sixtyandaquarter
Member
Bisexual Debate, to celebrate Bisexuality Day not Template Debate, to celebrate look at me I'm bitchy
Bisexual Debate, to celebrate Bisexuality Day
- Thread starter sixtyandaquarter
- Start date
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I know some dude who claims he was bisexual, but through the power of bullshit prayer and God, was able to brain wash save himself.
Does that count :\
Does that count :\
haha wow this was a great laugh at some of the posts here lol.
i just feel i have to post though, i love debates :D
Ok anyone who has ever studied animals would know that they act on instinct, aswell as dont have many preferences, sexual falls into this aswell.
Although there are probably some animals that do have sexual orientation (marine animals mostly) although we still arent shure. Dogs hump anything around, i would know cause i have seen it, dogs dont just go for 1 type of person or thing. i've seen one hump a male, a female.....and my shoe....yea i burned it after....
yes i have researched animals, and my dad has researched them since birth aswell hes acquired many licenses to own exotic, and endangered animals.
As for sexual orientation being genetic No it is not genetic, but u also cant say that someone chooses it. Your sexual orientation is not formed during birth either, it is formed as u grow up. many people take their environment in differently though. Some become gay some straight, and yes u are able to change this, but its hard work, and probably sometimes it just wont work, it all depends on the person. Noone can tell you if u can change or not. as humans who act on free will we have the ability to change. oh and please dont say "well your not gay so you wouldnt understand" please there is barely any difference from gay and straight, the only difference is i go for the opposite sex while you go for the same sex.
As for being gay being a disease, well i doubt that, maybe it maybe it may be maybe its not. 1 of 10 men in every 10 births usually turn out to be gay. thats like saying 1 in 10 kids get some type of mental disease (i dunno the mental disease statistic) Seeing as how u can find a cure for sexual orientation i would say that is not a disease. its something that is naturally in some people.
Though there are diseases u can get from being gay, as of 2006 males had a 67% chance of getitng the disease from male to male contact, for females they had a 80% chance of getting the disease from female to male contact (if i was a women i would be gay lol)
And for Religion i dont call my religion a name, although i worship Jesus and believe in god many put me as a christian, truth be told many people who call themselves Christians piss me off soooo much. why? alot dont even follow the teachings themselves but think they can shove it down others throats. Read the bible god says not to judge.
and yes in my beliefs from reading the bible god says being homosexual is a sin, no not Leviticus, that is the Jewish part of the bible, thats why they call it Old testament. Look in Paul's part it says it there for the new testaments.
as for me i dont care much about what people do with their lives, if there are gay people then hey thats what they wanna do, i dont feel as though i can tell you to be straight or not. although i am against gay adoption. but i do not feel i should vote against gays being able to marry if they wanna marry let em, i cant stop u marrying aswell as i cant stop a straight guy to marry a girl.
I have also studied many different things sexual orientation being one of them this is why i have an extensive knowledge of it. I do have gay friends, one who says he does not believe people are born gay.
i just feel i have to post though, i love debates :D
Ok anyone who has ever studied animals would know that they act on instinct, aswell as dont have many preferences, sexual falls into this aswell.
Although there are probably some animals that do have sexual orientation (marine animals mostly) although we still arent shure. Dogs hump anything around, i would know cause i have seen it, dogs dont just go for 1 type of person or thing. i've seen one hump a male, a female.....and my shoe....yea i burned it after....
yes i have researched animals, and my dad has researched them since birth aswell hes acquired many licenses to own exotic, and endangered animals.
As for sexual orientation being genetic No it is not genetic, but u also cant say that someone chooses it. Your sexual orientation is not formed during birth either, it is formed as u grow up. many people take their environment in differently though. Some become gay some straight, and yes u are able to change this, but its hard work, and probably sometimes it just wont work, it all depends on the person. Noone can tell you if u can change or not. as humans who act on free will we have the ability to change. oh and please dont say "well your not gay so you wouldnt understand" please there is barely any difference from gay and straight, the only difference is i go for the opposite sex while you go for the same sex.
As for being gay being a disease, well i doubt that, maybe it maybe it may be maybe its not. 1 of 10 men in every 10 births usually turn out to be gay. thats like saying 1 in 10 kids get some type of mental disease (i dunno the mental disease statistic) Seeing as how u can find a cure for sexual orientation i would say that is not a disease. its something that is naturally in some people.
