# Homosexuality?



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

OK, firstly, I'm married (to a chick) and a previous homophobic.

But, over the years, I have analysed the human species to come to the conclusion that we have attactions to other people (and beasts) for a reason.

(An inate desire to poke our things in other things and to have things poked in us.)

It has resulted in the human being being the king of the beasts.

(wow, got being being into the one sentance )

So, general discussion on homosexuality.

My initial case is that we all have the tendency for it, depending on culture and circumstances.

And, it's for a reason. To be discussed.


----------



## ColB (5 July 2008)

Hey Kennas!  

I come on this forum in an effort to make some money.  

How can I make money on the topic 'homosexuality'?  

Don't even go there!  

Like you I used to be homophobic but have become more accepting as I get older.  I get annoyed by the 'Gays' that have to flaunt themselves like at Sydney Gay Mardi Gras etc in all their getup, black leather, bum cheeks hanging out, nipple rings etc....And why do so many have to put on the Carson Cressly voice.

Why Cant they be NORMAL???


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 July 2008)

kennas, 
then there's the "fact" that the Bible would know that gays don't go to heaven   - ignoring of course that there are many priests our there who have molested boys (or girls for that matter). 

No doubt a few out there think (as Hagee does) that Katrina was God's way of stopping a gay pride march that was scheduled for New Orleans that week? 

  Hagee on Katrina Gay - Kuo


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

ColB said:


> Hey Kennas!
> 
> I come on this forum in an effort to make some money.
> 
> ...



 I'm surprised this is not a previous topic.

Hmmm, yes, how do we make money off being gay? 

In regards to normal,  maybe 'normal' is gay?

I have a few close friends who are poofs and lesbos. 

But, maybe they are just a slant of 'normal'?


There are a few things to be discussed in regard to the species and it's survival surrounding our sexual desires....

Love this topic.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 July 2008)

PS think I heard some bloke "Pope Alice" interviewed last night - wants to have a big kissing thing the full length of Oxford steet to coincide with the (real) pope's visit.   

sheesh - whether gays or not, there are a lot of junkies in town these days - I just have pictures of Hepatitis cases going beserk. 

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/2612/Prophylactics-Pashing-And-Protesting-The-Pope.htm



> Prophylactics, Pashing And Protesting The Pope
> Local News, By Christian Taylor, 24th June, 2008
> 
> What will you be doing during the Pope’s visit to our shores? For those of you who will be in Sydney, we’ve got a couple of suggestions. You can either *take part in a mass ‘kiss in’ at Taylor Square*, or you can go and hand condoms out to the pilgrims, as a protest against the Pope’s stance on homosexuality, contraception and abortion....  etc




Also planned for Brisbane I notice. 
http://qlp.e-p.net.au/news/pope-s-queer-kiss-off-2049.html


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Maybe we have sexual desires for anything in order that the species survive?


----------



## rederob (5 July 2008)

God was very clever.
He gave males a male and a female connector - in the plumbing sense.
And he gave females two female connectors - in the plumbing sense.
So men would never get get short of something to poke into, whether in male only or in mixed company.
It is a man's God given duty to poke around - whether wanted or unwanted.
Men are not particularly intelligent and not particularly discriminating when it comes to wanting to poke around.
I therefore  conclude that God intended for men men to be homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, transsexual and assexual.
Furthermore, God cannot be a male because she's too smart.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

rederob said:


> God was very clever.
> He gave males a male and a female connector - in the plumbing sense.
> And he gave females two female connectors - in the plumbing sense.
> So men would never get get short of something to poke into, whether in male only or in mixed company.
> ...



Hmmm, God with a capital G is a human invention. 

And yes, we made him very clever. 

Clever enough to have made the world in 6 days! lol

Maybe we have desire for a reason?

Maybe love is a reason?


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

And, maybe 'love' is a construct to assist with the survival of the species?

Sorry, jumping ahead...


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

time to pull this oldie out again...


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> time to pull this oldie out again...



Hahaha! Just what I was thinking.

**grabs a jumbo bucket of popcorn and pulls up a chair


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

True sexuality is inherent, not created by events.  Homosexuals just 'are', their sexuality is all part of the 'normal distribution' of nature. Exactly the same as the curve for IQ.  Expecting everyone to display the same kind of sexuality, is like expecting everyone to have the same Intelligence!  And then the 'average' person sneering at those who have a Higher IQ or a much lower IQ.

Sexuality isn't a choice, it is just part of your biological heritage - call it the tumble of the genetic dice.  Just as some heterosexuals strut their sexuality, then so do some homosexuals; the difference is that the former are 'deemed to be normal' and in the majority, and so are not commented on, the latter may be deemed by some, to be abnormal, and so are commented on.

I had a fierce argument with a male homophobic friend, that totally surprised me, he simply could not tolerate even thinking that someone could be gay, and not hetereosexual.  Almost like he was so totally and personally offended by the concept.  I don't understand homophobia.


----------



## Bushman (5 July 2008)

Why stop at homosexuality? Anyone for abortion, men having babies, grandmothers having kids, euthanasia, and all those other fecund Catholic-inspired media explorations into sexuality, species survival, birth and death.  

How to feel when the boundaries keep shifting? Makes for good copy pandering to that 'funny little feeling deep inside'.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Hahaha! Just what I was thinking.
> 
> **grabs a jumbo bucket of popcorn and pulls up a chair



Wayne, 

I knew you would be all over this!!!


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> I had a fierce argument with a male homophobic friend, that totally surprised me, he simply could not tolerate even thinking that someone could be gay, and not hetereosexual.  Almost like he was so totally and personally offended by the concept.  I don't understand homophobia.



 Yep, had this conversation too. 

Funny. 

Maybe the innate hatred to homosexuality is for a purpose?


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

One very disconcerting fact is the amount of females 'not wanted or missing' as infants in many cultures. Will there be a choice for you in the future anyway?  

When I was in Singapore the newspaper came out with a pretty heavily weighted statistics on boy infants in Vietnam, China etc alive and attending pre-school they couldn't find many young girls anywhere. They are so set on having a boy for such selfish and ignorant reasons. The world will be a sad place if that keeps up, and you will miss us.

Females will become a unique species - no wonder we eat the males in other species for survival!  If you have a woman look after her.

Enjoy our beauty, splendor, nuturing and brillance while you can gentlemen - Keep making high heels and dresses as you boys will never be able to carry it off in the elegance and style as us - I don't care how many hormones you try to take.


----------



## SevenFX (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Wayne,
> 
> I knew you would be all over this!!!




I don't think he is all over this, he is merely stating the obvious.

Inapprociate Thread from an Inapprociate ASF respresentive IMO

Lets hope it doesn't head in the wrong direction and change the way people see this forum which has taken years to build.

SevenFX


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> time to pull this oldie out again...




...  pasha bolka?  (that's norwegian for "passion is bolkers")


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Wayne,
> 
> I knew you would be all over this!!!




Did you hear the joke about the one legged blind muslim socialist Irishman who wanted to become jewish. He met this black conservative who was gay. Anyway .......

Can anyone finish this joke?

gg


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

What concerns me more than anything is the number of kids growing up without a Father.  So I guess this impacts on all-female parents, as well as single female families.  Having raised two boys to adults, the role of 'Dad' in raising healthy adults is totally understated in today's society!


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

SevenFX said:


> I don't think he is all over this, he is merely stating the obvious.
> 
> Inapprociate Thread from an *Inapprociate ASF respresentive IMO*
> 
> ...



OK, Tek man.


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Wayne,
> 
> I knew you would be all over this!!!



Well, being a straight guy in the horsey set is a minority.

For me it's sort of ho hum, so what... but it's funny listening to others stress about it. (not in the condescending sense)

I just wonder at the necessity of the extreme high camp of some. On the other hand, it is often entertaining.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> What concerns me more than anything is the number of kids growing up without a Father.  So I guess this impacts on all-female parents, as well as single female families.  Having raised two boys to adults, the role of 'Dad' in raising healthy adults is totally understated in today's society!



I'm with you P,

What concerns me as well is boys growing up without their dads for the past 30 years.

Dads don't know how to be dads.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Well, being a straight guy in the horsey set is a minority.
> 
> For me it's sort of ho hum, so what... but it's funny listening to others stress about it.
> 
> I just wonder at the necessity of the extreme high camp of some. On the other hand, it is often entertaining.



A straight horsey guy?


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (5 July 2008)

Hey Kennas, i could tell you more than a few stories mate!

I should clarify for you Kennas that i am male, straight, also have a child and a very beautiful girlfirend (mother of my child).

When i lived in London for a 3 years i got to know a circle of gay guys through my best mate who was straight. He and i spent loads of time with them and after a while i actually prefered to spend time with them than my straight mates...............

Probably sounds a little odd to most straight Aussie blokes............, but, i found them to be more natural in their behavior, very accepting of others (most likely because they have each received their share of crap from other people over time), very funny and great fun to hang out with.

There was none of the yob or neanderthal to have to tolerate and they were all very well educated and intelligent, made for some great conversations.

I've been to gay bars with them, my straight mate and i were the only straight guys in the place. There were several very attractive females at the bar/clubs and they were all over us, only straight guys in the place. If you have never been, i recommend going one night to broaden your horizons.

Anyways, i got to say that in my experience i have found the gay guys to be awesome people and more enjoyable to spend time with than most stright guys i have met.

Conclusion - it takes all types to make up a world, i think you should judge people on the way they behave and the way they treat others not their sexually preferences.

As for Lesbians, i can only dream of spending time with them.................i encourage it!!!

JW


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Dads don't know how to be dads.



They need to know how to be men first!  (with the definition of Men being 'healthy, socially aware mature responsible male members of society' as opposed to their sexuality)


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> OK, Tek man.




K,

Apparently, forum mods must have every virtue and be free from every foible. 

Sort of a lily white automaton. (Is that racist?)


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> I should clarify for you Kennas that i am male


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> A straight horsey guy?




Yes.... and it is a smorgasboard, believe me. 

'cept when you go and get married.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (5 July 2008)

Its out Prospector....................


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Hey Kennas, i could tell you more than a few stories mate!
> 
> I should clarify for you Kennas that i am male, straight, also have a child and a very beautiful girlfirend (mother of my child).
> 
> ...



JR, I have some very close friends similar to yours  

So, what you are saying is that homosexuality is 'normal'. 


I think this conversation is leading to a logical conclusion...


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2008)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Its out Prospector....................




Oh Lord!!!! Another Internet fantasy bites the dust. 

...but agree with what you say.

Prospector, please, please, don't ever let on if you are male too.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2008)

ColB said:


> I get annoyed by the 'Gays' that have to flaunt themselves like at Sydney Gay Mardi Gras etc in all their getup, black leather, bum cheeks hanging out, nipple rings etc....



I get annoyed by people obsessed with football, who say religion shouldn't be challenged, who drive suburban tanks that never go off the bitumen and plenty of other things.

Personally I couldn't give a damn who's playing football as long as it remains a profit focused business with little real sportsmanship. I can't take a church sitting on massive wealth proclaiming concern for the poor as anything other than a joke. And a car is a means to get from A to B. 

Why can't they be normal? They are. They're just different to me, that's all. Diversity is a good thing IMO and certainly no reason to start yet another stupid war.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Oh Lord!!!! Another Internet fantasy bites the dust. :eek
> 
> ...but agree with what you say.
> 
> Prospector, please, please, don't ever let on if you are male too.



I'm leaving if P is a boy.


----------



## derty (5 July 2008)

I have a few friends both male and female who are gay and unfortunately many more who are homophobic. 

When I encounter someone who is overtly homophobic I sometimes recount to them a study I heard about on Radio National quite a while ago. I tell them that the study interviewed a large group of men and determined their level of homophobia. The group then watched some male homosexual pr0n and their erectile activity and arousal was monitored. The result was that in large the group that were the most homophobic became the most aroused during the viewing. 

After telling the story almost unanimously the response is "I don't really mind gay people, I can take them or leave them as long as they don't bother me." Another response is that they think I am accusing them of being gay and they get pretty pissed off 

anyway I had a google to find a reference to the study and included a link below. Interestingly they say that the arousal may also be due to anxiety in the homphobes. Never-the-less it is funny watching them squirm after they hear the story.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm


> Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
> 
> Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.
> 
> Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'


----------



## agro (5 July 2008)

edit - prob should delete this image - i don't want another infraction


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

derty said:


> I have a few friends both male and female who are gay and unfortunately many more who are homophobic.
> 
> When I encounter someone who is overtly homophobic I sometimes recount to them a study I heard about on Radio National quite a while ago. I tell them that the study interviewed a large group of men and determined their level of homophobia. The group then watched some male homosexual pr0n and their erectile activity and arousal was monitored. The result was that in large the group that were the most homophobic became the most aroused during the viewing.
> 
> ...



Is this adding to my 'we all have the potential to be gay' point?

But, more importantly to me,

why?


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


>




Yep, that one got me as well...


----------



## derty (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Is this adding to my 'we all have the potential to be gay' point?
> 
> But, more importantly to me,
> 
> why?



No not really, more to throw out the point that some of those who come across as frothing at the mouth homophobes may actually be overcompensating.


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (5 July 2008)

Derty,

AMERICAN BEAUTY - For example


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2008)

Anyone notice some of the banner ads popping up on this thread?

ROTFLMAO!  Oh My!! :


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

derty said:


> No not really, more to throw out the point that some of those who come across as frothing at the mouth homophobes may actually be overcompensating.



LOL.

Like in the movie 'Beauty' or something, that won lots of gongs?



Maybe all any of us want is some satisfaction?

Part of the plan...


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Derty,
> 
> AMERICAN BEAUTY - For example





My memory is fading...


----------



## nomore4s (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


>






wayneL said:


> Oh Lord!!!! Another Internet fantasy bites the dust.
> 
> ...but agree with what you say.
> 
> Prospector, please, please, don't ever let on if you are male too.




lol, yes please don't tell us you're male as well, that would just be wrong



JeSSica WaBBit said:


> There were several very attractive females at the bar/clubs and they were all over us, only straight guys in the place.




Are you sure they were females?:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 July 2008)

nomore4s said:


> lol, yes please don't tell us you're male as well, that would just be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure they were females?:




well done nomores   same thought occurred to me

gg


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

Julia has seen me (in piccies anyway) so when J posts (assuming Julia reads this thread), J can confirm that I am a 


Hmm, cant figure out how to do a secret hint......

Now, as for Julia, I bet you guys are all thinking you have this person all sussed out now, dontcha!


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> Julia has seen me (in piccies anyway) so when she posts (assuming Julia reads this thread), she can confirm that I am a
> 
> 
> Hmm, cant figure that one out....



P, 

You died recently. 

Don't make my life more miserable..


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> P,
> 
> You died recently.
> 
> Don't make my life more miserable..




Ah, but look how I reinvented myself!  Classy versus brassy, and, well, whatever else she did.... Or maybe you guys prefer brassy!


----------



## JeSSica WaBBit (5 July 2008)

LOL

Tell ya what, it would come as a suprise if there was a package in the knickers................i did go to a club in Soho, in the heart of London once called 'Two Too Much', where they had loads of drag queens. I felt like i was on the set of musical or play and that night there were some woman (men in drag) in there that could have easily fooled any bloke who may have had one too many beers.

In fact, i was a bit stunned myself because i didnt realise that blokes could look so feminine. The gay guys i went with pointed out that they were all guys dolled up as woman. Some of these guys done up as woman were more attractive than many woman, so, i was suprised to say the least. 

Prospector - is that thunder or ASF hearts pounding for you............


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

JeSSica WaBBit said:


> Prospector - is that thunder or ASF hearts pounding for you............




Anna Nicole seemed to be a bit of a favourite on this forum.  Can't think why though!


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> Anna Nicole seemed to be a bit of a favourite on this forum.  Can't think why though!



Hahahahaha


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

So how manyof you are sitting on the fence? or been in both backyards to see what its like.  As a visitor to both there is no right or wrong as far as play - it safe, as in both the quality of your partner is paramount.  As far as survival lets hope a great proportion keep the family unit going. Agree with P, as far as fathers go they need to act like men to set the examine.  I have found more gay friends considerate, open minded to children than the macho male drama - which in is own way can rival the camp antics.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> So how manyof you are sitting on the fence? or been in both backyards to see what its like.  As a visitor to both there is no right or wrong as far as play - it safe, as in both the quality of your partner is paramount.  As far as survival lets hope a great proportion keep the family unit going. Agree with P, as far as fathers go they need to act like men to set the examine.  I have found more gay friends considerate, open minded to children than the macho male drama - which in is own way can rival the camp antics.



Ahhhhhhh,  

A couple  of points from me.

1. You have supported my opinion that we all have the tendancy. 

Boys or girls.

and,

2. Your grammar isn't very good. 

Not sure what this means:



> set the examine




Mine might be not very good right now either.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> So how manyof you are sitting on the fence?



I, for one, am not sitting on the fence!!!! 

Someone just needs to get my opinion out of me!


----------



## skint (5 July 2008)

derty said:


> No not really, more to throw out the point that some of those who come across as frothing at the mouth homophobes may actually be overcompensating.




Have seen it often. Could well be a case of "me thinks thou doth protest too much".

BTW, if I can offer a liitle sage-like advice, Derty, regardles of your own persuasion, may I suggest that " playing hard to get" is perhaps not the best strategy for you 'going forward', if your avatar is  anthing to go by.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Ok K. Sorry about my spelling.  But someone had to being the real conversation which you have been waiting for.  Your all sitting on the fence!

Did you go to your alpha side and see if the grass was greener. Be honest you started this thread.

I can say with honesty. I know why a woman appreciates a woman and  a woman appreciates a man, and a man appreciates a woman from what i've been told in both cases through mutual respect, understanding and chemistry.  These are long term situations I refer to.

Should you want to see or experience it Taylor Square A..c.  But ladies there are more men in the womens bathroom who are trying to "ooohhh Chanel lipstick can I try"  "No get your own".  Thats were the conversation gets interesting.  And you guys thought you knew what went on in the Ladies??!


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> Ok K. Sorry about my spelling.  But someone had to being the real conversation which you have been waiting for.  Your all sitting on the fence!
> 
> Did you go to your alpha side and see if the grass was greener. Be honest you started this thread.
> 
> ...



Green, 

You are not really getting to my point. 

Why would a woman appreciate a woman?

And, why would a man appreciate a man?

Your comments above are a little vague.

Lets get into some detail....


----------



## Bushman (5 July 2008)

This thread is a bit like watching an episode of Degrassi Junior High. Didn't Wheels once have a crush on Joey? That was a great show.


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

Pass the popcorn, Wayne.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

I can't speak for why a man appreciates a man perhaps you can enlighten me?

Any woman can appreciate the beauty and sexuality of another woman if not they are in denial, I do fine Hally quite gorgeous. But then it is personal perference. Men, I like the old fashion ones with manners and style, I have been in a long term with just such a gentlman now and will stay there.  That is not to say I don't find certain women attractive and we do talk about this openingly over dinner.  

