Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:If homosexuality is a choice you must have chosen not to be gay Nappy ...

Fair enough! i never had to make that 'choice' so your self restraint interests me.

can you tell us how you keep your tendencies in check please?

Not a choice so much as a result of psychology, which can and has been reversed (this is incontestable).

Please don't dodge the question, this is very important.
You state that sexuality is a matter of choice. (you can sugar-coat the wording if you like but that is what you imply)

If so then you must have discovered this through your own inward struggle, otherwise your opinion is by definition worthless.
i would like to know how you remain so strong; is your vehemence that 'gayness' is wrong part of the internal cure?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

darvlay wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:A number of studies concur as well, incidentally.

Let's see them...

In the 1980s, scholars (12) examined the early Kinsey data to determine whether or not childhood sexual experiences predicted adult behavior. The results were significant: Homosexual experience in the early year, particularly if it was one's first sexual experience - was a strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior, both for males and females. A similar pattern appeared in the 1970 Kinsey Institute (4) study: there was a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and those who practiced homosexuality in later life. In the FRI study (5) two-thirds of the boys whose first experience was homosexual engaged in homosexual behavior as adults; 95% of those whose first experience was heterosexual were likewise heterosexual in their adult behavior. A similarly progressive pattern of sexual behavior was reported for females.

It is remarkable that the three largest empirical studies of the question showed essentially the same pattern. A child's first sexual experiences were strongly associated with his or her adult behavior.

Kinsey reported "less homosexual activity among devout groups whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and more homosexual activity among religiously less active groups." (2) The 1983 FRI study found those raised in irreligious homes to be over 4 times more likely to become homosexual than those from devout homes. These studies suggest that when people believe strongly that homosexual behavior is immoral, they are significantly less apt to be involved in such activity.

Recently, because of the AIDS epidemic, it has been discovered that, relative to white males, twice as many black males are homosexual (14) and 4 times as many are bisexual. Perhaps it is related to the fact that 62% of black versus 17% of white children are being raised in fatherless homes. But even the worst racist wouldn't suggest that it is due to genetic predisposition.

Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture.

(12) P.H van Wyck; CS Geist
(4) A.P Bell : Homosexualities, Their range and character
(5)P Cameron 1986 Psychlogical reports
(14) AIDS in bisexual males in the US (Public Health 1992)
(2)Kinsey (who is considered one of the great figures of modern sexology)

Kinsey himself avoided and disapproved of using terms like homosexual or heterosexual to describe individuals, asserting that sexuality is prone to change over time, and that sexual behavior can be understood both as physical contact as well as purely psychological phenomena (desire, sexual attraction, fantasy).

Poor ol' Alfred must be rolling in his grave right now. What the FRI has failed to demonstrate however, is how first sexual experiences preclude biology as the main reason for homosexuality.

Re: religion as a deterrent to homosexuality. Well DUH! Indoctrination is a great deterrent for anything. It's also a little known fact that there is less heterosexual activity among devout groups whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and more homosexual activity among religiously less active groups. This hardly proves or even suggests anything more than the power of indoctrination.

As to your theory that fatherless homes also lend towards "deviant" behaviour, that is some serious reaching. Like Patrick Ewing type reach.

Sheesh.

I guess I have managed in the respect of gayness to keep a healthy lifestyle which has not pre-disposed me to it. I have plenty of other faults though.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I guess I have managed in the respect of gayness to keep a healthy lifestyle which has not pre-disposed me to it. I have plenty of other faults though.

but you remember your road to Damascus where you reached epiphany on your sexuality?

Or you ate carrots and un-dressed salad to keep the evil at bay?

jiminski wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I guess I have managed in the respect of gayness to keep a healthy lifestyle which has not pre-disposed me to it. I have plenty of other faults though.

but you remember your road to Damascus where you reached epiphany on your sexuality?

Or you ate carrots and un-dressed salad to keep the evil at bay?

What you're saying is equivalent to "when did you reach you're epiphany on not being a flying heron in a top hat : you didn't, because you're not a schizophrenic.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I guess I have managed in the respect of gayness to keep a healthy lifestyle which has not pre-disposed me to it. I have plenty of other faults though.

but you remember your road to Damascus where you reached epiphany on your sexuality?

Or you ate carrots and un-dressed salad to keep the evil at bay?

What you're saying is equivalent to "when did you reach you're epiphany on not being a flying heron in a top hat : you didn't, because you're not a schizophrenic.

you are ascribing choice to this not me. I am assuming that you are at the margins of gender preference. Otherwise how could you possibly know what you are putting forward as fact?

I have not lead a healthy life-style .. i have done some fairly immoral things in my time; my guiding principal being only that i would never intentionally hurt anyone.

I am completely at home with my sexuality and believe homosexuality to be as normal in contemporary society as heterosexuality.

But i, as opposed to you, never made a choice; i was always of one persuasion and without prejudice.

So i find your circumstance compelling.
Therefore from a purely educational perspective i would appreciate your honesty regarding your personal empirical findings.