Though there are diseases u can get from being gay, as of 2006 males had a 67% chance of getitng the disease from male to male contact, for females they had a 80% chance of getting the disease from female to male contact (if i was a women i would be gay lol)
And for Religion i dont call my religion a name, although i worship Jesus and believe in god many put me as a christian, truth be told many people who call themselves Christians piss me off soooo much. why? alot dont even follow the teachings themselves but think they can shove it down others throats. Read the bible god says not to judge.
and yes in my beliefs from reading the bible god says being homosexual is a sin, no not Leviticus, that is the Jewish part of the bible, thats why they call it Old testament. Look in Paul's part it says it there for the new testaments.
as for me i dont care much about what people do with their lives, if there are gay people then hey thats what they wanna do, i dont feel as though i can tell you to be straight or not. although i am against gay adoption. but i do not feel i should vote against gays being able to marry if they wanna marry let em, i cant stop u marrying aswell as i cant stop a straight guy to marry a girl.
I have also studied many different things sexual orientation being one of them this is why i have an extensive knowledge of it. I do have gay friends, one who says he does not believe people are born gay.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
God I'm glad someone brought up the 1 in 10 crap.
To further that along,
The 10% gay number is bogus and has been debunked thousands of times.
It's a nice political number from the 40's and 50's. It's from the 1940's and the 1950's, that alone should prove it's crap.
In Seattle, a simple census type survey showed that 12.9% are gay.
Lubbock Texas has more churches per capita than the rest of the United States. In that one city, there are more churches per land amount, than the rest of the ENTIRE COUNTRY.
San Fransisco is placed in the top 3 (it's usually contested for some reason) as far as gay right activism involving awareness sits.
If the 1 in 10 idea was true, what would happen is you wouldn't have a big divider between the straight population against the gay population, of native born individuals as far as ratio and per capita of people is concerned between those three areas.
Lubbock Texas would have the same percentage as San Fran, and would have the same percentage as Seattle. Given that I said "native", so we can throw out the whole "people moved there/out" argument.
Problem is. Not the case. World wide. Not the case.
1 in 10 is bullshit, and anyone who believes it is a moron. Environmental causes and all. The reason people love 10% is because it makes it seem viable. If you are in an area with a measly 2%, your on the far fringe, barely acceptable. If we have 100 people in a room, and we all have to do something, we won't care that 2 people don't wanna. Now 10, that's a nice even, round, marketable number.
Fact is, in some places where the environment is more open, you get higher numbers.
And last I heard, even added up the numbers don't match. We would need a mass pocket of people, outside the census living in deserts and underground, for that work. The amount of homeless in the states don't even add up to that amount.
It's simple politics. If a city (an actual city) was being discriminative to 14 people, chances are we won't care. But up that number. Make it 70 people, and we'll care more. A whole 10%? Make that 700 people - fuck. Now we give a damn.
EDIT:
Seriously, google.
I pulled those numbers from statistics.
Statistics ain't shit, and can prove anything if you ask the right people. So naturally 1 in 10 is bullshit, and naturally all proof to show it is, is also naturally bullshit.
To further that along,
The 10% gay number is bogus and has been debunked thousands of times.
It's a nice political number from the 40's and 50's. It's from the 1940's and the 1950's, that alone should prove it's crap.
In Seattle, a simple census type survey showed that 12.9% are gay.
Lubbock Texas has more churches per capita than the rest of the United States. In that one city, there are more churches per land amount, than the rest of the ENTIRE COUNTRY.
San Fransisco is placed in the top 3 (it's usually contested for some reason) as far as gay right activism involving awareness sits.
If the 1 in 10 idea was true, what would happen is you wouldn't have a big divider between the straight population against the gay population, of native born individuals as far as ratio and per capita of people is concerned between those three areas.
Lubbock Texas would have the same percentage as San Fran, and would have the same percentage as Seattle. Given that I said "native", so we can throw out the whole "people moved there/out" argument.
Problem is. Not the case. World wide. Not the case.
1 in 10 is bullshit, and anyone who believes it is a moron. Environmental causes and all. The reason people love 10% is because it makes it seem viable. If you are in an area with a measly 2%, your on the far fringe, barely acceptable. If we have 100 people in a room, and we all have to do something, we won't care that 2 people don't wanna. Now 10, that's a nice even, round, marketable number.
Fact is, in some places where the environment is more open, you get higher numbers.
And last I heard, even added up the numbers don't match. We would need a mass pocket of people, outside the census living in deserts and underground, for that work. The amount of homeless in the states don't even add up to that amount.
It's simple politics. If a city (an actual city) was being discriminative to 14 people, chances are we won't care. But up that number. Make it 70 people, and we'll care more. A whole 10%? Make that 700 people - fuck. Now we give a damn.
EDIT:
Seriously, google.
I pulled those numbers from statistics.
Statistics ain't shit, and can prove anything if you ask the right people. So naturally 1 in 10 is bullshit, and naturally all proof to show it is, is also naturally bullshit.
