Bisexual

[psplayer6]

bisexual is another way of saying confused, the brain dosent work in such a way that allows a liking for both, however a confusion can occur, but it is usually sorted out by adulthood, how many bisexual people do you know at age 50?

My friend said this. I was wondering if you guys thought this was true or not, and what you think about bisexual people. If there really confused or they really like both.

[Klowny]

That must be why I need 99 alts. :D

[Ciara Valentine]

Lol


there is actually a position for the back to school adults officer type person but i cant remember what the position is officially called lol.


99 alts? whats an alt?? :?

[Schteve]

An alternate account which he owns (such as Duh'Venger).

Not to be confused with alternative lifestyles....



Split: http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548123

I like how this thread now has nothing to do with the first post.

[Ciara Valentine]

meh threads never do keep their original topic lol


xxxx

[blzbob]

And as a thread gets longer, the probability of Hitler, Nazis, etc. being mentioned rises to one (1). Like just now.

[Ciara Valentine]

random

woooh i got the post so im happy :)

means im in charge of looking after our schools LGB community now :D

[Grey Angel]

Well, I think that the statement is completely incorrect. When one has considered themselves a bisexual, they have 'found' themselves, if you will. It's just like a boy at the age of 9 starts to like girls. Later, he feels a stronger want for a female partner, which leads him to conclude to that he is heterosexual. Now, for a bisexual, let's say there is a boy who likes girls at the same age, but as he grows older, he starts to grow an attraction to males. At the age of 15 (let's say), he feels he has strong feelings for both sexes, thus, he has 'found' himself by becoming a bisexual. The only thing bisexuals are going to be confused about are whether they want to be with that hot guy and/or girl.

[Ciara Valentine]

i agree :)

thanks for your imput Grey :) and welcome to the thread :D

[Grey Angel]

Uhh, thank you, and no problem. But yea, thought there neede to be some more real input, you know? This is actually a serious topic, and it's quite disrespectful that people are making jokes about it. I mean, I'm not bi myself, but still.

[Crazy Jamie]

In all fairness, this topic is well over a year old and has had several splits. There was heated discussion to begin with, it's just petered out a bit now.

[Grey Angel]

So it seems! But still, it's something that should be brought to everyone's attention, I feel.

[Klowny]

So it seems! But still, it's something that should be brought to everyone's attention, I feel.I fail to understand why people insist I become aware of their sexual orientation. I'm not giving out medals, but they seem to think they've got one coming.

[Schteve]

Probably because they are tired of other people oppressing said orientations.

[Grey Angel]

I fail to understand why people insist I become aware of their sexual orientation. I'm not giving out medals, but they seem to think they've got one coming.

You should be careful of what you say, someone might misinterpret what you say. I mean, there is a reason bisexuals, gays and lesbians aren't always open. I mean, c'mon man, be a little more open minded.

[Schteve]

I think you really need to learn to read, or something. :tease:

Unless, of course, you want Klown to go prancing around town letting everyone know he's straight.

...Actually, considering his sexy mail-order bride girlfriend, that might not be a bad idea.

[blzbob]

I think you really need to learn to read, or something. :tease:

Unless, of course, you want Klown to go prancing around town letting everyone know he's straight.

...Actually, considering his sexy mail-order bride girlfriend, that might not be a bad idea.

WHAT?

Klown is straight? Dammit. I thought I was so close, too ...:(

[Schteve]

I know. He's so irresistable, isn't he? :kiss:

[Klowny]

You should be careful of what you say, someone might misinterpret what you say.Might? Tact and diplomacy aren't my strong points. I don't refer to a whiteout blizzard as snow flurries. I'm not terribly concerned if the overly sensitive "misinterpret" anything I say.

I mean, there is a reason bisexuals, gays and lesbians aren't always open.It has been my experience that gays and lesbians need to get over themselves. The vast majority seem to think that their sexual orientation is the be all and end all of their existence and let it not only define, but limit them. I am a lot of things, not just heterosexual. I feel no need to trumpet that to the world, nor browbeat total strangers with it.

I mean, c'mon man, be a little more open minded.I'll have you know that my mind is like a steel trap. Unfortunately, it can be rusted shut. Not in this case though. Personally, I don't really give a rat's ass, but I have grown weary of gays and lesbians insisting that I and everyone else "endorse" and "validate" them.

