this has anything to do with this...but in my religion the kids don't date or anything, no relationships, until around early 20's when we get married with someone else in the same religion (don't try and guess what it is) so...being with a girl like you might have been from an early age might have turned you straight, but I've been without that all my life (plz don't go into that this is just for support), so I think I have had a lot of chances to be gay without forcing it upon myself...

to your next statement about me being young, I'll lean on my above statement...this is the only time I use only religion in my life, to say that I am not gay. as long as I am religious I never will be. and I plan on being religious.

and finally, of course I can't prove this, but isn't it odd how free sex "boomed" in the last century, as did AIDS in the last 50 years?

[hecter]

from a biblical standpoint, a little, I am religious but I try to explain my own religion with science and logic rather than blindfaith so...
has free sex been the norm for millions of years? it definitely is now...and that is a reason IMO for overpopulation. And I don't think it is possible to have enough EXPERIENCE in this lifetime to know that free sex was just as popular back then as it is now...

Do you think they had marriage at the dawn of man? Do you think they had condoms way back then? The only kind of sex they had was free sex.

and as for my lack of experience with gay people...lets just say that I have enough to tell if most people are gay or at least openly gay when seeing them on the street, even without the right earring or flashy clothes...

By that statement alone I can tell that the only experience you've had with gay people is what you've seen on T.V. and what you've heard at school.

[Guiscard]

OK well if you're arguing from a religious perspective there rally is no point in this debate.

All that last post proved was that you have had even less experience than I thought.

and as for my lack of experience with gay people...lets just say that I have enough to tell if most people are gay or at least openly gay when seeing them on the street, even without the right earring or flashy clothes...

You do realise that that is a single homosexual stereotype... You do realise the majority of homosexuals in the western world (the 10% figure is the traditional one, although estimates vary either way) do not wear 'an earring in their right ear and flashy clothes'. You won't have noticed the millions of homosexual smart business men and women because they don't fit your stereotype of homosexuality. I'm assuming you don't stop and quiz every person you pass about their sexuality.

being with a girl like you might have been from an early age might have turned you straight, but I've been without that all my life (plz don't go into that this is just for support), so I think I have had a lot of chances to be gay without forcing it upon myself...

I kn ow you've said don't go into this but seriously... No sexual experience makes it less likely for a person to know his or her own sexuality. I know people who had years of straight sex, or were bisexual, before they really worked out where their preference lay. Guys married for 20 years sometimes leave their wives and come out... You can't choose your sexuality. You've never 'chosen' to be straight so why do you think you can 'choose' to not be gay? At puberty did someone just turn up and get you to tick a box?

[static_ice]

from a biblical standpoint, a little, I am religious but I try to explain my own religion with science and logic rather than blindfaith so...
has free sex been the norm for millions of years? it definitely is now...and that is a reason IMO for overpopulation. And I don't think it is possible to have enough EXPERIENCE in this lifetime to know that free sex was just as popular back then as it is now...

Do you think they had marriage at the dawn of man? Do you think they had condoms way back then? The only kind of sex they had was free sex.

and as for my lack of experience with gay people...lets just say that I have enough to tell if most people are gay or at least openly gay when seeing them on the street, even without the right earring or flashy clothes...

By that statement alone I can tell that the only experience you've had with gay people is what you've seen on T.V. and what you've heard at school.

no they did not have traditional marriages back then, but your definition of free sex is a little off. not only is free sex called sex before marriage, but also sex with anyone other than your spouse after marriage
I think early humans at least chose a woman and were more faithful back then than they are now, and I KNOW the women almost never cheated, because back then it was off with their head.

and thats another thing...a lot of ancient societies, or societies that have ancient roots, oppose free sex. This example might be wrong, but in africa they brutally close up a preteen's vagina with stitches until she gets married. In some middle eastern countries too, it was off with her head if a newly wed husband finds out that the bride had her "cover" (I forgot the scientific term) was already broken. Yes geezers, I learned this in health too. Women have little covers on the inside of the vagina and it is broken when they lose virginity. Unfortunately, it is also broken occasionally by stretching or in the modern world, tampon use. So that caused some misunderstanding in said middle eastern culture but you get my point. (hopefully this time)

oh and from what I've heard at school? I know gay people at school

I don't know when you guys last went to school, but homosexuality is a lot more integrated nowadays unfortunately for me

[hecter]

from a biblical standpoint, a little, I am religious but I try to explain my own religion with science and logic rather than blindfaith so...
has free sex been the norm for millions of years? it definitely is now...and that is a reason IMO for overpopulation. And I don't think it is possible to have enough EXPERIENCE in this lifetime to know that free sex was just as popular back then as it is now...