Have you?


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Wayne while you at it I'd like a choc top!


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Kennas - going to pick me up on the spelling mistake??  sorry in advance

You owe me an answer seeing as I'm the only one to really being answering your thread?

And the Choco Top I have to endure Kung Fu Panda this afternoon.


----------



## CAB SAV (5 July 2008)

WOW, Lots of hits on this one, pity it isn"t listed as HOMO on the market.
Maybe this thread could have been attached to "whats your biggest loser" as many are taking it up the poo shute in this market.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

CAB SAV said:


> WOW, Lots of hits on this one, pity it isn"t listed as HOMO on the market.
> Maybe this thread could have been attached to "whats your biggest loser" as many are taking it up the poo shute in this market.



Ha ha. 

We'll get to the bottom of the subject eventually.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Define Bottom of the thread and you may get there sooner


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> Define Bottom of the thread and you may get there sooner



No, 

Waiting to see where it goes.

Open for discussion.

If it doesn't go anywhere, then I shouldn't have raised it.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Cab Sav do you watch 10?  I don't

Obviously have nothing significant to offer.  At least Wayne is getting the popcorn!


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Well until Joe reins it in you may find the bottom.  Thought I think many of us are under 100.  What is so wrong with the guy if you enjoyed the kiss?


----------



## julius (5 July 2008)

I thought this was funny...

http://www.foxsports.com.au/beijing_olympics/story/0,27313,23963545-5014107,00.html

THE American Family Association has a strict policy to replace the word "gay" with "homosexual" on its news website - but it created a problem with sprinter Tyson Gay. 
The association's computer's auto-corrected the US sprint star's name to Tyson Homosexual. 

Here's an extract of an Associated Press story as it ran on the association's OneNewsNow Christian news website: 

Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has. His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. 

Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing. 

"It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me." 

The embarassing blunder has since been fixed, although it's still visible on the site's search page.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 July 2008)

julius said:


> I thought this was funny...
> 
> "It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."



lol - classic !


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Now Kennas, I am fascinated, who do you HONSETLY fine attractive on the alpha side a well-known celeb would help????  If you deny this then you are really in denial about appreciation of the human!  Any human out there who is questioning the answer is in denial. Amazing what happens when USA do on holiday.  Any of you have a sex life as Kennas is trying to find out and willing to speak of?  As for the POPE  go and kiss but be warned labour have a law out dispensing condoms - Fine.  Hope the chaser comes up with a great idea Pope II


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Cum on boys Gay - homosexual????  Why not try LOVE and APPRECIATION!  Please start acting like men or this whole AFS will be run by women.  Showing your short sightedness too easily. yes Saturday entainment, guys are easy  -  Wayne I want my choc TOP!!!


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

On a side note, KFP is apparently brilliant!

Now back to the feature presentation. :jerry


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Yes, relationship is IT!!  Sorry to upset you sooooo much.  Can't see anyone else in this conversation.  Just on the side lines for cheap entainment. Seriously hope you are happy and open minded.  As in my first post on this thread.   Hope the males appreciate the females in all cultures and visa versa.  We are all special and unique and keep the bloody market from a full crash.


----------



## justjohn (5 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> Wayne while you at it I'd like a choc top!




I hope you are refering to and ice-cream


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> Yes, relationship is IT!!  Sorry to upset you sooooo much.  Can't see anyone else in this conversation.  Just on the side lines for cheap entainment. Seriously hope you are happy and open minded.  As in my first post on this thread.   Hope the males appreciate the females in all cultures and visa versa.  We are all special and unique and keep the bloody market from a full crash.



Still not the point.

Hope someone else is interested.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Sam76 is there anything you would like to contribute besides popcorn? A little on your personal life will enhance the conversation.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

JJ love chocolate though dont thinkthey dip in lindt


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> Sam76 is there anything you would like to contribute besides popcorn?




nope


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> nope




LOL


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Still not the point.

Hope someone else is interested.

Trying Kennas - be very direct  with the point and  not to your friends on the side. You will get an answer or do you want a professor in this field.  Doubt their intersted in the stock market. Usually saving lives as the ones I know.


----------



## nomore4s (5 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> nope




lol, What about Chuck:


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

nomore4s said:


> lol, What about Chuck:




You don't wanna bring Chuck into this. 


I will contribute something to this thread though;

This is so wrong on so many different levels 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23967110-5016689,00.html


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> You don't wanna bring Chuck into this.
> 
> 
> I will contribute something to this thread though;
> ...



eeeeek!!!


----------



## justjohn (5 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> You don't wanna bring Chuck into this.
> 
> 
> I will contribute something to this thread though;
> ...




You love this stuff Chuck ,is there something you want to tell us


----------



## Julia (5 July 2008)

I started reading this thread thinking OK good, seems like an interesting discussion.   But the last couple of pages are pretty much just rubbish folks.

When it gets to just pre-adolescent smut and double entendres, I pretty much lose interest.  Can we get it back on track?

Kennas, you keep saying no one is getting your point.   Perhaps you could try to be a bit clearer about what your own view actually is?

Btw, yes I can vouch for Prospector's gender.  So just relax, fellas, she's as gorgeous (well, almost) as those fantasies you are all nursing.  Unavailable though, so you'll just have to dream on.

Probably picky of me, but I'd be happier if the word 'gay'  wasn't used.
It used to be a perfectly good adjective, but now only has the homosexual meaning.  What's wrong with saying homosexual?  

Someone suggested some homophobic men could be overcompensating.
I would really agree with this.   A bloke I knew really well went overboard with all the macho stuff, constantly ran down those he described as "bloody poofters", and turned out to be that way inclined himself.  Even got married to an innocent girl as part of the great cover-up.  Not a helluva lot of fun for her as it turned out.

I don't believe homosexuality is a choice.  Perhaps practising the lifestyle is but it seems a bit unreasonable to me that someone who is naturally attracted to his/her own sex should be expected to live an abstinent existence.

I've had great male homosexual friends.   Been to lots of their parties, including those where I was the only straight person.  They are just people, for heaven's sake.   I don't care in the least what sort of sexual activity anyone gets involved in, as long as it doesn't involve the abuse of children or animals.

Another question is that of how necessary is an emotional attachment for a sexual relationship?   Seems to be commonly accepted that men can happily ***** away with casual connections (still feeling love for their long term partner) but that women are unlikely to do this, only feeling OK if there is some sense of commitment.   I'm not at all sure this is the case.

One scene that sticks in my mind and makes me feel a bit sad is coming across one of my male homosexual friends coming out of a public toilet.
This is the seedy side, that sexual contact can be as fleeting as a quick **** with a stranger in some grubby public toilet.

For a great - and very literary - account of the life of a homosexual man, the book "A Married Man" by Edmund White is worth reading.


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

justjohn said:


> You love this stuff Chuck ,is there something you want to tell us





Here's a few quotes to reassure the world of Chuck's hetrosexuality.



Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya".

Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his dad did.

However:


When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it is not because he is gay, but because he has run out of women.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

OK until Julia joins in we have utter crap from the (boys) on beer and the thread seems to be a time passer.  U wonder why women find you so uninteresting.  Guys want instant pleasure WOMEN are willing to give.  This is over ALL your male heads.  good luck Kennas in finding the answer  - there is none. Life is as it is - all are unique if they can be true to themselves.  Besides a Uni paper the people on this thread are after cheap thrills.


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

OK Kennas, tell us what is really going on in your life at the moment.  Are you thinking that another male is attractive, and that is concerning you because you don't know if that is a normal thing for a hetero guy to do?

Well, I cant answer for males, but hetero females can find other females attractive but that doesn't make them homosexual.  I just assumed it would be the same for men!

Ah Julia, needed you to get things back on track.  Go to do some shopping and it degenerates!

What does our survival instinct have to do with attraction though?  It goes against our instincts to fly in planes, travel on boats, drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes!


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

So, my question is:

Why are people homosexual?

I do have an idea about this, but your position is pedestrian.

Anyone else have a point?

Well Kennas as your a mod and started this threat WHY don't you give your answer to the public who are now glued to this thread.  Degree why do you have? want to PDF it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Please,
> Someone throw me a bone here.
> ...  Why would anyone be homosexual?



kennas, 
you're assuming nature? nurture? choice?

PS because they want to give you a bone ? 

what's that famous pickup line ? ...
"sweetheart , you've got 161 bones in your body - want one more?


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

That is so short sighted.  You don't even recognise hetorsexuals who become bisexuals who may have gone thought what you call homosexuality.  And then find what makes them comfortable in a loving relationship which could go back to hetrosexual.  SO MAKE YOUR POINT.  Yes lovers can be of different kinds at different times in there life time - is that wrong? NO. People are humans they change and develop - thus there is no answer to your question.   I feel the people that even question your thread wanting to try or discover themselves. The human is a constantly evolving being.  Don't hurt yourself or others and your OK just be true and honest.  If you want to experiment then do it you don't have to tell the world just be happy in yourself.

Wayne I hope your enjoying the popcorn and MY choco top.


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> OK,
> 
> People who think we 'LOVE' are deluded.
> 
> ...




Seeing as your so cynical - I'm not trying to be personal but didn't you commit to loving you WIFE at your wedding or are you deluding yourself for survival? Did you tell her that?

The answer is pretty simple.  Answer your own question. You seem to know the answer. And just teasing the audience.  You have an audience waiting for the outcome.  I have send you 3 Personal messages to end this but no answer - you keep wanting to go on is it the alpha male in you with your friends giving "support"???  At least 3 females here can see the light.  Or why don't you go to a couple of gay night clubs in Peru and give us all the details so we know your answer.  Sad day for males enjoying this.  Love your wife or girlfiriend or partner and be a peace.


----------



## SM Junkie (5 July 2008)

> Someone suggested some homophobic men could be overcompensating.
> I would really agree with this. A bloke I knew really well went overboard with all the macho stuff, constantly ran down those he described as "bloody poofters", and turned out to be that way inclined himself. Even got married to an innocent girl as part of the great cover-up.




I think Freud would agree with this point.  I remember some theory he had around those that are strongly opposed to homosexuality are actually fighting an internal struggle.

I favour the nature debate.  Longitudial studies into homosexuality have also proven that the subjects had a prefference, from when they were younger, for toys of the opposite sex.  This was particularly interesting in sets of twin.  In a couple of cases one of the boys preferred dolls, dress up and overall a more gentler way of play.  So it is facinating that in sets of twin brought up in the same environment, that one can be straight and the other homosexual.

Personally I prefer diversity in the world, people of different races, sexuality, abilities, it is what makes us unique.


----------



## spooly74 (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Humans are sexually attracted to other humans for survival purposes.




Then ultimately, homosexuality leads to non survival of (particular) human genes.
You`re not suggesting that homosexuality is akin to natural selection?
:hide:



kennas said:


> Looking forward to an argument.



Have a distinct feeling you`re gonna get one.

I`m off to ask the local barman ...might get a cab on the way


----------



## gav (5 July 2008)

OK I am pretty new to this forum, but been on other forums for a few yrs, and this would have to be the most bizarre thread I've ever come across.  I agree with what many of you have said about children needing to be a father, etc.  There are soooo many 'feminine' male teenagers these days (most are still straight), they wear girls jeans, make-up and spend longer in the bathrooms getting ready than their girl friends.  I am 24yrs old, no longer into the latest trends, etc.  I walked into a clothing store the other day for the first time in I dont know how long.  I walked straight out because I couldnt tell the difference between the girls & guys clothes 

I am a competitive bodybuilder, and I can admire another males physique, but that DOES NOT mean I am attracted to it.  I am only attracted to females, and have a gorgeous girlfriend who I love very much.

I know alot of you have said 'you just are', or 'you are born that way'.  Either you are straight or homosexual, you dont really have a choice.  How about pedophiles, do they have a choice?  Or are they born like that too?  I should also add that I DO NOT condone the actions of a pedophile, just asking if ppl think they are born that way too...

Mods, feel free to delete that last paragraph if it is deemed to be offensive.

Gav


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

```
I've yet to see a decent theory about why homosexuality exists.

And, I am a supporter of lesbians and poofs!!
```

Kennas, I am going to give you the positive light that when you return to Australia you will realise that there is NO THEORY on homosexuality.  You may have noticed that science still has no set answer only ideas.  Your Answer will be your own experience as is anyones.  Do you really want to put me down when I have been honest with you publicly.  
And as mentioned to you from others - there are many terms to call people, would you like to be known as an Ignorant Yobbo Redneck? Probably not assisting your creditials as a Mod, many people are reading this and your Political incorrectness is quite immature. 
Give respect where it is due and stop the pigeon holing. No wonder the world is in a state of turmoil let alone the markets.  It is common decency towards fellow humans which is lacking.  I'm an antheist but  believe in respect to others.  Kennas you are not the only one who has an opion and you could well be offending many people on AFS directly or indirectly through your labeling.  This is lowering the standards of a site I had repect for.  Are you just trying to accure more points as the highest contributor.   Should I come across a Sciencfic Paper to Support any claims be sure I will be sending it to you.  I hope the rest of your holiday is pleasant and your enjoy your time with your partner.


----------



## skint (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Freud's theories were right for his day, but Jung gazumped him.
> 
> And, anyone one else with a brain since.
> 
> ...




Freud and Jung? There'sa couple of heads that needed bangin' together. 

If you look at mammals where the males are solitary, say a leopard, there is little evidence of homosexual activity. The first thing a male does upon encountering another male in its territory is to try either run it of of town, or tear its head off.

In social mammals there is a great deal of evidence of homosexuality. I posted a link earlier pertaining to the sexual activity of bonobos(pygmy chimps). Males bonk females, males bonk males, and the females likewise aren't too fussy. They bonk to say g'day, bonk to say oorooh, and bonk when there's nothing better to do. It's a vital ingredient of their social cohesion. There are many other examples of homosexual activity in social mammals. I've heard that pole herefords have a greater tendency to bat for the other side. Don't know if that one's true or not. 

Humans are a social mammal. If the guys had zero tolerance for their own gender, the place would be in a bit of a pickle. I don't know (and I'm not sure it matters) but perhaps it is the case that, by necessity, the level of same sex attraction lies along a continuum, with some born at the heterosexual end, some bisexual and some homosexual. One can only speculate, but whatever the reason "Vive la difference".


----------



## SM Junkie (5 July 2008)

> I've yet to see a decent theory about why homosexuality exists.




And I don't think you will.  

Theory is only a tested opinion.  There is no one theory to explain humanity and its various quirks.

Why does homosexuality exist - well perhaps is just does.

There are so many examples in this world where we ask "why" and there is no theoretical, scientific or rational explanation for it.

As I see it - we all have our own path to tread and our own leasons to learn in this lifetime.  For each one of us it is different.


----------



## JTLP (5 July 2008)

Kennas...what you doing later tonight big boy? Hommmaaa sexual cyber 

LOL this thread is hilarious...Kennas you sound like a 16 y/o when you write "those poofs and lesbos"! I am eating genuine LOLsagna here.

Back on topic:

I can understand guys being gay (i have quite a few gay friends and they are always good for a laugh) but can somebody explain this interesting concept to me...

Why do most Lezzo's have a butch/male looking partner??? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being Lesbian? Like really, if you are that insecure and have got ZERO GAME in the singles stakes and you couldn't get a dude in the first place, why would you humiliate yourself to the general public and get a dude's haircut and get all gruff?

In saying that, there are some smoking ladies with short hair...but I just don't get the carpet call brigade getting all bogan and donning flannies?

JTLP OUT!


----------



## Green08 (5 July 2008)

Kennas it is @ 2am in Lima Peru. I really think you should go to bed and resume this conversation tomorrow or later.   I am sure your partner is missing you.  From us in Australia - Good Night


----------



## Joe Blow (5 July 2008)

Not quite sure why this thread has upset a few people.

I realise the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one but I don't think that it should be excluded from discussion on that basis. I like to think that ASF members are capable of discussing even the most controversial topics with a degree of maturity.

If you find the topic itself objectionable then I would suggest not opening the thread to begin with.


----------



## Bomba (5 July 2008)

i thought a poof was one of those thingies you rest your feet on


----------



## Nyden (5 July 2008)

I was under the impression that love, attraction, desire, lust - whatever; were all scientifically known to be a result of evolution ensuring the continuance of the species as a whole, after intelligence was developed, & instinct was lost? So, I guess I still don't know why people question "maybe love is just that ..." no, it *is* just that - plain & simple! :

I guess such things aren't easily labelled as facts though; what with so many (fools) people clinging to religion - eternal life, soul-mates, heaven, hell; you know, all the usual rubbish!

Homosexuality, well - in my opinion; it's merely curiosity of the species! Evolution wouldn't go anywhere if all the creatures within a species just did the same thing repeatedly; just like cats / dogs try to occasionally mate with each other, as well as with other breeds within their own kind.

Why do interracial couples exist? Same reason I suppose - genetic / evolutionary diversity. Eventually, evolution will cater to homosexuality; & the human species may become something akin to being unisex; or, maybe gender will become something more along the lines of 'race' - with both partners being able to enter pregnancy.

Of course, my own personal theory? This is evolutions way of preventing overpopulation. I guess it wasn't "planned" that we became so overly dominant, & now the great bulk of humanity is destined to become homosexual as to prevent child birth.

Disclaimer; I'm straight, & happily in-love - whilst full-knowing it's just a chemical reaction occurring as a result of clever evolutionary engineering - & not something spiritual :

Oh, and being an atheist, I have no issues with homosexuality.


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Nyden said:


> I was under the impression that love, attraction, desire, lust - whatever; was all scientifically known to be a result of evolution ensuring the continuance of the species as a whole, after intelligence was developed, & instinct was lost? So, I guess I still don't know why people question "maybe love is just that ..." no, it *is* just that - plain & simple! :
> 
> I guess such things aren't easily labelled as facts though; what with so many (fools) people clinging to religion - eternal life, soul-mates, heaven, hell; you know, all the usual rubbish!
> 
> ...



Amen. 

Back at you with some other thoughts tomorrow. 


Thank you.


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

Kennas my friend, you seem more than a little tired and emotional, and totally glued to this thread.  Please go and take a bex, lie down, and go to sleep.

You are asking people why there are homosexuals; homsexuals just ARE!  Few things we do in this modern life have anything to do with survival of the species, we just DO them!   Some people love modern art, others hate it. Some people are attracted to men, some of these people are men! It just happens.

Oh, OK, you are now thinking that the percentage of homosexuals is increasing through nature's response to over population.  Well, I think it is because we are eating too much chicken and the forced estrogens in chicken are turning men into homosexuals! 

While we are on theories, Nature's response in times of war is for women give birth to more boys!  And more boys are born generally because they (in times gone by) had a less chance of survival than girls.  Coz we are the stronger sex. :  Which is why some women are attracted to other women; they prefer the stronger sex!


----------



## Prospector (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Yes, going to bed now.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> However, NOTHING is random. !!