Especially, considering that the current politically correct position is that homosexuality isn't a choice, but a biological imperative, I'm doubly unwilling to hand out attaboys for it. "You were born that way? Great! I'm so damn proud of you!" :bow:

[Schteve]

Hmm, that's actually an excellent point....

[Ciara Valentine]

aaah this thread has returned to (almost) its original topic.

Klowny i know is fairly open minded, as is Schteve, and i have come to understand AND respect them a great deal, if their comments are being misinterpreted, then re-read their posts until u get what theyre saying..(tried to make that sound non-agressive but failed and i apologise)
xx

[Schteve]

How dare you accuse me of open-mindedness!

[jackenape]

STFU, you no-necked bigot!

The stupid damned things I'll do for ya, Schteve. :hug:

[Ciara Valentine]

lol me saying that you're open minded was a compliment hunni!

no-necked bigot??


:?

[Schteve]

Don't mind jack. He's special.

[jackenape]

im purty. :^:

[Klowny]

I live just outside of St. Paul, capital of the People's Republic of Minnesota. Let's say it's a "hotbed" of homosexuality. Sort of like New York, but without the culture and temperate climate. :D

Anyway, gays, lesbians and bisexuals probably comprise a good 50% of my friends and acquaintances. But, almost to a man ( :hmm: ), they think they deserve medals for being "out." Certainly, IN THE PAST, this was a daring and possibly dangerous thing. But today? (YAWN) I don't think so. Not around here. Even the no-necked bigots know which side their toast is buttered on.

I actually did make a lesbian friend of mine a medal. A coffee can lid, gold and silver spray paint and some rainbow ribbon made for the kind of gaudy trinket that was especially attractive to her. She still has it displayed in a place of honor in her "Shrine." :link:

PS. Jack, you're so HOT!

[Schteve]

I thought we had something special, Klown. :(

[Grey Angel]

Well, I admit, I was wrong. Course, I've been on a bad streak in terms of interpretation, spelling, reading, etc. So, if you will accept my apology, it's out there, if not, uhh, idk, uhh, just leave it there, I guess. But still, my bad.

[Ciara Valentine]

apology accepted on my part...

[Schteve]

I wasn't aware something was said requiring apologizing. :confused:

[Ciara Valentine]

neither was i, i just thought id accept it in case no one else did and he felt bad :confused:



right i be off for a quick game of :link:


xxx

[Klowny]

Well, I admit, I was wrong. Course, I've been on a bad streak in terms of interpretation, spelling, reading, etc. So, if you will accept my apology, it's out there, if not, uhh, idk, uhh, just leave it there, I guess. But still, my bad.No offense taken, nor any apology required. Nonetheless, big of you.

[Dark Link112]

I agree with the quote of the very first post. There's a reason God made male and female. (yes im bringing my faith into this and no, im not gonna preach at you) Homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong. no, im not making a judgment, im stating a fact. ok we say let people express themselves, but does that mean that a person should express themselves by killing other people? no. People think that just because they're not hurting anyone, that they're not doing doing anything wrong. Homosexualty and Bisexuality is just not right nor natural.

There im done. Go ahead and give me bad rep, or yell at me because i mentioned God. I dont care.

[Klowny]

I'm too busy laughing at your ignorance to do either! :rotfl:

[Dark Link112]

heh MY ignorance

[jackenape]

That is what he's ":rotfl:" about. And rightfully so.

[Ciara Valentine]

I agree with the quote of the very first post. There's a reason God made male and female. (yes im bringing my faith into this and no, im not gonna preach at you) Homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong.
everyone has their own opinion, and religion is very often a factor.

no, im not making a judgment, im stating a fact.
no you are stating your own personal opinion.

ok we say let people express themselves, but does that mean that a person should express themselves by killing other people? no. People think that just because they're not hurting anyone, that they're not doing doing anything wrong. Homosexualty and Bisexuality is just not right nor natural.
again...that is your opinion.....which you are perfectly entitled to.

