Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 299
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So, what is the scope of "sexual orientation"? Is the gender of the sexual partner the only factor of one's orientation?
    Perhaps this is the distinction between "orientation" and "preference." When we speak of sexual orientation we usually mean gender orientation.

    However, within gender most of us have other preferences that include smell, age, body type, race, skin color, skin and hair texture, facial features, eye color and shape, class, and a whole range of things so subtle that they may not even have names. However, gender orientation usually dominates these and most of us are clearly one gender or the other while these other preferences have a range.

    Most of us are either male or female, not much in between. Most of us have an attraction to one gender that pretty much excludes the other. However, between black and white, there are many differences and most of us are somewhere in between. Our prefernce for any one of these rarely excludes the others.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Not at all. For (most) homosexuals marriage does not seem to be a prerequisite for sex, so marriage obviously is not about sex for them (it may be different for you, I don't know ).

    Homosexual marriage is about sharing the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals when they want to form an enduring relationship and marry.
    Understood.

    I was investigating the distinction you raised that bestiality and pedophilia are about the "act." My impression was that the designation of homosexual or heterosexual was one derived from the act.

    Recent comments suggest that one is designated based on his/her orientation, regardless of how they live.

    But, then, in a twisted sort of way, that brings us back to choice.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Perhaps this is the distinction between "orientation" and "preference." When we speak of sexual orientation we usually mean gender orientation.

    However, within gender most of us have other preferences that include smell, age, body type, race, skin color, skin and hair texture, facial features, eye color and shape, class, and a whole range of things so subtle that they may not even have names. However, gender orientation usually dominates these and most of us are clearly one gender or the other while these other preferences have a range.

    Most of us are either male or female, not much in between. However, between black and white, there are many differences and most of us are somewhere in between.
    Where I was going was trying to better define the logical distinction between homoxesuality and polygamy. Specifically, I was wondering how we could be certain that the tendency towards polygamy was not an "orientation" as well.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So, what is the scope of "sexual orientation"? Is the gender of the sexual partner the only factor of one's orientation?
    I would suggest that it's a matter of degree. As a gay man, I don't hate women and, in fact, can appreciate a beautiful woman. Nor am I disgusted or revolted by her gender or her reproductive differences.

    However, I am not sexually attracted to women nor would I be comfortable making a lifetime commitment to a woman. It's not a choice. It just is.

    The attraction to members of my own gender is probably better summed up by the statement that I am attracted to men (other gay men, not every man, and not even every gay man) more than I am attracted to women. I (as all people) relate to men differently than women.

    To approach it from a non-gay standpoint, thing of why you're attracted to women and would consider making a lifetime commitment to a woman. (And not just from a sexual standpoint.) The reasons and/or emotions you have behind that, are probably the same or very similar to mine. Can you picture setting up house, raising kids, and getting through the day with another man in a loving, committed way (forget about the sex part - their are plenty of married straight folks in non-sexual relationships)? Probably not.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Recent comments suggest that one is designated based on his/her orientation, regardless of how they live.
    Correct. You can be gay/straight/lesbian and be celibate, be non-sexual, or be asexual. And you can be sexual or non-sexual, married or not-married, monogamous or non-monogamous. How you express your sexuality is a choice. How you are oriented to express it is not a choice.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It is not about believing, it is about data. Look at the substantial numbers of homosexual animals from various species in nature. Why do you think there is no such natural basis for homosexuality in humans? Why should there be lots and lots of animal species with high numbers of homosexual individuals, but no homosexuals "by nature" in the human species?
    I don't believe that to be true. There is a high rate of sexual activity within the same, usually male, sex but that does not correlate to a monogomous homosexual relationship in humans. As we are often told by gay activists, homosexuality is not just about the act of sex with members of the same sex.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Not beating up, harrasing, or denying rights to individuals is a choice. That's pretty clear, I think.
    I don't know about that. I've known a lot of people in the past who get ridicule and often physical abuse for the way they dressed, their hair styles, makeup, piercings, etc. Those were all choices.
  8. #68  
    Anyway, I never did get to the bottom of straight people's objection to gay marriage in America. Americans dont like mayonnaise on their chips, yet they dont outlaw that.

