rolling7

So you are saying
If you don't eat, you die
If you don't keep your body at a certain temp, you die
If you don't sleep, you die
If you don't have sex, you die

This is debating, not logic


BTW the test I use for gender proof, and which you seriously hold me to, doesn't say anything about deafness. Following your line of debate, the rule of debate, deafness is a choice.
Way to go, getting there.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

rolling7

Knowing if a person is deaf or how much hearing lost requires ANOTHER test that is medically acceptable.
I think, and I don't seriously know the rules for debate, now is the ANOTHER persons turn to speak. So I'll wait.

Daredevel7

For some people, not having sex WILL make them die, or feel like it.

Does it make sense to you if homosexuality IS a choice? Does it make sense that people have died, suffered, and committed suicide because they "made a choice"?

StSapphire

What you apparently don't get enjoyment out of is responding to direct criticism, since you simply ignored the bulk of my post, as well as the primary point (that your goal of punishing irresponsible adults ends up punishing the children of those adults, who made no choice and are not themselves irresponsible).

I agree that it would be best if everyone was able to fully support themselves and their families, but reducing the situation to one as simplistic as the one playing through your head takes reality, and turns it into a mere cartoon.

Yes, maybe, somewhat, not really. However, biologically, your body treats sex as a desire on the same level as eating, sleeping, etc - it is an instinct that happens automatically, not as a choice.

I was simply following your standards. Way to prove my point.

rolling7

NO and NO

StSapphire

I assume with this test, you're referring to, say, an audiogram, which is reliant upon a person's responses. If you accept this as a method of testing that can show something which is not an individual's choice, then I can very easily derive an equivalent test to show whether a person is gay, straight, or something else.

If you don't trust personal response tests, then I'm unaware of any "medically acceptable" tests that prove that deafness is not merely a choice, as well.

rolling7

Your point is given.
My point is, and always will be, you need separate and acceptable test for each identity you wish to conclude.
You are right we have to drink to stay alive, and as DareDevel7 mention, some folks have to have sex to stay alive. What, out of the thousands, you drink is your choice......which (or both/multi/etc.) Gender you have sex with is a choice.

Berry

Lets take a look at the bolded part for a second, if we may.

In order to objectively determine if the public suffers from homosexuality or homosexual couples you first have to determine, or attempt to determine, what the effect on society is.

While I have heard a lot of opinions the closest thing I have heard of to a study goes all the way back to Kinsey whose study seemed to indicate (as I recall) that most straight people have had homosexual experiences and that most homosexuals have had straight experiences. If it did not effect society then it is hard to imagine it would seriously impact society today.

As a social experiment certain (But by no means ALL) Greek city states practiced homosexuality as a rite of passage for its youth. Lesbianism is not mentioned when discussing this but it would be difficult to believe it was an unknown practice.

It did not seem to effect marriage as all the men were married, even those who much preferred their male lovers.

Its one social consequence seemed to be that its army was self sufficient sexually.

BTW it did not seem to impede their militaries ability to rape and pillage at will just like the non homosexual macho men of the day.

The one social consequence everyone seems to agree upon is that fewer children might be born if homosexuality is allowed to happen unhampered.

Pardon me but humanity is in no danger of extinction if a few less children are born. In fact the opposite might be true.

So in the absence of a definitive study on the impact of homosexuality/lesbianism on modern society this is the best we can objectively do.

No downsides, no upsides.

It simply is.

__________________
Free Jillio!



Living life in the sandbox.

Berry

I have to disagree that homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice.

In the Islam world sodomy has traditionally been punished by death whether between straight couples or not.

Yet homosexuality has always existed in those parts of the world where even the most strict adherence to the Koran has been maintained.

From this fact you have to conclude either one of two things:

Either there are people who are so driven to homosexual acts that they will risk death to do it or...

They choose to suicide by homosexuality and select this method as superior to any other suicidal choice they could make.

Either way it indicates that, for some at least, there is no choice.

__________________
Free Jillio!



Living life in the sandbox.

rolling7

Good post...both of them

I've always held that one man/one woman SHOULD have no consequences and I know that one man/one man and one woman/one woman SHOULD have no consequences. But humans today are not capable of it, so we do have consequences that negatively impact us all.

StSapphire

Such as? What consequences (in Daredevel's situation as posted) do you see there being?

rolling7

Such as unintentional children and no ability to care for the child. As I've said before...."If you can't feed them, don't breed them."
On the purely homosexual couple, it is NOT at all uncommon for the couple to break up/divorce and while it is an adult issue, the children suffer. For example in a hereto's situation child support is a relatively easy issue for the court to figure out. Not so with the homo's situation, as what has been seen in recent time is a big mess. I could give you one of these mess happening right here in Houston but it would take us way off topic.

Daredevel7

Well, then sounds like you should be all for gay marriage so that the children of homosexual relationships would have equal right as children of hetersexual relationships.....

You use a lot of incredibly uncommon scenarios to "back" you up. I mean, you talk about consequences of homosexual relationships and use scenarios that are 99% done by heterosexuals. And you keep saying "It can be done! It can be done! It has happened! I've seen it!" But... its so uncommon and yet.. you keep treating it as if its some sort of a recent epidemic. Why dont you talk about the consequences of homosexual relationships that pertains to HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE ONLY? Everything you've talked about is more likely to be done (by a huge factor) by heterosexual people.

