Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#102 Dec 20 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
SuperAtheist wrote:
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?


I flipped a coin.
#103 Dec 20 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
SuperAtheist wrote:
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?
That's not really a countering point though. The argument is simply that the people who choose to be homosexual are going against what they would normally feel for whatever reasons that might be. They're not saying sexuality is a choice, they're saying that changing your sexuality is a choice.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#104 Dec 20 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
The majority always seem to make the argument that you are naturally straight but can choose to be ***. Which makes several huge assumptions.

And it also is what makes them think things like straight camp work.

Though a significant number of those people likely make the remark because they are actually bisexual and deny the *** part of their selves. Homophobia, for instance, has been linked to closeted homosexual desire (unsurprisingly). Some are probably gays that don't want to own up to it out of self hate, but most are likely people that like both men and women and pretend they are straight.

I suppose that could give the illusion of a "choice." But I have never once been attracted to a female sexually. I can appreciate feminine beauty and I certainly understand the notion of what is "****" in a woman, but it has never done anything for me.

I remember when I first started to develop my sexuality--men were the only thing in my (albeit tame) fantasies. It wasn't until several months (maybe even a year) before I realized that I was different and that it meant I was ***. I remember trying after that to imagine women and just couldn't get into it. I was so unexciting and felt pointless.

I also went through that period where I tried to force myself to be straight (which really sucks btw--if you are a parent, just tell your kid it's fine to be either, because they end up hurting themselves and other people).

One of my best friends told me she liked me, and we started going out. Eventually, I realized that my sexuality was part of me and was never going to change, so I ended it. If you've never experienced it, hurting one of your closest friends like that SUCKS. Because you know she was into the relationship, even if you weren't. (Luckily, we made up maybe a year after that and she's still one of my closest friends, like a decade later).

It wasn't like I imagined a *** scene with a man and woman and just thought the man looked like more fun. Women have just never been part of the equation for me.

[EDIT]

All this is what I have felt while being CONSCIOUS of my sexuality. Any choice had to happen before my sexual fantasy began, because it isn't like I tried to imagine having *** before I had any desire to.

So you either think:

1. I'm lying.
2. I'm confused about the order of events.
3. Or the choice wasn't a conscious one.

1. Well, there's nothing I can tell you to convince you otherwise. Until sexuality as the result of biological processes is proved, you won't believe anything else.

2. I knew what *** was before I became sexual (I remember laughing hysterically in class when I found out a man was supposed to put his ***** in a ******--it seemed to ridiculous to me. Then the teacher yelled at me about how it wasn't a joke). I imagine I would remember deliberating my sexuality. Or have at least had ANY interest in finding out more about straight *** somewhere along the line. I was also never one of the boys that thought girls had cooties. I hated playing with most boys--I always wanted to hang with the chicas.

3. If it wasn't a conscious choice, then I'm hardly blameworthy for it. Furthermore, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to change your sexuality after it becomes part of your conscious experience. ESPECIALLY if it is correlated with different biological development after the fact.

What's truly horrifying about the notion of it being choice is the idea that people will start structuring child rearing programs designed to prevent children from being ***. Here's an idea--get over it and accept the kid you get.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 2:03pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#105 Dec 20 2010 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
idiggory wrote:
[blah blah blah]
So now you are judging someone for a choice they made as a child, when they were literally incapable of understanding the ramifications of either. Furthermore, it is HIGHLY unlikely it is a choice in the conscious sense, as no *** or straight person I have ever met remembers the moment they "chose" their sexuality.
[blah blah blah]
So now we have a choice made subconsciously, due to heavy environmental influence, at an extremely young age, with no scientific data suggesting that you can actually change it after the fact.

Yeah, that seems like something blameworthy.

a) I'm not judging anyone. There are just as many stupid c'unts who can't figure out where to insert tab a as there are those who can.
b) Not being able to remember a choice doesn't mean it wasn't made.

I am not making a value judgment. I don't care what you like to eat any more than I care what you like to wear. I've never met a **** who I felt a burning desire to say "no, silly..." to (there was a *******, once, but when we were through she still felt like she wasn't missing much. Talk about a blow to the ego...), and I've never had one tell me he could be the one to change my mind.

But comparing sexual proclivities to skin color is just dumb.

idiggory wrote:
And your analogy is retarded. This isn't a case of assumption, it is a case of extrapolating the best possible answer from the data provided. The data DOES NOT suggest that homosexuality is purely genetic. It does heavily suggest that homosexuality is due to many factors outside the subject's control.