Do you think they had marriage at the dawn of man? Do you think they had condoms way back then? The only kind of sex they had was free sex.

and as for my lack of experience with gay people...lets just say that I have enough to tell if most people are gay or at least openly gay when seeing them on the street, even without the right earring or flashy clothes...

By that statement alone I can tell that the only experience you've had with gay people is what you've seen on T.V. and what you've heard at school.

no they did not have traditional marriages back then, but your definition of free sex is a little off. not only is free sex called sex before marriage, but also sex with anyone other than your spouse after marriage
I think early humans at least chose a woman and were more faithful back then than they are now, and I KNOW the women almost never cheated, because back then it was off with their head.

and thats another thing...a lot of ancient societies, or societies that have ancient roots, oppose free sex. This example might be wrong, but in africa they brutally close up a preteen's vagina with stitches until she gets married. In some middle eastern countries too, it was off with her head if a newly wed husband finds out that the bride had her "cover" (I forgot the scientific term) was already broken. Yes geezers, I learned this in health too. Women have little covers on the inside of the vagina and it is broken when they lose virginity. Unfortunately, it is also broken occasionally by stretching or in the modern world, tampon use. So that caused some misunderstanding in said middle eastern culture but you get my point. (hopefully this time)

oh and from what I've heard at school? I know gay people at school

I don't know when you guys last went to school, but homosexuality is a lot more integrated nowadays unfortunately for me

How is my definition of free sex off? What about Kings with concubines? And so you know a few gay people at school, big deal. I will tell you right now that there is NO WAY to tell a persons sexual orientation other than to ask them and hope they give an honest answer.

[Guiscard]

no they did not have traditional marriages back then, but your definition of free sex is a little off. not only is free sex called sex before marriage, but also sex with anyone other than your spouse after marriage
I think early humans at least chose a woman and were more faithful back then than they are now, and I KNOW the women almost never cheated, because back then it was off with their head.

Ever study history? Or do you just go to health class...

We weren't monogamous for millions of years. Numerous spouses, lots of sex... Early humans didn't choose a woman and be faithful. Multiple partners have been a feature of pretty much all societies all the way up until the modern period. Monogamy has, apart from a few isolated cases, developed only with Christianity. In the Christian world men had a single spouse for life, but everywhere else it was pretty much business as usual. Many partners, harems of women for kings and nobles... Monogamy really does go against the grain!

And as for men wanting their partner to be virginal... Sure that happened in many cultures, but it doesn't mean the men didn't have many partners, and it wasn't a completely enforced idea anyway. Remember prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and you always get the village bicycle.

You have a very skewed view of history I'm afraid...

[static_ice]

no they did not have traditional marriages back then, but your definition of free sex is a little off. not only is free sex called sex before marriage, but also sex with anyone other than your spouse after marriage
I think early humans at least chose a woman and were more faithful back then than they are now, and I KNOW the women almost never cheated, because back then it was off with their head.

Ever study history? Or do you just go to health class...

We weren't monogamous for millions of years. Numerous spouses, lots of sex... Early humans didn't choose a woman and be faithful. Multiple partners have been a feature of pretty much all societies all the way up until the modern period. Monogamy has, apart from a few isolated cases, developed only with Christianity. In the Christian world men had a single spouse for life, but everywhere else it was pretty much business as usual. Many partners, harems of women for kings and nobles... Monogamy really does go against the grain!

And as for men wanting their partner to be virginal... Sure that happened in many cultures, but it doesn't mean the men didn't have many partners, and it wasn't a completely enforced idea anyway. Remember prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and you always get the village bicycle.

You have a very skewed view of history I'm afraid...

maybe my history is off and of course there were always exceptions, but look at OUR culture...the sex advertised everywhere...etc. Can you look at our sexified culture and say that free sex was just as popular a millenium ago?

[Guiscard]

Perhaps not so much from a female perspective. I think men have had many partners for all of human history with a brief recession in Christian countries.

Women, however, have never been as equal and free as they are now. You can't argue that women have not had free sex because they haven't had the opportunity to due to social status.

[unriggable]

no they did not have traditional marriages back then, but your definition of free sex is a little off. not only is free sex called sex before marriage, but also sex with anyone other than your spouse after marriage
I think early humans at least chose a woman and were more faithful back then than they are now, and I KNOW the women almost never cheated, because back then it was off with their head.

Ever study history? Or do you just go to health class...

We weren't monogamous for millions of years. Numerous spouses, lots of sex... Early humans didn't choose a woman and be faithful. Multiple partners have been a feature of pretty much all societies all the way up until the modern period. Monogamy has, apart from a few isolated cases, developed only with Christianity. In the Christian world men had a single spouse for life, but everywhere else it was pretty much business as usual. Many partners, harems of women for kings and nobles... Monogamy really does go against the grain!