There im done. Go ahead and give me bad rep, or yell at me because i mentioned God. I dont care.
why would we do that?? like i keep saying, this is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, whether we agree or disagree, is our own problem. As you have probably read, i myself am bisexual, but im not a BAD person, i lean more towards guys, and girls are "for fun"...not meant as a bad thing...meaning, that i wont set out purposefully for a relationship with a girl, but if something happens with one, i wont be disgusted/offended or whatever ill enjoy it because i do enjoy women, there is a more sensual element and a sense of understanding. I mean, who else knows what a woman wants in bed better than another woman?

I'm too busy laughing at your ignorance to do either! :rotfl:
heh MY ignorance
That is what he's ":rotfl:" about. And rightfully so.
keep it nice guys, lets try and keep this as open minded as we can ok?

[Klowny]

There's nothing open minded about saying "homosexuality and bisexuality is [sic] wrong." with nothing at all to back up the statement, saying it isn't a judgement and then calling it an irrefutable "fact."

Then he perversely compares homosexuality with murder. I'm finding it difficult to follow such logic, and pointing out his ignorance is the mildest comment he's likely to receive from me.

[Schteve]

Oh Klowny, you have such a way with words. :hug:



Homosexualty and Bisexuality is just not right nor natural.Why do you consider it not "right"?

While you're free to claim it is unnatural, that doesn't mean it's wrong either. Do you wear glasses? Or wear any clothes made from polyester? Or perhaps use automobiles? If so, I'm afraid you're as guilty of indulging in the "unnatural" as the rest of us.



Go ahead and give me bad rep, or yell at me because i mentioned God. I dont care.Actually, God's great and all. Plus Jesus totally had two fathers. Why not the rest of us?

[Dark Link112]

While you're free to claim it is unnatural, that doesn't mean it's wrong either. Do you wear glasses? Or wear any clothes made from polyester? Or perhaps use automobiles? If so, I'm afraid you're as guilty of indulging in the "unnatural" as the rest of us.

when was advancing in technology ever unnatural?

[Crazy Jamie]

when was advancing in technology ever unnatural?When it started going against what was naturally given to us by the biological process. Humans cannot fly unaided by our very nature. Thus flying by plane is unnatural. People with poor eyesight using glasses is unnatural, because their eyesight the way it is without the glasses is natural. Wearing clothes is also highly unnatural. In fact, the human race as a whole is pretty unnatural. The way of nature is for weaker members of a species to die, allowing the stronger members of the species to breed together, and hence evolving the species and making it stronger. Humans completely go against this by unnaturally prolonging the lives of the sick and weak. That may by the humane option, but it certainly isn't natural.

No doubt you're going to say that using technology is using our natural talents, to which I respond that just because we can do something it does not make it natural, as indeed you are arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, despite the fact that it is clearly possible for people to indulge in it.

[The_Mess]

Jamie, unfortunately you're wrong on that count...

What you've said is basically an appeal to nature, where the particular fallacy is the definition of nature/natural that you're making us of. Bluntly, it's wrong as the definition isn't rigorous, instead to me it arbitrarily draws a divide between human technology (and culture) and nature, where as in science nature is the observable world and all within it, including what some would class as unnatural behaviours, are natural.

e.g. your definition can be used against learned behaviours, such as agriculture, fishing and can to some extent be applied to learned behaviours (aka culture) in animals, such as dolphins using sponges as nose protection, or even migration in birds, where in the pattern is a learned, rather than innate behaviour. Even language can be said to be "unnatural" in this case.

In short, clothes, medicine, science, all and any human cultural behaviours are actually "natural", they could be said to be "non-normal" behaviours, but calling them unnatural is a clear logical fallacy.

*cough*

The way of nature is for weaker members of a species to die, allowing the stronger members of the species to breed together, and hence evolving the species and making it stronger. Humans completely go against this by unnaturally prolonging the lives of the sick and weak. That may by the humane option, but it certainly isn't natural.
And this, is...

It's the naturalist fallacy, using "evolution" to make moral judgements. Please, don't do this, it gives me horrible headaches and not to mention either the definition of evolution you're using is also, wanting is putting it nicely. Less so it's "survival of the fittest", which is dead wrong. Why? Because through culture we built an ecological niche in which phenotypes in a palaeolithic setting would be less fit, are now actually relatively fit.

