Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[sam04u]

Everyone, calm down. Sam, try and read what is before your eyes before you try and trumpet your own supposed superiority.

Sure, but why single me out? Why shouldn't UIC? or somebody else read what what's before them and think logically?

 

[Generator]

Sure, but why single me out? Why shouldn't UIC? or somebody else read what what's before them and think logically?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you are ignoring such posts merely because they counter your argument? The others are reading what you have to say and they are countering your claims with examples and reason. If you'd like to be taken seriously, I suggest that you return the favour.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Can someone explain what the purpose of this argument is anyway? If we grant that homosexuality is not 'normal' or is 'un-natural', what does that mean?

 

[sam04u]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you are ignoring such posts merely because they counter your argument? The others are reading what you have to say and they are countering your claims with examples and reason. If you'd like to be taken seriously, I suggest that you return the favour.

That's your opinion. You don't know that they're considering my posts, I'm actually considering their posts and making an effort to show the fallacy in some of the things they're said with the obvious.

 

[Generator]

That's your opinion. You don't know that they're considering my posts, I'm actually considering their posts and making an effort to show the fallacy in some of the things they're said with the obvious.

I think that it's fair to say that it doesn't look as though you are considering their posts - they respond to your intial claims with a counter yet you respond by stressing the supposed fact that you are right and that they are merely 'proving their stupidity' with what they have to say.

Counter the arguments, sam.

 

[sam04u]

I think that it's fair to say that it doesn't look as though you are considering their posts - they respond to your intial claims with a counter yet you respond by stressing the supposed fact that you are right and that they are merely 'proving their stupidity' with what they have to say.

Counter the arguments, sam.

Fine...

Okay, UIC, think about the animals you mentioned, they're all pretty special in that climate and what not effects their environment right? Now, think logically, if animals are natural, and humans are animals (your logic not mine), then ofcourse why can't animals create an environment for themselves which isn't their natural environment? If for example, 100 penguins are released somewhere in the ocean, and they manage to land somewhere, or are seperated somehow (global warming, natural disaster, ridges in the ocean), isn't this different to their natural environment? Wouldn't it affect their sexual cycles some how?


I don't need to prove it in animals though. I used a very valid example, where a large group of people 'turn' homosexuals while being exposed to a particular environment which is not their natural environment. an example was Jails, where a high percentage actually resort to homosexuality. If people were 'born' homosexual how could this happen? (use logic please).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If people were 'born' homosexual how could this happen?

It is natural for a species to adapt to its environment, if you are in an environment full of men... then as you still need sexual release, you may adapt to find that in other men. This doesn't necessarily mean that people aren't also born homosexual, it just acknowledges that under environmental conditions species can change their behaviours.

then ofcourse why can't animals create an environment for themselves which isn't their natural environment?

What is their 'natural' environment?

 

[Comrade nathan]

an example was Jails, where a high percentage actually resort to homosexuality.

Do you have statistics to back that up. I think your just basing it on pop culture.

Also you don't even consider what homosexuality is. It is something more then just male to male sex. It is an attraction and love for someone of the same sex, and there are in certain homosexual groups a sub-culture.

Male to male sex in jails, does not always constitute as homosexuality. In the case of rape, this isn't an action of uncontrollable lust for a male body, rather an action of power over someone. Even in the case where two men mutually have sexual relations, this does not consitute as homosexuality. It is most likely a mutual agreement to just have sex. There may be no interest or love in the other person. In that case they are more closer to bi-sexuals (though bi-sexuals can love the same gender).

Your environment theory is flawed. Firstly it assumes that homosexuality is an act. Secondly homosexuality is found in lots of different environments. To date homosexuality has existed in all societies.

Homosexuality is found in homophobic/macho environments and also environments where woman are easily accesible through prostitution. So you can't claim that in liberal societiy with less woman people will turn homosexual. Your conclusion would lead to believe that so far in every society the correct environment has existed for homosexuality to exist. Which is rather ridicilous, when the logically conclusion is that homosexuality is a naturally occurance.

If you want to continue to believe your flawed theory, would you like to present an example of an environment that did not produce homosexuals?

Or at least answer Optophobia's question?

How do you explain people becoming gay when they have never been in isolation or gaol.

