If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
This would explain the much higher number of bisexuality.
And you have proof of that or is it a lie repeated often enough that it becomes the truth?
I don't disagree with all you say - just the weight you put on some of it.
You have a propensity to state opinion as fact and expect people to believe it.
This is why I don't stop questioning!
Well im going on my own observations. And though homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities.
Quentin Crisp portrayed by John Hurt in the brilliant 1975 drama "Diary of a naked civil servant" decades ago was probably in that more exclusive club.
Quentin Crisp was the most famous homosexual of all time in a world during the 70s . But look at how the gay rights movement disowned one of their own after he himself said that homosexuality was a terrible disease & "What is there to be proud of? I don't believe in rights for homosexuals."
Clearly Mrsane present ideas as facts and backs down when challenged. Nothing he is saying about gays so far is true. It is twaddle, but entertaining.
Based on his experience of knowing let's be generous and say 100 gays, he can now state as a fact that bisexuality is common which will come as news to the somewhere between 8 and 20 million he hasn't met in America alone.
And even though al research shows a very low percentage are bi obviously Mrsanes in depth research is of more value.
Now he has started on how common it is in the animal kingdom ROFL
I need more popcorn
Then what other historical norms (which became the basis of general law) should we similarly label and consign to antiquity, I wonder?
Thou shalt not kill?
Thou shalt not steal?
Thou shalt not bear false witness . . .
Are they antiquated, all?
If not, as in only some are antiquated and some not, which shall be ditched and which retained? And who shall decide?
Seems to me to be a big difference between decision-making and law-making.
Well.... killing, stealing and bearing false witness have certainly all been state-sanctioned by the US when they attacked and invaded Iraq under false pretenses and widely supported by the public. You could probably say the same about most countries with significant military power. However, in society, I suppose it's about what serves us better.
Just for the sake of accuracy your notion that almost all gays are or have been Bi or straight is absolute complete nonsense.
Almost all gays have been sexually abused. In fact in all my years of working with gays I am yet to ever meet one who was not abused but what you said Mrsane, is twaddle.
Again Damap . You seem to ignore the question i raised below :
So what line of work has made you conclude & form the statement : "Almost all gays have been sexually abused. In fact in all my years of working with gays I am yet to ever meet one who was not abused ...."?
Last edited by mrsaneperson; 15-10-2014, 08:03 PM.
[QUOTE=Damap;346984]Clearly Mrsane present ideas as facts and backs down when challenged. Nothing he is saying about gays so far is true. It is twaddle, but entertaining.
Based on his experience of knowing let's be generous and say 100 gays, he can now state as a fact that bisexuality is common which will come as news to the somewhere between 8 and 20 million he hasn't met in America alone.
And even though al research shows a very low percentage are bi obviously Mrsanes in depth research is of more value.[quote]
Those are my own observations,gee im sorry if my observations dont match your preconceptions !Perhaps i should close my eyes & pretend its all a mirage just so it suits damaps opinion.
You accuse me of twaddle but where do you get the research data that a low % are bi? And what classifies someone as bi or exclusively homosexual when the vast majority in those situations have also had straight relationships at some point in their lives as well?I guess we should ignore this & focus instead on a bland statement that you are either gay or not gay. It seems you want one shoe size to fit all ,when there are so many many variables.
You are too ready to jump to any conclusion without really thinking about it.
My opinion is in many ways no more valid than yours but when challenged you are retracting so why make statements when you have no idea. I have counselled gays and even lived with them at times for decades. I have studied extensively the issues around cause, gender bias and abuse.
All I am saying is if you are going to talk rubbish don't present it as facts.
Gays them selves would say "you are either gay, straight or lying". Few are bi sexual. They are considered straight who tried same sex intercourse.
The latest CDCP report shows .7% reported bisexual as against 1.6% gay but most of those reporting are considered straight.
Well.... killing, stealing and bearing false witness have certainly all been state-sanctioned by the US when they attacked and invaded Iraq under false pretenses and widely supported by the public. You could probably say the same about most countries with significant military power. However, in society, I suppose it's about what serves us better.
Laws come from our decisions.
Try that next time you're snagged for speeding in your car.
I.e. I made a law by driving at 120k/hr on the open road,
officer, so that becomes the/my law for road usage.
No. Laws are passed into statute by elected law-makers.
That said lawmakers sometimes choose to ignore those
laws at expedient times does not mean that those laws - ipso facto - do not exist.
Look at my questions and try an answer, rather than some
distraction or other. They are not 'trick' questions. Nor some
sort of personal provocation. They are things that have vexed
philosophers for a long, long time.
E.g. does the ends justify the means, if it means breaking the
law. If so, under what circumstances? (A fire engine speeding
to a blazing boarding house with residents trapped therein.
A police officer talking on a cellphone while driving a car).
Who decides what circumstances are sufficient justification
for breaking the law? Does it apply, devoid of circumstances?
Many NZ statutes contain the phrase that goes something like:
E.g. does the ends justify the means, if it means breaking the
law. If so, under what circumstances? (A fire engine speeding
to a blazing boarding house with residents trapped therein.
A police officer talking on a cellphone while driving a car).
Who decides what circumstances are sufficient justification
for breaking the law? Does it apply, devoid of circumstances?
I really have no idea what you are getting at here.. if it goes to court, the judge decides. If you're speeding to get to hospital, the cop will probably decide. What does "Does it apply, devoid of circumstances?" mean? I think you mean "... regardless of circumstances"? If so, then you can apply a law and still have no consequences, so the answer would be yes.
Very sad.You see theres a great example right there of propaganda using the word "progress" to serve promoting an agenda. The agenda is that all change is somehow good because somehow its progress, because that suits my opinion & therefore i will silence all dissension by using the word "progress".
We know many times over throughout history that simply is not true,some change is good & some is bad.
Always question & dont fall into the trap of lies & opinion disguised as facts by using words to silence opposing thought.
What I'm referring to is that homosexuality
was once illegal, where it is not so, now.
Isn't it the same with prostitution, too, now?
What next?
Is that the start of a slippery slope syndrome?
Yes, you're right: regardless of circumstances
expresses it better.
The potential problem is blind justice. 'Community
standards' also play a part in shifts in morality.
Lots of things were illegal that shouldn't have been. When you say "what next?", as I'm sure you know, many people have also said the same thing about equality for black people, emancipation for women, banning dog fighting and the introduction of the bikini.
Here's a good quote for you...
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races" - Abraham Lincoln.
Good example of completely out of context Drelly. IF you read the Charleston address and study Lincoln, (even just watch the movie it's outstanding), then you would know he said this because he believed that there were genetic differences as that was the belief in the day.
Unlike let's say homosexuality which is medically unnatural and dangerous and breaks so many hygiene and good health scientific rules.
Not to mention that it was declared unnatural thousands of years ago and still is :-)
Good example of completely out of context Drelly. IF you read the Charleston address and study Lincoln, (even just watch the movie it's outstanding), then you would know he said this because he believed that there were genetic differences as that was the belief in the day.
Unlike let's say homosexuality which is medically unnatural and dangerous and breaks so many hygiene and good health scientific rules.
Not to mention that it was declared unnatural thousands of years ago and still is :-)
How is it out of context? It's an example of how beliefs change. Just because it's what they believed at the time (with no scientific justification), it doesn't validate it. Lincoln also thought that all black people in the US should be re-colonized back to Africa as he believed that there was no way white and black could live together.
I find it odd when people say homosexuality is unnatural... nature created it. It might not be conducive to furthering the species but that is a different story! Flying through the air at high speed in a tube with metal wings... now that is unnatural!
Comment