Gay Cure MERGED

Get ready for some 'lying' then because I most definately do not think Lesbian sex is 'Hot'.

I have most definately suggested it is Fratboys who get off on 'hot lesbo sex' and that it was Saturday Night Live who did a 'send up' on how Fratboys expecting their dream come true fantasy of 'Hot Porn Lesbians' were in fact horrified to see two 'Real lesbians' doing it in their Frathouse.

I do believe a lot of 17-23 year olds think lesbianism is 'hot' to watch as well as a lot of women are very turned on watching or looking at (or fantasising) about men having sex with each other.

 

See, I'm kind of in a conflict between heart and head over that. Ideologically, I understand that sexuality is societally engendered, and that deep down we are all bisexual. Unlike you, I do not see heterosexuality as a default setting, since pretty much every other species which has non-procreative sex does not restrict this to "heterosex". However, from my experience, I don't see much forcing people to comply to that formalised structure of one orientation or the other. So I'm basically undecided due to a lack of evidence, because I don't have a society where orientation has never been considered to compare it to. Even in ancient Greece and Rome, gender had an effect on how people regarded sex ("women for breeding, men for pleasure", I seem to remember hearing), so there is still evidence of orientation.

Unfortunately, because you believe that heterosexuality is the natural default setting, it makes sense for you to believe that deviation from that is at best whimsical and at worst a dysfunction which it would be a society's duty to treat. Given how firmly the basis of this seems to be rooted into your argument, it would not make much sense for you to concluce anything else.

I'm not going to kid myself that I can shake you from that belief. All I can do is offer again the example of the societies of various other mammals (monkeys, lions etc.) When these societies reach a certain level of success, they need not spend all their time hunting and breeding (in fact, it would be detrimental to their ecosystem to do so). Consequently, these species engage in recreation, typically play-hunting, play-fighting, and non-procreative sex. These acts are often rooted in the way the society works, to establish status, express friendship, etc., but there are certainly no illusions that it is just a failure to hunt or fuck "properly". The sex is sometimes simulated rather than actually penetrative, but the function it serves remains the same either way.

My point is that these societies have no concept of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, and yet freely engage in recreational sex with either gender. The human race is actually peculiar in its tendency towards gender-specific recreational sex. Not that something being unique would automatically render it a defiance of nature... but you're probably not even reading this.

None of this does much for your assertion that homosexuals failing to have successful relationships with people to whom they are not attracted are clearly mentally unsound. Even if you do believe that homosexuals are mentally diseased, you still have a problem of logic there. It's like saying a man with one arm clearly has psychological problems because he can't scratch himself in two places at once. Even within your argument's logic, this is a non-sequitur.

There is a fairly obvious (to me, anyway) disparity in your argument throughout this thread, actually. You condemn homosexuality as a whole, but when you try to back your claim up, you cite examples of anal sex, depression, etc. being unhealthy. The truth - and it is the truth - is that these things are not unique to homosexuality or inherent within it, and as a result are purely circumstantial. If you have an objection to anal sex, say so. If you have an objection to depression, say so. But until you can present a well-constructed moral objection to homosexuality itself - that is, the sexual attraction of someone to a member of their own gender - without relying on circumstantial details, I suggest you take a raincheck on the matter.

 

Many Historians Agree modern Western civilazation was saved by the homo/bisexual Greeks "including the Spartans and carry over into the Roman Empire well known for homosexual activity even among the big wig Emperos "later on some of feudal kings"

IN Feudal Japan homosexuality was normal among fearless warrios.



​

 

Why would you use a comedy sketch to back up an argument?

And my point still stands: you're claiming to be criticising homosexuality partly because it does damage to the rectum. Lesbians are homosexuals too.

 

Homosexual women will have difficulty in having relationships with men, even before having sexual contacts with women. Because that's what homosexuality is.
And not being able to have heterosexual relationships is not a problem, it is simply a fact.

 

I think you would have to be the first to 'raincheck' your views on this since you are arguing from the dodgy rumours of monkeys and animals having 'gay sex' which is more of a hoax (turning the argument from nature around on us) than anything else.
If you really wanted to get into any examples of animals trying to be 'homsexual' you can find a good argument this is observed in unnatural and caged environments where monkeys will also eventually start bashing their heads into walls and doing all kinds of abberant and bizarre behaviors as a result of an unnatural environment.