 

[sam04u]

You're an Idiot.

Do you have statistics to back that up. I think your just basing it on pop culture.

Male to male sex in jails, does not always constitute as homosexuality.

Even in the case where two men mutually have sexual relations, this does not consitute as homosexuality.

Your environment theory is flawed.
Firstly it assumes that homosexuality is an act.(Nope, I never said that.)

Secondly homosexuality is found in lots of different environments. To date homosexuality has existed in all societies.
So has psychological disorders, and trauma. Emotional Isolation or even an emotional environment which is different (especially in very communicative species) can cause the unnatural conditions for homosexuality to occur.

Homosexuality is found in homophobic/macho environments and also environments where woman are easily accesible through prostitution.
It's much less 'found' in areas with 'easy' accesibility to prostitution.

So you can't claim that in liberal societiy with less woman people will turn homosexual.
Woman can be homosexual as well, infact I think near 75% of homosexual women, were somewhat neglected at a young age by their mothers. That particular environment is unnatural and can lead to 'homosexuality' as can be seen in the case of 'Lesbians'. The 'Electra' complex has existed for centuries, were any two women competed for attention.

Your conclusion would lead to believe that so far in every society the correct environment has existed for homosexuality to exist. Which is rather ridicilous, when the logically conclusion is that homosexuality is a naturally occurance.
Nope, nothing 'biological' about it. Nobody is 'definately' a homosexual, and nobody is 'always' a homosexual.

If you want to continue to believe your flawed theory, would you like to present an example of an environment that did not produce homosexuals?
In my opinion prior to paganism, there was little or no homosexuals. But, I have little evidence to back that up.

Or at least answer Optophobia's question?

It's to do with the environment, they may be 'influenced' by particular things in todays society, which leads to it. Nobody is 'born a homosexual.', I've also seen 'animals' that eat shit, therefore humans should too right? Bonobos, well it does seem like as 'nolanistic would say' some pseudo-science crap which national geographic uses to 'gain an audiesnce', but it isn't as breakthrough as the other scientific research and evidence. (Like environment in prisons where a direct link can be made).

 

[goldendawn]

You're an Idiot.

It's to do with the environment, they may be 'influenced' by particular things in todays society, which leads to it. Nobody is 'born a homosexual.', I've also seen 'animals' that eat shit, therefore humans should too right? Bonobos, well it does seem like as 'nolanistic would say' some pseudo-science crap which national geographic uses to 'gain an audiesnce', but it isn't as breakthrough as the other scientific research and evidence. (Like environment in prisons where a direct link can be made).

Prison sex is not 'homosexuality' - it's called 'situational sexuality', is an adaptation to environment and is transient. Homosexuality is an enduring romantic and sexual attraction to people of the same sex. So far, you haven't delivered any evidence that a link between environmental conditions and true 'homosexuality' exists. It used to be believed that male homosexuality was linked to 'an absent father and an overbearing mother' - but this doesn't explain why levels of homosexuality have remained constant over time in almost every society despite the sharp increase in divorce in the Western world, it doesn't explain high levels of homosexuality in ancient societies and it also doesn't explain homosexuality in other animals. It also used to be believed that homosexuality was a sign of mental illness, but psychologists discovered that they couldn't distinguish between heterosexuals and homosexuals based on levels of 'mental health'.

It seems to me that you're afraid to believe that homosexuality is anything other than a 'peversion'. Besides calling everyone else an idiot, you haven't delivered anything solid.

 

[Comrade nathan]

It's to do with the environment, they may be 'influenced' by particular things in todays society, which leads to it. Nobody is 'born a homosexual.', I've also seen 'animals' that eat shit, therefore humans should too right? Bonobos, well it does seem like as 'nolanistic would say' some pseudo-science crap which national geographic uses to 'gain an audiesnce', but it isn't as breakthrough as the other scientific research and evidence. (Like environment in prisons where a direct link can be made).

So you can't eleborate on environment theory? You can't even address the questions? Your the fucking idiot sam. You can't even conduct a basic arguement. You haven't proved the prison connection, where is the research? You constantly state and claim to have heard this or that, that's not good enough.