I think that was true before man got too clever and started to manipulate nature.  Or tried to anyway.


----------



## mayk (5 July 2008)

Does lesbianism exist in nature? Just curious. Or is this one of the feminist approach towards equality in homosexuality?


More estrogen or testosterone can it make people gay? Is there any scientific evidence for it ? 


On question of attractiveness, why boobies are attractive? 


I guess ultimately unless a homosexual traverses this forum we might never know the 'inside story'.  


And with all seriousness, is it safe to have something poking in your rectum regularly? Isn't AIDS a big problem among homosexuals?


----------



## Nyden (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> I think that was true before man got too clever and started to manipulate nature.  Or tried to anyway.




I believe that we still don't really have any control - & agree with Kennas; that nothing in our behaviour is random (unless you were referring to the universe on a whole ... then sorry, but that's a little too "fate-ish" for my liking .

One example of this is incestuous sex. Now, well all know that children conceived as a result of incestuous relationships have a higher probability of complications / death, & one could argue that the reason for this was to condition us over the ages to find this sort of relationship "socially unacceptable", & to minimize it's occurrence. Another bit of cleverness on evolutions behalf  Once again, this ensures diversity - there's that word again : Same reason for inter-racial relationships, same reason for attraction between age-groups, cliques, & any other sort of differences. 

We're all designed to fall in love / become attracted within certain type of people (probably a bit of nature / nurture there - but remember, nurture is also a form / result of nature ... ) - & it's a feeling that can be very difficult to fight. Perhaps even social change is a form of nature. I've heard about Asian girls that only date white men?

Opposites attract; there's great genetic wisdom in there


----------



## Nyden (5 July 2008)

mayk said:


> Does lesbianism exist in nature? Just curious. Or is this one of the feminist approach towards equality in homosexuality?
> 
> 
> More estrogen or testosterone can it make people gay? Is there any scientific evidence for it ?
> ...





Legs, hips, butt - men find these appealing because they represent wide hips for childbirth (lesser chance of complications - prior to hospitals).

Breasts - I guess this is one of the first indicators that a woman is of child-bearing years / able to conceive - being fertile. Men (straight men) biologically find this attractive ... again, for child-birth.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20571062-5005961,00.html
There are forms of evidence of homosexuality in nature.


----------



## skint (5 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> Kennas my friend, you seem more than a little tired and emotional, and totally glued to this thread.  Please go and take a bex, lie down, and go to sleep.
> 
> You are asking people why there are homosexuals; homsexuals just ARE!  Few things we do in this modern life have anything to do with survival of the species, we just DO them!   Some people love modern art, others hate it. Some people are attracted to men, some of these people are men! It just happens.
> 
> ...




More males are born during times of war? Interesting, although I expect it has less to do with the need for more participants and more to do with some other confound, such as the absence or presence of a male in the house. For example female children reach menarche earlier when the adult male in the house is a non-biological step-father rather than the biological father. Perhaps some simple biological mechanism rather than the call of Uncle Sam.

The notion that homosexuality arose due to an adaptive response to overpopulation really doesn't make sense. To show that it does make sense, it would be necessary to show how a homosexual individual has increased his or her chance of passing on their genes by being homosexual. I think those that suggest a connection between overpopulation and homosexuality  don't really understand evolutionary processes. They just don't work that way. Whilst the open expression of homosexuality has increased in more progressive societies, I expect the prevalence has remained constant across the millenia. The Ancient Greeks had armies of them in a time of populate or perish! I agree, the presence or absence of homosexuality has squat to do with survival, however as I mentioned earlier, the capacity for humans to have differing preferences may well be an extension of a broadly social trait inherent in social mammals that is necessary for survival. Just speculation. For practical purposes, people are born the way they're born.

P.S. BTW, always wondered why a roast chook always gave me  curious urge to slip into a little black number!


----------



## Doris (5 July 2008)

Nyden said:


> I was under the impression that love, attraction, desire, lust - whatever; were all scientifically known to be a result of evolution ensuring the continuance of the species as a whole, after intelligence was developed, & instinct was lost? So, I guess I still don't know why people question "maybe love is just that ..." no, it *is* just that - plain & simple! :
> 
> Of course, my own personal theory? This is evolutions way of preventing overpopulation. I guess it wasn't "planned" that we became so overly dominant, & now the great bulk of humanity is destined to become homosexual as to prevent child birth.
> 
> Disclaimer; I'm straight, & happily in-love - whilst full-knowing it's just a chemical reaction occurring as a result of clever evolutionary engineering - & not something spiritual :




This thread reminds me of a book by Jared Diamond called 'Why is Sex Fun?'.

After outlining mating patterns of birds and animals for evolutionary efficiency, his thesis was that humans were the only specie that had sex for fun, the reason being that the male would hang around and thus provide protection for the offspring.  

It seems logical when you hear of guys sticking in an unhappy marriage until the kids have grown and flown.  Empty-nest divorces are common...

But if your theory of overpopulation carried water, wouldn't a large number of Chinese be homosexual?  
Or... were they before the 'one child policy' was implemented? 

Diamond's latest book is Guns,Germs and Steel... a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years.  
Great read also.



kennas said:


> I've yet to see a decent theory about why homosexuality exists.




Simply, 85% of homosexuals are born this way. Why?  Genetics.  Why? Dunno. 
Maybe you have recent research on this or maybe a joke is forthcoming!? 

15% have become homosexual as a consequence of being socially traumatized at age 4-5 years or 12-14 years because they are not assimilated into a same sex group, often including an unaccepting relationship with a father or father role-model.  Yes.  A 'father' is essential to social development of boys.

This theory was purported during a subject I studied, called 'Human Sexuality', some years ago for a degree.


----------



## mayk (5 July 2008)

Nyden said:


> Legs, hips, butt - men find these appealing because they represent wide hips for childbirth (lesser chance of complications - prior to hospitals).
> 
> Breasts - I guess this is one of the first indicators that a woman is of child-bearing years / able to conceive - being fertile. Men (straight men) biologically find this attractive ... again, for child-birth.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the reference. It still focus on male homosexuality, not much on lesbenism. Is it because of the theory of 'pokeness' explained earlier..


----------



## Doris (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Ooooooo, really getting somewhere here.




I trust you're not concluding that homosexuals do not have cognitive procreation goals?  

Many wish to be and make good parents...


----------



## skint (5 July 2008)

Doris said:


> This thread reminds me of a book by Jared Diamond called 'Why is Sex Fun?'.
> 
> After outlining mating patterns of birds and animals for evolutionary efficiency, his thesis was that humans were the only specie that had sex for fun, the reason being that the male would hang around and thus provide protection for the offspring.
> 
> ...




Hi Doris,

My favourite Jarred Diamond is "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee".
I haven't read "Why is sex Fun", but I wouldn't agree that humans are the only ones to have sex for fun. Go ask a bonobo. Perhaps it is more the case that human males hang around because we are virtually the only species of mammal where the female has concealed ovulation. If we poor males are not aware whether our deeds are going to result in offspring, we'd better hang around to ensure that the other bloke in the cave doesn't get the guernsey on the father front.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 July 2008)

My only real experience with Homosexuality was the 2 years i spent installing 
Foxtel in Sydney (inner west, Paddington, city etc) probably 40% of my 
customers were gay...i found them to be great customers and generaly 
good people to be around and spend time with.

Hetro middle aged housewife's and younger professional women were the worst.



kennas said:


> (An inate desire to poke our things in other things and to have things poked in us.)




I have never felt the urge to stick my thing in anything other than the misses.


----------



## explod (5 July 2008)

Nyden said:


> Legs, hips, butt - men find these appealing because they represent wide hips for childbirth (lesser chance of complications - prior to hospitals).
> 
> Breasts - I guess this is one of the first indicators that a woman is of child-bearing years / able to conceive - being fertile. Men (straight men) biologically find this attractive ... again, for child-birth.




The biological would I think be more at a sub-concious level.  

Just dropped into this thread out of curiousity (must question that) so dont' know if the element of lust has been discussed.  This in my view is a prime driver on todays social norms.  This seems to be backed up by social anthropological studies.     

It also seems that the biological imprint determines preference, but I am open to correction here as my period of study is 20 years old and am not letttered in this field.


----------



## sam76 (5 July 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> I have never felt the urge to stick my thing in anything other than the misses.





Not even warm apple pie?


----------



## Muschu (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> However, NOTHING is random. !!
> 
> Everthing we do and think is for a reason.
> 
> ...




Good luck Kennas.  
So, there is no such thing as coincidence?  
We create our own reality?  
Do we even re-arrange our personal universe to match our picture of reality?


----------



## explod (5 July 2008)

Muschu said:


> Good luck Kennas.
> So, there is no such thing as coincidence?
> We create our own reality?
> Do we even re-arrange our personal universe to match our picture of reality?





Agree, following the urge and the heart has got us to start/here.  Be fairly innovative to alter that.  Alexander the Great made a good stab at it but a lot of collateral damage to free thinking; I thunk.


----------



## Stan 101 (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Please,
> 
> Someone throw me a bone here.
> 
> ...




I've heard this question posed to a gay guy I used to work with. His response was simple. "Don't knock it till you've tried it" was all he said.

Why would anyone want to be an AJ with all the over the top macho bull**** drummed into them, not being a free thinker for most of their working life, being taught to kill yet knowing they are doing the good that most people would never want to be a part of. A bit like society's dirty little secret.

Why would anyone want to be a politition knowing full well that along with the good there will be deception?

Why would anyone want to be an paramedic knowing they are going to work and they will see tragedy?

Maybe they are drawn to it for simply no other reason than it feels right.


Prospector, as a guy I can happily admire a guy and be prepared to say "he's a good looking bloke" in a purely plutonic way much in the same way I would say to a daughter of a friend "aren't you pretty."
Usually it would be a a smart dressed guy. Take a David Bowie. What a well presented, good looking, charasmatic guy. The word "dapper" comes to mind. I've no more sexual feelings for him than I do for my mailbox.
If that was said in front of a group of most men, I'd be a fag and may have to physically defend myself depending on where I happened to be at the time.

That probably didn't help the discussion, but I'm not deleting this post now 

cheers


----------



## So_Cynical (5 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> Not even warm apple pie?




I like my apple pie with ice cream.

While on the subject of having "apple pie" that way...a mate once told me that
a cows liver warmed in a microwave and then stabbed once with a butchers knife, 
length ways...provided a great substitute for the real thing.:dunno:


----------



## Stan 101 (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> However, NOTHING is random. !!
> 
> Everthing we do and think is for a reason.
> 
> Everything.




From a macro point of view, you may be right. Though, it is us who give meaning and reason to everything in this known universe. Think of time. We give time reason it is just an abstract concept we use to comprehend. The universe, for all we know, is random.

cheers,


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2008)

Here's a completely speculative hypothesis:

Many homosexual people are noticeably more artistic/creative than the average troglodyte male and child doting female.

Perhaps the intention (of nature/God or whatever the individual's sponsoring assumption is) is that these people, without the burden of child rearing, are left to do all the brilliant society; inventing stuff, making thing pretty or whatever.

[I've run out of popcorn ]


----------



## Doris (5 July 2008)

skint said:


> Hi Doris,
> 
> My favourite Jarred Diamond is "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee".
> I haven't read "Why is sex Fun", but I wouldn't agree that humans are the only ones to have sex for fun. Go ask a bonobo. Perhaps it is more the case that human males hang around because we are virtually the only species of mammal where the female has concealed ovulation. If we poor males are not aware whether our deeds are going to result in offspring, we'd better hang around to ensure that the other bloke in the cave doesn't get the guernsey on the father front.




Is the bonobo the chimp where the female enlarges her assets in a huge red 'sign' that she is available when she is in season?  

Sounds like you have read his book as your intuitive comments reflect his words!  Exactly right!

He describes a bird that makes a nest for his 'wife' who spends her time tending the eggs, then has a secondary wife nearby but outside the area  (...so he's not caught). When he catches food he takes it to the first wife's brood and the mistress's brood gets any leftovers.  Needless to say, he works hard but his wife's offspring grow strong and flourish whereas his mistress's offspring don't, hence the gene pool of the illegitimate birds suffers.  Curious.

Haven't read _The Third Chimpanzee_ but it and _Why is Sex Fun?_ were both best sellers and award winners.  

_Guns, Germs and Steel_ won a Pulitzer prize. It has a section explaining how intelligent microbes are in their reproduction.  Several centuries ago, anyone contracting syphilis died within days.  Then it realized it was decimating its hosts so it slowed down its effects. Today it takes years to die from it!  And flu viruses run their course quickly in cities whereas in the country they have to keep people sick for longer to get to the next hosts!

That's sure intelligence at a microscopic level!
Off topic I guess... but microbes are all unicellular uni(homo)sexuals!  

Details on this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel


----------



## Bushman (5 July 2008)

Strange thread this. Who pokes who? Who cares. 

One of my best friends is gay. She is a wonderful person - smarty, witty, a lot of fun and lucky enough to be in a loving relationship. Do I sit here and wonder why she is gay? No. There is no need to try and clinically dissect her sexuality or mine for that matter. I am not a psychologist, anthropologist, geneticist or any other individual learned in the social sciences. I am just happy that she is happy within herself and has the chance in today's society to live without prejudice and guilt. 

I do not understand this fixation with why someone is gay, or straight, or bi, or whatever. Life is what it is. Live free from expectation of yourself or obsession over others and we will all be happier. 

The only gripe I still have over the topic of homosexuality is why the legal and legislative assemblies still think sexuality has anything to do with property rights. Please can we legalise homosexual marriage now. It is the 21st century after all. 

Live and let live.


----------



## Julia (5 July 2008)

kennas said:


> So, back to homosexuality.
> 
> Anyone have an extention of the above and how it leads to homosexuality?
> 
> It's blindingy obvious.



OK, then, why don't you simply enlighten us with your blindingly obvious answer, instead of criticising any suggestions we have made?

Just maybe in the cold light of the Peruvian daylight, and just possibly a hangover, everything may not appear so blindingly clear.

Burning with anticipation.........


----------



## Doris (5 July 2008)

Bushman said:


> The only gripe I still have over the topic of homosexuality is why the legal and legislative assemblies still think sexuality has anything to do with property rights. Please can we legalise homosexual marriage now. It is the 21st century after all.
> 
> Live and let live.




Sorry folks... couldn't resist:



> Obama said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.
> 
> "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."




http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm


----------



## So_Cynical (5 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Just maybe in the cold light of the Peruvian daylight, and just possibly a hangover, everything may not appear so blindingly clear.




Yep..that's what i was thinking.:bandit::alcohol:


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

Julia said:


> OK, then, why don't you simply enlighten us with your blindingly obvious answer, instead of criticising any suggestions we have made?
> 
> Just maybe in the cold light of the Peruvian daylight, and just possibly a hangover, everything may not appear so blindingly clear.
> 
> Burning with anticipation.........



 

Good morning all. (well 1pm here )

Apologies for anything I said last night, I have been a bit out of shape for the past 48 hours. My better half had to leave the country for business at short notice, and I am left with soft toys to talk to. 

(insert a picture of a goose here)

How embarrassing.


Have we even discussed homosexuality yet?

It's a bit counter productive isn't it?

Or, for a reason?


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Have we even discussed homosexuality yet?
> 
> It's a bit counter productive isn't it?
> 
> Or, for a reason?



Actually, it's very counterproduction for the survival of the species.

If there weren't too many people on the planet....



Perhaps. 

Maybe males have strong sexual tendancies in order to deliver the necessary goods. 

Maybe females have a different type of sexual tendancy/emotion to look after the goods.

There seems to be some sort of reason why males and females have particular skill sets. Deliverers, and carers.

There would naturally be some crossover as we both have estrogen and testosterone but the reason we have the balance we do is for a reason. So we deliver, and care. 

It's resulted in the human species rising to the top of the chain.

So, why would we naturally go against this most obvious tendancy?

Getting to the politically incorrect bit alluded to before.


----------



## Prospector (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Good morning all. (well 1pm here )
> 
> Apologies for anything I said last night, I have been a bit out of shape for the past 48 hours. My better half had to leave the country for business at short notice, and I am left with soft toys to talk to.






Prospector said:


> More likely bored, no footy to listen to, raining in Peru and the wife has gone out?





Ha, got that one right, didn't I!

Why the Avatar - well, with a masculine name like Prospector, I didnt really want people to think I was male.  I value my gender.  As a newbie (at the time) I know how hard it use to 'break into' conversations, and I hate being ignored.  So a neutral Avatar wouldnt do.  Then I thought, assuming that this is a male dominated forum (even though women make the best investors)  I thought what would grab these guys by the, um, well, ()() so of course Anna sprung to mind.  Then of course, she died, so, I like the name Scarlett!  Thankfully people like Julia actually read my posts rather than ogle the Avatar, so Julia became my friend!


----------



## Bushman (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Actually, it's very counterproduction for the survival of the species.
> 
> So, why would we naturally go against this most obvious tendancy?




Dude we all have our moments of existential angst. Why are we here? Why are they here? You are coming at the topic from a clinical perspective and, having read your posts over the last year, I understand that you do not have malice in your heart. 

But the problem with a clinical dissection of a state of being is that you do not necessarily emphathise with the individual being dissected. 

Lets replace the subject discussed with 'severely disabled'. So I could easily state that it does not make any sense from a human evolutionary point of view to care for severely disabled children. Indeed, in ancient times, the disabled were not kept alive. But I would quite rightly be howled down if I said this. So for you to harp on about species survival, and the apparent abberation of homosexuality in reaching this objective, is disturbing for people who have someone who is a loved one who happens to be homosexual. 

But we also have the ideal of freedom of speech so you are off course allowed to discuss this topic as much as I am allowed to point out the danger of your line of thinking. 

People are encouraged to be 'PC' due to the tyranny of the past. Remember that the Nazi party became obsessed with species survival too. So who died first - the disabled, followed by the homosexuals, followed by the itinerants, followed by the Jews. It is where a cold dispassionate Darwinian discourse can lead.


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> Ha, got that one right, didn't I!
> 
> ....
> 
> (even though women make the best investors)





Yep.

Poor kennas 

Tonight is probably going to be even more ugly.

Apologies in advance.


What about gay women?

Are they the ultimate investor? Or, just like men?

he he


----------



## sam76 (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> What about gay women?
> 
> Are they the ultimate investor? Or, just like men?
> 
> he he




LOL

That's a good one

Perhaps scientists should engineer the ultimate investor.

I'd invest in it if it was publicly listed!


----------



## Muschu (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Good morning all. (well 1pm here )
> 
> Apologies for anything I said last night, I have been a bit out of shape for the past 48 hours.....




Good on you for saying this Kennas - many wouldn't.  Goodness knows I have similar times.

Discussion of controversial topics serves a purpose.  At the same time I wonder at how many of us [me included] actually "listen" when they are raised.  Too frequently, in my view, many of us [again, including me] use such occasions merely as an opportunity to express a personal point of view.