Context of phenotypes matters. Just because you think a particular phenotypic varient is "unfit" doesn't mean it actually is. It's fitness cost may actually be masked by other phenotypic compontents, or by ecological context to mask it from selective forces, or reduce it selective cost to a low, or non-biological significant level.

As for the sick and weak, well all both those terms are subjective, and in the long run reproductive fitness matters. If those people are capable of producing reproductively successful offspring, then sickness/weakness doesn't really mean anything. Only when that variation affects in a (biologically or statistically) significant way does it actually matter. Heart disease being a good example, as we only develop it after reproducing and only if genetic and environmental factors prevent successful reproduction does it matter.

Like I said, context matters...

But there is also a means of making moral judgements form evolutionary facts, i.e. antibiotic resistance. It's just that in doing so you should attempt to make such cases watertight and logically rigorous. Otherwise it has about as much weight as claims from religion for moral absolutes/judgements.

There's a reason God made male and female. (yes im bringing my faith into this and no, im not gonna preach at you)
One true purpose fallacy and creationism. Nice, two fallacies in one sentence.

Homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong. no, im not making a judgment, im stating a fact.
No banana for you, as you are making a moral judgement, it's not fact as there's a leap in logic involved in that argument. That and by claiming something is wrong (or right) you're making a definite moral judgement. For which the last guy I challenged to provide a rational justification for, didn't... It would be interesting to see an attempt though.

ok we say let people express themselves, but does that mean that a person should express themselves by killing other people? no. False analogy and an irrelevant rhetorical question.

People think that just because they're not hurting anyone, that they're not doing doing anything wrong. What quantifiable harm are they causing? It's already been shown that the moral judgement in their is a logical fallacy. So by implying that "wrong = harmful" is likewise fallacious. Not only that this argument seems entirely pointless, there's no real argument or statement in there...

Homosexualty and Bisexuality is just not right nor natural.
Lawl, see above for an explanation of why claiming these behaviours are unnatural and here... (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7318626#post7318626)

There im done. Go ahead and give me bad rep, or yell at me because i mentioned God. I dont care.
Bad rep is saved for those of rare and exceeding stupidity, your post is only mediocre.

[Dark Link112]

No doubt you're going to say that using technology is using our natural talents, to which I respond that just because we can do something it does not make it natural, as indeed you are arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, despite the fact that it is clearly possible for people to indulge in it.
Ok then, incest is possible, so lets all indulge in that! oh yeah, since its possible, lets go murder a few thousand people too while we're at it. Oh but that's right, killing people and incest are morally wrong, just like homosexuality and bisexuality.

[The_Mess]

Ok then, incest is possible, so lets all indulge in that! oh yeah, since its possible, lets go murder a few thousand people too while we're at it. Oh but that's right, killing people and incest are morally wrong, just like homosexuality and bisexuality.
ugh...

Nice, so homosexuality is morally equivalent to murder then? Got to love black and white thinking that parcels the issues of the world into neat little packages, that bear little relation to the oft complex reality of said situations.

[Schteve]

when was advancing in technology ever unnatural?I'll give you that one if you'll acknowledge that gay robots are natural.



e.g. your definition can be used against learned behaviours, such as agriculture, fishing and can to some extent be applied to learned behaviours (aka culture) in animals, such as dolphins using sponges as nose protection, or even migration in birds, where in the pattern is a learned, rather than innate behaviour. Even language can be said to be "unnatural" in this case.

In short, clothes, medicine, science, all and any human cultural behaviours are actually "natural", they could be said to be "non-normal" behaviours, but calling them unnatural is a clear logical fallacy. Okay, then call homosexuality a learned behavior. That is, if it's something not entirely genetically-determined, in which case it would be nature's course by definition.



Ok then, incest is possible, so lets all indulge in that! oh yeah, since its possible, lets go murder a few thousand people too while we're at it. Oh but that's right, killing people and incest are morally wrong, just like homosexuality and bisexuality.Making paper airplanes is also possible. Thus, we have proved that murder and origami are one in the same.

[Dark Link112]

Nice, so homosexuality is morally equivalent to murder then?
Yes. It is wrong. see i know what you're thinking. "Bisexualty isnt hurting anyone so whats wrong with it?" Its the same thing as, Lying isnt hurting anytone so whats wrong with that? Are we supposed to lie? no. are we suppossed to have homosexual realtions? no. Do we do it anyway? yes. everyone else does it, so whats wrong? Its this "devil may care" attitude that has pulled society down the toilet.