There was no reason to assume the earth was flat. And no scientific authorities in the last 2k years actually believed that (it's an old wives tale). They were wrong about the structure of the cosmos of course, but that about sums it up.

"Purely"? No, it doesn't suggest it is genetic. All of the markers ever identified as possible candidates are missing in enough *** people to make them inconclusive, at best. Beyond that, why bring in flat earth when I am talking about cosmological models obviated by Galileo? Your arguments keep doing that, going wildly off target to try and confuse the issue. You should not do that.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#106 Dec 20 2010 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?


Oh man I hate these questions Smiley: lol Not because they're bad ones, but because they were the questions the University of Delaware's Residence Life program for freshmen were forced to ask, which (among a controversial racism definition) led to the entire program being scrapped and entirely rewritten when lawsuits were threatened. I was an RA during that year, and the fallout was pretty nasty (luckily I was in upperclass honors housing, not freshmen, so I escaped most of the blaze).

It did make senior year as an RA pretty darn easy. No more mandatory meetings with students, no forced group activities, no lectures. Only thing I had to deal with really were underage drinking parties and students having *** in the study lounge.

The question is utterly irrelevant for the repeal of DADT, but really I don't expect people to stay on topic this far in Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#107 Dec 20 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
The question is utterly irrelevant for the repeal of DADT, but really I don't expect people to stay on topic this far in Smiley: tongue

My second post was topical, but I can't be asked for anything more.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#108 Dec 20 2010 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I imagine I would remember deliberating my sexuality.
Nope, them gays brainwashed you into forgetting. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#109 Dec 20 2010 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.


I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.

I reckon you should read before you write. Recruitment difficulties don't really relate to people on active service.


Yeah, I did read it. I had first typed, "I'm not sure it matters, I imagine people from the bible belt didn't want to serve alongside black people, either. They'll either adapt or find another job."

But then I reread it, and thought you were talking about those already enlisted.

Either way, my point stands. I reckon they'll get over it. Or they won't serve in the military. Tough ******

ETA: By the way, on the whole choice debate, whether it's a choice doesn't really matter one whit.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:26pm by Belkira
#110 Dec 20 2010 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#111 Dec 20 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
ETA: By the way, on the whole choice debate, whether it's a choice doesn't really matter one whit.

I didn't bring it up, but it's fun to see just how twisted I can make the panties of those who should be wearing something else.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#112MoebiusLord, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 1:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thanks, gbaji.
#113 Dec 20 2010 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A thread where I get to gloat over a Senate accomplishment shouldn't suck this much.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Dec 20 2010 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A thread where I get to gloat over a Senate accomplishment shouldn't suck this much.
It's about gays and military, you should've seen the 50 page suckfest coming.



Also, in before page 50.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#115 Dec 20 2010 at 1:53 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A thread where I get to gloat over a Senate accomplishment shouldn't suck this much.

A lame duck session of congress ramming through social change on an electorate that clearly doesn't want it is something to gloat over? Take your pride where you can get it, I suppose.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#116varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 2:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Supertw*t,
#117varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#118 Dec 20 2010 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
A lame duck session of congress ramming through social change on an electorate that clearly doesn't want it...

Heh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Dec 20 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
LOLLiberalbiaswhat?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#120 Dec 20 2010 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Varus wrote:
LOLLiberalbiaswhat?

Right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Dec 20 2010 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Varus wrote:
LOLLiberalbiaswhat?
Is fox news liberal now? Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 12-13, 2000. N=902 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. "One issue that has come up in the presidential debates is gays in the military. Do you think *** men and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military?" % Yes 57 No 30 Not sure 13 FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 2-3, 2010. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters). "Do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" Favor Oppose Unsure % % % ALL 61 30 9 Democrats 82 15 3 Republicans 44 46 10 Independents 62 26 13



Edited, Dec 20th 2010 2:19pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#122 Dec 20 2010 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Dec 20 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
You mean he's actually serious some of the time?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#124 Dec 20 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Sh;t, I'm not even trolling at this point. I was just surprised you went to the trouble to link a poll. I figured since you went to the trouble the least I could do was respond.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#125 Dec 20 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
You mean he's actually serious some of the time?

I don't believe he reference a time frame.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#126 Dec 20 2010 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
You mean he's actually serious some of the time?

I don't believe he reference a time frame.

That's what I get for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (60)