Sometimes it seems to me that a fictional book will contain more factual information, and more moral lessons then the bible. And it seems we can also thank the bible for certain perceptions people have of others. Some perceptions, which should have never existed because they simply don't and should not matter. Of course I could always post a topic on how the bible and it's teachings are false. Of course, I could make a topic on homosexuality and acceptance, and have some bigots who are Anti-Gay.

Instead though, I present to Staredit.net a topic which goes deeper then just an argument on the bible, and perhaps deeper then an argument on homosexuality. I wish to share a rather different perspective on sexuality all together. Now, firstly lets take a trip back before Christianity was spread. Back when there was no Heterosexuality, there was no Bisexuality, and there was not even homosexuality. A good example is the Athenians who would often times sleep with other men before marrying a female. And in a lot of cases, the marriages would only be for places in power.

Then we turn to the Far East, to Japan. What do we find? Well, pretty much the same state of affairs. Instead of homosexual practices being in tradition the Japanese in general had more of a homosexual brotherhood. Often times the men they fought beside would be the ones they loved. Thankfully in Japan, the Females were treated much more equally then in Athens. Sadly however, the reason behind marriage was still the same, and again just for power.

So, basically in perspective, it's pretty hard to imagine great rulers like Alexander being dominated by perhaps another male, yet it definitely was a more then possible one. (P.S - Alexander is confirmed as a Bi) and then suddenly Christianity came in.

With this knowledge of the past I began to wonder if titles like "Straight" and "Gay" are artificial or not. In modern, a lot of first sexual experiences are with males. (And no, I don't mean the really serious ones.) and according to some studies only ten percent of people are actually straight, and only ten percent of people are really homosexuals. The rest? Bi Sexuality.

In reflection, some can argue that Bi Sexuality isn't real, but this argument is flawed because technically, it's also stating most of us must be gay then, whether our conduct consists of homosexual desire or not.

To be entirely honest, I already figure how this'll turn up. but, regardless this is a debate to discuss our different views of this in particular, my question is whether Heterosexuality really exists in much of a scale as it is.

/me snickers


Serious discussion is not English class, you don't need an intro followed by a thesis.


What? Athenian women could vote, own land and race chariots in the Olympics.


Well there's a number of reasons that ancient civilizations could have engaged in sexual expression much more readily than modern humans. Firstly, it's possible that prominent bisexuality and promiscuity it was a genetic trait we evolved away from (With the advent of international travel, deadly STDs could spread around the world faster, and if they killed people, would be a genetic motivation towards more definite sexualities and monogamy. Our closest relatives, the Chimpanzees also exhibit promiscuous sexual behaviour and bisexuality, which is rather uncommon in the animal world where most ARE definitely heterosexual or homosexual.)

Also, Judaism discouraged homosexuality before Christianity, so for the society that Christianity thrived in originally to be reason sexual attitudes have changed, it would have already had to been sexually suppressed by the Jews, you should look to their original society, and see if it was one of hedonism.


So why post?

I was trying my absolute hardest to read your whole post, honest. The problem is, you cannot use than and then. Seeing as I just broke the habbit, it stands out everytime. Fix this.

Why is it that you think gays are always being unfairly treated, and the Bible is always to blame?

Are you gay? Yes, No?
Do you know any other religions?

This is important for us to conclude just how biased what you say -- is.

Ive thought quite alot about homosexuality in the modern world. I dont get why people have such a problem with it, if some one is gay it wont really affect you at all, so I dont see why christians and anti-gays even care. I admit though, i have gotten kind of pissed when there has been a homosexual kid in my first period class, talking about how many guys he had sex with over the weekend, i guess there are plenty of strait people who talk openly about their permiscuity, but it seems to be more common with gays. There are alot of arguments for and agaist homosexuality, but Isnt what is important is whether or not the individual is truely content and happy?

One thing i kind of find funny is that the most advanced animals on the earth, humans, chimpanzes, dolphins, all possess some homosexual habits.

If nothing else homosexuality is population control, which personally, i think that is something world is in desperate need of.


Another arguments is that gay couples will adopt children, and then raise them to be "terrable people". This is totally stupid though, there are so many horrable strait parents whos kids turn out just as bad, so why shouldnt we give gay couples a chance?

I think the main argument is wheather homosexuality is genetic or something the individual chooses. I guess if it was genetic that trait would be cut out from the gene pool very quickly.

My last point, and the thing i find the most humerous is that our society has already been through exclusion of a group many times before.
Everyone used to think it was okay that blacks werent treated equal, but later we realized, oh wait, they are people just like us!
Everyone used to think it was okay that women werent treated equal, but then we realized, oh ya, we were wrong about that too!
Now the generation in control generally hates gays, but once our generation and the ones after us take over this country, what do you think we will conclude about the way homosexuals are treated in this country?