[Schteve]

Would you be in favor of criminalizing homosexuality and putting prison sentences in place for it?

Of course, they'd have to come up with a way to keep prisoners separate in jail as well. Heh.

[Dark Link112]

I'll give you that one if you'll acknowledge that gay robots are natural.

First of all, robots arent even fully advanced yet. Second, robots do not have a "mind" they see the world in zeroes and ones, and only carry out what is in their programming.( if they were programmed to say, rob a bank, then it would be the fault of the programmer seeing as how robotscannot judge right from wrong.) and second, robots dont have sex, so therefore they have no sexual orientation. I highly doubt we'll say any robots in the gay parade anytime soon.

Making paper airplanes is also possible. Thus, we have proved that murder and origami are one in the same.

....??? completely missed my point apparently.

[Schteve]

I think you missed both of mine, actually.

:-\

[jackenape]

....??? completely missed my point apparently.
No, no, I think he shot the hose drippings you want to think were rapids pretty easily. T'was the cliff at the end that done 'im in.

[The_Mess]

Okay, then call homosexuality a learned behavior. That is, if it's something not entirely genetically-determined, in which case it would be nature's course by definition.
You're forgetting I don't see homo, bi and heterosexuality as learned :P

As far a I know thus far it's biologically hardwired, but not the how it's hardwired. Personally I don't think there is a strong genetic component i.e. a "gay gene", if it's genetically determined it is likely the result of a whole slew of interactions at the genetic level and environmental factors, during, not after pregnancy.

You can force someone "into" a sexual behaviour, but in the long term it doesn't stick for most. Then again this is biology, where variance happens whether you want it to or not. Even if your culture seems to think it's "icky".

Yes. It is wrong.
Congrats, that made me go wtf, simply because you're placing homosexuality and bisexuality at the same moral level as murder. Congratulations also for appearing to be brainless, which I qualify by noting the real world difference between having consensual sexual intercourse with someone and murdering them against their will.

see i know what you're thinking. "Bisexualty isnt hurting anyone so whats wrong with it?" Its the same thing as, Lying isnt hurting anytone so whats wrong with that?
:rotfl:

#out of cheese error#
#please reboot The_Mess's brain#

It's too ridiculous for me to make a rational response. No really, I can't stop laughing at it...

Are we supposed to lie? no. are we suppossed to have homosexual realtions? no. Do we do it anyway? yes. everyone else does it, so whats wrong?
Learn basic logic please, if the presumptions of your argument are wrong, therefore any conclusions drawn from that presumption are also logically wrong. Not that there's an argument in there, so far, Just semi-connected ramblings really, which I wouldn't recommend trying to pull off in an essay... Instafail material.

Its this "devil may care" attitude that has pulled society down the toilet.
/little old lady voice on
Oh yes, societies completely going down the drain, it's all heading straight down the toilet with depravity and lewdness. Back in my day it was all straight missionary position, none of this fancy oral sex or oriental karma-sutra. I tell you, society is doomed, soon people will allow rutting in the streets, my preacher told me so, the new laws on homosexuals he say will make it so.
/little old lady voice off

Absurdly people having saying that for centuries, and for centuries people have been, well people. Doing people things, like inventing new and "exciting" positions *cough*

The "moral guardians" claimed the same with allowing homosexuals rights, striking down blatantly racist laws, allow women the vote, democracy... The list, goes on and on and on. And seemingly society as a whole hasn't collapsed, decayed or self-destructed yet.

What I should say though, is society hasn't gone "down the drain", it's still the same old human society, perverted and twisted, giving and caring, nihilistic and absurd, wise and stupid as always is when you get large numbers of people together. And all of it is human, natural and varying shades of grey. To which trying to apply moral absolutisms is mildly on the crazy side, in terms of logical thinking, especially when it equates murder with buttsecks, no matter who your buttsecks partner is...

Slight rambling, but anyhow, your point is pointless, it has no backing in "facts" and "reality", people do care and do act, it's just that the majority is mostly apathetic sometimes. Especially when it's realised they don't actually give need to care what two people get up to with their sex lives, as long as they're adults and no animals are hurt.

