[Radar]

^ That. (EDIT: Just noticed the page bump, I mean Trooper Dan's video in his previous post)

We all got a bit of "gay" in us. If I admire a man for his ripped muscles and clean face, am I gay? I know I've done that many times, speaking in groups of people where we may bring this up occasionally. I know I was thinking for a short amount of time about sexual orientation, until I realized that we all have the ability to assume what's good looking and what's not, even if we aren't exactly attracted to them. Having 4 sisters, I've repeatedly heard them commenting on how pretty one actress is or another. Am I to assume they are lesbian because they are calling women pretty?

That being said, I believe homosexuality is entirely a choice, and the attraction between them is nothing more than what humans are already capably of. Those "scientists" stating "due to excessive estrogen release, if your pinky is bigger than your dick then you may be homosexual" can go screw themselves and come back when they have some real evidence, if there is any.


Also, to top the redneck debate:

[Kathy]

Radar, on 23 August 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

That being said, I believe homosexuality is entirely a choice

The problem is that you shouldn't base that on belief.

[Master Fibbles]

Radar, on 23 August 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

That being said, I believe homosexuality is entirely a choice

(Homo)sexual acts are a choice. Sexual inclinations towards one type of person or another is not a choice, it is something you can't change necessarily about yourself. There actually is a lot of scientific evidence regarding whether or not we have sexual urges for men or women etc.
You are confusing sexual urges and the acknowledgement of beauty. There is a certain objectivity to "beauty" (Yes, I have read Plato/Aristotle) despite the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." One can recognize beauty in just about anything or anyone. I mean, I can comment on how a dog is beautiful, that does not mean I want to fuck the dog. It means that I recognize beauty in the way the dog looks or acts. A further confusion is between love and sexual desire. I love my parents and my sisters (and my brothers), but I sure as hell don't have any sexual desire for them.

Personality traits and many other things we aren't even aware of are influenced by hormone levels (which are influenced by genetics and drugs we take). These are then further influenced by the environment we grow up in and the choices we make as children/young adults. For example, Glenn Beck has all the personality traits of a flamboyant homosexual man...but he is a conservative Christian and grew up in that environment (and converted to Mormonism, which reminds me of a song in "The Book of Mormon").

[Radar]

Makes sense. Maybe we're seeing a rapid increase in homosexuality because of the steroids in our food as well? Another thought, what is the limit that these hormones can do? What if people start being sexually inclined specifically to their own family members, animals, maybe even non-living objects?

That's something I've thought about for awhile. We all want to be as non-bigoting and accepting as possible. But what is the limit (if one is needed)? Incest doesn't harm anyone, if the family members agree perfectly fine with it, then we shouldn't have a problem with it and accept them as they are, right? Likewise sex with animals and even non-living objects. Perhaps hormone levels are modified to the point where real sexual desires for these are desired by some people. Would you still accept them as-is?

[Fox]

Objectophilia is a choice?

[Jimmy]

Hey, not all of us rednecks are that retarded. I like beer and shooting things, but I also like literature and learning. I also have all my teeth and I'm not morbidly obese.

[Mikko]

Radar, on 23 August 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Makes sense. Maybe we're seeing a rapid increase in homosexuality because of the steroids in our food as well?

The proportion of homosexuals (closet or not) in any larger population is probably a constant over time. There are exceptions to this of course. For example, if one place is found to be particularly favorable toward homosexuals (San Francisco?), we should expect some sort of migrational movements.

I wrote about the apparent proliferation of homosexuality some months ago: http://m-sandt.blogs...-to-degree.html

Quote

But what is the limit (if one is needed)? Incest doesn't harm anyone, if the family members agree perfectly fine with it, then we shouldn't have a problem with it and accept them as they are, right?

One person's liberty is limited exactly by the point where another person's liberty begins. Incest should be "okay" so long as it's between consenting adults.

[Forge]

We are born with free will; everything is a choice. Now change the tables and put yourself in their shoes, your heterosexuality is a choice. Dump your woman right now, go find yourself a nice beefy man, let him rub his genitals all over your face and run your tongue up and down the shaft of his throbbing penis. Kiss the tip like you love it., etc., etc, etc. Sounds tempting doesn't it? If you're heterosexual you're most likely to think, "Yea, I have a choice, but no thanks. I am absolutely not sexually attracted to other men." Now you know how homosexuals feel about members of the opposite gender; absolutely no physical attraction in that manner.