Before this topic goes any further:

This tends to be an extremely controversial subject, and as such more liable than others to insubstatitive posting, bias, refusal of acceptance, ignorace, lacking of citation and erroneous but perceived warrant of flaming. As such, I am going to be an extremely strict in moderating this topic. So if you don't have something constructive to add, don't bother. I have already deleted a spam post, and the topic is barely a few hours old.

The first flaws I see are in the first post:
Shadow-Fox, while your post does seem to imply a viewpoint, that of pro-gay-bisexuality, you have not made it explicit. I recommend you make it explicit and provide an argument as to why you support gay and bi-sexuality. And by recommend, I mean do it.

Additionally, Shadow, Shocko brings up a good point about your grammar. It is barely passable for english, if you are not a native speaker, get someone who is to proof-read it for you, and if you are a native english speaker, proof read it yourself.

These require citation:


This is true. However, it is still an effective method of presentation, and while it is also true that SD is not English class, a degree of formality does help in presenting arguments.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 25 2009, 2:22 am by Vrael.

I was mistaken. That's weird, only Athens was like that... Women had far more rights in other Greek City States. (Probably why I was confused.)

I thank Vrael for his kind words on my topic being Controversial. (No, really! I find it much more worthwhile to put something controversial as opposed to tame and acceptable, otherwise it's not worthy of debate.) Now, before I state my opinions I believe I should explain why I'm so "Gramatically Inept.'' seeing that most of you definitely deserve an explanation.

Skip everything in the brackets if you don't care for it.

[I my self have asperger syndrome, it's basically an autism where your socially inept (which explains how I'm not exactly ugly, but never go outside) and I often times speak in very flawed ways, and my writing being that the same. And another reason may be because I practically think the same rate I type, and I'm worried I'll forget about my main thoughts if I don't state them fast enough.]

I'm not saying Heterosexuality doesn't exist, but I'm beginning to believe that people in general are more Bisexual. I my self don't exactly believe it's worth complaining on problems homosexuals face, and this topic isn't about that. This topic is basically on human sexuality in general, ''Of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality.''

My argument in particular is that if we abolished terms like "Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" then most chances only one to ten percent of the worlds population sleep with only guys, being absent of any conduct at all with another female. And only one to ten percent would sleep only with girls, never once having any sexual conduct with another male.



I

That's not aspergers, that's just autism. Just say you're autistic. (Nothing bugs me more than self diagnosing aspergers)

What exactly are you asking us? You're just waxing philosophical on your thoughts on human sexuality. And to do what you suggest in the last paragraph would be impossible. Something as prevalent as that will always be named in a language.

@RoryFenrir: Homosexuality is a quite massively accepted 'condition.' Though it is still intolerated by some, blacks have intolerance also, and sadly, same with women.

@Shadow-Fox: You've claimed to be superior than most in grammar, clearly not. Fair enough if you have to spit ideas out fast, but how does that prevent proof reading?

My opinion is that straight people are 'right' and gays are 'wrong.' I think this because, it requires male and female to reproduce, and subsequently birth a child.

This, by nature, is the way we are supposed to work. I do however, tolerate and befriend gays as we all 'ought to do.

The solution isn't clear to me. Do we solve homnsexuality, or do we stride to rid of all intolerance? Either way, banning the politically correct terminology will solve nothing.

Once again, <3 Vrael, best SD mod in town !

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 25 2009, 10:12 pm by Vrael. Reason: combined

You can't "solve" it. It's not an affliction. It may not be right, but it is natural.

I didn't really support the idea in depth, but surely we could distinguish between nature versus nurture? If all cases of homosexuality were in the brain, is it possible that we could alter their attractions?

I personally don't care. I find that they are already tolerated, and anymore campaigns will just aggravate me and make me less tolerant.

Though a gay guy kept touching me one time, I told him to stop, he squeezed my knee and then I stood up and threw a textbook at him. Intolerance?

If homosexuality were purely perspective based and had nothing to do with personality like you suggest then you could also alter someones perspective on food to release glutamates so you'd think literally anything you ate tasted delicious.

Just because one person tolerates them doesnt mean his whole country let alone the whole world does.