[Schteve]

That always bugs me. Disapprove of it all you want, but why on earth would you feel the need to protest homosexuality so fervently? Two men want to get married. That affects you how? Better yet, they go back to the seclusion of their bedroom and start doing unspeakable acts of evil. It still has what affect on you, exactly?

[Ciara Valentine]

That always bugs me. Disapprove of it all you want, but why on earth would you feel the need to protest homosexuality so fervently? Two men want to get married. That affects you how? Better yet, they go back to the seclusion of their bedroom and start doing unspeakable acts of evil. It still has what affect on you, exactly?


exactly, its not as if we/they (i am after all bi so i guess its more "we" than "they") are trying to force YOU into our unspeakable acts against your will now is it?

Your views are your views, and ours are ours


can i ask, is there a paticular reason that you are so against homo/bisexuality or is it purely a matter of religion and upbringing??

just wondering



i was reading this thread since my last post and i realy just dont know what to say...to some people they might be valid arguments but putting sexuality/muder/and i believe there was mention of origami??? in the same category is quite frankly stupid!!

what IS so wrong about homo/bisexuality anyway?? so it isnt the way the "christian god" (i say that because i dont believe in him, im pagan) intended, so what?!?!? neither is (as i believe CJ i think pointed out) flying, or anything we do now. NATURE didnt intend for us to drive cars and destroy our planet. Nature did (i admit) make it so that a male and female must reproduce...but whats wrong with "recreation not procreation"? life CANT be just about..work, reproduce, die...it wouldnt be worth livng.

depending on your faith (excluding things like buddhism...my explanation follows before you fly off the handle) you only live once (whereas buddhists are reincarnated as something/someone else etc...). So, what is wrong with having some fun and exploring yourself before you "kick the bucket" as they say.

IMHO these days there is no such thing as normal/unnatural/whatever. It is all down to personal perspective. If you dont want to be bisexual/lesbian/homosexual (ive noticed even in MY posts Lesbians get left out....i wonder why that is actually...) then you're just not. If someone else wants to be then they will....it has nothing to do with the people around them. its THEIR personal choice


i apologise if i seem agressive ive just had a driving lesson and it didnt go so well lol.

xx

[Crazy Jamie]

In short, clothes, medicine, science, all and any human cultural behaviours are actually "natural", they could be said to be "non-normal" behaviours, but calling them unnatural is a clear logical fallacy.I see your point, and I admit that my definition of 'natural' has logical holes, which taking it too far has exposed. In all honesty I haven't given my definition of 'natural' enough thought to make that argument watertight. I'm sure the definition can be tightened up to make that point more persuasive, but I don't have the inclination to go into it now. Perhaps the alternative approach, namely showing that homosexuality is natural as well by the same definition as is used to show that it is unnatural, rather than heading in the opposite direction, would have been the better option. Indeed depending on mood I have done both in debates of this kind in the past, which is a terrible contradiction in itself.

[blzbob]

Hey, this should be a great place for me to mention this.

The terms "natural", "right", and "wrong" have no meaning in a discussion of a thing.

"Natural" indicates that it (the noun modified) does not encounter a perversity. I.e. it would be un"natural" (perverse) for such-and-such event to occur; it is wrong.

See?

It has no meaning, so there is no value in mentioning the idea of "natural"--or of something being "right" or "wrong".

Furthermore, using "right", "wrong", "natural", or another meaningless-in-logic-and-discussion word should be a punished offense.

So, everybody got it?--don't use absolute meaning words--they lead away from the answers.

[Schteve]

Natural has a very precise meaning. :-|

[Ciara Valentine]

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
32. any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

ok, have some definitions of natural..there are lots of them,in all 38 on that site, ive put the link so you can check for yourselves.

just thought this was relevant as people are now discussing the meaning of natural. None of those meanings to me, mean that sexuality is wrong..


just my little contribution xx

[Duh'venger]

Natural: NOT your personal opinion.
Unnatural: NOT your personal opinion.
Right: NOT your personal opinion.
Wrong: NOT your personal opinion.
_________________________________
@_____a_____? S_P_E_Z_T_R_Aw_c_o_l_o_r_w_c_o_m_m_e_n_t_a_t_o_r_w s_o_m_e_w_h_e_r_e (http://www.gameadvice.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1158419#post1158419)__o_v_e_r__t_h_e (http://www.gameadvice.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1158419#post1158419)__r_a_i_n_b_o_w (http://www.gameadvice.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1158419#post1158419)

[Schteve]

Actually, right and wrong are completely subjective.