I have never ascribed hmosexuality to choice, but to psycholgy.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I have never ascribed hmosexuality to choice, but to psycholgy.

You ascribe choice to sexuality. I am saying that there was never a choice for me I was just what i am.

From your perspective, that psychological factors affect sexuality, i can only infer that you made this choice.
You avoided this point by saying that you are not a heron and that you lived healthily thus avoided having to make the choice.

well i am a heron and did fly but my sexuality was never a question.

just out of interest how do you see bisexuals in this napoleon ?

satanspaladin wrote:just out of interest how do you see bisexuals in this napoleon ?

"If you are neither hot nor cold but lukewarm, I will spew you from my mouth." - The LORD

satanspaladin wrote:just out of interest how do you see bisexuals in this napoleon ?

I think by 'nature' that is what his tendency must be Satan. This is the reason for his vehement struggle against its validity.

It is the overt manifestation of his internal struggle. Poor fellow has been told that it is wrong and fights his inclination with every ounce of his strength.

Honestly Napp, it is not wrong, go with it and be yourself! You will feel happier.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I have never ascribed hmosexuality to choice, but to psycholgy.

Without explaining what you mean by that ofcourse.

All your viewpoints are conditioned and are inherrently flawed. You simply assume this magical gay gene exists, I tell you homosexuality is a psychologically influenced characteritstic that can be changed. Plenty of studies agree.

Napoleon Ier wrote:All your viewpoints are conditioned and are inherrently flawed. You simply assume this magical gay gene exists, I tell you homosexuality is a psychologically influenced characteritstic that can be changed. Plenty of studies agree.

so you are homosexual by nature and you kept it in check by living healthily.

so if homosexuality is in fact a choice, and one you claim to be harmful, how is it harmful? let's assume that there is no family involved just a gay man or woman. how are they hurting society?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I have never ascribed homosexuality to choice, but to psycholgy.

Without explaining what you mean by that of course.

Simply put, it is a Psychological Disorder, like that of Autism or Depression. The only reasons you may not see it on a list of disorders, is because of a group of homosexuals calling the study of it politically incorrect back in the 70s and 80s.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

Oh get lost you insufferably ignorant little boy.

You clearly haven't got a clue what natural law is. It's not a theory which dictates what law ought to be and what it ought not to be, it's one of a great number of jurisprudential devices which can be used to determine whether something 'is' or 'is not' law.

Tell me, since you seem to be attempting to pass yourself off as a legal expert once again, have you ever heard of Profesor John Finnis? As I'm sure you have, perhaps you could tell me what you think of his cornerstone-work 'Natural Law, Natural Rights'? Given that he's a devout catholic, and the first ever non-clergyman that a Pope has seen fit to call an official aide, and given that as he is universally regarded as the last century's most emminent scholar of 'natural law'; why is it that (despite his moral rejection of homosexuality as a practice) his works concede that it is impossible to use the doctrines of natural law to prohibit homosexuality, or recognition of the lawfulness thereof?

Alternatively, if you don't have a clue about any of that, then you could just admit that, once again, you're simply chucking out big words and lofty concepts that you have no comprehension of as a smokescreen to disguise your ignorance and unfounded prejudices?

Basically Nappy Rash, you don't have a clue what natural law is, and you're just flinging the name of the concept around in a vague attempt to bamboozle people who don't know enough about it to challenge your intellectually dishonest attempts to sidestep their questions.

Napoleon Ier wrote:A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale.

Wrong again 'mon ami'.

There are still human tribes which exist today that have no concept of a nuclear family, raising babies as children of the group, rather than as children of the parents. Furthermore there is documented behaivour amongst animals (hippos being an obvious example) which shows female only 'families' raising children, while males abandon their young for life.

Statements about family always being a man and a woman are just bullshit that you're making up in a weak attempt to appeal to some fictitious concept of 'nature' now that you've had the rest of your arguments exposed as illogical nonesense.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family.

That would be vaguely acceptable if the propositions that came before it weren't completely wrong, and if the purpose of marriage laws was to recognise 'family'. As your 'sterile people shouldnt marry' failure demonstrated, family is just one thing a marriage might lead to, not its underlying purpose.

Sorry, but you lose again. But then, that's getting kind of predictable now really....

Napoleon Ier wrote:To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

To be honest with you Snorri, I don't dare to say that I oppose gay marriage any more, because people have torn all my pathetic 'points' to shreds; but I am still definately against homosexuals because I can't accept the fact that my prejudices against them are based on nothing more than ignorance and fear.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Simply put, it is a Psychological Disorder, like that of Autism or Depression. The only reasons you may not see it on a list of disorders, is because of a group of homosexuals calling the study of it politically incorrect back in the 70s and 80s.

How is it a disorder? In what manner are those "afflicted" by it harmed? How are they lessened in their role in society in anyway other than those forced upon them by the governmental restrictions this thread is discussing?

is the desire for fellatio a psychological disorder?

