It's a Choice.....Oh Really?

by **UCUMAY** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:11 pm

Coccygia wrote:
Zeth Rekia wrote:And a male rabbit raping a male cat. It did ejaculate too.
Once again, don't hurt me.

How the hell could a rabbit rape a cat? Cats have CLAWS and FANGS. Bunnies just have buck teeth. (Good thing it wasn't a female cat...you'd end up with a bunch of pussy hares*.)

* Couldn't resist.

by **Hresejnen** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:00 pm

Also, Arborlawn, on top of the fact that the majority of animals have had reported incidences of homosexuality, also the majority of cultures prior to monotheism were A-OK with it. The Greeks encouraged it in their ranks. The Norse often raped their victims in war and raids during the viking age, and romantic love (and even sexual love, in some areas and times) between two men was not looked down upon. In shamanic religions, homosexuals were even seen as having a certain connection between both the male and female spirit; they were often made into wise men/women. Homosexual romances have also been celebrated through many different Asian cultures, including Shinto, Taoist, and Chinese.

Really, it's just your god who doesn't like it, and that is the one and only reason ~~western~~ American culture holds it as taboo.

by **Qansor Marjj** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:02 pm

Helertia wrote:Of course, 'sexual deviation' is perfectly normal as millions of people have shown repeatedly with overwhelming evidence and logic.

In saying 'sexual deviation' you imply that those who take part in such 'deviations' are deviates, which many would take as an insult.

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:05 pm

Qansor Marjj wrote:
Helertia wrote:Of course, 'sexual deviation' is perfectly normal as millions of people have shown repeatedly with overwhelming evidence and logic.

In saying 'sexual deviation' you imply that those who take part in such 'deviations' are deviates, which many would take as an insult.

It's really just a question of fact... It just depends on the intent of the person. One famous person on these forums used "sexual deviant" as a way to troll people all the time. But if I say homosexuality is deviant form the norm, very few will tell you I'm being insulting.

by **Hresejnen** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:06 pm

It is deviation. It is abnormal. All it means is 'away from the norm'. Heterosexuality is by far the most common orientation; anything else is deviate and abnormal.

by **Qansor Marjj** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:07 pm

Ceannairceach wrote:
Central Slavia wrote:I avoid them.
The people who live nearby such places can't

...Which is why there are advertisements, so people who don't like it don't have to watch it.

What Central Slavia is saying sounds an awful lot like this: Watching TV and then a show comes on you don't want to watch but being to lazy to 1) find the remote, 2) get up and change the channel, or 3) just wanting something to complain about, a.k.a. being a dumb ass.

by **Mike the Progressive** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:10 pm

I don't know if it is a choice or not, though I think sexuality is far more difficult to define than just black and white. Personally I tend to think it's a mixture of preference and being inclined one way, the other, or both.

by **Qansor Marjj** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:15 pm

UCDF wrote:Fake children.

What? Where the hell do you live? I am pretty certain a child is a child.

by **Qansor Marjj** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:17 pm

Hresejnen wrote:It is deviation. It is abnormal. All it means is 'away from the norm'. Heterosexuality is by far the most common orientation; anything else is deviate and abnormal.

Many, I am sure, would argue that it is in fact a norm on its own. Just because it doesn't conform to your norm does not mean it is wrong.

by **The Soviet Technocracy** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:I don't know if it is a choice or not, though I think sexuality is far more difficult to define than just black and white. Personally I tend to think it's a mixture of preference and being inclined one way, the other, or both.

aka "There is no black and white, just different shades of gay." amiriet

by **SaintB** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:32 pm

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:I don't know if it is a choice or not, though I think sexuality is far more difficult to define than just black and white. Personally I tend to think it's a mixture of preference and being inclined one way, the other, or both.

aka "There is no black and white, just different shades of gay." amiriet

No... its a rainbow...

by **Mike the Progressive** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:33 pm

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:I don't know if it is a choice or not, though I think sexuality is far more difficult to define than just black and white. Personally I tend to think it's a mixture of preference and being inclined one way, the other, or both.

aka "There is no black and white, just different shades of gay." amiriet

Sort of. Though I think some people have a strong preference for the same sex or a strong preference for the opposite. I just think at the end you can't simply say "I'm gay and I had no choice." Yes, genetics plays a key role, but it's also preference and pleasure. If that makes sense.

by **Meowfoundland** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:15 pm

UCDF wrote:Fake children.