Is it a choice? Sure. Gouging your eyes out with a spoon or eating dog crap off the street are choices too, but you're probably not going to choose to do something you find distasteful.

As for incest, there's a reason it has a negative stigma and it usually has to do with the offspring of such unions, but from what I know off hand, that kind of result usually takes a few generations of inbreeding. Personally I don't really care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

[wayskobfssae]

Mr.Flibble, on 23 August 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

(Homo)sexual acts are a choice. Sexual inclinations towards one type of person or another is not a choice, it is something you can't change necessarily about yourself. There actually is a lot of scientific evidence regarding whether or not we have sexual urges for men or women etc.

This isn't to dismiss homosexuality, because I have no issue with it, nor freedom to marry same-sex, etc.

Just playing devil's advocate here. There's already a lot of evidence pointing to a possible "gay gene." What happens if we discover there's also genes for being a polygamist? Or being attracted to animals, children, etc?

[Kathy]

The children(and animals to a lesser extent) argument/analogy is always nullified by the absence of consent.

I can't believe how many times I've heard someone making an analogy between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's nuts.

[wayskobfssae]

Burnett, on 27 August 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

The children(and animals to a lesser extent) argument/analogy is always nullified by the absence of consent.

I can't believe how many times I've heard someone making an analogy between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's nuts.

Still doesn't explain how they would 'fix' it. Imagine all these people out there suddenly finding out that what they thought was something socially evil about them was actually DNA-encoded.

[Kathy]

We would have an explanation, but it would still remain socially evil. This wouldn't change the law to allow them to rape children.

[wayskobfssae]

Burnett, on 27 August 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

We would have an explanation, but it would still remain socially evil. This wouldn't change the law to allow them to rape children.

I think something a little more effective than therapy would be in order to help such people though. Helping people out of disorders is one thing. Hard-coded urges is quite another.

Disgustingly immoral acts aside, I wonder, is polygamy next on society's list of things that will change to being socially acceptable? The IRS will have a field day with that one.

[Radar]

Burnett, on 27 August 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

but it would still remain socially evil.

They said the same thing about homosexuality 100 years ago.

Burnett, on 27 August 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

The children argument/analogy is always nullified by the absence of consent.

So if it becomes "consensual", then it's ok?

Burnett, on 27 August 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I can't believe how many times I've heard someone making an analogy between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's nuts.

If both persons involved agree to do it, then I don't see why they shouldn't be comparable. You might say "They're kids, bro. They're too young to make that kind of decision", but truly, many that commit to homosexuality are just as young. Oh, I forgot, it's "nuts" because it might actually put a hole in the morality making homosexuality a perfectly acceptable practice.

[wayskobfssae]

TBH, based on the current state of things, most 25 year olds are too young to make that kind of decision.

[Kathy]

wayskobfssae, on 27 August 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Disgustingly immoral acts aside, I wonder, is polygamy next on society's list of things that will change to being socially acceptable? The IRS will have a field day with that one.

What's so bad about polygamy if it's transparent for everyone involved?

Radar, on 27 August 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

They said the same thing about homosexuality 100 years ago.So if it becomes "consensual", then it's ok?

Homosexuality never became "consensual", it always was. The problem was in morality, not in consent.

Quote

You might say "They're kids, bro. They're too young to make that kind of decision",

Precisely.

Quote

but truly, many that commit to homosexuality are just as young.

You can't compare physical act with a thought. And by that logic children shouldn't have thoughts and feelings about anything until they're past 12-16.

Quote

Oh, I forgot, it's "nuts" because it might actually put a hole in the morality making homosexuality a perfectly acceptable practice.

It is nuts because you can't compare consensual sexual acts between grown-ups to a sex with a child.

[Radar]

I understand all your points, Burnett, except for this one:

Burnett, on 27 August 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

You can't compare physical act with a thought.

... having sex with same gender.... adults having sex with children... both physical acts...