By the way, divorce/break up of parents are still hard on the children, no matter how easy the court proceedings are.....

KarissaMann05

That is not a valid reason...

__________________
"Pragmatic language is a vital social skill that enables the school-aged child to navigate their way through demanding social situations." -- R. Owens

rolling7

Maybe not to you. I was raise in a different generation where we knew not to ask "none of your business" questions (such as: "How much money do you make?")

rolling7

I know you would like to have better answers but I have not yet seen one post give a true picture of homosexual couples. I'm the only poster saying they have negative consequences in their relationships. However, as shown by my posts, I am also posting that homosexual couples can and do have positive relationships. I'm the poster that says yes a faithful lesbian couple can not get pg. But I don't see anyone backing my post that sometimes lesbians do get pg. (often without the partner's awareness of un-faithfulness). It would be grand if all relationships were perfect but we know that is not truly possible with humans. So lets be frank and admit there will be negative consequences always on both sides of the aisle.

Daredevel7

"A true picture"? You've GOT to be kidding...
You believe that a 14 year old lesbian getting pregnant shows the "true picture" of homosexual couples.

Let me lay out all the possible scenarios (in these cases, homos also include Bi's):
-Two heteros in a faithful relationship.
-Two homos in a faithful relationship.
-A hetero cheating on another hetero with a hetero.
-A homo cheating on another homo with a homo.
-A hetero cheating on another hetero with a homo.
-A homo cheating on another homo with a hetero.

Does any one of them show the "true picture" of a gay couple? What about a straight couple? There is no such thing as a true picture of a whatever couple.

ALL of these above scenarios CAN happen and HAVE happened. But here is my problem. You keep referring to the last one (homo cheating with a hetero) to show that it is a big problem, when it's the LEAST occurring action out of all of these relationship scenarios! I AM THAT confident that it's not very common. You casually mention that other scenarios DO happen but you also said "So lets be frank and admit there will be negative consequences always on both sides of the aisle." There are NO "both sides to the aisle" in this topic. Usually when people say that "there consequences to both sides of the aisle", it means there are different options but there are negative DIFFERENT corresponding consequences. (Such as... "waiting until marriage" vs "sex with different people") You are making the consequences superficially different between gay people and straight people. Kinda like "the consequences of gay people smoking vs straight people smoking. It's the same thing! It makes NO sense to me.

And as for consequences themselves, Berry makes a good point. Why do you believe that gay people's actions result in consequences?

rolling7

I am not trying to "referring to the last one to show that it is the big problem", only that I was being ask the question of the consequences. Who should care about which relationship has the highest percentage of cheating, they are all of negative consequences and, to me, just a serious as each. Consequence is NOT about the before...it is about the after.

jillio

[QUOTE=rolling7;1834555]Name the medically acceptable test that proves this. Even jillo can't[/QUOTE

Show me a medically acceptable test that shows one is born hetereosexual. Or with a predisposition to any difference from the norm. They don't exist because we don't need them. The result is there as predominant evidence.

jillio

So you are androgynous? Were you born that way, or did your past history with sexual abuse make you that way?

jillio

Absolutely. Just as genetic research will end up proving many things we already know from a preponderance of the evidence by seeing the results.

jillio

Why? Because you are loosing? That is what all poor loosers say.

"Hey, that fight wasn't fair! He/she knows stuff I don't know! And they can see the holes in my thinking and point it out! I should only have to argue with people as ignorant as I am! That's the fair way to do it!"

jillio

Everything has consequences.

rolling7

I totally agree with you, but many, many folks don't and have not learn a lesson. Witness all the REPEATED crazy things they do.

StSapphire

Well, they also don't exist because biology is a lot more complicated than people realize, and it's more than just a factor of genetics.

Uh... That does seem a bit personal.

Or at least complicating it, since we know that biology is far more complicated than mere genetics.

StSapphire

The issue is when you treat all consequences as if they were the same. There may be at least two different possible consequences of me choosing to leave my house in the morning. I could get hit by a car and die. Or I could get struck my a meteorite and die. One of these possibilities has a high enough likelihood of happening that it's worthwhile for me to do something to prepare for the possibility of it happening. The other is not. Your comments about the "consequences of sexual activity by homosexuals" is akin to worrying that you're gonna get hit my a meteorite. That's why people are telling you that you're being silly with your warnings about that.

jillio

Not referring to anything the poster has not already disclosed. Androgny is just as open a topic in regard to choice as is homosexuality. This poster has no problem with making personal inferences re: homosexuals.

Are you referring to the "nature vs nurture" deabate?

jillio

StSapphire

I was talking about the "sexual abuse" comment. And his own comments seemed closer to asexuality, than to androgyny, unless I missed something.

For the latter stuff, only partially - from much of what I've learned, the so-called "nature vs nurture debate" is more of a false dichotomy, since something even as simple as your eye color is derived from both aspects.

(Note: Most recent information talking about this that I could find came from here - Blag Hag: Genetics will not be used to abort straights OR gays)

jillio

Like I said, the poster has willingly disclosed that fact a number of times in various threads.

No, asexuality is a biological concept.