[The_Mess]

That always bugs me. Disapprove of it all you want, but why on earth would you feel the need to protest homosexuality so fervently? Two men want to get married. That affects you how? Better yet, they go back to the seclusion of their bedroom and start doing unspeakable acts of evil. It still has what affect on you, exactly?

That's one question I don't actually have an answer for, half a dozen guess for yes, but a nice solid answer? No.

At best, I'd say it's a control issue, i.e. they want to be able to control what you do, by framing it as a moral issue. Often backed up by "tradition" or religion. Or they're actually thinking about the act, and completely disgusted by it and so don't want it happening at all...

All this despite there being any real evidence of "harm" occurring, which is instead usually a perceived sense of harm typically generated from ignorance. e.g. bi/homosexuality being something that is taught/choice, wishful thinking about certain biblical passages and the old "I just don't like it, because".

I see your point, and I admit that my definition of 'natural' has logical holes, which taking it too far has exposed. In all honesty I haven't given my definition of 'natural' enough thought to make that argument watertight. I'm sure the definition can be tightened up to make that point more persuasive, but I don't have the inclination to go into it now. Perhaps the alternative approach, namely showing that homosexuality is natural as well by the same definition as is used to show that it is unnatural, rather than heading in the opposite direction, would have been the better option. Indeed depending on mood I have done both in debates of this kind in the past, which is a terrible contradiction in itself.
I'd recommend using the "it is natural" angle, mainly due to the copious amount of data we have on homosexuality in animals. This also need to be combined with a rigorous definition of "nature", or at least an examining of your opponents definition in order to make the your argument more effective.

The terms "natural", "right", and "wrong" have no meaning in a discussion of a thing.
Eh, you're definitely wrong on that point. In science we need a definition of "nature" for that defines the observable (directly, or indirectly) world to which we look at. As a student of science, I don't see the term "unnatural" particularly useful in terms of doing science, perhaps in social science and the arts it might have some use, but personally I see no basis for the term except in it's use within the metaphysics of science.

And in arguments like this, having a rigorous definition of nature is a very effective tool, useful for cluebatting those whose use the old "but it's unnatural" argument as a main point. But, if you're using nature to define right/wrong, good/bad you're committing either the naturalistic fallacy or doing an appeal to nature, which also nature doesn't seemingly care about, e.g. parasites, disease, chemical warfare, etc.

Of course, there also the issue of defining the "artificial" from the "natural" as once more there's regression issues which can sometimes do run into arbitrary dividing lines. e.g. the computer that sits before me is obviously artificial, but yet it is the product of an entirely natural process, that of human thought. So is the computer really all that artificial?

This is a major issue in our search for non-human intelligences, as how do we detect the artificial products of another intelligence, when it may look entirely natural to our tools? Of course this has obvious caveats,

Natural: NOT your personal opinion.
Unnatural: NOT your personal opinion.
Right: NOT your personal opinion.
Wrong: NOT your personal opinion.
Will you accepted well reasoned arguments instead? :tease:

Not that the above will actually stop the whole "my opinions right..." problem, accursed cultural relativists and want to be post-modernists!

[Klowny]

Actually, right and wrong are completely subjective.WRONG!

I mean, right...

I mean... :confused:

[realillusion]

Disapprove of it all you want, but why on earth would you feel the need to protest homosexuality so fervently? Two men want to get married. That affects you how? Better yet, they go back to the seclusion of their bedroom and start doing unspeakable acts of evil. It still has what affect on you, exactly?
Everyone has an image of how the world should be ordered, and for most people, trying to influence the world in small ways to bring it closer to that order is a satisfying life-activity. There are plenty of things in the world of politics, religion, family, etc that I could ignore and remain unaffected by; nevertheless I try to order things, perhaps motivated by empathy for humanity, which, poor thing, has not realized my idealized order.