Continuously restating your half-baked opinion doesn't make you right. The more you talk, the more you prove that you are making your arguement up. Untill you add something new to the arguement (your evidence) there is no point argueing with you.

Edit: I didn't notice your unusual way of responding, by putting your comments in my quote.

Your environment theory is flawed.
Firstly it assumes that homosexuality is an act.(Nope, I never said that.)

You imply it when you talk about "homosexuality" in prisons.

So has psychological disorders, and trauma. Emotional Isolation or even an emotional environment which is different (especially in very communicative species) can cause the unnatural conditions for homosexuality to occur.

This statement lacks one thing, evidence.

It's much less 'found' in areas with 'easy' accesibility to prostitution.

And you base this on?

I think you will find in areas with a sub culture of prominant sex, there may be more wiorking class homosexuals. In regards to people who do not have the income to secure safety when having sexual relations. So they will move to this areas that promote a sex trade. I'm sure if you did a study on the 1960's, 70s and 80s sex scene in San Francisco you will find that the red light area was a prominant place for homosexuals.

Woman can be homosexual as well, infact I think near 75% of homosexual women, were somewhat neglected at a young age by their mothers

You think? Or are you just assuming because of your ignorance on the subject?

Nope, nothing 'biological' about it. Nobody is 'definately' a homosexual, and nobody is 'always' a homosexual.

Your not an authority on the subject, just making a statement like that wont convince anyone. People here see your flawed logic.

In my opinion prior to paganism, there was little or no homosexuals. But, I have little evidence to back that up.

Well, shut up then.

From now on don't just say what is on your mind.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Secondly homosexuality is found in lots of different environments. To date homosexuality has existed in all societies.

So has psychological disorders, and trauma. Emotional Isolation or even an emotional environment which is different (especially in very communicative species) can cause the unnatural conditions for homosexuality to occur.

So you're saying that homosexuality is a perversion if it is not purely genetic? Do you know how many things that YOU are/do would then be classified as such?

Homosexuality is found in homophobic/macho environments and also environments where woman are easily accesible through prostitution.

It's much less 'found' in areas with 'easy' accesibility to prostitution.

First off, Kings Cross:
- Shitloads of Female Prostitutes.
- Shitloads of Homosexuals.
So yea, I don't know if that's true... and what about examples such as the romans. The aristocrats would be very wealthy and have access to several women, yet alot of them had boys too.

Woman can be homosexual as well, infact I think near 75% of homosexual women, were somewhat neglected at a young age by their mothers. That particular environment is unnatural and can lead to 'homosexuality' as can be seen in the case of 'Lesbians'. The 'Electra' complex has existed for centuries, were any two women competed for attention.

Er it's not 75%...

Also, you've got the entire theory wrong - it is that they were neglected by their FATHERS. Often women whom were sexually abused by their fathers end up being homosexual, some have theorised that this is because they learn to be afraid of men.

In my opinion prior to paganism, there was little or no homosexuals. But, I have little evidence to back that up.

OOOOook.

 

[HotShot]

Dont forget Prince of Arabia (cant rememebe rhis name lol)
Alexander the Great
Jesus
Hitler
the list goes on...

Homosexuality is really at a personal level especially when it comes to humans (why u comparing to animals?). each person has different feelings towards anything in life. so naturally just like how astronomers believe their must another planet with lifeforms in it. some humans are homos.

 

[*Ninny-mole*]

Okay, I'm 100% right, but I'll elaborate to help you understand. A female dog is locked in a cell with only one other female dog. Soon they will become aroused by one another and resort in masturbation or mutual-masturbation. Evidence of this is prisons where an EXTREME change in environment takes place, and as a result an astounding number of people 'become' homosexual. Unless you want to suggest they were 'born homosexual', which is another stupid thing you could say. That would be saying 'homosexuals' are more likely to commit crimes... (would you say that?)

I'm 100% right on this issue, whether you will make the compromise and accept it or not. I'm ALL FOR THE RIGHTS of homosexuals. Get that into your head, and quit arguing where you're wrong.