How do you suppose the DIRECT RESULTS of the very act itself are being 'circumstantial' or misleading away from anything.
The direct results of masterbating a penis into a mans rectum are inherintly and always damaging and we call it 'unhealthy'.
There is nowhere for you to be saying to me "Get to the point" when I am, did and there it is.
Now if you are going to say "Other things are Unhealthy' then how does that 'cancel out' another.
Two Wrongs (or three or three hundred) dont make a Right so you can drop your own 'Non-Sequitor' anytime you want now.

At this point you are playing a 'Lietchi' type of game of this where you are selecting out supporting notions and then redressing this as the single point of contention.
No, we both know that my whole argument is not from a SNL skit and for that matter it really does reflect some truth in the culture (as humour can).
Even then I was only correcting something wrongly attributed to me and I did not bash you over the head with it either did I.

One thing that will help you and anyone else wanting to debate this with me will be the realisation that I am very familiar with 'the homosexuals' (as we have been using the term).
This means it wont be helpful for someone to keep giving me stories that dont in anyway match with reality.
Its easy to say something which 'on paper' and from a strictly logical view can argue that homosexuality presents nothing more challenging than anything else.
Ok. Sounds good.
However I might already be very well aware that does not equal what really is happening where and when the rubber meets the road.

I feel its fair people are aware of this before talking to me like they think I wont know any better.
Just a tip.
[not directed at you SC]

 

He won't believe you, because he believes that heterosexuality is how things are and that homosexuality is a deviation away from it. So he's actually just making that point and then trying to pass off the re-statement [word?] of that point as supporting evidence.

Essentially he's saying that homosexuality is a mental illness, and we know this because people suffering from homosexuality are mentally ill.

 

Paranoid women will have difficulty in having relationships with men, even before having sexual contact with dishonest Men. Because that's what Paranoia is.
And not being able to have trust in a relationship is not a problem, it is simply a fact.

No?

 

I know the burden of proof would normally be on me, but I've seen footage; why do you believe it is untrue? Have you seen/read something I haven't?

I think we can both agree (I hope, anyway) that there are great many homosexuals in the world who are not kept in cages.

On the one hand, you're arguing that homosexuality is a mental illness. On the other hand you're arguing that it is an act. Make up your mind.

Not at all, it's just you say a lot and it is self-defeating to try and address everything at once. You are currently playing your own type of game, where you'll happily debate one fairly obviously throwaway comment for hours while ignoring the question which was more obviously put to you.

I didn't say your whole argument was. Just that it was something you'd said previously which you had passed off as flippant but which really demonstrated an inconsistency in your approach.

Does any of that relate to anything?

 

Paranoid women will have difficulty in having relationships with women, even before having sexual contact with dishonest Women. Because that's what Paranoia is.

Capisco?

 

To address this point further, your argument is flawed, or at least clouded by your unwillingness to express it.

I have said that anal sex is not integral to homosexuality. I am not the only one who has said this. So can you please clarify, once and for all, that when you refer to "homosexual behaviour", what exactly you are referring to?

It is just very hard to tell at the moment where you're coming from here. You don't seem able to decide whether this condition of homosexuality refers to anal sex, mutual attraction, or both. You argue that homosexuality is unhealthy because anal sex is unhealthy. I personally do not have anal sex, but I still experience homosexual attraction. Am I still mentally unsound?

 

A federal court hearing is scheduled in Boston next month on a lawsuit by 12 former service members challenging the 12-year-old policy.

In Congress, four Republicans including stalwart conservatives Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida have joined 81 Democrats co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the policy. Gilchrest, a former supporter of the ban, said he changed his view partly out of respect for gay Marines he served with in Vietnam and for his brother, who is gay.

 

Why cant I accept homosexual intercourse as an action that is unhealthy.
I can.
I just did.
So whats the problem here... that not doing that is better?
Yes, I agree it would be better to not do that.
Yeesh!


I would strongly suggest using one another mouths 'as a vagina' has its own problems but I have repeatedly mentioned that Im actually most concerned about the physiological issue here.