Burnett, on 27 August 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

It is nuts because you can't compare consensual sexual acts between grown-ups to a sex with a child.

Yes, of course not. But one day, it might come to pass that certain alteration in humans are brought to light, proving some adults truly desire to have sex with children and vice versa. What will society do then? Maybe we will be in old age when something like that comes around, and we'll be very against it, having it been something we have been taught against our whole lives. But there will be an increasing number of youth and they will surely fight for anything that "someone is born with". Just the same way we are fighting for homosexuals as well, something our grandfathers never thought of.

It might not come as pedophilia, but there will once again be a big spike in civil rights with people demanding equality of people doing acts we've never considered sensible. It will not stop. Of course, you and me will not allow anything so horrible to become acceptable, but we will grow old and tired, and be replaced by a new generation. On that day, we'll see whether the human race has truly advanced.

[Forge]

prepubescent children generally don't think about sexuality whether it be homo or hetero without exposure. Children going through puberty are full of hormones as their bodies change and can't be expected to make rational decisions about consensual sex. This may be the time they discover which gender they are attracted to, but it shouldn't be the time for them to act on those impulses.

I don't care if pedophilia is ingrained into a person's nature, manipulating and taking advantage of a young person who isn't ready to make a proper decision about "consensual" sex is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

[wayskobfssae]

Forge, on 28 August 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I don't care if pedophilia is ingrained into a person's nature, manipulating and taking advantage of a young person who isn't ready to make a proper decision about "consensual" sex is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

Funny how that doesn't extend to manipulating and taking advantage of young people to separate them from their (or their parents' money). If sexuality with children is wrong, then so should be selling sexuality to children. Death to Twilight pls.

Though, equally funny is that someone out there who thinks they're capable of determining who is "ready" to make a decision about anything. If it's simply a case of being incapable of making the decision, then it should also be illegal for the underaged to have sex with each other. If it's a case of the adult being too experienced and therefore more capable of manipulation, then all marketing should be outlawed. Because if nobody can expect kids to be smart enough to know they're being manipulated by an adult, then surely an adult shouldn't be expected to be smart enough to know they're being manipulated by hundreds of thousands of man-hours and billions of dollars of psychological research that has gone into learning the best ways to manipulate a consumer's subconscious.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

wayskobfssae, on 28 August 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Though, equally funny is that someone out there who thinks they're capable of determining who is "ready" to make a decision about anything. If it's simply a case of being incapable of making the decision, then it should also be illegal for the underaged to have sex with each other. If it's a case of the adult being too experienced and therefore more capable of manipulation, then all marketing should be outlawed. Because if nobody can expect kids to be smart enough to know they're being manipulated by an adult, then surely an adult shouldn't be expected to be smart enough to know they're being manipulated by hundreds of thousands of man-hours and billions of dollars of psychological research that has gone into learning the best ways to manipulate a consumer's subconscious.

I'll bet the vast majority of "statutory rape" goes unreported because both parties feel they are perfectly capable and willing to make decisions about sex for themselves. The fact that government feels that they need to babysit minors and fill the roles of parents is rather sad, really, but comes about as a result of parents becoming far too incompetent to teach their children necessary life lessons, let alone raise them in a nurturing environment.

[wayskobfssae]

Achenar, on 28 August 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

I'll bet the vast majority of "statutory rape" goes unreported because both parties feel they are perfectly capable and willing to make decisions about sex for themselves. The fact that government feels that they need to babysit minors and fill the roles of parents is rather sad, really, but comes about as a result of parents becoming far too incompetent to teach their children necessary life lessons, let alone raise them in a nurturing environment.

Aye, indeed it is sad. Probably best that we don't tread too far into how we got into the era of "kids raised by TV stars" though, because that could get ugly very fast.

[Forge]

wayskobfssae, on 28 August 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

If it's simply a case of being incapable of making the decision, then it should also be illegal for the underaged to have sex with each other.

it is illegal. the elder of those couples can be charged with lewd acts and engaging in illegal carnal knowledge.

As for who is capable to determine when a minor is ready for sexual intercourse; that should be the parents responsibility, not some government agency, and definitely not the adult that is interested in engaging the child in sexual acts.