For paragraph 4 theres no data its logic. genetics have to do with the color of your skin and hair and eyes, basically how ur body turns out, not how ur mind is. thats like saying since ur mom is a violent person then she instills violence on you from birth. thats just fake cause my mom is non-violent, and doesent like fighting, while me on the other hand i find fighting fun, and exciting. i walked 2 and a half miles just to watch a 3 min fight, i even go the opposite way of where i live to fight someone
For paragraph 5 the 1 in 10 came from what a couple of gay people had said, so yea i dont expect it to be accurate, i just used it as an example.
for the disease charts i used several sources.
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
http://www.gmhc.org/health/statistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
I cant seem to find the site that had a pie chart though. wish i had book marked it. thats the one that listed the percentages
For paragraph 5 the 1 in 10 came from what a couple of gay people had said, so yea i dont expect it to be accurate, i just used it as an example.
for the disease charts i used several sources.
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
http://www.gmhc.org/health/statistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
I cant seem to find the site that had a pie chart though. wish i had book marked it. thats the one that listed the percentages
My male cat raped a male stuffed animal in his confused teenage years, but now he's completely straight (especially since he got neutered). So yeah, animals can be gay and they can be cured.
...
...
@Bearrick: Paul also said women should sit down and shut up in church, and that generally speaking sexual intercourse was unnecessary since the apocalypse was due any time. IF what Paul says is what God (or Jesus) says, you gotta wonder about the guy's sanity.
...
...
@Bearrick: Paul also said women should sit down and shut up in church, and that generally speaking sexual intercourse was unnecessary since the apocalypse was due any time. IF what Paul says is what God (or Jesus) says, you gotta wonder about the guy's sanity.
Diaforetikos
Member
Bi doesn't mean nothing. I shouldn't even exist.
Speaking having studied genetics for a good portion of my life, I feel the need to correct this:
It is possible to gain traits that are wildly different from one, even both of your parents. This is through recessive genes, a topic I'm not about to go into right now. That was a little off-topic, but I just couldn't let that slide.
I believe that one's sexuality is determined by a mixture of their parent's DNA, the scenario they were born into, and how they themselves act. (However, gays blaming their homosexuality on their parents is stupid, as two gay parents won't have a child.) If my father is bi (or pansexual or whatever), I have a better possibility of becoming bi then someone with two straight parents. I believe that this is due to a mixture of DNA and being raised by a bi parent. However, I also believe that one can become gay etc. because of the scenario they are placed in, in reaction to who they are. If someone is born to a pastor/other involved religious person, they may purposefully become gay in order to be a rebel, if they are in fact, a rebel. They probably won't choose to do this on purpose, It's not a matter of choosing to be gay just to be a rebel, it's your brain reacting to what it wants and where you are.
I think that it is hard to classify anyone as any sexuality. We are all unique, and trying to decide what someone is, is a very confusing, long, gross, and superfluous process.
Bearrick":35qy2gcb said:
It is possible to gain traits that are wildly different from one, even both of your parents. This is through recessive genes, a topic I'm not about to go into right now. That was a little off-topic, but I just couldn't let that slide.
I believe that one's sexuality is determined by a mixture of their parent's DNA, the scenario they were born into, and how they themselves act. (However, gays blaming their homosexuality on their parents is stupid, as two gay parents won't have a child.) If my father is bi (or pansexual or whatever), I have a better possibility of becoming bi then someone with two straight parents. I believe that this is due to a mixture of DNA and being raised by a bi parent. However, I also believe that one can become gay etc. because of the scenario they are placed in, in reaction to who they are. If someone is born to a pastor/other involved religious person, they may purposefully become gay in order to be a rebel, if they are in fact, a rebel. They probably won't choose to do this on purpose, It's not a matter of choosing to be gay just to be a rebel, it's your brain reacting to what it wants and where you are.
I think that it is hard to classify anyone as any sexuality. We are all unique, and trying to decide what someone is, is a very confusing, long, gross, and superfluous process.
When you start getting into the genetics of sexuality, it gets fuzzy.
There's no "gay gene". Or, if there is, we haven't found it.
Rather, I've read that it could possibly be a frequently occurring mutation in the genes designed to form certain areas of your brain in utero. Such as, people who get a few random red hair follicles on an all-black hair body, or like birthmarks.
Mutations aren't BAD. They have a nasty name, but they're the essence of evolution. Of course, were "gayness" to be the next step in evolution, it'd be completely useless (as we would be discouraged from reproducing, one of the key driving forces of life). However we have reached a plateau in our species wherein outside forces may no longer affect or steer our species in any evolutionary manner. So there will be lots of mutations, some more common than others.
I've also heard studies that claim women cannot ACTUALLY be gay. Where men exhibit distinctive differences in brain structure and pattern between the sexuality biases, it has been thusfar inconclusive in the search for changes in females' brain structures or wave patterns, between their gender biases.
So, in theory, women would be more pansexual, capable of adapting their own sexuality through psychological stimuli, and men would be more hardwired for it.