And I do wonder if the chances of getting anywhere in such discussions are further limited when we are all sitting behind the safety net of our PCs.  Don't know.

Just don't go post a thread now on "What is the meaning of life?"

Well done mate.

Rick


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

Bushman said:


> Dude we all have our moments of existential angst. Why are we here? Why are they here? You are coming at the topic from a clinical perspective and, having read your posts over the last year, I understand that you do not have malice in your heart.
> 
> But the problem with a clinical dissection of a state of being is that you do not necessarily emphathise with the individual being dissected.
> 
> ...



Hi Bushman,

I'm not sure why discussing this in detail is any different to analysing politics, or the best car, or shampoo. 

This is an incredibly interesting subject that should not be sideswiped by emotional baggage. 

It's like it's almost taboo to discuss the theory behind homosexuality and why it exists.

It's normal, but there is a reason for it. 

People saying 'it just is' is pretty lame imo.


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

Muschu said:


> Just don't go post a thread now on "What is the meaning of life?"
> 
> Well done mate.
> 
> Rick



Ha ha Rick. 

You should do a search for that topic.


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

Bushman said:


> Dude we all have our moments of existential angst. Why are we here? Why are they here? You are coming at the topic from a clinical perspective and, having read your posts over the last year, I understand that you do not have malice in your heart.
> 
> But the problem with a clinical dissection of a state of being is that you do not necessarily emphathise with the individual being dissected.
> 
> ...



Hmmm B, there's quite a few interesting things in here. 

I've already mentioned the clinical dissection issues.

Why not? 

You are saying that it is 'personal', but that's a bit soft isn't it? 

Shouldn't we all be up for dissection? I judge people, and I am happy to be judged, and defend myself. If we don't do that, we're just living in a plastic world, and never get to the truth.

You are saying that homosexuality is the same as a disability? Sure? 

This may be hard, cold, and dispassionate, but that is the only way to get to the truth. 

Otherwise, we're living in a dream world. 

Thanks for the response! You have actually pointed out one of the really significant things with this issue and others similar. Personal feelings, and how they can be effected. But feelings are also just another emotion designed to protect us in some way. 

I think humans crossed the line some time ago with regard to self protection that has made us grow exponentially and be a 'cancer of the planet' (Agent Smith) We are destroying the world, and each other, and it's only going to be time before the planet finds a way to defend itself.

(another rant over)


----------



## wayneL (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> ...it's only going to be time before the planet finds a way to defend itself.
> 
> (another rant over)



It might not have to. Give the Yanks enough toys and a lunatic president (this part is evidently a cake walk) and they'll do the job for her.


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> It might not have to. Give the Yanks enough toys and a lunatic president (this part is evidently a cake walk) and they'll do the job for her.



Yep, I see that as part of the overall plan however.

I was a believer in 'deep ecology' some time ago. After I was a Buddhist. 

And I still think humans are just part of the overall ecology of the planet. Like an ant, or a chemical. 

Equilibrium is the target and the planet over and undershoots.

Perhaps homosexuality is when the planet overshoots? 

Or, another theory may be that emotional attachment is more powerful than the physical. 

So, at times, when we do not need to procreate, we go for the emotional attachment over the physical, resulting in homosexuality. 

I must say of course, that homosexuals probably have great sex and it is very satisfying; however, the basis for the attraction is not due to fulfilling the true foundation of sexual attraction. That is, survival of the species.  

In summary, homosexuality is normal, and serves a purpose.


----------



## Muschu (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Ha ha Rick.
> 
> You should do a search for that topic.




Ah so - you have the answer.  Please forward asap as it is needed.


----------



## JTLP (6 July 2008)

Doris said:


> This thread reminds me of a book by Jared Diamond called 'Why is Sex Fun?'.
> 
> After outlining mating patterns of birds and animals for evolutionary efficiency, his thesis was that humans were the only specie that had sex for fun, the reason being that the male would hang around and thus provide protection for the offspring.
> 
> ...




Aren't dolphins the only other mammals (inc humans) that have sex for pleasure and rape other dolphins???!!!


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

JTLP said:


> Aren't dolphins the only other mammals (inc humans) that have sex for pleasure and rape other dolphins???!!!



 I'm not sure about rape, but I've read the sex for pleasure thing.

The reason why humans have sex for pleasure is because of a few reasons imo. 

Primarily, It's hard for us to get pregnant (and 9 mths gestation) and therefore we need to be very motivated to keep doing it. That's why there is this very strange thing called love that makes us one of the few animals on the planet who are loyal. It's part of the reason why we have survived.

Sex needs to be fun and enjoyable, otherwise we just wouldn't have the reproductive possibility.

An orgasm is for what?

Yes, motivation to do it, that's all.


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> An orgasm is for what?
> 
> Yes, motivation to do it, that's all.



And, this leads on to discussion about why females find it harder than males to have one.

Ever considered that?


----------



## Doris (6 July 2008)

JTLP said:


> Aren't dolphins the only other mammals (inc humans) that have sex for pleasure and rape other dolphins???!!!




A National Geographic DVD I have on dolphins shows that male dolphins will separate a female from the school and pack rape her for days!  Must ask Seaworld if they permit this!

The following focuses on having sex only for pleasure and not for procreation.  Obviously when animals engage in sexual activity they seem to enjoy it!



> It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".
> 
> The urban myth site Snopes.com considers this particular view in depth. Its conclusions are broadly that the statement is true, but only using _a very specific definition_ of "sex for pleasure" [italics in original], in which sexual acts tied to a reproductive cycle or for which an alternative explanation can be asserted, are ignored, as is all sexual activity that does not involve penetration.
> 
> ...






> Bonobos in zoos. After studying the primates for his book Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, primatologist Frans de Waal, a professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, says that such expressions of intimacy are consistent with the homosexual behavior of what he terms "the erotic champions of the world." "Same-sex, opposite-sex — bonobos just love sex play," de Waal said in an interview. "They have so much sex, it gets boring."




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behavior#Homosexual_behavior


----------



## Doris (6 July 2008)

kennas said:


> An orgasm is for what?
> 
> Yes, motivation to do it, that's all.




In that course I did years ago I learnt, from Masters and Johnson research, that men do not necessarily have an orgasm each time they ejaculate.  I vividly recall the lecturer stating that if a man claims he does then he is a lier and is not to be trusted!


----------



## Julia (6 July 2008)

Muschu said:


> G
> Discussion of controversial topics serves a purpose.  At the same time I wonder at how many of us [me included] actually "listen" when they are raised.  Too frequently, in my view, many of us [again, including me] use such occasions merely as an opportunity to express a personal point of view.



Isn't it possible to 'listen', consider, and then express a personal point of view in response?  Isn't that what discussing a topic is about?




> And I do wonder if the chances of getting anywhere in such discussions are further limited when we are all sitting behind the safety net of our PCs.  Don't know.



Wouldn't the anonymity conferred by the cyber communication, if anything, aid the free expression of opinion?   How would you suggest a discussion on an internet forum be differently conducted?  Or do you feel that these discussions are just a waste of time?

Any thoughts on the actual subject of the whys of homosexuality, Rick?


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

Doris said:


> In that course I did years ago I learnt, from Masters and Johnson research, that men do not necessarily have an orgasm each time they ejaculate.  I vividly recall the lecturer stating that if a man claims he does then he is a lier and is not to be trusted!



Yep, guys can have an ejaculation, and not have an orgasm. They are all different in intensity. But the point is extant. The feeling you have from an orgasm is just designed so you want to actually have sex. For girls it is less likely, for some of the reasons already discussed. It's part of why girls want to cuddle after, and boys just want to go to sleep....

I have not studied this at uni, like you have, I am just going off a natural progression of thought process. For some reason this is an interesting topic of discussion and important for me to understand why I think the way I do.

Is this off the topic of 'homosexuality'?

Maybe not.

It actually confirms that both sexes ultimately want some sort of result from sexual activity. 

That is; an orgasm, or some sort of emotional satisfaction.


----------



## Julia (6 July 2008)

Bushman said:


> DBut the problem with a clinical dissection of a state of being is that you do not necessarily emphathise with the individual being dissected.




Thanks for raising this point, Bushman, and for your posts on this topic in general.

Kennas, I get that you are trying to have an objective discussion about why some people are homosexual and some heterosexual, but Bushman is right to suggest amongst this there should be some consideration for the feelings and rights of homosexuals, as with any minority group.

I have a half-brother who is homosexual.  He's a highly intelligent, bright, interesting person.  His sexual preference is to me and to his friends, homosexual and straight, completely irrelevant. But he was ostracised and condemned by our father.  It takes a lot of courage to feel OK about yourself in the face of that.


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2008)

sam76 said:


> No
> 
> lol





It's in the females best interest not to have the same sexual urges as males.

If they wanted sex every minute they'd be pregnant for the terms of their natural life.

It's why guys are fully loaded into their 80s, and yet chicks are barren in their 40s. 

There is a reason for it.


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

I deleted this thread last night, but have reviewed it, and don't see why I should have. 

My general stance was placed in the 'kennas!' thread and I paste it up here, for discussion.



kennas said:


> GG, I was asking for opinions on what the purpose of homosexuality was, but didn't manage it very well in some peoples eyes.
> 
> I think I eventually said that it's a normal human reaction to our hormones and environment. We all have strong sexual urges which have enabled the species to survive and we have strong nurturing emotions that have done the same. Since males and females have testosterone and estrogen, in various doses, and all these other motivations to act, it's natural that some of us will be more motivated to be with a same sex person.
> 
> ...




I would love to hear some reasons for homosexuality.

Not that it 'just is', or similar. 

We are who we are through nature and nurture. Perhaps that is 'just is' but why would our nature and nurture make humans go against the true reason for sexuality; for procreation and survival.


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

Prospector said:


> True sexuality is inherent, not created by events.  Homosexuals just 'are', their sexuality is all part of the 'normal distribution' of nature.
> 
> Sexuality isn't a choice, it is just part of your biological heritage - call it the tumble of the genetic dice.



So, P you are saying that homosexuals 'just are', but it's due to biological heritage.

Care to take it a step further?

Why is it biological?


----------



## Green08 (7 July 2008)

Kennas - And, this leads on to the discussion about why females find it harder than males to have one.

Ever considered that?

What an assumption!  This is where your outright self assertion of being correct and not really wanting to listen and appreciate others inputs is hindering you.   

Some women can easily have multiple orgasms and I'm talking more than 10 in a row, alot of you guys might think bs but hey your not a woman and even trying to seriously go there could be a psychological afront to your manhood.  With the right partner and circumstances anything is possible.  Have any of you seriously tried Tantra Sex with any partner over time to see the outcome.  Patience is great for this ego and wishful thinking will get you no where.  

Don't underestimate what a woman knows about her body.  I notice alot of input on this thread has been from guess work, theories, utter rubbish (apple pie and liver with homosexuality?) etc.  Very few of you have actually mentioned any personal experiences from which you could probably draw some serious understanding.

Kennas I disagree with your theory that overpopulation of the planet is leading to homosexuality .  From my point, when I divorced I found the whole dating process a huge farce being judged for this and that wore pretty thin. (With those doing the judging really needing to look at themselves)  I found women empathic, loving and strong with out having to gloat or drive fast cars!  

Kennas if you want, as you call input then back off on your agressive stance treating people like idiots and pretending that you know the answer . My friend I am indeed convinced you have no clue.


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> Kennas - And, this leads on to the discussion about why females find it harder than males to have one.
> 
> Ever considered that?
> 
> ...



I agree on the female orgasm point. However, it's a bit anecdotal (like my case). If you are correct and females can and do have multiple orgasms, all the time, then what is the purpose of that? Maybe motivation to have more sex? This goes against my theory that women want it less due to the entire process they have to go through and importance of choosing a mate correctly. 

The overpopulation point is sure to cause some contoversy. Just putting it out there. Homosexuality has ALWAYS existed. The ancient Greeks seem to be more homosexual than today perhaps? But, it could be argued that there was homosexuality for a reason then too. Like, over sustainable population. It's not just numbers of people that make the world overpopluated. It's by numbers compared to resources. We will always be over or under. Up for discussion.

Yes, I will stop being so agressive with trying to get a discussion going. I have been confrontational to get the discussion going, that's all.  

And your final comment, 'My friend I am indeed convinced you have no clue', is a bit ironic considering the previous statements.


----------



## Green08 (7 July 2008)

kennas said:


> I agree on the female orgasm point. However, it's a bit anecdotal (like my case). If you are correct and females can and do have multiple orgasms, all the time, then what is the purpose of that? Maybe motivation to have more sex? This goes against my theory that women want it less due to the entire process they have to go through and importance of choosing a mate correctly.
> 
> The overpopulation point is sure to cause some contoversy. Just putting it out there. Homosexuality has ALWAYS existed. The ancient Greeks seem to be more homosexual than today perhaps? But, it could be argued that there was homosexuality for a reason then too. Like, over sustainable population. It's not just numbers of people that make the world overpopluated. It's by numbers compared to resources. We will always be over or under. Up for discussion.
> 
> ...




Sure, if you put a large group of males together without any or very little female involvement they are going to get the urge I's sure Julius Caesar had his hands full on many night's. pity they didn't have earplugs.  I'm sure there are many in the army, navy, sport who are gay or attracted more than appreciation of the art of the field to their own sex.  But the back lash against them is quite severe.  I have to say the I'm surprised the closet door can even be closed!!

Women having multiple orgasms (I didn't say all females do and all the time). There would be many reasons why some women never reach their peak. A fairly severe example is the cutting out of the clitoris and labia in certain cultures so they Don't have orgasms - disgusting with many young girls bleeding to death. But it happens and should be acknowledged.  Times of stress, loss, growth, awareness people move in different directions and find them selves in a new sexual area.  That is not to say they will stay there or it is wrong.  

I full appreciate those who openly choose to have no children whether straight or gay. It suits their lifestyle, they don't feel their personalities can cope for various reasons (being raped as a child too interefering with their social lifestyle)  There are enough traumatised children in this world.

You didn't finish telling me why the stubble was such an issue if you, where attracted to him in the first place. You could have asked him to shave. Could have accepted the stubble and enjoyed it.   Or was is a sudden '**** what am I doing moment?'.

I never said I knew the answer just giving my experiences which is the best anyone can do.


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> I never said I knew the answer just giving my experiences which is the best anyone can do.



Yes, perhaps I have thought about this a great deal and also thought that I had an opinion. I'm a searcher, to my detriment it seems. I'm after some insite into life, and start these sorts of threads to develop my understanding of life through active discussion and argument. If we agreed on everything, how boring. I'm open to any good argument to adjust my perception of reality. 

And perhaps the orgasm argument is not sound in forming an argument for or against homosexualtiy. I think I raised it as a supporting argument to something else at the time, but maybe it has no bearing. 

I do think there is something in this topic. It's not just a popcorn session. 

But I really want to get away from the 'it is because it is' conclusion. 

Everything is for a reason.

Or, maybe that's where I am completely wrong?


----------



## Green08 (7 July 2008)

kennas said:


> If you are correct and females can and do have multiple orgasms, all the time, then what is the purpose of that? Maybe motivation to have more sex? This goes against my theory that women want it less due to the entire process they have to go through and importance of choosing a mate correctly.




What is so wrong with a woman enjoying her body and sensations and that of her partner!
Finding the right mate to have multiple orgasms - good luck (the nightlife won't help neither will drugs).  Appreciate what you have and work with it - good things on a human level are never easy.  Yes women are different as if that needs explaining.  Women don't want it less they want to be appreicated and loved.  Yes, you boys have heard it before but loving selflessly is a unique quality and takes time.  If you really are after instant gratification don't expect anything of quality either straight or gay.


----------



## Green08 (7 July 2008)

Kennas, do you assimulate anything else with gays like music ( I am Not a Kylie M fan, More like Guns n Roses with a Mozart thrown in), art, place of residence, hobbies, cars, travel, colours, etc?

I think it is great to disucss if with no one gives trivia or "I know the answer" answers.  We all have a lot to learn - a life quest. Don't think your over the hill.  A new experience could change you profoundly.  I had a 'straight' boyfriend at one stage and we did something different and he was like "that was incredible" but felt uneasy at the same time. Deny your pleasure for what others think? Do you want to be happy?  Don't hurt anyone or yourself and play safely and you may learn alot.  Don't worry I'm pretty sure the world population will keep going even if we get set back by some wars and play.


----------



## Doris (7 July 2008)

kennas said:


> So, P you are saying that homosexuals 'just are', but it's due to biological heritage.
> 
> Care to take it a step further?
> 
> Why is it biological?




The baldness gene is passed on by females from their father.
Is homosexuality also passed on in genes by females?


*Why homosexuality hasn’t become extinct*



> Italian scientists have come up with an explanation for the puzzle as to why homosexuality, if it is hereditary, has not been eliminated from the gene pool to date, despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
> 
> Andrea Camperio-Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova, says that homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females.
> 
> ...



http://lifestyle.in.msn.com/relation...mentid=1491478


----------



## Green08 (7 July 2008)

Have look at this by Lewis Black 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

See the funny and serious side  - takes guts to come out and say something when the president could be involved. Watch the other. This guy is very clever.  Love J


----------



## Speewha (7 July 2008)

Hello,
The Upright Sneaky Ape since descending from the trees, has long pondered on such things and it's knowledge has expanded to fill vast libraries, dispute the great wealth of this accumulated knowledge the Upright Sneaky Ape still has problems with qestionion like the one Kennas has posed. This Upright Sneak Ape would like to put forward its thoughts on the question as follows.

The Upright Sneaky Ape still acts a great deal of the time today on its primeval instincts and perhaps what some see as deviant sexual behaviour is a hark back to some primitive tribal bonding ritual, that was necessary for survival , to allow the tribe to survive against all odds in its distant past. 

Anthropological studies of primitive societies has shown that what could be called same sex activities occur in coming of age initiation ceremonies. Perhaps different or deviant sexual behaviour in the Morden version of the Upright Sneaky Ape is a throwback to these primitive instincts         

It is possible that this desire for same sex, sexual fulfilment could  even go back even further in the Upright Sneaky Apes development, it’s brain still carries remnants of its reptilian ancestors in the Amygdala region which controls among other things emotional learning. 

Just in case this post is perceived to carry any form of prejudice or insult to any group or individual please be aware the writer is just a silly Upright Sneaky Ape who was very happy and relaxed when same sex activities were finally decriminalised  especially as they only made it legal and not compulsory.


Regards


----------



## Stan 101 (7 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Everything is for a reason.
> Or, maybe that's where I am completely wrong?




Everything is such a strong word. Not everything is black and white and for this sort of situation, that is just fine with me.



About the female orgasm...It has been hypothesised the female orgasm via the muscle sapasm can help the sperm travel faster on it's way to meet the ova.
It was noted in a medical periodical I was browsing through about 12 months ago. Sounds like a fair assumption..