But... nobody seems interested in that and would rather talk about how some people only engage in lesser degrees of homosexuality.
Ok.
Well good.. I think you are doing better to be limiting the homosexuality to Mouth and Hand.
Fantastic.

One of the other problems we are running into is the real signifigance and meaning of 'Mentally Unstable'.
You might be of the understanding you are either 'normal' or you are mentally ill.
No way.
You cant find a Shrink in the planet that would have even considered that because at best .. and this would be the most ideal and exceptionally well adjusted human being on the planet ..... at best is 99% stable.

Everyone has some degree of 'instability' and some are just lucky they havent lived long enough and run into enough trauma to find out how well or how poorly they would do.

Further to that... you and everyone else can (and will) have thoughts about some unhealthy or unsound action.
I seriously wanted to get out of my truck and punch the living shit out of this Cab Driver once and I still do to this day, about a year later.
If I just see one of their Cabs now I think about how badly I want to kick that guys arse.

If you want to get right down to it - that is unhealthy and it actually caused my heartrate to increase, hormones to dump into my veins and screwed up my physiological response to other unrelated traffic conditions.
But
Thats just a bit of unhealthiness.
Now
If I were to start wanting to do that 'a lot' and develop it into a pattern of thinking then its worse for me and begins to affect my body and way of coping.
Worse. We call that 'Worse'.
Then..
If I eventually see that guy (who at that point has been terrorising my body and mind daily for months and months according to what my physiology believes) and I drag him out and begin to pound rage off his face then that is what we call:
Even WORSE..
Now
If I not only engage in beating his face in but I find out I will be even more satisfied to shove a tire-iron down his throat till he bleeds then that is...
REALLY REALLY BAD.

So I think if you work backwards on my analogy you can see where you might be going wrong with your protests here.
- Shoving a bar down his throat is extremely bad but doing so is not necessarily a part of raging on someone.
- Wanting to punch him in the face is not healthy either.

Am I mentally unsound because I felt the urge to do the least thing or the most thing?
Well.
I guess the answer to that is 'Sorta' but feeling like I really wanted to do it at the time is not what we call 'As Bad' and actually damaging his voice box at the same time.

 

"When you really get down to it, I really don't care if one of my Marines (or sailors, or soldiers, or airmen) is gay. If they have made it through the rigors of training, and they have proven their ability as per their rank or position, I am far more interested in their ability to get steel on target than if the pin-up they have on the inside of their helmet has the same plumbing as mine. I've got far more important things to worry about..."

 

In a study conducted by the United States Congress’ General Accounting Office of IDF policy towards gays, it was “found that Israeli’s long-standing inclusion of homosexuals in the military had neither created internal problems nor jeopardized combat units. Officials interviewed for the GAO report stated that homosexual soldiers performed as well as heterosexual soldiers.”30 In light of such findings by the United States government, it is perplexing that the U.S. policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains in place.

 

ARMY SGT. ROBERT Stout received a Purple Heart after an exploding grenade in Iraq last May left shrapnel in his face, arm and legs. He would like to remain in the military, and he said in an interview that he would reenlist were it not for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But Sgt. Stout is through denying that he is gay, so he recently declared his sexual orientation to the Associated Press. Now he'll be lucky if he's allowed to serve out his tour, which ends in May, without being kicked out of the service. For under U.S. policy, even the most decorated and patriotic gay soldier is just a homosexual to be rooted out at the military's earliest convenience.

 

Thats fucked up.

 

The military has discharged 9,488 soldiers for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual since the policy went into effect in 1993. It has had to spend at least $200 million to recruit and train their replacements--many in the key areas of intelligence, linguistics, interrogations, and code-breaking. The statistics come from a new Government Accountability Office report initiated by US Representative Martin Meehan of Lowell, who was joined by 19 other lawmakers in requesting the report.

In this time of terrorism, budget tightening, and thinned ranks -- when retired service people are being pressured to reenlist -- the military needs all the talent it can recruit. It especially needs foreign-language specialists, but more than 300 have been let go, according to the report, and 54 of those spoke Arabic. Other languages included Farsi and Korean, Chinese, Serbo-Croation, and Vietnamese.