I've never read any biological theories on bisexuality however. Not for lack of trying though :/
I don't really rest a huge dose of faith in any one theory, since they are, in fact, theories.
Whatever the cause of or "root" of sexual tendencies, in the end, it doesn't really matter, and it shouldn't really be scrutinized too deeply. Trying to find a CAUSE for a "problem" that doesn't need to be fixed is fruitless outside of just simple textbook knowledge.
Whatever biological reasons lie within, people need to turn to making peace with their predispositions psychologically. Not just those "afflicted" with the "problem", but rather everyone. We need to not just tolerate, but accept people for who they are. It shouldn't even be a classification. You start classifying sections of people and then divisions occur between them socially. Remove those cross-sections, and then harmony can flow more easily.
I'm just hoping that I see more accepting and tolerant leanings in my lifetime, because peoples' narrow views are no longer necessary or WANTED in a worldwide community such as what we're growing towards.
There's no "gay gene". Or, if there is, we haven't found it.
Rather, I've read that it could possibly be a frequently occurring mutation in the genes designed to form certain areas of your brain in utero. Such as, people who get a few random red hair follicles on an all-black hair body, or like birthmarks.
Mutations aren't BAD. They have a nasty name, but they're the essence of evolution. Of course, were "gayness" to be the next step in evolution, it'd be completely useless (as we would be discouraged from reproducing, one of the key driving forces of life). However we have reached a plateau in our species wherein outside forces may no longer affect or steer our species in any evolutionary manner. So there will be lots of mutations, some more common than others.
I've also heard studies that claim women cannot ACTUALLY be gay. Where men exhibit distinctive differences in brain structure and pattern between the sexuality biases, it has been thusfar inconclusive in the search for changes in females' brain structures or wave patterns, between their gender biases.
So, in theory, women would be more pansexual, capable of adapting their own sexuality through psychological stimuli, and men would be more hardwired for it.
I've never read any biological theories on bisexuality however. Not for lack of trying though :/
I don't really rest a huge dose of faith in any one theory, since they are, in fact, theories.
Whatever the cause of or "root" of sexual tendencies, in the end, it doesn't really matter, and it shouldn't really be scrutinized too deeply. Trying to find a CAUSE for a "problem" that doesn't need to be fixed is fruitless outside of just simple textbook knowledge.
Whatever biological reasons lie within, people need to turn to making peace with their predispositions psychologically. Not just those "afflicted" with the "problem", but rather everyone. We need to not just tolerate, but accept people for who they are. It shouldn't even be a classification. You start classifying sections of people and then divisions occur between them socially. Remove those cross-sections, and then harmony can flow more easily.
I'm just hoping that I see more accepting and tolerant leanings in my lifetime, because peoples' narrow views are no longer necessary or WANTED in a worldwide community such as what we're growing towards.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I've heard studies that show (insert crazy claim here) is the better way of life.
Studies are crap.
When you speak on genetics, it's "true" we have a male brain and a female brain. It's "true" that the body is some unsexed li'l puddle before a certain stage of development, then we become female or we become male (we aren't female first like some people believe - oh and some studies show we are). The things that become ovaries go and do so, if you end up being a female, but if not they become testies. The would be clit or penis is form, and down the line.
In theory, if we accept the "truth" that a male brain, and female brain, exist, and the theory that the brain goes down a similar path like the sex organs, before splitting into those trivial and minor things, it is very possible that gay behavior can be a genetic "malfunct".
You would have the overall male appearance, of the brain. With a strong female sexual desire. Bad working I know.
It's like having the overall male appearance, of the human body. Almost your entire body is "male", except you have one organ that's more akin to an ovary - which has happened. In theory then, you could have part of your brain be "fe/male" while the rest of it isn't.
There's also theories that the devil came and snuck a demon into you and that's why your gay, bi, pan whatever.
I love theories
Studies are crap.
When you speak on genetics, it's "true" we have a male brain and a female brain. It's "true" that the body is some unsexed li'l puddle before a certain stage of development, then we become female or we become male (we aren't female first like some people believe - oh and some studies show we are). The things that become ovaries go and do so, if you end up being a female, but if not they become testies. The would be clit or penis is form, and down the line.
In theory, if we accept the "truth" that a male brain, and female brain, exist, and the theory that the brain goes down a similar path like the sex organs, before splitting into those trivial and minor things, it is very possible that gay behavior can be a genetic "malfunct".
You would have the overall male appearance, of the brain. With a strong female sexual desire. Bad working I know.
It's like having the overall male appearance, of the human body. Almost your entire body is "male", except you have one organ that's more akin to an ovary - which has happened. In theory then, you could have part of your brain be "fe/male" while the rest of it isn't.
There's also theories that the devil came and snuck a demon into you and that's why your gay, bi, pan whatever.
I love theories