I went to school with a guy who by all who met him assumed he was overtly hetro. I calsssed him as hetro. He did mention once to a group of us he had had sex with guys, purely soc he couldn't find a woman at the time. He didn't think of himself as gay, being open to having sex with guys just created more options for him. To him it was clearly all about him and his needs. Those men could have been "apple pies" for all he cared.


cheers,


----------



## mayk (7 July 2008)

I can understand an active gay and bi- for the reasons explained above 'lack of female' and abundance of male friends. But what does a passive get out of it?  Still pokeness theory applies for active but for passive...


No one answered lesbainism. More difficult to understand apart from emotional aspect. I can see an emotional attachment between women and willingness to stay together. Because they 'understand' eachother. Pokness theory fails miserably here.

Why do we have to see the emotional aspect of a gay son/father/brother, but all emotional aspects of straight son/father/brother ignored as if they do not exist. 


P.S (not pointed to Julia - I can delete the post if you find it offensive).


----------



## Green08 (7 July 2008)

mayk said:


> No one answered lesbainism. More difficult to understand apart from emotional aspect. I can see an emotional attachment between women and willingness to stay together. Because they 'understand' eachother. Pokness theory fails miserably here.




What is it with you boys and the 'pokiness' theory do you honestly think that is what sex is about (OK maybe sex but not love making). Lets start with the word penetration. The male organ is on the outside and likes a massage to help get there though it is not essential.  It is the way we are formed to make it easier to conceive.  The ladies have external ways of pleasure. I know of a woman who had cervixal cancer and had the whole vagina removed but is still feeling whole and happy with her sex life apparantly no loss in orgasming.  There are many ways individuals can orgasm which doesn't involve penetration.


----------



## saiter (7 July 2008)

Some species become homosexual/transexual when there aren't enough resources and there's just too much competition. In some snakes, the males become transvestites so that the males are attracted to it. The attracted males offer protection and resources but they also get together into an "orgy ball" 
Maybe humans are just doing the same thing? (minus the orgy ball)


----------



## arae (7 July 2008)

Sexuality is based on a continuum. 

Everyone falls somewhere along the line. Very few people are positioned at either extreme of the continuum. So the vast majority of us can't simply be defined as _homosexual_ or _hetersosexual_. 

However, we simply have a stronger tendency toward one sex than the other. We just use these terms as a means of categorising people, because that's like we like to do. It gives us a greater sense of understanding through simplication, even if it's technically wrong.

Anectdotally, I have many openly 'gay' male and female friends, who also like to sleep with the opposite sex on occassion. Likewise, I have a number of male friends here in Jakarta (yes, I can relate to your Indo story Kenna's) who tend toward heterosexual, yet occassionally enjoy having a sexual encounter with a transvestite. 

Only shades of grey in this topic


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 July 2008)

comment from the peanut gallery - not disagreeing with any posts btw,  .....  but I reckon it would *hypothetically* help if we had a few scientific opinions maybe - some evidence etc  

then again, lol - you also have to state some evidence of the sexuality of the scientist giving the scientific opinion 

I know I have (at least) two conflicting opinions ..
a) I like to believe (and would tell the kids lol) that it's as difficult for a gay to go straight, as it is for a straight to go gay

Yet ..

b) I once met a bloke at a bar in HK - apparently the Watzing Matilda was once a gay bar   - brief meeting  - very brief meeting lol - an American as it turned out..   tough bloke , really manly conversation etc ....  who had been sodomised as a kid, went on to be married etc  ........ used to travel overseas for anonymity every now and again - intent? - for "the treatment"  (as he referred to it).  i.e. the passive partner in a male/male encounter of the other kind....  
Apparently the experience turned him into a once-a-year homosexual.  call it an annual homosexual 

(or maybe that should be an anual homosexual ?)

PS It was an offer I found extremely easy to refuse lol.


----------



## Prospector (7 July 2008)

arae said:


> Sexuality is based on a continuum.
> 
> Everyone falls somewhere along the line. Very few people are positioned at either extreme of the continuum. So the vast majority of us can't simply be defined as _homosexual_ or _hetersosexual_.




Yup, I agree, that is the curve of the normal distribution I mentioned in my first post.  Like an extended upside-down U curve.


----------



## Julia (7 July 2008)

mayk said:


> Why do we have to see the emotional aspect of a gay son/father/brother, but all emotional aspects of straight son/father/brother ignored as if they do not exist.
> 
> 
> P.S (not pointed to Julia - I can delete the post if you find it offensive).



Of course I don't find it offensive, mayk.   In response, though, I'd say that the essential difference is that heterosexuals do not have to cope with being called 'lezzos and poofs', and neither do they have to face all the other multitude of stigma that exist towards them.

There are hundreds of thousands of articles, "Dear Aunt Annie" columns etc about coping with the emotions of heterosexual people.   They can talk about their difficulties ad infinitum.  But homosexuals are still despised by a definite percentage of society.  I don't wish to bring up my half brother again after the ridicule it engendered , but I doubt that too many fathers are going to ostracise their sons for being heterosexual.

Hope that answers your question.


----------



## Go Nuke (7 July 2008)

So you want to know why some people are homosexual and some aren't Kennas....

Well this might sound kinda harsh but I guess you can say why are some people born with a disability and some aren't?

Its just unfortunate that perhaps their wiring is a little messed up?

Personaly I think that if being gay was "normal", wouldn't the human race be on its way to extinction??

One thing I should point out is my cousin is gay..BUT he was a premature baby so alot of his sex organs didn't form properly.Therefore it was more or less predetermined from birth that he was probably going to be gay. It wasn't much of a choice for him.
he tried the male hormone therapy, but in his mind it didn't feel right.

If gays want to be gay.fine. I agree with what some others have pointed out though, there's no reason to excessively flaunt the fact that they are gay though.

As for gays who want kids..well don't be gay. There is no way someone can call that "natural". those people are just selfish and not putting their childs upbringing as the foremost importance.
If gays were meant to have kids...well I'd go 7%6& myself now..lol


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

Green08 said:


> Kennas, do you assimulate anything else with gays like music ( I am Not a Kylie M fan, More like Guns n Roses with a Mozart thrown in), art, place of residence, hobbies, cars, travel, colours, etc?
> 
> I think it is great to disucss if with no one gives trivia or "I know the answer" answers.  We all have a lot to learn - a life quest. Don't think your over the hill.  A new experience could change you profoundly.  I had a 'straight' boyfriend at one stage and we did something different and he was like "that was incredible" but felt uneasy at the same time. Deny your pleasure for what others think? Do you want to be happy?  Don't hurt anyone or yourself and play safely and you may learn alot.  Don't worry I'm pretty sure the world population will keep going even if we get set back by some wars and play.



Green, I don't think I've seen an actual opinion on why homosexuality exists yet, except that it's for pleasure. Is that your position? Sorry if I missed it somewhere.


----------



## Prospector (7 July 2008)

Homosexuality exists because nature isn't perfect!  By perfect, I mean that each of us is genetically different, not identical (not perfect as in excellent)  And that is why there is an evolutionary process that means that some thrive and flourish, while others dont thrive and dont flourish.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 July 2008)

Go Nuke said:


> 1. there's no reason to excessively flaunt the fact that they are gay though.
> 
> 2. As for gays who want kids..well don't be gay. There is no way someone can call that "natural". those people are just selfish and not putting their childs upbringing as the foremost importance.
> If gays were meant to have kids...well I'd go 7%6& myself now..lol



Nuke
1. spot on
2. I reckon I agree there too, but it's happening every day (kids), and will no doubt slowly become accepted - and probably not be as bad as one would imagine 

PS I also agree with going nuke   - probably much more important.


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

Go Nuke said:


> So you want to know why some people are homosexual and some aren't Kennas....
> 
> Well this might sound kinda harsh but I guess you can say why are some people born with a disability and some aren't?
> 
> Its just unfortunate that perhaps their wiring is a little messed up?



GN, I'm interested in opinions about why it exists, when it is counterintuitive to the survival of the species, which is the ultimate driving force of behaviour.

I must point out that I do not think homosexuality it wrong. I think it's here for a reason, as I have discussed. 

So, I don't think it's like a disability, disabilities are an anomoly. And I don't think it's becasue the wiring is messed up at all. I think it serves a purpose. Whether that's so people can find pleasure, be in a relationship with someone on the same, or oppposite continum, control the population, or whatever?  

As I said before I think it's always existed but for whatever social customs or reasons through history it has been shunned, and even outlawed through religious based laws - those based on cultures. It seems at times, being gay was wrong, for whatever reason, but it's obviously not in most parts of the world now, less those still following one of the Cults of Abraham dogmatically. It was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, not Adam and Steve.


----------



## arae (7 July 2008)

Evidence - fair enough 20/20 hindsight.

The sexuality continuum theory is the most commonly agreed upon theory by today's psychologists. You'll find it in any Physchology 101 university textbook.

Here it is from the American Psychological Association;

http://www.uis.edu/studentaffairs/safezone/resources/documents/Sexuality Continuum.pdf

Those with access to a journal database may be able to provide a link with a more detailed explanation.


----------



## gav (7 July 2008)

Kennas, I have seen you mention that you ppl might being gay might be 'natures way' of slowing down our population.

If this is true, then wouldnt there be a dramatic increase in homosexuals in places like India and China?  And considering there are so many young men in China now (only being allowed have one child, with many not parents not wanting a female child), there is a massive shortage of young women.  

You also state that they just want to 'poke' something.  If your hypothesis is correct, wouldnt there be alot more gay young chinese men because of the lack of young women?


----------



## Datsun Disguise (7 July 2008)

Ah so this is where all the cool kids are hangng out and no posts to make us money are being put up!!!

*Why? Why the hell not?*

Now all of you get back to work - i have no idea what I'm supposed to be buying / selling tomorrow.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 July 2008)

arae said:


> Evidence - fair enough 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> The sexuality continuum theory is the most commonly agreed upon theory by today's psychologists. You'll find it in any Physchology 101 university textbook.
> 
> Here it is from the American Psychological Association.



thanks arae
but surely there is the densest proportion towards the extremes - like
two bell distributions rather than one (?)
-  call one male (XY), 
the other female (XX),
and a lesser density in between.  (Xy,  Xx, Xxy, Xz, etc) - I just made them up btw 

eg the cumulative plot would be flat in the centre. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system


> XY sex-determination system
> 
> The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila) and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex.
> 
> The XY sex determination system was first described independently by Nettie Stevens and Edmund Beecher Wilson in 1905... etc


----------



## Datsun Disguise (7 July 2008)

gav said:


> Kennas, I have seen you mention that you ppl might being gay might be 'natures way' of slowing down our population.
> 
> If this is true, then wouldnt there be a dramatic increase in homosexuals in places like India and China?  And considering there are so many young men in China now (only being allowed have one child, with many not parents not wanting a female child), there is a massive shortage of young women.
> 
> You also state that they just want to 'poke' something.  If your hypothesis is correct, wouldnt there be alot more gay young chinese men because of the lack of young women?




Supporting this argument is the increase in homosexual antics in prisons/detention centres/scout groups (just joking, ... i think). Or maybe that is moe about establising a pecking order - who gets to poke who etc.

Crap, now I'm involved.


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

Datsun Disguise said:


> Supporting this argument is the increase in homosexual antics in prisons/detention centres/scout groups (just joking, ... i think). Or maybe that is moe about establising a pecking order - who gets to poke who etc.
> 
> Crap, now I'm involved.



And Catholic priests and Brothers, too perhaps.


----------



## Kauri (7 July 2008)

Yikes..     I've been away for a while and when I come back what topic is top of the Forum..      ........  ye Gods and little pishees...

   ... + Mt.S and Mt.Masada

Take care
................kauri


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2008)

gav said:


> Kennas, I have seen you mention that you ppl might being gay might be 'natures way' of slowing down our population.
> 
> If this is true, then wouldnt there be a dramatic increase in homosexuals in places like India and China?  And considering there are so many young men in China now (only being allowed have one child, with many not parents not wanting a female child), there is a massive shortage of young women.
> 
> You also state that they just want to 'poke' something.  If your hypothesis is correct, wouldnt there be alot more gay young chinese men because of the lack of young women?



Maybe Gav. Maybe they need population increases though for their development. Maybe there are lots of young gay Chinese men? Or maybe it's not socially acceptable in Chindia? Or, maybe the theory is wrong.


----------



## Miner (8 July 2008)

I was astonished at the participation rate on this thread since 5 July and was intrigued ti read this thread by an apology etc thread on Kennas by JTLP

Without going into debate the volume of participation in two days probably tell us something about hidden human nature. Every man has a Frankestein or more metaphorically a Dr Jekil and Mr Hyde personality,

In real situation we play the bad cop and good cop personality. When you are a parent we are holy cows, when we do business we are money hungry.

Sorry, no experience in the real topic or interest but participated in the thread as I explained in the forefront paragraph

No hate or love to HS people either

Make sure you all make enough money to protect against any STD and to pay your life insurance premium on a higher rate too


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

Here's the view of the Americal Psychological Society.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

So, bit vague really, and we've talked about most of them. Need to research into each factor to get a better handle on it.

Wikipedia actually provide a decent list of reasons also.

No mention of population management....


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 July 2008)

Miner said:


> and to pay your life insurance premium on a higher rate too



Miner, 
Agree about the risk with aids...  hopefully they are acting more responsibly - the evidence is mixed I understand.  

On another matter, in this fine tolerant society we like in (sic) .... "p**fter bashing" has also "taken out" countless gay men over the years.  A violent, and all too often short life they lived.  

Why would they have have "come out" in the previous generation ? - be mad to!.    In the same way that the Iranians claim to have no homosexuals   Lol - as if you'd "come out" in that society.  It's even more intolerant than we are    .. correction , than we used to be.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 July 2008)

kennas said:


> Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation..



just remembered another anecdote - praps already posted.
 But in polynesia, if a family has say 4 or 5 boys, when they were hoping that last one would be a girl - they simply say  "Christopher!, from now on you'll be known as Christine!"

kid will grow us as gay as a maypole. 
In Samoa they are called "fa'a fafine's"  = translated means "like sister".

Mind you, some of em look like members of the all Blacks - I remember a bloke called Rosie who served the "cutest little drinkypoos" at a bar there - and doubled as the bouncer. lol

Summary - a lot of it might be nurture? - and how those around you treat you - maybe?  (in SOME cases ?) probably not ALL I concede. - in fact probably not MOST by a country mile


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Why would they have have "come out" in the previous generation ? - be mad to!.    In the same way that the Iranians claim to have no homosexuals   Lol - as if you'd "come out" in that society.  It's even more intolerant than we are    .. correction , than we used to be.



No excuse for it in Australia now, but I am sure some are still hateful of homosexuals. It's probably linked to fear of their own sexuality, but perhaps moreso, the efforts of the church to make us fell that homosexuals are evil creatures. Good on you religion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I remember a bloke called Rosie who served the "cutest little drinkypoos" at a bar there - and doubled as the bouncer.



PS It was a cocktail bar - although there was a damned site more c**k than tail there.


----------



## xyzedarteerf (9 July 2008)

i'm not implying that they are ok.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 July 2008)

On the channel 7 news tonight....they reported that Ian Thorpe has a new "partner" and was "in love" 

Is Australia ready for an "out" Ian Thorpe...of course im assuming he is Gay.:dunno:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24010010-10388,00.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

well lol , in reply to both the last posts ...


			
				xyzedarteerf said:
			
		

> ..



I thought Federer was the most gracious loser in Wimbleton history.   
See if you can see a hint of "poor loser" in either your photo or mine...



			
				So_Cynical said:
			
		

> ..of course im assuming he is Gay.



and as for the mighty Thorpedo   ... gee so-cynical , lol - 
I hope , no... 
I trust that you will apologise for that post should you be proven wrong.

cheers 
 2020

PS As I will no doubt have to do if you are proven right
PS PS beat you to it with that last qualification, lol.


----------



## Julia (13 July 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> On the channel 7 news tonight....they reported that Ian Thorpe has a new "partner" and was "in love"
> 
> Is Australia ready for an "out" Ian Thorpe...of course im assuming he is Gay.:dunno:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24010010-10388,00.html



The same thing was reported in today's paper.   No suggestion whatsoever that the love interest is male.  Two previous female partners were mentioned.
Good God, who really cares?   Isn't he just a great swimmer?


----------



## Julia (2 August 2008)

Kennas, and anyone else still interested in the possible 'why' of homosexuality, today's "All in the Mind" programme was on this subject.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/default.htm


----------



## kotim (2 August 2008)

statistically speaking it is extremely likely that someone who is homosexual will sexually assault someone under the age of consent, does not matter whether they are born that way or are nurtured or both.

As apart of my job I had to investigate child sex offences, something that most people don't know for eg, is that "poofta bashers" are often homosexual them selves and in fact are often men who were abused seuxally by men when they were much younger and now want to make such type of people pay for the ****ehold life they have lived.  It aint just straite people who bash the queers.


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2008)

kotim said:


> *statistically speaking it is extremely *likely that someone who is homosexual will sexually assault someone under the age of consent, does not matter whether they are born that way or are nurtured or both.




Do you have a link to any of those stats? or could you elaborate where they come from.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2008)

So_Cynical]
..of course im assuming he is Gay.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=2020hindsight said:


> and as for the mighty Thorpedo   ... gee so-cynical , lol -
> I hope , no...
> I trust that you will apologise for that post should you be proven wrong.






Sounds like ninemsn should also apologise.  
(not that thorpey seems to care one way or the other about speculation.   )

http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogid=2022&showcomments=true&blogentryid=157812



> Ian Thorpe's new love - definitely a girl
> 22/07/2008 8:08:00am
> 
> *Despite (our) speculation last week that Ian Thorpe's new romantic interest could be a bloke - he's gone on the record to say that the new love in his life is definitely of the female variety*.
> ...




 Thorpey on Rove


----------



## kotim (2 August 2008)

Spooly, their not hard to find, just look up sexual abuse stats, depending upon who's doing it and how much their projecting the "unknown number" you will find out that it is somewhere between 5-20% but The hard and fast stats are just down under the 10% level.

Secondly  In relation to homosexuals,  Various Homosexual groups in the United states when campaigning for whatever, have used the 1-3% number.  In other words the major studies done have said that somewhere between 1-3% of the poplulation are homosexual ( irrespective of reason)

bearing in mind that girls sexually abused are slightly higher in numbers than boys and then when you do the figures and realise that 3 men in 100 are responsible for the sexual abuse of at least 5 boys in a hundred, then you realise the problem, bearing in mind that straite male men 97 out of hundred are responsbile for the sexual abuse of 5-10 girls out of a hundred.

Have a think through that and comprehend what it reveals and the risks involved.  Whos more at risk, your male child with a homosexual or your daughter with a heterosexual.

Would not matter what stats I supplied you with, if you don't want to believe it you won't pay attention and won't investigate for yourself.

I could be lying and you wouldn't know unless you go and do a decent check for yourself.