The study noted that 757 of the 9,488 soldiers discharged under the policy held what the military called ''critical occupations," encompassing not only linguists and intelligence experts but air traffic controllers, mechanics, missile operators, flight engineers, and technical analysts.

The report, which looked at the Marines, Air Force, Navy, and Army, indicated that costs could be higher than estimated because they did not include National Guard, Reserves, or Coast Guard forces.

The ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute, supported by President Clinton, stipulates that gays and lesbians can be part of the armed services as long as they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. It is a hypocritical policy unbecoming the organization that integrated blacks and whites in the ranks years before the Supreme Court issued its ruling on school segregation. Homosexuality should be considered no more a problem than heterosexuality is. As the report illustrates, gay people are -- and always have been-- in every field, where they should be judged on their work, not on their private lives.

Meehan, a senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, has long urged repeal of the ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. He will file a bill next week to take the counterproductive statute off the books.

Congress should follow his lead, for the law serves no purpose other than making the Pentagon's work harder and more costly.

 

Are you deliberately avoiding the question? Or is it just impossible for you to conceive that homosexual attraction stems from anything other than a desire to fuck some ass? In the same way that heterosexuals are attracted to those of their opposite gender for reasons other than sex, so too are homosexuals. You may not believe this. I'd be interested to know.

The more time I spend in discussion with you, the more I'm inclined to think that you never really experienced much love as a homosexual. But do you understand that others do experience it?

This sounds like arse-covering to me. So homosexuality is an abnormality of the mind, even though no psychologist in the world would say so?

All desire causes increased blood pressure. This line of argument is facetious at best; you're basically arguing that pretty much any kind of action is unhealthy. This does not in any way support what you're arguing - that it would make sense to cure homosexuality - unless you are also arguing that we should cure every other action that causes increased blood pressure, such as exercise.

You're making me look smarter though, so cheers.

 

Arguably no civilization, except for the Ancient Greek, were more gay than the Japanese.
None.
Just because they are a distant second, don’t hold it against them. Anyone would come a distant second being compared to the Greeks.
The Greeks were so gay that they literally saw no purpose for women.
The Japanese were so gay that their was more social status in having Brad Pitt on your arm than Angelina Jolie.
I just want it to be known that keeping gays out of the military is a friggin crime.
Look at history. The Nazi were the most successful gay army ever assembled. Nearly all of the highest ranking officers in the SS were gay. They were founded by a homosexual and their earliest meetings before they gained power in Germany were held in well known gay bars.
Not only was homosexuality the thing to do in feudal Japan, but they kept such good records of it they can trace it back to the individual monk, a man named Kukai who started the whole nanshoku or “male love” craze in Japan.
The rumor is that although sex was forbidden in Buddhist monastic code, he “interpreted this” as only pertaining to "heterosexual love" not intended to forbid getting it on with cute, baby soft, shaved, oiled up, impressionable young "grasshoppers".
And the reasoning the samurai used to explain why they didn't like having sex with women were no different than the reasoning for the Nazi or for the Greeks.
In a nutshell their argument was this, women have no use except for birthing children, they make for shitty partners in combat because they can’t fight.
In the ranks of the samurai, taking on young male lovers was the thing to do. Although at 18 the relationships were ususally ended for the most part because at that time, it was believed that the boy had become a man at 18 and was old enough to take on his own young piece of man ass. But to me that sounds kinda like, by 18 these ass kicking pedophiles don’t have interest in you anymore because now they want to get themselves some new young man ass.
You would think true homosexual love and affection for another of the same sex wouldn’t just abruptly stop at his 18th birthday.
Apparently it all came to a stop rather suddenly when Japan became obsessed with modernizing itself and becoming more like Europe. They began to do away with any tradition that they saw as being inseparably tied to the old “backward” Japan.
And make no mistake about it, once Europe, and their Judeo Christian attitude towards homosexuality caught wind to how openly gay Japan was, Japan began to adopt a more western attitude towards its “backwardness”.
None of this is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned because the one common theme throughout all of this is that homosexuals have a history of kicking people’s ass.
Evidently before warfare got so "high tech" homosexuals held their own.
Damn, that sounded pretty gay didn't it.