Okay, so if you are "100% right", lets say we locked you in a jail cell with another guy. Would you become gay? (unless you aren't already)
That has to be the worst example anyone has ever used to state that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. You are being stupid and YOU ARE 100% WRONG. There is no evidence to support your claim that prisons make people gay, and there is plenty of psychological studies that state homosexuality is something you are born with. I'm sure if you asked the majority of homo's whether they chose to be gay, or were in prison where they turned gay according to you, they would say no. I'm also sure that no-one would willingly want to undertake the sort of criticism and discrimination that they suffer either. You're a Muslim, you should know how that feels. It is simply not fair that they are treated as freaks and called unnatural. I bet their
are plenty of gay Muslims in the world that feel the same way as I do.
Oh, and yes of course I'd say something a fucking stupid as homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes...???? How stupid do you get?
Do you have actual stats and scientific proof that homosexuals are unnatural? No you don't or you would have mentioned it earlier. Stop discriminating

 

[wafflesnsorbet]

You know what I really disapprove of? Homosexuality-bashing, PRHAWRPOUGK. ANTICHRIST. Pro-homosexuals bashing those who aren't comfortable with the idea: Totally acceptable, baby! Those people are, like, sooooo evil anyway...

As I stated before. I'm not against it. Let love be love. But what I am against is the fact that it often isn't about love (1), and that making gay marriages legal would only act to commercialise homosexuality (2) and make it less about emotions and more about sex (3). Sure, it may or may not be natural. There are historical figures that displayed homosexual tendencies. But why must people have to announce it to the whole frigging world about their sexual proclivities? Good God. Just shut up already. If you really were in love, you wouldn't make such a big deal about it. (Just look at Tom Cruise). It is called EXHIBITIONISM.

People don't share the same opinions. Live with it, people! If the world was that ideal, things wouldn't be as fun anyway. Lay off the 'anti-homosexual' bashing.

And stop making random stats up. It's annoying.

 

[sam04u]

Okay, so if you are "100% right", lets say we locked you in a jail cell with another guy. Would you become gay? (unless you aren't already)

I said it effects 'some people' in 'some cases', where the natural environment has been altered. You're almost as stupid as the others who think that two men having sex isn't homosexuality. (I mean use some common sense you ignoramuses). Besides, don't use your homo-logic on me, like (If you're not in support of gays you are one), that's ridiculous logic.

 

[sam04u]

Okay, so if you are "100% right", lets say we locked you in a jail cell with another guy. Would you become gay? (unless you aren't already)
That has to be the worst example anyone has ever used to state that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. You are being stupid and YOU ARE 100% WRONG. There is no evidence to support your claim that prisons make people gay, and there is plenty of psychological studies that state homosexuality is something you are born with. I'm sure if you asked the majority of homo's whether they chose to be gay, or were in prison where they turned gay according to you, they would say no. I'm also sure that no-one would willingly want to undertake the sort of criticism and discrimination that they suffer either. You're a Muslim, you should know how that feels. It is simply not fair that they are treated as freaks and called unnatural. I bet their
are plenty of gay Muslims in the world that feel the same way as I do.
Oh, and yes of course I'd say something a fucking stupid as homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes...???? How stupid do you get?
Do you have actual stats and scientific proof that homosexuals are unnatural? No you don't or you would have mentioned it earlier. Stop discriminating

Listen, you freaking imbecile. I'm 'pro' human rights in all people, regardless of preference and what not. Homosexuality has been proven to not be genetic, and this information is accessible to anyone who has an internet connection. I understand that you may feel persecuted, but that isn't my fauly. I just don't want people forming the illusion that homosexuality is natural.

 

[Generator]

I said it effects 'some people' in 'some cases', where the natural environment has been altered. You're almost as stupid as the others who think that two men having sex isn't homosexuality. (I mean use some common sense you ignoramuses). Besides, don't use your homo-logic on me, like (If you're not in support of gays you are one), that's ridiculous logic.

Homosexuality isn't the act alone, sam. How many times must this very significant fact be brought to your attention?

 

[Comrade nathan]

Listen, you freaking imbecile. I'm 'pro' human rights in all people, regardless of preference and what not. Homosexuality has been proven to not be genetic, and this information is accessible to anyone who has an internet connection. I understand that you may feel persecuted, but that isn't my fauly. I just don't want people forming the illusion that homosexuality is natural.

Links please?

 

[kami]

I think homosexuals should get the right to a civil union, but not marriage, because marriage is marriage.