Obviously not every homsexual will abuse a young person, however the risk is expensive.


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2008)

kotim said:


> Spooly, their not hard to find, just look up sexual abuse stats, depending upon who's doing it and how much their projecting the "unknown number" you will find out that it is somewhere between 5-20% but The hard and fast stats are just down under the 10% level.
> 
> Secondly  In relation to homosexuals,  Various Homosexual groups in the United states when campaigning for whatever, have used the 1-3% number.  In other words the major studies done have said that somewhere between 1-3% of the poplulation are homosexual ( irrespective of reason)
> 
> ...




I did have a quick look through some stats ... guess I was just really questioning the "extremley likely".


----------



## Spanning Tree (2 August 2008)

> Hey Kennas!
> 
> I come on this forum in an effort to make some money.
> 
> How can I make money on the topic 'homosexuality'?




Two words: oldest profession.



> Why Cant they be NORMAL???



You didn't come to these forums to earn normal returns from the stock market, did you?


----------



## Aussiest (2 August 2008)

kennas said:


> There are a few things to be discussed in regard to the species and it's survival surrounding our sexual desires....
> 
> Love this topic.




There are several theories as to why people are gay, or 'become' gay.

1. Hormonal theory: the male or female has too many of the opposite sex's hormone. This theory doesn't stand up for some reason, eg, a really hairy woman may have too much testosterone, but it doesn't mean she's gay.

2. Socio-cultural theory: it is the upbrining. I think this has more stead than the hormonal theory.

3. There is something in the brain that differentiates gay people from straight (heterosexual) people. I can't remember for what reason, but this one made the most sense to me in my neuroscience lectures. If you are interested, maybe Google it.

4. There is the genetic theory, that there is a gay gene. I wonder if this is true? As i know several families with more than one gay child in it. Eg, how statistically likely is it to have 2 out of 3 children gay? I actually know a family where 3 out of the 4 children are gay. Lol. How funny (1 woman and 2 men if you're curious).

So yeah, i agree with the theory that there is something different in the brains of gay people (and, i am not being funny!), so therefore it is something cognitive, which we _cannot _control.

As for whether gay people are 'normal' nor not, you only have to look at the bell-shaped curve and how it defines 'normal' to know that they are probably not, statistically. A more accurate way of putting it might be to ask whether gay people are 'well adjusted'. Yes, they can be, as they have all the other biological characteristics that heterosexual people have, but i think the pressures in regard to social acceptance hinders many from actually being _well-adjusted_.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2008)

kotim said:


> statistically speaking it is extremely likely that someone who is homosexual will sexually assault someone under the age of consent, does not matter whether they are born that way or are nurtured or both.



Kotim, to say that it is "extremely likely" is imo a rather extravagent claim.
I do think the onus is on you to provide some statisics which support such a claim.
No, it's not up to us to seek out statistics.  You have made the claim. You should be able to support it.


----------



## nunthewiser (2 August 2008)

Is proud to be a lesbian!


----------



## SM Junkie (2 August 2008)

> statistically speaking it is extremely likely that someone who is homosexual will sexually assault someone under the age of consent




Kotim - I think this is complete rubbish and I'm speaking as a professional with many years experience in child protection.  

Homosexuals are no more likely to abuse male children then a straight person.  If you were correct then why are their homosexual males registered as foster carers; why have homosexuals been allowed to adopt children? Surely if your statistics were correct then authorities would not allow this to occur.

Based on your analysis of the statistics that you provided, then you are saying that because a male offends against another male then they must be homosexual? Wrong

Boys do get abused, yes, but it is still more probable that the person is known to the family, has accessibility and trust of the family.  Their sexual orientation plays no part.

Yes if a male was abused themselves, then their are reported cases that some victims (not all) will go on to offend themselves. But because they abuse males does not make them homosexuals.

Every male offenders that I have interviewed were either single males with no history of homosexuality or were married/in a relationship with a female.

Look foward to seeing more evidence of your claims?


----------



## Sean K (3 August 2008)

Julia said:


> Kotim, to say that it is "extremely likely" is imo a rather extravagent claim.
> I do think the onus is on you to provide some statisics which support such a claim.
> No, it's not up to us to seek out statistics.  You have made the claim. You should be able to support it.



Yes, I agree Julia.

It's like saying, 'I saw a UFO last night, prove me wrong'.

Or, this classic, 'God exists, prove he doesn't'.

WTF!!

And, from the stats provided, 'extremely likely', is definately the wrong description. But using that type of language supports the case, doesn't it...


----------



## spooly74 (3 August 2008)

Aussiest said:


> 4. There is the genetic theory, that there is a gay gene. I wonder if this is true? As i know several families with more than one gay child in it. Eg, how statistically likely is it to have 2 out of 3 children gay? I actually know a family where 3 out of the 4 children are gay. Lol. How funny (1 woman and 2 men if you're curious).




This is a very interesting point. If it does happen to be genetic, well that could be looked upon as a bad thing from a evolutionary perspective - 

After having several conversations with friends on this topic lately (your ears would have been on fire kennas), one pointed out that there are other examples in evolution where if you inherit a copy or combination of a gene set it has a distinct disadvantage for genetic survival but also has a bonus flip side.

In Africa , if one inherits 2 copies of the same gene, you`ll get a condition called sickle cell anemia, if you get this you`re more likely to die young and less likely tp pro create, which is bad but inherited and also evolved.

The flip side benefit is for people who only inherit one copy of this gene compared to those who inherit none. If you have one copy you are significantly less likely to be get malaria.

That said, it`s possible that it`s caused by a combination of factors which give a befefit to the carrier however it`s only the particular combination which leads to exclusive homosexuality which has a genetic disatvantage.
Might possibly explain bisexuality too.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2008)

spooly74 said:


> In Africa , ........ The flip side benefit is for people who only inherit one copy of this gene ... you are significantly less likely to be get malaria.



spooly
btw, I heard that mosquitos who bite gays also become gay.  
(Sorry m8, leading up to happy hour )


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

Prawn I bought up this thread as the men need their space

I think that if you find an attraction to the opposite sex that's fine.

I'm curious as to why you then don't act on it to some degree.

Is it people will find out?
You are fearful of being accepted?
You are fearful of catching a disease?
Against your religion?
What the public would think of you?

You don't know how your going to react until you try.  Then again same sex each partner is different.

You don't have to have a special voice and wave your hands around. 

Bisexual?  or do you want another thread for that one.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 December 2008)

I think the key in your post above is IF people find an attraction to the same sex.

In the other thread you stated:


> you dont know until you try




However some people do know without trying as they are simply turned off by the idea.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> I think the key in your post above is IF people find an attraction to the same sex.
> 
> In the other thread you stated:
> 
> ...




The way many of you are categorising women on the other thread is pretty sad.  Bravo to the few men who loved their partners.  Then THAT's another Thread!

So if they are that tragic why not try the other sex?  Unless your a hermit.

Prawn you don't know until you try - That is with the assumption you will try the other sex.

Obvious if you don't want to try it doesn't apply.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Prawn I bought up this thread as the men need their space
> 
> I think that if you find an attraction to the opposite sex that's fine.
> 
> ...



Most men like vaginas and breasts.

Most women like penises and hairy muscular bodies.

Simple isn't it.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Most men like vaginas and breasts.
> 
> Most women like penises and hairy muscular bodies.
> 
> Simple isn't it.





Assumption Big Time.  I'll take that as your personal opinion.

Interesting you have the same avatar as Natasha, a little feminine for a bloke?


----------



## prawn_86 (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Prawn you don't know until you try - That is with the assumption you will try the other sex.
> 
> Obvious if you don't want to try it doesn't apply.




Agree with this totally.

Fact is most men dont want to try, IMO


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Agree with this totally.
> 
> Fact is most men dont want to try, IMO




Assumption - please provide Facts to support your arguement your a mod.

It will be interesting if the USA military change their law on Gays in the ranks.

Britian did it as well as some other countries - Powell bless his heart, said that the 1993 Law was out of touch with present day  thinking.

I think there are more gay, transexual people out their, they don't have to 'come out' it is their choice.

I think it is sad that there is a celebration IF they come out and say "I'm Gay"

Should be mandatory for other to say in a proclamation "I’m Hetrosexual" - sort of evens the field.

I do know of a guy big beefy thing in construction who IS gay and doesn't prance around.  You wouldn't know.

That's the think you don't know for sure who is unless they would like to tell you.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> The way many of you are categorising women on the other thread is pretty sad.  Bravo to the few men who loved their partners.  Then THAT's another Thread!




On this point, i think a lot of the way males brains are wired is for humour and/or sarcasm.

I think most that posted in that thread love their partners, otherwise they would not be together. That does not mean they can't have a whinge and tell exaggerated tales, as thats what men do. Much like women sitting round and complaining to their friends, which im sure they do


----------



## prawn_86 (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Assumption - please provide Facts to support your arguement your a mod.




Dont need facts in general chat section 

I said it was in my opinion. I would be very surprised if more than 50% of men said they were interested in trying sex with another man.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 December 2008)

LOL, one of them "I think I am so I am" topics.

Nature shows us reproduction and relationship between male and female.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Dont need facts in general chat section
> 
> I said it was in my opinion. I would be very surprised if more than 50% of men said they were interested in trying sex with another man.




When men are in very close quarters Military, construction, gym and they see other guys buffed bodies that appeal to them - each to their own.  

Do you acknowledge it? There is no sin.

Do you get an erection?

I know if I see a gorgeous woman I do look and tell my partner who smiles.  Beauty in the eye of the beholder can be appreciated.  Women seem less worried about what others think, I know from personal experience the compliments I give or receive are taken in a positive light, even in front of my partner. 

Prawn - I don't do "coffee club" or hang out with women, if you read my post prefer the company of men - either side , not egotistical, not metromen, not steroid enhanced men.  Mine are from all ranks of life. I appreciate them for who they are but one is very special too me.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Nature shows us reproduction and relationship between male and female.



Yes nature. It is required for a penis and a vagina to make babies. It is also required for a father and a mother to make a stable family with that child produced from that penis and that vagina.

That is how it has been for a long time and a long time to come. The radicals in society would like you to believe otherwise.

In the above point the radicals are not gay, but the people with an agenda of changing the family unit.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> LOL, one of them "I think I am so I am" topics.
> 
> Nature shows us reproduction and relationship between male and female.




It's an open discussion.  I am amazed at the amount of men who just go man + woman = intimate relationship

Children will be had in various ways.  To say a Gay person can't have one (not the men) adopt, surrogate, can't raise one in a healthy environment, can't have a childn well balanced, will abuse the child is sheer ignorance and homophobic.  

I do belive from the people I know they uphold moral values as much as a hetrosexuals probably more.  

Men can denounce their rights on this thread I'm used to the small mindedness.  I accept some men - no percentage figure here as the number will never be known.- like the man + woman = intimate relationship.

But it is never forth coming the other way around.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> When men are in very close quarters Military, construction, gym and they see other guys buffed bodies that appeal to them - each to their own.
> 
> Do you acknowledge it? There is no sin.
> 
> Do you get an erection?




I can acknowledge when a guy has a better body etc than me. However i feel no pyshical attraction towards them. (Just respect cause im too damn lazy to hit the gym that often  )

I think women are the same in a lot of senses. Lots of women see someone with nice legs and wish/say "i wish i had her legs" but that does not mean they want to sleep with oir have sex with her


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> That is how it has been for a long time and a long time to come.




We all embrace different groups and beliefs throughout our lifetime, if only to  break free of the societal psychological bonds which are everpresent from birth to death.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> It's an open discussion.  I am amazed at the amount of men who just go man + woman = intimate relationship
> 
> Children will be had in various ways.  To say a Gay person can't have one (not the men) adopt, surrogate, can't raise one in a healthy environment, can't have a childn well balanced, will abuse the child is sheer ignorance and *homophobic.
> *
> ...




Homophobic is one of those PC words for *choice*. People chose to not want to be interested. 

Children need a father in the house especially boys.

It is small minded to not consider the ill effects of not having a father in the house.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Yes nature. It is required for a penis and a vagina to make babies. It is also required for a father and a mother to make a stable family with that child produced from that penis and that vagina.
> 
> That is how it has been for a long time and a long time to come. The radicals in society would like you to believe otherwise.
> 
> In the above point the radicals are not gay, but the people with an agenda of changing the family unit.




Radicals? please define

You don't need a penis and vagina to make a baby.

You need a sperm and an egg to make a baby.

"that father and a mother to make a stable family with that child produced from that penis and that vagina"  glad this accounts for all the domestic violence and child abuse in a "stable family"  gosh wouldn't it be amazing if a Gay couple raised an intelligent, moral, useful child into society.

Penny Wong is doing OK.  No matter what you think of her opinions good or bad.  She has never let the small minded and their judgement of her sexuality stand in the way of her achievements and goals.  So What?  She is trying to do more than some "normal couples" living off the dole with no respect to the environment.

This would be a revelation from couples whose kids are on smack, ice or other drugs.

I find it amusing that you show such disgust at a topic that has been going on for centuries.  I do believe religion has alot too account for.

Perhaps over populating the earth?  Dwindling our resources?  Women that have to have the bigger car, diamond ring, home private schooling to gloat about at coffee.  Men gloating about the new toy, how many they 'did on the weekend'?

Yes, not ALL men and women are like this.


----------



## nunthewiser (16 December 2008)

I am not homosexual but once screwed a fella that was


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Homophobic is one of those PC words for *choice*. People chose to not want to be interested.
> 
> Children need a father in the house especially boys.
> 
> It is small minded to not consider the ill effects of not having a father in the house.




Yes it is your choice.  That is fine. I accept it.

Boys whose fathers rape them?  If your going to make outlandish statements like that you might want to add that it is your opinion.  Are you telling me I'm a bad example to my son?

It would be my assumption, as I have had a girlfriend in the past and am open minded and DO have well balanced, intellegent kids - one who is a girl and pround of it and IS attracted to boys open stops to look at them HOWEVER, wants to study Engineering, Construction and Metal Work for the HSC - Apparently the only girl in the history of the school to do it!  Boy, did we get a grilling from the Principle about tradition!  I was shocked - my gorgeous girl wasn't fazed and just said "I'll break history".  With the support of my brother in construction she probably will.   

When discussing it with others I am also shocked that they automatically think she is a lesbian! She is just a kid at 16 years and wears dresses and skirts, loves lip gloss.

I told her she can study what ever she wants, she is doing the exam not anyone else, she has my full support.  

Society really has 'selected the roles you play'


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Children will be had in various ways.  To say a Gay person can't have one (not the men) adopt, surrogate, can't raise one in a healthy environment, can't have a childn well balanced, will abuse the child is sheer ignorance and homophobic.




I think this is where the boundary is crossed in regards to the natural aspect of human life.
Sure we can do what we want within the laws of the land but this is a selfish or rebellious snub of the nose at fellow human beings.

If it was a genuine act then many many people would be doing it and certainly more accepting of it.

See through small mind.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Radicals? please define
> 
> You don't need a penis and vagina to make a baby.
> 
> ...




Green you are ranting.

Just for the record *I do like gay people* and have gay friends. They are cool people.

What I don't like is their ideals being sold or pushed down my throat. I respect them because that is the right thing to do, but don't tell me how to think. 

Yes babies cna be made form scientific methods. I concede defeat on this one point of popularity. 

Penny Wong? 

I'll leave it there.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Green you are ranting.
> 
> Just for the record *I do like gay people* and have gay friends. They are cool people.
> 
> ...




Snake you interpreted my comments as "ranting". They where not,  that is your or others interpretation.

Great you have gay friends.

Are they any less deserving of respect than you, are they any less able than you to do things in society, are they less intellegent, are they loving to their families?

This thread is about homosexuality.  Not the bashing of them. Maybe I’ll start a thread on their acceptability with a rule ‘no negative comments from anyone on the sexual same sex choice of their chosing’.  I would expect little response to this thread from the formed and assumed comments here.

I am merely pointing to some facts. 

Prawn I don't lust after any woman's hair, shoes etc.  I have my own style.

I was referring to sexual compliments


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Snake you interpreted my comments as "ranting". They where not,  that is your or others interpretation.
> 
> Great you have gay friends.
> 
> ...




Never said they were less deserving than anyone else.

Never said I was bashing them, nor was I bashing them. 

Sexual compliments are good for self esteem. 

I think lesbian experiences on TV are cool and worth watching.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Never said they were less deserving than anyone else.
> 
> Never said I was bashing them, nor was I bashing them.
> 
> ...




I'm glad you've clarified my questions as your first statement would lead to other understandings.

I think there are positives with all humans.  Do we have the right to deny any human their personal choice? Do we have the right to judge them and make it public?  

Humans will always judge - ingrained, can't make an informative decision unless you judge. What's your favourite colour?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> I'm glad you've clarified my questions as your first statement would lead to other understandings.
> 
> I think there are positives with all humans.  Do we have the right to deny any human their personal choice? Do we have the right to judge them and make it public?
> 
> Humans will always judge - ingrained, *can't make an informative decision unless you judge*. What's your favourite colour?




LOL. Ironically it's green.

On the other side of the spectrum some people can't stay to themselves without proselytising their beliefs. So humans will always proselytise whether that be religion or a way of life to interests. 

Cheers..


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> LOL. Ironically it's green.
> 
> On the other side of the spectrum some people can't stay to themselves without proselytising their beliefs. So humans will always proselytise whether that be religion or a way of life to interests.
> 
> Cheers..




"what's your favourite colour?" was an example of judging to come to a conclusion.  Nice choice. Mine's blue.

Humans will inevitability be humans.  There will never be peace or harmony entirely on this earth under any religion, politics, rulings, beliefs - 

Everyone in agreeance with each other all 6.8 billion! Stretch of the imagination! - but then.... (Tongue in cheek so no one gets it wrong) 

That's also what gives the world some spunk!


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> I think there are positives with all humans.  *Do we **have the right to deny any human their personal choice*?




Yes, when it interferes in other peoples lives.

It is helpful to talk about various aspects of existance so as to gain a better understanding of life from another viewpoint.


----------



## GumbyLearner (16 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes, when it interferes in other peoples lives.




I wouldnt mind if either of these two interfered in my life even if briefly.

http://ikkitwins.com/


"You know what they say: You can't teach a gay dog straight tricks."
Chef, South Park.


----------



## Green08 (16 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes, when it interferes in other peoples lives.




How does a gay person interfer with your life? In a detrimental way or postive?

You didn't ask but I'll ask you in return.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> How does a gay person interfer with your life? In a detrimental way or postive?
> 
> You didn't ask but I'll ask you in return.




Okay I`m back.

Ans. ... No gays interfere with my life.My answer before covers any human, in reference to your question.


----------



## ColB (16 December 2008)

> Originally Posted by It's Snake Pliskin
> "...I think lesbian experiences on TV *are cool and worth watching.*"




Snake, are 'they cool and worth watching' if they are pig ugly or only if they are good looking?