My state does not have the death penalty, and supposing people are free to leave theirs if it does, should I likewise be mute on that policy because it is happening away from and not affecting me? After all, the policy is between consenting adults... though some human part of me is offended enough to have an opinion, still.

Ignoring "wrong" where it does not affect you seems like a pretty insensitive/callous/dangerous approach to human relations. It is only a small step away from ignoring wrongs even where other people are being hurt (after all, who are we to judge what is good or bad for them?).

Kitty Genovese weeps at your "let live" lifestyle :'(

[Ciara Valentine]

Hmmm i can see this "debate" turning quite nasty

but as usual i will play my part as peace keeper.

yes i can see what you are saying realillusion, and yes i guess sometimes we CAN come across, ignorant? But at the same time....what someone does in their private life is just that...private. Whether they choose to sleep with men, women..or even their pet dog if it takes their fancy (figure of speech, though such things exist!....) is their choice.

what you perceive right or wrong, and what others do...will differentiate, from each individual to another, so we can debate about this for years. Our opinions wont change. They might become more tolerant, but they wont change. Everyone DOES have the right to an opinion, and they do have the right to express it...do they not?

[realillusion]

Since opinions dont change, and there is no value in talking about what happens behinds closed doors, I am formally requesting this thread be closed.

[Ciara Valentine]

hmmm, you have a right to that, but chances are people will start another one

i request it stay open for bisexuals to talk to each other.

[KingJazzaD12]

not to be rude but I HATE HOMOs
bis arent as bad but i still dont like em

if dere woz a really nice generous bi i might be his friend
but not a HOMO man urgh:bashhead: :bashhead: :bashhead:

[jackenape]

not to be rude but I HATE HOMOs
bis arent as bad but i still dont like em
Word 'round the campfire is that they're not exactly thrilled with you, either. Of course, they've a reason and basic grasp of the English language to back it up, so it's not really a level playing field.

[Ciara Valentine]

well what a good way for a NEW USER to start.....

you have the right to your opinion, but please word it slightly more diplomatically next time.


gah im too tolerant for my own good sometimes *rolleyes*

[Schteve]

I am formally requesting this thread be closed.Considering you aren't the topic starter, and that the topic has changed from its original purpose, and I don't even grant such requests in the first place most of the time, I'm going to go with no. :tease:



i request it stay open for bisexuals to talk to each other.You're probably the only one posting in here, you know. Not to mention that's a terrible reason for a thread to remain open.



if dere woz a really nice generous bi i might be his friend
but not a HOMO man urgh:bashhead: :bashhead: :bashhead:No nice, generous, homo men? What if a homo man gave you a million dollars? Would you take the money and pretend to like him, or just not accept any of his dirty homo money?

[jackenape]

If he won't take the homo money, can I homo-have it?

You're a bigger modman than I am, Schteve: I'd have kicked his ass up one side of the street and down the other. :bow:

[Schteve]

Why? He even warned you that he wasn't going to be rude!

[jackenape]

No, he said he wasn't setting out with a mind to being rude. In consideration of his writings after that, I have to believe he intentionally set out to swerve me. Intentionally!

[Schteve]

Another question for homo man-hater: You only mentioned bisexual men. What's your take on bisexual women? Would you have a threesome with two of them?

[realillusion]

Everyone has an image of how the world should be ordered, and for most people, trying to influence the world in small ways to bring it closer to that order is a satisfying life-activity...

My state does not have the death penalty, and supposing people are free to leave theirs if it does, should I likewise be mute on that policy because it is happening away from and not affecting me? After all, the policy is between consenting adults... though some human part of me is offended enough to have an opinion, still.

.. we can debate about this for years. Our opinions wont change.
Since opinions dont change, and there is no value in talking about what happens behinds closed doors, I am formally requesting this thread be closed.
hmmm, you have a right to that, but chances are people will start another one

i request it stay open for bisexuals to talk to each other.
Considering you aren't the topic starter, and that the topic has changed from its original purpose, and I don't even grant such requests in the first place most of the time, I'm going to go with no. :tease:

Disappointed, I thought the sarcasm was obvious.

[Schteve]

Sarcasm is never obvious!

[Ciara Valentine]

sometimes not even in voice!


xxx