...and comparing advertisement for selling toys to children as being the same as selling the idea of sex to children; that's not even a viable analogy, is grasping at straws, and arguing just for the sake of disagreeing.

[wayskobfssae]

Forge, on 28 August 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

...and comparing advertisement for selling toys to children as being the same as selling the idea of sex to children; that's not even a viable analogy, is grasping at straws, and arguing just for the sake of disagreeing.

Who said I was talking about toys? If children paying to see a movie just because it has people in it who are hotties isn't selling sex, then what is? I wasn't even going near toys that encourage vanity in children.

No, sorry. If it is the responsibility of those who have superior knowledge over others, to refrain from taking advantage of the less knowledgeable, then it should be mandatory for everyone.

[Kathy]

Radar, on 28 August 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

... having sex with same gender.... adults having sex with children... both physical acts...

I didn't quite understand your "many that commit to homosexuality are just as young" thought.

Also, we clearly should define "children". I was mostly talking about between 0 and 12 years old.

Twilight movies, btw, are rated PG-13.

[wayskobfssae]

Burnett, on 28 August 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Also, we clearly should define "children". I was mostly talking about between 0 and 12 years old.

Twilight movies, btw, are rated PG-13.

Fair enough.

Burnett, on 28 August 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

I didn't quite understand your "many that commit to homosexuality are just as young" thought.

It's because you said that teens only theorize about homosexuality.

Radar was implying that there are pre-consentual-aged people who are engaging in homosexual activity with one another, not just wondering about what it would be like. Therefore, underage homosexuality is an act, not a thought.

[Kathy]

Then children under 12 simply shouldn't be engaging in sexual activities with whatever gender.

[Forge]

wayskobfssae, on 28 August 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

No, sorry. If it is the responsibility of those who have superior knowledge over others, to refrain from taking advantage of the less knowledgeable, then it should be mandatory for everyone.

The ones with the superior knowledge would be the parents. They should know their child's maturity level better than anybody and monitor what the child is exposed to (TV, movies, sex, etc)

I can't speak for the laws of every state in the U.S., but in a good portion of them 14 is the legal age of consent for sex & marriage with the parents permission. 14 may seem like a decent age (post-puberty for most), but everybody matures at a different rate so a set age seems silly.

[Forge]

Burnett, on 28 August 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Then children under 12 simply shouldn't be engaging in sexual activities with whatever gender.

As I said in my previous post: everyone matures at a different rate. It's also natural for children to be curious and experiment. You never "played doctor" with the neighbor girl when you were a kid?

Kids "playing doctor" with each other is fine, but that's where I draw my line in the sand as far as my personal morals are concerned. Children can explore with other children when they're at the same level of awareness, but not with someone who "knows what they're doing", and uses that knowledge to take advantage and push the experimenting beyond that point.

[wayskobfssae]

Forge, on 28 August 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

The ones with the superior knowledge would be the parents. They should know their child's maturity level better than anybody and monitor what the child is exposed to (TV, movies, sex, etc)

I think you missed my point. I'm talking about taking responsibility for NOT taking advantage of people. I'm not talking about responsibility for sheltering children, ala parental censorship.

I'm saying that: children are protected by "statutory rape" because it's too easy for an adult to take advantage of a child by pulling every con game in the book. Such rules should apply to ANY situation in which one person can use such advanced knowledge to take advantage of another human being, REGARDLESS of what kind of 'exchange' it is. If an adult only looking for a one-night-stand BS's another adult into "consenting" to sex on the basis of, "I'm going to love you forever"... sorry, that's still rape. Same goes for contracts as well. Throwing a bunch of legal jargon at an average joe who would have to take 8 years of business to understand what's in it... getting them to sign it only to discover later on that they just gave up their house, soul, and left kidney, should be equally punishable.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

wayskobfssae, on 28 August 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Same goes for contracts as well. Throwing a bunch of legal jargon at an average joe who would have to take 8 years of business to understand what's in it... getting them to sign it only to discover later on that they just gave up their house, soul, and left kidney, should be equally punishable.

No, it shouldn't. That is exactly why you get a lawyer. Caveat emptor.

Unless it was a situation like "your brains or your signature on the contract". Then that's contract under duress and I agree that should be punishable.