----------



## Sean K (2 August 2009)

Been quite a bit of news about the past couple of days with same sex couples being given the same rights as hetrosexuals, but still can't 'marry'.

Also interesting situation is IVF. Should lesbians be allowed to go through IVF go get pregnant.

I'm in two minds. 

On some logical grounds, if you are biologically dispositioned to choose a same sex partner, then surely children are out of the question. If you are supposed to have kids, shouldn't you prefer a person of the opposite sex?

However, if you are born with some natural problem preventing you from having kids (as a hetrosexual) we go out of way to try and fix the situation, and that might include IVF. 

Is there a difference in these two cases?


*AMA president Dr Andrew Pesce says gay people should not have IVF*
By Eleni Hale
Sunday Herald Sun
August 02, 2009 12:01am

THE new head of the Australian Medical Association has said single women and gay couples should not have access to IVF. 

Dr Andrew Pesce, elected AMA federal president in May, told the Sunday Herald Sun that IVF should not be a "lifestyle choice" and use of the treatment by same sex couples went against the "natural order". 

"Fertility treatment is there to treat diseases that cause infertility, it shouldn't be there as a lifestyle choice," Dr Pesce said. 

"For example, single women (who choose IVF) don't have a disease, they just don't have a partner. Same-sex couples, they don't have disease but they are using an option that gets around the natural order of things." 

Dr Pesce later contacted the newspaper and said his comments were "clumsy" and a mistake.


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2009)

kennas said:


> Dr Andrew Pesce, elected AMA federal president in May, told the Sunday Herald Sun that IVF should not be a "lifestyle choice" and use of the treatment by same sex couples went against the "natural order".
> 
> "Fertility treatment is there to treat diseases that cause infertility, it shouldn't be there as a lifestyle choice," Dr Pesce said.




The only thing that I disagree with here, and which changes everything, is that I believe that homosexuals are born to be with their own gender, it is not a choice.  Not sure where I see bisexuals, but perhaps there is a biological influence too.  The reason I say is is for me, anecdotally, I have had two situations where I 'knew' that the person was gay yet their current lifetsyle would refute that.

When I was a child (back in the days of dinosaurs) there was a young girl whom I just knew was different. Nice, but something about her was simply, different. I was maybe 8 years of age and way back then, hell, we just didnt know about different sexual practices.  Hell, at 8 years of age, what was sex!  We eventually went to different high schools and lost track; eventually I learnt she was a lesbian and things kind of clicked into place.

The other situation was when I had just started going out with my future hubby and I was introduced to an older friend of his, who was married.  I said to my then boyfired "but he is gay, why is he married?"  My boyfriend looked at me like I was crazy and asked what on earth I was talking about.  Three years later, he was divorced and had come out of the closet!  My boyfriend, now husband, looked at me again, and still thought I was crazy because no-one else had picked it.

I have no issues with homosexuals wanting to be recognised in legal marriage.  It is the church bit that is getting in the way but who says they want to be married in a church?  They just want a legal marriage not a religious one. What do I have to 'lose' in granting them that.  They have plenty to gain, including a sense of self esteem and how can that be a bad thing.

I do agree though that access to IVF should be limited to issues of infertility.  Homosexual couples are generally not infertile, they just dont have either the right mix of chromosomes.  They should be granted access to donor banks; if, in the course of that treatment they are then found to have fertility problems, then they could be granted IVF.  Not sure how this helps male homosexuals though.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

kennas said:


> 1. Should lesbians be allowed to go through IVF go get pregnant.
> 
> 2.  THE new head of the Australian Medical Association has said single women and gay couples should not have access to IVF.
> 
> ...



1. my vote no 
2. agree with the good doctor.  Kids are not teddy bears, something you can collect just because the neighbours have one. Kids are too important.  Their rights come first. 
(Not that I'm gonna get out with a placard - and I know of the counter that a loving homosexual home is better than a violent heterosexual one etc )
3. as far as I know it's happening though ( isn't it?) some states not others maybe? 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/05/11/1115585028665.html


> Current laws restrict "socially infertile" women - single women and lesbians - from IVF unless they are clinically infertile or have a genetic abnormality that can be transmitted to the child. *Many women are forced to go to states where laws are less restrictive for treatment*.




which states are they I wonder?



> Lesbians, singles win IVF therapy.
> Single women and lesbians would legally have access to IVF treatment ... (recommendation of committee).
> 
> Professor Neave said the proposed changes would ban discrimination against a woman based on religion, marital status or sexual orientation. A woman would be able to access IVF if she was "unlikely" to become pregnant in her circumstances.
> ...




:topic  re that last sentence... 
like the old dementia couple in the retirement home..
she asks him ..."I think we should have another child"
"over my dead body"


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> 2. agree with the good doctor.  Kids are not teddy bears, something you can collect just because the neighbours have one. Kids are too important.  Their rights come first.
> "




Since when did children have a say in whether they get created or born?
I know of several lesbian couples and they would have made great parents.  I used them to babysit my kids on occasions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

I'm sure a lot agree with you Prospector - and I'm not gonna carry a placard on this one.  Just that if it went to a vote, I'd vote "no".  

Instead of having the kids ( "I have two mummies and no daddy", etc) I'd say "Let the nice ladies  (nothing against them otherwise) volunteer for regular baby-sittiing"


----------



## Sean K (2 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> I know of several lesbian couples and they would have made great parents.  I used them to babysit my kids on occasions.



I have some lesbian/bi friends who would be awesome parents, but I also have some lesbian aquaintances who I do not think should be the sole care givers. Probably a bit judgemental, but they wouldn't provide a balance. However, not all balance comes from the family I suppose. Extended family, friends, teachers, media etc would all provide the 'balanced' input. Maybe.


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2009)

kennas said:


> I have some lesbian/bi friends who would be awesome parents, but I also have some lesbian aquaintances who I do not think should be the sole care givers. Probably a bit judgemental, but they wouldn't provide a balance.




I think you have also summed up the population of heterosexual couples too!  Obviously not in terms of sexual practices, but certainly in the generic sense of 'parenting skills'.


----------



## Sean K (2 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> I think you have also summed up the population of heterosexual couples too!  Obviously not in terms of sexual practices, but certainly in the generic sense of 'parenting skills'.



Can we ever put a license on this? 

Traditionally I think the license comes from parents. The tradition of the boy asking the girl's dad for permission for her hand, and the resulting kiddy. This still goes on in some parts. In some societies, the parents choose - from a very young age unfortunately. In the case of Prince William, the paparazzi choose. 

Maybe it's just a very small minority that need permission to get married and be parents, and we're overcooking the situation.


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2009)

kennas said:


> The tradition of the boy asking the girl's dad for permission for her hand, and the resulting kiddy..




That reminds me - you wouldnt have seen this programme Kennas, but there is now an OZ knock-off of the Trash UK Jet Air reality programme, which shows travellers getting antsy about everything imaginable.  It is based on cheap Tiger Air.  

Last week there was a couple who were flying to Queensland to get married - along with their two children aged around 4 years and 12 months.  The future hubby said, in a dead serious voice "we wanted to do things the right way, so I asked my Bride's father for her hand in marriage"     Um, fella, you knocked her up twice and you wanted to do things the right way? :  real bogan TV it is!  Train wreck stuff.  Love it!


----------



## johenmo (2 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> I think you have also summed up the population of heterosexual couples too!  Obviously not in terms of sexual practices, but certainly in the generic sense of 'parenting skills'.




Too right parenting skills are an issue regardles of the sexuality.  Hetero couples can generally have kids without medical intervention - which IVF is - and homo/lesbian couples can't.  So society can't "stop" "unfit" hetero couples from reproducing.

From discussions I've heard/had, the 2 biggest issues to the IVF/same sex parents seem to be the same sex issue and the taxpayer funding.  I have trouble with people who undergo IVF using donor eggs and sperm.  The child is no more biologically theirs than an adopted or fostered child.  So the only thing "gained" is carrying the child.

At what point should medical technology be allowed to overcome what is not normally achieveable?  And I don't believe the arguement of comparing it to health practices like heart bypasses is comparable - as the outcomes are in 2 separate camps.  One is for maintaining health, and the other is, essentially, a lifestyle choice.  I'd rather taxpayer health $ go towards essential health services that are currently underfunded.

As for homosexuality itself?  All the homsexual people I've met/know are nice people - and I really don't get fussed about it at all.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2009)

I pretty much agree with Johenmo.   Some homosexual couples would be fine parents and I don't have any objection to them having a child by whatever means.

However, until the Health budget is sufficiently great to treat all the people currently waiting for essential health-maintaining or life saving surgery, I object to taxpayer funds assisting them in any way.


----------



## Buckeroo (2 August 2009)

I had a speech typed, but was too gutless to submit in case I would be called homophobic.

I believe this is the position of the majority of people on gay marriage & allowing them to have children they cannot naturally conceive. If gay people believe otherwise then let us have a referendum!

Cheers


----------



## knocker (2 August 2009)

I don't think lesbians should have access to ivf. If they want children they can adopt. It's all a bit confusing. If they want children of their own, would they really be lesbian? Surely they would desire a man? I think our society is creating more and more lesbian and homosexuals through media or whatever. I have nothing against them, it just seems that as with everything nowdays, people want more an more.


----------



## Buckeroo (2 August 2009)

knocker said:


> I don't think lesbians should have access to ivf. If they want children they can adopt. It's all a bit confusing. If they want children of their own, would they really be lesbian? Surely they would desire a man? I think our society is creating more and more lesbian and homosexuals through media or whatever. I have nothing against them, it just seems that as with everything nowdays, people want more an more.




Thanks Knocker, I'm humbled by your courage.

And I also think there is an increasing trend into homosexuality. And why is it that young people particularly women get a kick from kissing each other?

Anyway with this continuing trend, we'll all be extinct in the next couple of generations so it won't be an issue.

Cheers


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2009)

If any of you knew the realities of a 'heterosexual, financially secure couple' being successful in trying to adopt a child these days, then you would know that 'adopting a child' is simply not an option.  A gay couple will never meet the criteria, let alone be selected by the relinquishing parents. So that leaves them with international surrogacy if they are refused treatment through a donor programme. 

A persons sexuality bears no relationship with one's desire to raise a child. If someone has a low or even no sex drive are you therefore suggesting that they also do not want to parent?

Where do we draw the line on scarce health budgets. The treatment of people who eat or drink or smoke themselves to death?  I would rather my tax dollars be spent on infertility than treatment of others who will continue to abuse their body.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/08/2619961.htm


> Scientists 'create sperm from stem cells'
> Posted Wed Jul 8, 2009 10:26am AEST
> 
> A team of British scientists say they have created human sperm using embryonic stem cells, in a medical first they say will lead to a better understanding of fertility.
> ...



Even here they apparently require *male* stem cells - no risk of men being left out of the equation  - phew.


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Anyway with this continuing trend, we'll all be extinct in the next couple of generations so it won't be an issue.




Actually you have hit the nail on the head. If there were no homosexuals there would probably be another billion hungry mouths to feed.


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/08/2619961.htm
> 
> Even here they apparently require *male* stem cells - no risk of men being left out of the equation  - phew.




Actually, make that MAN and not MEN.  We only need one of you! :


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> Actually, make that MAN and not MEN.  We only need one of you! :



Sounds like a quote from "the queen of the amazons" lol
:topic
what was that ad that Keeren Perkins did ... "pick me !!! pick me!!!"


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2009)

No wedded bliss at the conference - but still bliss for some;


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 August 2009)

There are many homophobic people on this forum.

I have a mate who recently "came out".

He has a son who is gay and was very ostensibly homophobic. However we all sensed he himself may have been gay.

He played Kylie Minogue CDs and had posters of her all over the house and listened to ABC Classic FM. Then he started following the Basketball.

Since he has "come out" he is much happier. We don't see as much of him as before but he is always welcomed as a mate at the RSL, the Ross Island, the Great Northern and the Rising Sun Hotels. 

He is a good bloke and is reconciled with his son.

gg

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ... Since he has "come out" he is much happier. .... is reconciled with his son.



As Zimmerman says here ...
"Gay men could always get married, - just that their wives didn't think much of it" (or didn't know of the fact?) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQWrasoNS24

rant follows:-
I notice the Govt has said (recent Labor conf) that "gays will get what they need but not what the want"  meaning allegedly that they'll get all of the peripheral legal benfits, but not be permitted to marry. 

Conversely ... No doubt they will argue that "why not give us what we deserve"?  - then again, fwiw, I'm inclined to agree with the govt on this one - not that I'd fight to the death over it.  

I read that "recent polls have shown a majority of australians are in favour of gay marriage"  - must check it out. I'd be surprised.


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2009)

If that is the Government's position(legal rights but not 'marriage' then that surely is a decision totally based on Rudd's religious preferences. Thought we had moved past Harradine's religious stranghold.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> If that is the Government's position(legal rights but not 'marriage' then that surely is a decision totally based on Rudd's religious preferences. Thought we had moved past Harradine's religious stranghold.



I think it's also the opposition's position prospector.

just ask Barnaby Joyce 
(or Tony Abbott ftm)

Sounds like you'd better vote green next time pp (if you didn't last time that is)


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2009)

I know two gay pensioners who live together. Marriage is the last thing on their minds. It would reduce their pensions.


----------



## knocker (2 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> I know two gay pensioners who live together. Marriage is the last thing on their minds. It would reduce their pensions.




I guess as pensioners they get no perks but I'm sure a young working gay couple would. Which is fine, but really some of the crappy photos in the age etc of bearded men wearing wedding dresses. Come on I think the media needs to get a life.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

yep - people should get married for the right reasons ...


----------



## kotim (2 August 2009)

Irrespective of whether people are born homosexual or are developed as homosexual or a combination of both the simple fact is that homosexual is almost synonomous with the various peadophile strains.

I have investigated many sex offenders and abused children blah blah blah and I can tell you that the folowing stat whilst rubbery  as most stats can be are very telling.

Simple fact.  Most studies, even those accepted by pro homosexual lobby groups accpet that the number of 'homosexuals' account for between 1-3% of the population, bearing in mind that many pro homosexual lobby groups use that 1-3% in their court claims.

Sexual abuse of those under the age of consent range from between 5-25%, 25% is a number used by people who want to extrapolate out worst case scenarious, but who more than likely substantially over rate the number of those abused, but in any case one can use a more moderate number such as 5-10% to ensure 'fairness'  The number of females under the age of consent abused by males are a few percent higher.

However in the last couple of decaded with more males finally coming forward the gap between females abused and males abused are closing rapidly on a reported basis.

Either way lets accept a conservative 5% of boys under the age of consent are abused and 10% of girls under the age of consent are abused.

So if we take  a number homosexauls as being 3% and the number of boys abused by males is around 5% it means that statistically speaking every homosexual is responsible on a purely numbers base for the abuse of 1.5-2 boys.

That leaves the remaining 97% of straite men responsible for the abuse on 10% of under aged women, in other words about 1 in 10 men are abusers of those under the age of consent in relation to the opposite sex.

Now these numbers are easily obtained through any number of methods of research etc.   

I present the very basic facts along with  conservative numbers that paint homosexuals in the most 'positive' light possible.

Now whilst we know that not every homosexual will abuse another male under the age of consent the risk is so high its extreme.


The problem is that the majority are sold a picture that in many cases is so untrue its not funny.  

Its like the word homophibic,  The actual terminolgy  of phobia means to be fearful of, as generally understood by the population, however that word is bandied around by people to apply pressure to those who disagree with homosexual endorsement to make them feel like they are the ones with the problem.  

The reality is that people can dislike homosexuals for whatever reason without being 'fearful' of them.

In fact having been involved with those who are abused etc and investigating same, homosexuality is a very insidious 'disease' that in some respects should be tolerated to a degree but should not be endorsed in any way.

I personally have a lot of sympathy for at least some homosexuals becasue I know that they are that way through development, in other words being abused etc.  I don't doubt that some people could be born with that predisposition, like many other things in life.

However the deviancy it creates in the individual is not something that we as a society should be endorsing and on a personal level, I in my personal and work life will not deliberatley socialise etc with any one of a homosexual nature, becasue I have children and I understand the true risks of letting any one of a homosexual nature have contact with my children.

People can take this post as they please, but if they care to do their own genine research they will find that I have painted a fairer picture of abuse by homsoexuals than what they actually deserve.

The interesting thing is I use to show the various stats and or links to them but so many people did not want to believe them that they would not even look at them.  Yes a handfull of people who did actually take the time to do a little research were shocked at the true nature of risk and it changed their perspective.

A little information that should be very telling.  In the catholic Church where they have an all male clergy approximatley 85-95% of all sexual abuse claims are committed on males, now whilst some of the priests etc are homosexual, the vast majority are not and in fact the catholic church has a much less rate per capita of sex offenders than the general poplulation.  Ultimatley it means that the majority straite priests are responsbile for very little abuse relative tot he homosexuals. 

There could be many reasons for this but ultimatley it is a very telling picture that is a true window into the 'soul' of those who are homosexual and the subsequent risks they bring with them.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He played Kylie Minogue CDs and had posters of her all over the house and listened to ABC Classic FM. Then he started following the Basketball.



gg, I listen to ABC Classic FM.  Does this mean I am potentially homosexual?
Don't like either Kylie or basketball, however.  Might that balance out the damage done by ABC Classic FM?


----------



## gooner (2 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> I know two gay pensioners who live together. Marriage is the last thing on their minds. It would reduce their pensions.




If they live together then legally they are treated as if they are married for pension purposes - the law changed recently to recognise same sex partnerships.   You can dob them in if you like

Oh and of course homosexuals should be able to get married. Then they can be as unhappy as the rest of us


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2009)

kotim said:


> People can take this post as they please, but if they care to do their own genine research they will find that I have painted a fairer picture of abuse by homsoexuals than what they actually deserve.




I for one, have seldom read such unmitigated crap.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> If any of you knew the realities of a 'heterosexual, financially secure couple' being successful in trying to adopt a child these days, then you would know that 'adopting a child' is simply not an option.  A gay couple will never meet the criteria, let alone be selected by the relinquishing parents. So that leaves them with international surrogacy if they are refused treatment through a donor programme.



That's true.   It's very different from a couple of generations ago when single mothers didn't keep their babies.




> A persons sexuality bears no relationship with one's desire to raise a child. If someone has a low or even no sex drive are you therefore suggesting that they also do not want to parent?



Good that you have clarified such an earlier suggestion.  No connection whatever.





> Where do we draw the line on scarce health budgets. The treatment of people who eat or drink or smoke themselves to death?  I would rather my tax dollars be spent on infertility than treatment of others who will continue to abuse their body.



That's fair enough as a broad statement.  But there are plenty of people who do not abuse their bodies who are unable to get essential treatment.  Even such basic procedures as hip and knee replacements in the elderly often have a waiting list of around 6 years.  