Thats because he is a dirty whore, sexuality doesnt change it, there are whore gays, straight, bi's, dendropheliacs, zoophiles etc.

edit: like to point out i dont much appreciate zoophiles as they essentially rape animals and rape is bad, dendropheliacs can go ahead im sure bark will punish them for me.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Most zoophiles hate the rapists, but after all the rapists are the stereotypes. Most zoophiles are basically in love with animals (and apparently hate making them be in pain, so no rape). It's still creepy as FUCK, but it's not necessarily rape.

Then you obviously don't know anything about Christianity. Even in the New Testament their bible tells them that any man that layeth with another man should surely be put to death. Then in other parts it tells them to love, so they are extremely conflicted and will expresses this confusion through hate at times.

But to the point of the topic, I found this encouraging:(aired last night)
http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=7152579&page=1
Even though we are a predominantly christian nation and the churches we go to condemn homosexuality, most people are in support of gays having equal rights, and will even stand up for them most of the time. It's definitely a good watch and worth your time.

This is NOT a zoology topic. Discussion of people who have sex with animals is only permitted insofar as it can be shown to relate to homosexuality.

I asked a gay guy about the nature vs. nurture thing. He said it's not his choice, just something he was born with. However, I also know a bisexual girl who apparently has chosen to like girls. I think this suggests that it really isn't "nature vs. nurture" but rather "nature + nurture." An odd combination, but not beyond the scope of reason. However, there should be reasonable limits on the definition, such that being gay is "natural" in the sense that it is "natural" for gravity to make a ball fall, and not "natural" in the sense that being gay is intended by some "force of nature." In he biological sense, being gay is clearly a "wrong" but as of late the biological necessity of reproduction for the continuation of a species does not seem to be very important for us humans.

With around seven billion people in this world currently, and overpopulating issues in numerous countries, I really don't think the argument of ''Female + Male" relationships being natural and homosexual ones being ill natural really stands. It's also foolish to say that homosexuality is not natural when it's common in oh, so many creatures. (Foxes, Tigers, Lions, Wolves, it's fair to assume it's in all Canids and all felines in general, as well as Equines and even in some creepy as hell insects)

In my opinion the reason behind homosexual behavior is to simply balance out the population and lets face it, whether sex is with a female or male it's still sex, so even sex that doesn't produce a child still serves it's place in balancing out the brain.
If you wish to speak of what's ill natural and what's not, never use condom's. For they obviously do the opposite of producing a child.

Hmm...maybe there should be a condom ban? Clearly Condoms are ill natural and diseases are entirely natural.

Side Note - I'm more then surprised how this argument shifted towards zoology, I thank moderator Vrael for informing people of the digression.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 26 2009, 1:18 am by lSHaDoW-FoXl.

your right, i dont know a whole lot about christianity, except there are a ton of contradictions like what you pointed out. Putting a gay to death because they do something that makes them happy seems to conflict with "love thy neighbor"

Let's not forget on how at least more then half of the "10 commandments." are all practically the same things. Lets also put into perception on how anything that's said in the bible has contradicted our entire existence. In my opinion the bible should not be taken seriously and was more of an almanic, a book of morals.

Back then, those morals were seen as fine. Today however, we cannot take the bible word for word, especially in considering the old bible is entirely all right with slavery, and expects too much from people.

Lets put in consideration of this entire world, all of us have probably broken at least one of them. If not, that's a very, very small group of people. So, why would god create us just to send us to hell? He's practically expecting a super race of people, and I'm sure we can all agree on one man who had the same ideal as that, and did horrible things.

Aw well, maybe god does it just so he can laugh at us. Another much smaller then you always seem hilarious to watch....

If I'm interpreting him correctly, Vrael wasn't making an 'argument', only making a statement. i.e., to interpret "nature" in terms of the genetic imperative - which is generally assumed to be obsolete with the development of society.
Furthermore, he states essentially the same as your first paragraph - "but as of late the biological necessity of reproduction [...] does not seem to be very important".
How so? It's not like there are a bunch of other, more unsurprising combinations of those two elements to choose from. And many or most personality traits aren't entirely one-or-the-other.
One last note on that topic: like to point out that zoophiles "have a sexual attraction to non-human animals", not, "engage in sexual activities with non-human animals".
"Nature vs nurture" isn't necessarily related to "in the brain". Something which one has chosen is due to them having such a nature that, given X nurture, they'd make that choice.
Problem I have with this: what studies?
Not everything people "study" is necessarily studied properly, be it through intentional bias, ignorance, or just sheer stupidity. And not all study results are necessarily interpreted properly.

Blacks and women were born that way, they can't help it, and many accusations against them were incorrect.
Also, statistically speaking, children raised in a family with a father and a mother who honor their marriage properly generally do better than those who do not.


I really like that argument, and I'm surprised I've never thought of it before, thanks