And as for men wanting their partner to be virginal... Sure that happened in many cultures, but it doesn't mean the men didn't have many partners, and it wasn't a completely enforced idea anyway. Remember prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and you always get the village bicycle.

You have a very skewed view of history I'm afraid...

maybe my history is off and of course there were always exceptions, but look at OUR culture...the sex advertised everywhere...etc. Can you look at our sexified culture and say that free sex was just as popular a millenium ago?

Yes. Sex is in our blood. Its the point of life, really. To just f*ck the shit out of one another. We didnt have condoms until the 20th century. You're theories are pretty, well, wrong. My friend's mom works in the psychology field and she told him who later told me that our brain 'recycles' love every 4 years or so. Of course most people used to not live that long until recently so now we see more of this 'free sex'.

[flashleg8]

and as for my lack of experience with gay people...lets just say that I have enough to tell if most people are gay or at least openly gay when seeing them on the street, even without the right earring or flashy clothes...

By that statement alone I can tell that the only experience you've had with gay people is what you've seen on T.V. and what you've heard at school.

Hecter, that’s the one of the most concise points I’ve read in this thread. (More posts like this thread please and less spam )

@static_ice - Guiscards pretty much took up the torch and said everything I would have replied to your statements so I won't go over it again.
All I'd like to say is I don't know what type of school you go to but that "health class" of yours seems to be entirely focused on scaring you teenagers into not having sex by pounding the message of STD's into your brain. Of course every sensible person should worry about their health (sexual or otherwise) and take sensible precautions, but I think this excessive focus on the negative aspects of sex will ruin you physiologically in future life.

[static_ice]

Perhaps not so much from a female perspective. I think men have had many partners for all of human history with a brief recession in Christian countries.

Women, however, have never been as equal and free as they are now. You can't argue that women have not had free sex because they haven't had the opportunity to due to social status.

oh and not only females, men are all of a sudden cool for being pimps, and ppl that lost their virginity make fun of others because they didn't lose their's.
coughcoughcough

@ guiscard and the rest of my temporary enemies...I reeeeally appreciated the verbal arguments in substitution of the logical arguments...and since guiscard's last post was obviously an attempt to sum this extremely off topic tea party up, I guess that leaves me with nothing else to argue except unriggable's last post...

...which I would like to say that this whole argument has been based on opinion, experience, and no real facts other than those that are obvious, and no evidence like links to scientific studies and articles, so we all basically had to believe eachother. unriggable, from my puny highschool brain I don't think that you fully understood my point, (even without the sarcasm ), and I find some of your factual sarcasm hard to believe.

[Guiscard]

Static I can give you links to anthropology stuff regarding lack of monogamy if you really want... (although you'll be able to find most of what I could offer through google, as you'd need a university account to access most journals and stuff). Its scientific fact.

And as for this:

oh and not only females, men are all of a sudden cool for being pimps, and ppl that lost their virginity make fun of others because they didn't lose their's.
coughcoughcough

AGAIN its only been not that way for a small amount of time (since the Victorian era really...) I'm afraid its always been cool for men to have lots of partners. Be a bit of a Cad or a Bounder, as it was called in colonial times... And I'm sure people have been made fun of for all of human history for not losing their virginity - Indeed, in some areas of medieval society if an apprentice had not lost his virginity by the time he was ready to 'graduate', as it were, his master would take him to a whore!

[static_ice]

Static I can give you links to anthropology stuff regarding lack of monogamy if you really want... (although you'll be able to find most of what I could offer through google, as you'd need a university account to access most journals and stuff). Its scientific fact.

And as for this:

oh and not only females, men are all of a sudden cool for being pimps, and ppl that lost their virginity make fun of others because they didn't lose their's.
coughcoughcough

AGAIN its only been not that way for a small amount of time (since the Victorian era really...) I'm afraid its always been cool for men to have lots of partners. Be a bit of a Cad or a Bounder, as it was called in colonial times... And I'm sure people have been made fun of for all of human history for not losing their virginity - Indeed, in some areas of medieval society if an apprentice had not lost his virginity by the time he was ready to 'graduate', as it were, his master would take him to a whore!

interesting, but are you saying that it was the same amount back than as now? I realize that "pimps" were around back then but back then they didn't have commercials only rumors and they didn't have rappers and pimps in hollywood to look after as idols, so wouldn't there be even more free sex among males these days?

oh and please no links
this thread is going fine enough without them

[Guiscard]

this whole argument has been based on opinion, experience, and no real facts other than those that are obvious, and no evidence like links to scientific studies and articles, so we all basically had to believe eachother.

That was why I was offering you links.

And just to say again, your idea of what is sexually normal in society is very much based in the last 100 years or so. Before that, and in other cultures throughout the world, it is very very different to what you seem to view as the 'norm'. Your opinions are very specific to a Christian, western post-Industrial society.