Isn't there a difference between treating 'infertility' and providing IVF to a lesbian couple either of whom as individuals may well not be infertile at all if exposed to a heterosexual encounter?  Such application of an IVF programme (or a variation thereof) seems to me to be  a social decision rather than actually health related.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 August 2009)

kotim said:


> Either way lets accept a conservative 5% of boys under the age of consent are abused and 10% of girls under the age of consent are abused.
> 
> So if we take  a number homosexauls as being 3% and the number of boys abused by males is around 5% it means that statistically speaking every homosexual is responsible on a purely numbers base for the abuse of 1.5-2 boys.
> 
> That leaves the remaining 97% of straite men responsible for the abuse on 10% of under aged women, in other words about 1 in 10 men are abusers of those under the age of consent in relation to the opposite sex.



You are making the assumption that straight men do not abuse boys and would only ever abuse girls.

I don't recall the numbers, but various statistics suggest that a significant percentage of "straight" people have at some point had a homosexual experience. It thus seems entirely plausible that straight men would be behind at least some of the abuse of boys.

Unrelated to the above comment, one thing I've noticed on many occasions is that those men who seem most fearful of homosexuals tend to also have trouble forming lasting heterosexual relationships. Seen quite a few examples of that and a lot of arguments could be made on that basis, including those relating to the likelihood of sex offences.


----------



## Savoy Special (3 August 2009)

Sorry to butt in but there some weird homo chat going on in 

Where are you from? Thread.

Trainspotter!have you got something to tell us???


----------



## pursuitute (3 August 2009)

kotim said:


> poofs are kiddy fiddlers...



If all bits are bobs, and all bobs are blips, then the more likely scenario is that rock spiders are deviants who will play with anyone of any age and any sex.

Your logic is has a dirty big hole in it.

You have cited that gays are deviants who prey on little boys at the rate of 1 or 2 each 

Think for a moment that a person who preys on little boys isn't a gay man because he picks on boys, he is a deviant who will play with anyone, any age and any sex.

He is then, not a gay man, he is a sexual predator that will also screw men.  You have assumed that because he screws men, he is first and foremost gay.


In really simplistic terms:

I have a Battery Drill.  I use it to drill holes.  When I feel like it, I use it to screw screws.  Other times, I use it with a wire wheel to strip paint.

When I show my mates, it happens to have the wire wheel in it.  They say "awesome paint stripper dude" and then I show them how it drills a hole. They are amazed that my "paint stripper" can also drill things!!  Just to really show off, I show them how it screws things together.  I put the wire wheel back in and give them one last demo.

They go away saying "geez that Scott's a lucky bugger, he got a paint stripper that doesn't just strip paint, it drills holes and screws screws too!"

But alas, when they go home, I forget to put it away and it gets stolen.  I let the poice know that my Battery Drill has been stolen but unfortunately the only thing that has turned up overnight is a Paint Stripper.

So, what was it first,  a deviant or a paint stripper?


----------



## Timmy (3 August 2009)

kotim said:


> Irrespective of whether people are born homosexual or are developed as homosexual or a combination of both the simple fact is that homosexual is almost synonomous with the various peadophile strains.




You got any sources for all this data you quote, or are you just making it up to support your hate-filled views?


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

kotim said:


> Irrespective of whether people are born homosexual or are developed as homosexual or a combination of both the simple fact is that homosexual is almost synonomous with the various peadophile strains.
> 
> I have investigated many sex offenders and abused children blah blah blah and I can tell you that the folowing ...



hey kotim
since you've investigated this so thoroughly ...
1. what percentage of the clergy are responsible for abuse?, and
2. what percentage are gay? 
serious questions ok.

PS maybe break that down into abuse of girls, and also of boys - if your textbook (not referenced) goes into that sorta detail.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 August 2009)

kotim said:


> Irrespective of whether people are born homosexual or are developed as homosexual or a combination of both the simple fact is that homosexual is almost synonomous with the various peadophile strains.
> 
> I have investigated many sex offenders and abused children blah blah blah and I can tell you that the folowing stat whilst rubbery  as most stats can be are very telling.
> 
> ...




Kotim,

On ASF one occasionally sees a post that is incorrect.

Often one that is poorly researched.

Sometimes one that does not stand up to statistical analysis.

Yours is all three.

Never have I seen one that could have been written by a squid with a permanent port into its ******** fed by propofol.

Your post makes no sense, is a statistical abortion of data, and the tone of your conclusions makes me glad I live in Australia, rather than Kabul. where your views would resonate. 

You are a dangerous idiot mate.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

I was trying to avoid this BUT .... WOW. I thought I was messed up until now. kotim .... ummmmmm interesting point of view you got going there dude. If the intent was to get a reaction, be prepared for the tsunami of abuse that is coming your way at gale force 7.


----------



## lianeisme (3 August 2009)

Gay 
Stands for Good As You
I can't for the life of me understand why other people want to interfere in other people lives and put their morals and religious values onto innocent victims.
We all all jump up and down when we talk about the Moslems and what they do to suppress people when our cultures does exactly that.
If two people love each other what ever race creed or sexual orientation why is it our business to get involved its none of our business. We should be happy that they have found love and companionship something we all strive for in life.

I have a few gay friends that have had children by invitro fertilisation, their children are now grown up adults all heterosexual beautiful level headed kids with loving parents and all have done well in life to date all highly educated.  When a gay couple have a child there is a lot of thought and planing before hand and a lot of soul searching. Its no easy decision and in most cases a very expensive exercise.

Did you know that gay people can be foster parents, they are good enough for that but if they want to adopt that child they are not allowed to under Australian Law.

Before people make judgment maybe they should get to some gay people for themselves.
If the government wants these people to pay taxes like the rest of the nation maybe they should have equal rights they don't want special treatment they just want equal rights.  Imagine if every gay person in Australia refused to pay tax until they got equal rights that would certainly change the economic outlook.

Put it this way if you had a child who was gay would you want your child to be singled out and be discriminated against.
I know that some gay people like to shock and flaunt who they are but remember they are a minority they are just trying to get a point across in their own minds. Most gay people are high income earners had working proud individuals and proud to be Australian. Remember they know they are a minority they are reminded of it constantly in every day society.
Gay people aren't necessarily child molesters most convictions of child molestation are against heterosexual men and women. This is fear mongering.
Look what happened to the Christians and the Romans.


----------



## pursuitute (3 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Your post makes no sense, is a statistical abortion of data,



Kotim has assumed, through his comprehensive studies of people that the human race can easily be divided into 4 nice neat groups.

Men = 25%, Women = 25%, Boys under 16 = 25%, Girls under 16 = 25%.  

Through this he has summised:

Of the 100 Men, 3 are Gay;
Of the 100 Boys, 5 are abused;
Only gay men abuse boys;
Therefore, each gay man has abused 1.7 Boys each;

To extrapolate his findings to the ~real qty of population:
5,000,000 Men, 150,000 are Gay;
5,000,000 Boys, 250,000 are abused ;

But in reality, the population doesn't look like that at all, rather it looks like:

Men 40%, Women 40%, Boys under 16 10%, Girls under 16 10%;

Plying these numbers to Kotims stats:

Of the 400 Men, 12 are Gay;
Of the 100 Boys, 5 are abused;
Only gay men abuse boys;
Therefore, each gay man has abused 0.41 boys each - bit of a discrepancy forming eh?;

I would break people down into what they are and how they get their rocks off:

Straight Men - Women
Straight Women - Men
Gay Men - Men
Gay Women - Women
Bi Men - Men & Women
Bi Women - Men & Women
Predators - Men, Women, gay men, gay women, bi men, bi women, kids, dogs and chickens;

Anyway, aside from your appalling use of data Kotim, the single biggest flaw in your theory is your classification of what determines a man as gay.

I don't believe that because a predator *also* gets his rocks off with men that he should be classified foremost as gay.

If I like to fish, I could be called a Fisherman.
If I like to play golf, I could be called a Golfer;
If I like to do woodwork, I could be called a woodworker;
If I like to do all three, I would be called Hobbyist;

The world is all shades of grey Kotim, time you got outside to have a look around.


----------



## Prospector (3 August 2009)

Julia said:


> Isn't there a difference between treating 'infertility' and providing IVF to a lesbian couple either of whom as individuals may well not be infertile at all if exposed to a heterosexual encounter?  Such application of an IVF programme (or a variation thereof) seems to me to be  a social decision rather than actually health related.




Yep, I agree there is a difference.  Earlier I suggested that lesbian couples (who need that other 'half') could be offered the services of a medically screened donor, which is not expensive to operate.  But, if subsequent to that, if one (or even both) was found to also have a fertility issue, then the services of the IVF could be offered to them as they then meet the 'infertility' criteria.

I am not even going to comment on kotim's post, it doesnt deserve it.  Best ignore it.


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

lianeisme said:


> Before people make judgment maybe they should get to some gay people for themselves. *Ummmm should there be another word in this sentence? Like the word  KNOW     ^  perhaps?*
> 
> If the government wants these people to pay taxes like the rest of the nation maybe they should have equal rights they don't want special treatment they just want equal rights.  Imagine if every gay person in Australia refused to pay tax until they got equal rights that would certainly change the economic outlook.* I concur. You work you pay tax, indiscriminate of race, colour, creed, sexuality etc.*
> 
> ...


----------



## nunthewiser (3 August 2009)

i kissed a girl and i liked it


----------



## Julia (3 August 2009)

lianeisme said:


> Did you know that gay people can be foster parents, they are good enough for that but if they want to adopt that child they are not allowed to under Australian Law.



Does that law apply only to gay people?   I don't know of any foster parents who have been able to adopt their foster children.  May have nothing to do with the legal situation though.



> If the government wants these people to pay taxes like the rest of the nation maybe they should have equal rights they don't want special treatment they just want equal rights.  Imagine if every gay person in Australia refused to pay tax until they got equal rights that would certainly change the economic outlook.




What are the areas in which gay people are discriminated against?
I know the superannuation issue was sorted out.
They are now being treated with equality by Centrelink in that two homosexuals in a relationship are now paid as a couple and are no longer able to claim two separate benefits.
They can't legally marry I know.
Anything else?



> . Remember they know they are a minority they are reminded of it constantly in every day society.




I'd dispute that.  The gay people I know are treated just as anyone else.
No reason why anyone's sexual orientation should be an issue to anyone else.


----------



## lianeisme (3 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> lianeisme said:
> 
> 
> > Before people make judgment maybe they should get to some gay people for themselves. *Ummmm should there be another word in this sentence? Like the word  KNOW     ^  perhaps?*
> ...


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2009)

> your right there should be a word the you picked the right word
> like your humour




This thread has certainly attracted some weirdos.


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

I know a bloke who answered it thusly : "I'm not gay but I slept with a guy who was" ...


----------



## Joe Blow (3 August 2009)

Ladies and gentlemen, can people please take care when quoting others. As you can see by a couple of the posts above, it is very confusing to those reading the thread when you get the quote tags wrong.

For those unsure of how to use the quote tags correctly, please refer to this thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

My laptop must be having a hissy fit ... I tried the quote thingy and a popup came up saying my post was too short? I typed more diatribe and it kept popping up? Ended up deleting some words and it posted ok? I dunno


----------



## Timmy (3 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> My laptop must be having a hissy fit ... I tried the quote thingy and a popup came up saying my post was too short? I typed more diatribe and it kept popping up? Ended up deleting some words and it posted ok? I dunno




Your doing it wrong?


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> Your doing it wrong?




Dunno Timmy ... been doing it the same way for over 900 posts and this was the first time it has done this? On the tower computer today and it is not having the same issues. Must be the cheaparse Toshiba laptop.


----------



## Prospector (3 August 2009)

Trainspotter, were you typing your response within the actual quote?  In which case it wont register as having enough words.


----------



## Timmy (3 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Dunno Timmy ... been doing it the same way for over 900 posts and this was the first time it has done this? On the tower computer today and it is not having the same issues. Must be the cheaparse Toshiba laptop.




Hehehehe, only  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Turn it off and on again is my solution to technical difficulties.  Anything beyond that


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

Thanks Prospector ... this was the situation. Resume normal transmission in 3,2,1 ......... BEEP. Got it now, thank you very muchly !! (I feel stoopid)


----------



## kotim (3 August 2009)

How many of the naysayers here have done any sort of statistical analysis on this issue, how many have worked with the groups of people we are talking about and blah blah blah.


This is not a comment about whether people are born different etc it is simply the result of a lifestyle, whether by choice or born it does not matter.

My whold point is that whilst all stats in this area are going to be rubbery to varying degrees if we walk on the side of conservatism then it reveals a  very telling statitistic.  

By the way a straite man does not sexually abuse boys, physically abuse them maybe, but not sexually, by definition having sex with ones own gender makes one at least partially homosexual or any other terminology you want to use. 

Now if one is going to go down the track of stating that heterosexual men have sex with boys(under the age of consent) then it can only be a choice they make becasue no longer can they claim that they are born that way.

Not unless of course people want to claim that paedophiles are born that way.


You can trackdown and use whatever statistics you like because no matter how favourable the stats you find are towards the homosexual group you will find that there is still a huge risk weighted propensity that being homosexual results in abuse of those under the age of consent of the same gender.


Garpal your statements are foolish, becasue you make statements that are ill informed and ill conceived.  

The whole point of everything I said was that their is a very strong tendancy towards deviancy in terms of sexual abuse of minors by those of a homosexual nature.  Why does not matter unless you can identify it and fix it.

The real reaosn people have such a problem with what I am saying is becasue we as humans whilst starting with a black and white outlook on many things have that outlook greyed to varying degrees by the human  relationships we develop with people.

What parent wants to think badly of their son for eg who is a child sex abuser.  No matter how bad they are the parents will make all sorts of excuses becasue it is their son, however if it was somebody elses son they would not make such excuses.

How many people here who replied negatively to what I have said have invesitgated these problems.  I am not talking about a theoretical text book but I mean by dealing with people and their issues.

I give you an example.  A not so uncommon theme amongst males I spoke with, investigated etc who were sexualy abused was that they were "gay bashers", you know the ones you hear about who hang around toilets to bash the gays, well surprise surprise  there are 'homosexuals' who have been abused, bashing their fellow homosexauls and why becasue they know down deep that they are the way they are through sexual abuse.

The simple fact is that no matter if some are born homosexaul, the reaility is that many are developed down those lines through sexual abuse.

Technically speaking it should be irrelevent whether someone is homsexual or bisexual or whatever sexual, but in this not so perfect world there are large risks relating to sexual offences agianst minors by those of a homosexual bent.


----------



## Gillie (3 August 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> i kissed a girl and i liked it




Me too.....


----------



## Buddy (3 August 2009)

Probably not the correct thread to talk about beastiality (where else am I going to put it ), but who's been a naughty boy here.....

*New AIDS-like virus linked to gorillas*

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25874789-12377,00.html


----------



## nunthewiser (3 August 2009)

Gillie said:


> Me too.....





yes .lesbianism rocks !


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2009)

kotim said:


> By the way a straite man does not sexually abuse boys, physically abuse them maybe, but not sexually, by definition having sex with ones own gender makes one at least partially homosexual or any other terminology you want to use.



According to various stats, rather a lot of people have at some point had a homosexual experience despite otherwise being straight. We're talking about a significant percentage of the population here, not the 1 - 3% that are actually homosexual.

A lot of people do various things once or twice for whatever reason. A few drinks on Friday night doesn't mean I'm an alcoholic...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> Probably not the correct thread to talk about beastiality (where else am I going to put it )




spoken like a country boy m8

PS the word has never been mentioned before on ASF as far as I can see (nor ABC.net.au) - and I'm guessing it won't again lol.

(other than our kiwi friends and their partiality to good looking sheep lol).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCRE9qOgbug

Having said that, there was a news article recently that someone was arrested - somewhere overseas. (African desert somewhere)

I wonder if they produced the camel (whatever) as "exhibit A" 

what was that joke again ..
stuck out in the middle of the Sahara - new officer arrives 
"and this sir is the camel - it's ... well ... it's here for the men sir ..."
after 6 months ..
"sar-major ,  I... err.. have need of the camel"...
"say, how do you fellows sort out the height problem?"
"err we don't sir, we ride into the brothel in town" etc


----------



## Aussiest (3 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> *New AIDS-like virus linked to gorillas*




Interesting that you think AIDS is only related to gay people. Well, gay men in particular. It would surprise you to know that many people in Third World countries have it and they're actually heterosexual. 

Ironically, HIV is spread through a number of activities that result in blood2blood contact: unprotected heterosexual and gay sex, IV drug use, blood transfusions.

So, in effect is not a gay disease, it's a virus that happens to afflict a number of gay men, a smaller no. of IV drug users, and a large number of people in third world countries.

Anyway, not trying to make a point with this post, just trying to educate


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

gg, maybe mick is a kiwi - without a sense of humour - and offended -
in which case he'd be the first I've met


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> Interesting that you think AIDS is only related to gay people. Well, gay men in particular. It would surprise you to know that many people in Third World countries have it and they're actually heterosexual.
> 
> Ironically, HIV is spread through a number of activities that result in blood2blood contact: unprotected heterosexual and gay sex, IV drug use, blood transfusions.
> 
> ...




From the Onion 

gg


----------



## nunthewiser (3 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> LOLLLLLLLL.
> 
> I love you nun




aw shucks 

if only you owned a brewery


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

They used to say (early 80's)  that HIV sufferers were predominantly made up of :-

Homosexuals
Haitians
Haemophiliacs, and
Hypodermic users.  

but sure, it is now a raging bushfire  

- especially in those countries where the pope preaches against condoms


----------



## nunthewiser (3 August 2009)

mmmmm obviously kylie isnt doing it .......... dont tell me i gotta pull out the old school "village people " albums


----------



## Aussiest (3 August 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> aw shucks
> 
> if only you owned a brewery




Don't play hard to get


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

[lol - geez we've hooked a ripe one here]
PS stick around mick - 
you're serious entertainment value lol


----------



## nunthewiser (3 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> Don't play hard to get




Never!!!

but if i mentioned how easy i was i might lose some of this Nunly aura i am working on building up


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

...


----------



## Prospector (3 August 2009)

:jerry


----------



## Sean K (3 August 2009)

Please stay Mick, that was some funny stuff. Cheers, kennas


----------



## Buddy (4 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> Interesting that you think AIDS is only related to gay people. Well, gay men in particular. It would surprise you to know that many people in Third World countries have it and they're actually heterosexual.
> 
> Ironically, HIV is spread through a number of activities that result in blood2blood contact: unprotected heterosexual and gay sex, IV drug use, blood transfusions.
> 
> ...




Actooly i is edgumacated.
Ah huh. Got one.
Nope. Not surprised at all. 
Wasn't anywhere else to post the article, and seeing it is so trivial, decided to post it here. 
Just wondered if hubby had been dating gorillas in the mist.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 August 2009)

The well named Dorothy Pratt is at it again in the Queensland Parliament.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,25892907-3102,00.html?from=public_rss

gg


----------