That would simply differentiate people once more - is it that hard to apply the same word/phrase to same sex and opposite sex couples?

Marriage has never been about love, period. It has always been first and foremost a legal union.

I agree, its a pooling of resources and a legal bequest of certain rights and status to a couple. However society has, in most cultures and time periods, redefined marriage as it suits them and I would argue that it has currently defined marriage (in the social/cultural sense) as based on affection as well as rights and status.

In religion 'god forbids homosexuality', and anatomicaly, there is no natural mentality or chemical imbalance which definately will cause a person to be homosexual. Therefore, it can be understood that the environment results in a person being homosexual.

Thats a fairly faulty application of the process of elimination:

1. Religion can be and has been contested as a construct of man by those by don't believe. Those that do believe however, would most likely acknowledge that religion coincides with the development of information societies which again is not completely 'natural'. And those that contest that won't neccesarily believe in god (including religions such as buddhism that do not condemn homosexuality). So that may not be the best point to use - at least not in that manner.
2. Your statement 'which definately [sic] will' only implies that it is not absolutely proven that mental or chemical factors will cause homosexuality rather than 'those factors absolutely will not cause homosexuality'. You haven't referenced your pronouncements with any credible articles or journals either. So it might not be appropriate to use in the process of elimination.
3. Ergo, you have not conclusively eliminated either of the points you have raised nor have you eliminated countless other points, so you can't realistically say that 'it can be understood in a person being homosexual.'

If you're arguing that Homosexuality is a natural process then you're wrong, It's been proven through experimentation that it only occurs when the natural environment is changed. (In this arguement you're wrong 100%)

Which experiment is 100% certain that homosexuality is caused by the environment? Links please.

Okay, I'm 100% right, but I'll elaborate to help you understand. A female dog is locked in a cell with only one other female dog. Soon they will become aroused by one another and resort in masturbation or mutual-masturbation. Evidence of this is prisons where an EXTREME change in environment takes place, and as a result an astounding number of people 'become' homosexual. Unless you want to suggest they were 'born homosexual', which is another stupid thing you could say. That would be saying 'homosexuals' are more likely to commit crimes... (would you say that?)

While I realise that your position is that different environments causes sexual 'deviancies', that seems to be a fairly untenable position. If we wish to look at history and culture (domestic and foreign) you will see that homosexuality exists in most, if not all, of them(greece, persia, china, london etc. covering time periods that go back as far as history is able). You'll also see the same thing with animals, across the spectrum in the various ways of life. This means, if we look at as some form of social experiment that even when making the social, cultural and nutritional factors into variables then homosexuality still exists.

It also should be noted that engaging(oft without consent) in an activity is different from possessing a sexuality. A gay man or woman could equally engage in hetero intercourse without being hetero or bi.

Nobody is 'born a homosexual.', I've also seen 'animals' that eat shit, therefore humans should too right? Bonobos, well it does seem like as 'nolanistic would say' some pseudo-science crap which national geographic uses to 'gain an audiesnce', but it isn't as breakthrough as the other scientific research and evidence. (Like environment in prisons where a direct link can be made).

Your faeces ingestion analogy does not make sense - how does whether we 'should eat shit' have anything to with the causes of homosexuality? And if you feel you can make more legitimate and authoritative references than National Geographic which debate the point then reference them.

As I stated before. I'm not against it. Let love be love. But what I am against is the fact that it often isn't about love (1), and that making gay marriages legal would only act to commercialise homosexuality (2) and make it less about emotions and more about sex (3). Sure, it may or may not be natural. There are historical figures that displayed homosexual tendencies. But why must people have to announce it to the whole frigging world about their sexual proclivities? Good God. Just shut up already. If you really were in love, you wouldn't make such a big deal about it. (Just look at Tom Cruise). It is called EXHIBITIONISM.

(1)This fact is derived from where?
(2)Commercialise homosexuality - you care because?
(3)Maybe thats got something to do with the fact that if you don't disclose it, you get told you are hetero and people assume what you want and think. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find a straight/bi guy or girl who has never chatted about the romantic/physical aspects of the opposite sex, which is just as exhibitionistic as telling people you are gay/bi if not more so.