Other animals don't do it... it does not aid procreation... and ladies can be conditioned, by marriage, not to do it!

jiminski wrote:is the desire for fellatio a psychological disorder?

Other animals don't do it... it does not aid procreation... and ladies can be conditioned, by marriage, not to do it!

Let's go one step further shall we?

is religion a psychological disorder?

Other animals don't do it... it does not aid procreation... and people can be conditioned, by facing facts, not to do it!


Well now, looks like we'd best start rounding up those crazy crazy God-botherers and warming up our electro-shock therapy kits eh?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

jiminski wrote:is the desire for fellatio a psychological disorder?

Other animals don't do it... it does not aid procreation... and ladies can be conditioned, by marriage, not to do it!

Let's go one step further shall we?

is religion a psychological disorder?

Other animals don't do it... it does not aid procreation... and people can be conditioned, by facing facts, not to do it!


Well now, looks like we'd best start rounding up those crazy crazy God-botherers and warming up our electro-shock therapy kits eh?

Now we are getting somewhere!

Napoleon Ier wrote:All your viewpoints are conditioned and are inherrently flawed. You simply assume this magical gay gene exists, I tell you homosexuality is a psychologically influenced characteritstic that can be changed. Plenty of studies agree.

You fucking cited a study about how kids' first sexual experience determined their later sexuality. I wouldn't think it's so hard to see the tiny little flaw in that. Mainly the fact that sexuality could ofcourse also determine who you have sex with the first time.
For example, the first time I had sex was with a girl. Because I felt attracted to her. How can you argue that is somehow different when it's about homosexuals?

Also, the part about religious homes having less homosexual kids isn't actually that much of a suprise. When you're indoctrinated your whole life that homosexuality is evil, you won't do it and repress your feelings because you think it's evil.

Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture.

See, when you're basing your views on inheritance looking at practice, it's pretty fucking retarded to think there won't be a difference between homosexual expression of feelings between groups. If you grow up in a liberal, open-minded home you will have less trouble admitting you're gay then when you grow up in a very religious home where everybody thinks gays are going to hell.

Actually, the fact that there are still people who are homosexuals when their environment is violently opposed to it pretty much not something to be conditioned away.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

Oh get lost you insufferably ignorant little boy.

You clearly haven't got a clue what natural law is. It's not a theory which dictates what law ought to be and what it ought not to be, it's one of a great number of jurisprudential devices which can be used to determine whether something 'is' or 'is not' law.

Tell me, since you seem to be attempting to pass yourself off as a legal expert once again, have you ever heard of Profesor John Finnis? As I'm sure you have, perhaps you could tell me what you think of his cornerstone-work 'Natural Law, Natural Rights'? Given that he's a devout catholic, and the first ever non-clergyman that a Pope has seen fit to call an official aide, and given that as he is universally regarded as the last century's most emminent scholar of 'natural law'; why is it that (despite his moral rejection of homosexuality as a practice) his works concede that it is impossible to use the doctrines of natural law to prohibit homosexuality, or recognition of the lawfulness thereof?

Alternatively, if you don't have a clue about any of that, then you could just admit that, once again, you're simply chucking out big words and lofty concepts that you have no comprehension of as a smokescreen to disguise your ignorance and unfounded prejudices?

Basically Nappy Rash, you don't have a clue what natural law is, and you're just flinging the name of the concept around in a vague attempt to bamboozle people who don't know enough about it to challenge your intellectually dishonest attempts to sidestep their questions.

Napoleon Ier wrote:A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale.

Wrong again 'mon ami'.

There are still human tribes which exist today that have no concept of a nuclear family, raising babies as children of the group, rather than as children of the parents. Furthermore there is documented behaivour amongst animals (hippos being an obvious example) which shows female only 'families' raising children, while males abandon their young for life.

Statements about family always being a man and a woman are just bullshit that you're making up in a weak attempt to appeal to some fictitious concept of 'nature' now that you've had the rest of your arguments exposed as illogical nonesense.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family.

That would be vaguely acceptable if the propositions that came before it weren't completely wrong, and if the purpose of marriage laws was to recognise 'family'. As your 'sterile people shouldnt marry' failure demonstrated, family is just one thing a marriage might lead to, not its underlying purpose.

Sorry, but you lose again. But then, that's getting kind of predictable now really....

Napoleon Ier wrote:To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

To be honest with you Snorri, I don't dare to say that I oppose gay marriage any more, because people have torn all my pathetic 'points' to shreds; but I am still definately against homosexuals because I can't accept the fact that my prejudices against them are based on nothing more than ignorance and fear.

Basic patronization used to simulate intellectualism. Sad really.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Basic patronization used to simulate intellectualism. Sad really.

That is indeed what you're doing.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Basic patronization used to simulate intellectualism. Sad really.

That is indeed what you're doing.

Hey Snorri, isn't what Nappy did there an Ad Hominem attack and thus a logical fallacy?