A couple of women have made me want to be gay, but then a charming lass comes along, and everything is as it should be again.
None.
lol - lass? That's an interesting word for a North American to use. Scottish ancestry there?
Also, I find it interesting that girls made you want to be gay.
None.
A long tale to tell, friend.
None.
Ah - bad experiences, I take it? I guess I've been lucky so far.
None.
Quote from Mini Moose 2707
When did the topic shift from Nature vs. Nuture to right and wrong? Falkoner, regardless of whether you think a person's sexual orientation is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Nobody is forcing you to take part in this debate, which is nature vs. nurture. You are more than welcome to open another topic on the morality of the issue, but posts such as yours do not belong here.
But if people find it to be 'okay' but not 'right' then that makes it nurture, as they don't find it correct in their minds, they just don't find it wrong.
None.
People can do what they want, I don't care, I believe it to be wrong, but I won't force them to do what they don't want.
None.
What post are you reading? I am not talking about choice and did not mention it at all and your second sentence completely contradicts your first sentence. The fact that you are saying there is no sure proof of nature or nuture means it can be debated. I made no assumptions in that post.
No, it means it can't be debated, because unless you have access to an experiment to test thousands of people, any debate you make is opinion. You commented by asking, "So it's your fault you're straight"? Which means that you were taking what I said the wrong way, and debating an invalid point.
The misunderstanding arose because your original post failed to clearly conclude that fault has no effect on right or wrong. Your post wouldn't be making the same point as my post, because as you said you weren't making a comment on right or wrong at all. You were just providing an opposing example to the issue of fault.
You would be able to say that, had I not been using what Loser_Musician had written himself. Fault was the word that
he used. I was using
his word, and I was talking to him. I used the word "fault" to show an example of how his train of thought could lead to things like murderers being freed from jail. I had no obligation to clarify anything to you because I wasn't talking to you yet. That was why the misunderstanding arose.
None.
What post are you reading? I am not talking about choice and did not mention it at all and your second sentence completely contradicts your first sentence. The fact that you are saying there is no sure proof of nature or nuture means it can be debated. I made no assumptions in that post.
No, it means it can't be debated, because unless you have access to an experiment to test thousands of people, any debate you make is opinion. You commented by asking, "So it's your fault you're straight"? Which means that you were taking what I said the wrong way, and debating an invalid point.
The misunderstanding arose because your original post failed to clearly conclude that fault has no effect on right or wrong. Your post wouldn't be making the same point as my post, because as you said you weren't making a comment on right or wrong at all. You were just providing an opposing example to the issue of fault.
You would be able to say that, had I not been using what Loser_Musician had written himself. Fault was the word that
he used. I was using
his word, and I was talking to him. I used the word "fault" to show an example of how his train of thought could lead to things like murderers being freed from jail. I had no obligation to clarify anything to you because I wasn't talking to you yet. That was why the misunderstanding arose.
No, you had an obligation to state "your" conclusion that you were using your example about fault to show the irrelevance of fault in debating whether homosexuality was right or wrong IF you intended to show how the comments about fault are irrelevant - within that post. Without saying that all you are doing is talking about fault and you cannot later claim otherwise. That's where the misunderstanding took place, because I cannot read your mind and read your unwritten conclusions.
You were able to state that your post was made to show the irrelevance of fault in terms of homosexuality being right or wrong
after the fact that I had posted making that exact conclusion.
None.
Quote from Mini Moose 2707
When did the topic shift from Nature vs. Nuture to right and wrong? Falkoner, regardless of whether you think a person's sexual orientation is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Nobody is forcing you to take part in this debate, which is nature vs. nurture. You are more than welcome to open another topic on the morality of the issue, but posts such as yours do not belong here.
But if people find it to be 'okay' but not 'right' then that makes it nurture, as they don't find it correct in their minds, they just don't find it wrong.
Define "right" because "Nature" does not differentiate between the two, unless you think Nature and God are one in the same and are sentient, but of course that goes against your religion.
None.
Heh, any comments on the parts of my post that were on topic? Everyone is getting off track with these arguments. BTW, I mean these parts of my post, for reference:
i say its nature becuz i saw on some science channel ( i know thats not a good place to fall back on) that every human is born with this part ur brain that determines ur masculinty or ur femenim-ness?(lol?) regardless of your sexual organs.The smaller it is the more female like you are and vicse versa.
id say nature becuz its only ting i can find proof of (even tho its unreliable)
As previously stated, being male and being very feminine does not make him gay, and being female and being very masculine does not make her lesbian. It does not make them bisexual either. I personally know some men who are very feminine and are far from being homosexual or bisexual even. Also, who is to say that the psychological part of it is not more simply about liking more masculine or more feminine traits and not about gender?
It's just too bad how much propaganda has been shoved into Falkoner's brain all his life, he doesn't even know what he's talking about.
Speaking of propaganda, some of the pro-gay/pro-lesbian propaganda is likely making some people think they are that way when they are not really. For example, some people may think they are homosexual because they seem to not be attracted to the opposite gender when most likely they have simply not found the right person yet. Not everyone is attracted to everyone of the opposite gender; people do have their preferences. Some people may not even be attracted to anyone at all of the opposite gender except just the right person. (of course, all of this is just my opinion, not really backed by any facts)
None.
Define "right" because "Nature" does not differentiate between the two, unless you think Nature and God are one in the same and are sentient, but of course that goes against your religion.
What makes you say that, devilisk, have you ever studied mormon doctrine?
None.
Define "right" because "Nature" does not differentiate between the two, unless you think Nature and God are one in the same and are sentient, but of course that goes against your religion.
What makes you say that, devilisk, have you ever studied mormon doctrine?
Why don't you first tell me whats wrong with my statement, then you can ask that question. Otherwise it's irrelevant.
None.
God created nature, and therefore in my religion what is natural is considered
right.
None.
Right and wrong is irrelevant to Nature vs Nuture.
Also, your argument is founded upon very uncertain premises, ie the existence of God.
Using the term "right" synonymously with nature just leads to confusion.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 7 2007, 10:51 pm by devilesk.
None.
If someone doesn't find gay to be right, they just don't see something wrong with it, then by nature they find being straight the right way, whether or not they are following what they consider right, but they don't consider the opposite wrong.
None.
You can't conclude based off right and wrong whether it's nature or nuture. You can't just say, because I think it's wrong it must be nuture.
It's not a logically sound argument and conclusion.
None.
I'm not saying because
I think it's wrong, I'm not even asking if people think it is wrong, I'm asking people who think it is fine if they think it is RIGHT, while they might not think it is necessarily WRONG, they might not believe that it is right.
None.
I'm not saying because I think it's wrong, I'm not even asking if people think it is wrong, I'm asking people who think it is fine if they think it is RIGHT, while they might not think it is necessarily WRONG, they might not believe that it is right.
And that is completely irrelevant to the debate about nature vs nuture.
None.
Actually it is not, as I already explained to Moose, if people on this topic, such as Ex, who are bisexual think that while homosexual is not wrong, they don't find it right either, then it proves that in their nature they find being straight to be the right way, whether or not they listen to their natural instinct.
None.
Actually it is not, as I already explained to Moose, if people on this topic, such as Ex, who are bisexual think that while homosexual is not wrong, they don't find it right either, then it proves that in their nature they find being straight to be the right way, whether or not they listen to their natural instinct.
No. It doesn't prove anything. You can't make that conclusion based off those premises.
Also, you're relying on Anecdotal evidence and Argumentum ad numerum
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 7 2007, 11:11 pm by devilesk.
None.