Mannequins?

by **The Bleeding Roses** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:18 pm

Qansor Marjj wrote:
Hresejnen wrote:It is deviation. It is abnormal. All it means is 'away from the norm'. Heterosexuality is by far the most common orientation; anything else is deviate and abnormal.

Many, I am sure, would argue that it is in fact a norm on its own. Just because it doesn't conform to your norm does not mean it is wrong.

Normality refers to statistics, not morals.

Try again!

by **Natapoc** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:20 pm

I don't care if it's a choice or not a choice. Have a relationship with whomever you want so long as it's consensual. Why does it really even matter if it's a "choice."

I mean, I don't think it is but so what if it was?

by **Qansor Marjj** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:22 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Qansor Marjj wrote:
Many, I am sure, would argue that it is in fact a norm on its own. Just because it doesn't conform to your norm does not mean it is wrong.

Normality refers to statistics, not morals.

Try again!

You misunderstood. If you excluded the heterosexual norm and surveyed the homosexual population I am fairly certain you would be hard pressed to find any of them saying that they are abnormal.

by **The Bleeding Roses** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:24 pm

Qansor Marjj wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Normality refers to statistics, not morals.

Try again!

You misunderstood. If you excluded the heterosexual norm and surveyed the homosexual population I am fairly certain you would be hard pressed to find any of them saying that they are abnormal.

Do you know how to read?
NORMALITY REFERS TO STATISTICS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE SAY.
IF A POPULATION WAS 100% HOMOSEXUALS IT WOULD BE THE NORM... BUT THE POPULATION ISN'T AND AS SUCH, THE BEHAVIOR IS DEVIANT.

by **Galloism** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:28 pm

Qansor Marjj wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Normality refers to statistics, not morals.

Try again!

You misunderstood. If you excluded the heterosexual norm and surveyed the homosexual population I am fairly certain you would be hard pressed to find any of them saying that they are abnormal.

That's a very silly reasoning.

I bet if you took a survey of mentally incompetent people in mental institutions, you'd find a large number who would say they were not abnormal either.

Note:

Dear NSG high horse,

I am not comparing homosexuals to mental patients, just demonstrating a silly argument.

Thank you.

G.

by **Unhealthy2** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:29 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Do you know how to read?
NORMALITY REFERS TO STATISTICS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE SAY.
IF A POPULATION WAS 100% HOMOSEXUALS IT WOULD BE THE NORM... BUT THE POPULATION ISN'T AND AS SUCH, THE BEHAVIOR IS DEVIANT.

Actually, "abnormal" doesn't just have to mean "away from the statistical norm." It can, and often does, carry both negative connotation and denotation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal

by **The Bleeding Roses** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:31 pm

Unhealthy2 wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Do you know how to read?
NORMALITY REFERS TO STATISTICS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE SAY.
IF A POPULATION WAS 100% HOMOSEXUALS IT WOULD BE THE NORM... BUT THE POPULATION ISN'T AND AS SUCH, THE BEHAVIOR IS DEVIANT.

Actually, "abnormal" doesn't just have to mean "away from the statistical norm." It can, and often does, carry both negative connotation and denotation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal

Which has no bearing on this thread whatsoever...

Thanks for chiming in.

by **Unhealthy2** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:34 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Which has no bearing on this thread whatsoever...

Yes, it does. It explains how people can take offense at you labeling homosexuality as deviant.

by **The Bleeding Roses** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:38 pm

Unhealthy2 wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Which has no bearing on this thread whatsoever...

Yes, it does. It explains how people can take offense at you labeling homosexuality as deviant.

Well, those people can enjoy dismissing the entire science of sociology seeing as social deviance is a key component and relates solely to statistical anomalies...

by **Ceannairceach** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:40 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Unhealthy2 wrote:
Yes, it does. It explains how people can take offense at you labeling homosexuality as deviant.

Well, those people can enjoy dismissing the entire science of sociology seeing as social deviance is a key component and relates solely to statistical anomalies...

I personally don't give to shits...

Deviance is fun.

by **The Bleeding Roses** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:40 pm

Ceannairceach wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:Well, those people can enjoy dismissing the entire science of sociology seeing as social deviance is a key component and relates solely to statistical anomalies...

I personally don't give to shits...

Deviance is fun.

You don't give to shits?

I wasn't aware that feces took donations...

by **Ceannairceach** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:47 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:I personally don't give to shits...

Deviance is fun.

You don't give to shits?

I wasn't aware that feces took donations...

They don't. But they work as amazing bribery tools...

It's a Choice.....Oh Really?

Who is online