    Surur
  9. #69  
    LOL, Surur. Thanks for the laugh. Good one.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Anyway, I never did get to the bottom of straight people's objection to gay marriage in America. Americans dont like mayonnaise on their chips, yet they dont outlaw that.

    Surur
    American's don't have chips, they have fries.
  11. nesman89's Avatar
    Posts
    5 Posts
    Global Posts
    6 Global Posts
    #71  
    Anyway, I never did get to the bottom of straight people's objection to gay marriage in America. Americans dont like mayonnaise on their chips, yet they dont outlaw that.
    I think no matter what anyone says we are a conservative nation. based on that we make our laws. yes this may be a "free" country but we do have to live by certain rules whether we like them or not. obviously we can try to change them. you can never satisfy everyone. Problem is everyone feels their getting jobbed and they deserve X. Maybe we should be thankful we can argue about this freely without recourse or being executed by our gov't leaders.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    American's don't have chips, they have fries.
    Whatever they call them, they eat ketchup, not mayonaise, on them.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't believe that to be true. There is a high rate of sexual activity within the same, usually male, sex but that does not correlate to a monogomous homosexual relationship in humans. As we are often told by gay activists, homosexuality is not just about the act of sex with members of the same sex.
    I didn't make a statement, I asked questions, so you cannot "believe that to be true" or not true. Feel free to answer, though:
    Look at the substantial numbers of homosexual animals from various species in nature. Why do you think there is no such natural basis for homosexuality in humans? Why should there be lots and lots of animal species with high numbers of homosexual individuals, but no homosexuals "by nature" in the human species?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #74  
    Actually chips sprinkled with parmesan cheese is quite nice

    Surur
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I didn't make a statement, I asked questions, so you cannot "believe that to be true" or not true. Feel free to answer, though:
    In the process of asking the question you made an assumption of fact that there is a "high number of homosexual" animals. That is what I don't believe to be true. There is a high number of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior but that's not the same as saying there is a high number of homosexual animals--aside from the fact that animals by nature can't be "homo" anything since they are not homosapiens. A single, or even multiple instances of same sex relations does not make an animal "gay". By all accounts, that same animal also has multiple instances of hetero relations as well.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by nesman89
    I think no matter what anyone says we are a conservative nation. based on that we make our laws. yes this may be a "free" country but we do have to live by certain rules whether we like them or not.
    Do you think this explains why you had slavery and segregation and bans on interracial marriage for so long?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Actually chips sprinkled with parmesan cheese is quite nice

    Surur
    I like 'em with curds and gravy like the Quebecers.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Do you think this explains why you had slavery and segregation and bans on interracial marriage for so long?
    "You"? Europeans didn't have slavery? Oh, and what was the last Western country to give women the right to vote?
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by nesman89
    I think no matter what anyone says we are a conservative nation. based on that we make our laws. yes this may be a "free" country but we do have to live by certain rules whether we like them or not. obviously we can try to change them. you can never satisfy everyone. Problem is everyone feels their getting jobbed and they deserve X. Maybe we should be thankful we can argue about this freely without recourse or being executed by our gov't leaders.
    Must be wonderful to be young and have so little memory. One does not fear the leader or execution. One fears the majority. One fears the pandering politicians. One fears the Klan. One fears the beat cop, the interogator, and the prison guard who "know" what the leader expects and that they will not be punished for it. One fears the thugs, bullies, and homophobes. One fears firing, ex-communication, and damnation. One fears teasing and ridicule. One even fears the excesses of, and identification with, one's friends and lovers. Do not presume to speak to us of thanks or freedom from fear.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Do you think this explains why you had slavery and segregation and bans on interracial marriage for so long?
    Yes.

    On the other hand time and history are on the side of justice. Progress may be slow but it is certain. Why do you suppose the moss-backs are so stirred up?
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions