Black rejection of gays lethal


lil_j said:
If one is born with a degree of sexual genetic ambiguity, you are saying that they shouldn't partake in any type of sexual activity right?...
Wrong. The human species is unique in the animal kingdom. While sex is possible in nearly all humans, reproduction is not - no matter what the sexual experience is. However, since humans are mammals, the natural flow of reproduction is sexual. Homosexuality, while it may be deemed pleasurable by those who participate, has yet to reproduce a single human specimen.

What I say for humans is one man with one woman exclusively until at least one of them is dead.

lil_j said:
...That falls back on religion. I can respect that stance even though I strongly disagree with the notion that sex should be limited to those who can reproduce and as a result against nature. There is a degree of 'observed' and 'documented' homosexuality in 450 out 2000 species of the animal kingdom which makes it natural. Three things:

1. Homosexuality is present and widespread in the animal kingdom

2. It has Biological causes

3. It can be accounted for by evolutionary theory

Hence part of the reason biblical law and natural law must be seperated. As a result I still maintain the unnatural argument doesn't hold any water backed up by evidence.

This is quite a lengthy discussion, but please understand that evolutionism, athiesm, agnosticism, et. al. are all religions. So, if we are going to separate natural law from one religion, we must separate it from them all. I am not sure that is possible.
 
Wrong. The human species is unique in the animal kingdom. While sex is possible in nearly all humans, reproduction is not - no matter what the sexual experience is. However, since humans are mammals, the natural flow of reproduction is sexual. Homosexuality, while it may be deemed pleasurable by those who participate, has yet to reproduce a single human specimen.

I am enjoying this discussion. You stated that homosexuality has never produced another human, however I will point out to you that homosexuals are by-products of heterosexual activities and many are capabale of reproduction which makes it's natural. Although reproduction is the primary function of sex it's not the sole function. So you can't say just because something goes against reproduction that it is not natural.

What I say for humans is one man with one woman exclusively until at least one of them is dead.

That statement is strictly in the realm of opinion. If you could seperate your religious views from per say "natural law" which is hard to do. How do we define male and female? Genetic make up, Reproduction organs, Physical appearance?
 



lil_j said:
I am enjoying this discussion. You stated that homosexuality has never produced another human, however I will point out to you that homosexuals are by-products of heterosexual activities and many are capabale of reproduction which makes it's natural. Although reproduction is the primary function of sex it's not the sole function. So you can't say just because something goes against reproduction that it is not natural...
Sure I can. Sexual reproduction is a natural biological function. Homosexuality is INCAPABLE of natural reproduction even when the individual participants are themselves capable of reproduction. Hence, the act - not the people - is not natural. Just stick with science (by your own insistence) and there is no refuting this point.

lil_j said:
That statement is strictly in the realm of opinion. If you could seperate your religious views from per say "natural law" which is hard to do. How do we define male and female? Genetic make up, Reproduction organs, Physical appearance?
Stick with the science. Organ function defines the gender in biology.
 
Stick with the science. Organ function defines the gender in biology.

I'm dealing with scientific facts and these facts shoots down your entire argument. Gender is not detemined by organ function in biology. However it is determined by the genetic make up of your sex chomosomes.

XX = females
XY = males

Traditionally, gender is seen as a totally unequivocal matter; a person is either 100% one or the other. However, human gender is actually much more complex. There are proven scientific conditions where individuals may develop in a manner inconsistent with their XX or XY designation including physical appearance and organs . Sexual ambiguity is more prevalent then most may think (1 in every 500 births). There are 5 different manifested phenotypes of sexual ambiguity which EXCLUDES Hermaphroditism which is a seperate condition all by it self. Minor incidents range from males developing small female breast tissue and underdeveloped testis to females with underdeveloped breast. In some extreme incidents, females may develop as females including femal genatalia up until puberty where they then develope as males including male genatalia but lack the ability to reproduce. Most of the time this is not diagnosed at birth.

Irregardless of their reproduction capacities, individuals who express anytype of sexually ambigous phenotypes are indeed natural, therefore any resulting behavior is natural. Secondly their behavior would be neither homosexual or heterosexual if you don't perfectly fit into one group. I'd suggest you read up sexual ambiguity and realize it isn't a black or white distinction between male and female. Just because it looks, walks, talks, and even think it's one doesn't mean that it is one.

http://www.geocities.com/g0yz/benders.htm

http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/androgen/details.html
 
lil_j said:
I'm dealing with scientific facts and these facts shoots down your entire argument. Gender is not detemined by organ function in biology. However it is determined by the genetic make up of your sex chomosomes.

XX = females
XY = males

Traditionally, gender is seen as a totally unequivocal matter; a person is either 100% one or the other. However, human gender is actually much more complex. There are proven scientific conditions where individuals may develop in a manner inconsistent with their XX or XY designation including physical appearance and organs . Sexual ambiguity is more prevalent then most may think (1 in every 500 births). There are 5 different manifested phenotypes of sexual ambiguity which EXCLUDES Hermaphroditism which is a seperate condition all by it self. Minor incidents range from males developing small female breast tissue and underdeveloped testis to females with underdeveloped breast. In some extreme incidents, females may develop as females including femal genatalia up until puberty where they then develope as males including male genatalia but lack the ability to reproduce. Most of the time this is not diagnosed at birth.

Irregardless of their reproduction capacities, individuals who express anytype of sexually ambigous phenotypes are indeed natural, therefore any resulting behavior is natural. Secondly their behavior would be neither homosexual or heterosexual if you don't perfectly fit into one group. I'd suggest you read up sexual ambiguity and realize it isn't a black or white distinction between male and female. Just because it looks, walks, talks, and even think it's one doesn't mean that it is one.

http://www.geocities.com/g0yz/benders.htm

http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/androgen/details.html

Astute and well said. I understand genotypes and phenotypes. I have personal knowledge of cases of hermaphroditism. I think that you would agree with me that these cases are not normal.

Where are the statistics that show what percentages of persons experiencing any of these naturally occuring abnormalities are homosexual?

These people are humans from earth. Certainly they are natural. There are all sorts of abnormalities that occur in nature. The issue here is not whether these people should live or die. Nor is it really what it natural since we are all human. The issue is behavioral and what to do about it.
 
dacontinent said:
Astute and well said. I understand genotypes and phenotypes. I have personal knowledge of cases of hermaphroditism. I think that you would agree with me that these cases are not normal.

Where are the statistics that show what percentages of persons experiencing any of these naturally occuring abnormalities are homosexual?

These people are humans from earth. Certainly they are natural. There are all sorts of abnormalities that occur in nature. The issue here is not whether these people should live or die. Nor is it really what it natural since we are all human. The issue is behavioral and what to do about it.

Sir, you are missing the point. The point is that you can't consider any type of behavoir homosexual or heterosexual if the individuals involved exhibits any degree sexual ambiguity (physiological or psychological). The occurence of ambiguity is more widespread then we think simply because it isn't neccesarily displayed in physical appearance, and it's only diagnosed at birth in the most extreme cases. This central fact is missing but essential to the debate on so called "homosexuality" and behavior.
 
lil_j said:
...The occurence of ambiguity is more widespread then we think simply because it isn't neccesarily displayed in physical appearance, and it's only diagnosed at birth in the most extreme cases...

Help me out here...Are you saying that this genetic imprint changes after birth?
 
lil_j said:
Two points
2. Impose their lifestyle? Are they forcing you to be gay? Wanting to be afforded the same rights and privliges as others is not imposing your lifestyle. Heterosexuals can walk the street hand and hand, talk about his and her spouse at work as they please without ridicule. Whats wrong with homosexuals wanting the same?

Imposing as in forcing you to accept the unnatural lifestyle that they choose. Bring it to your attention every oppurtunity they can that they are gay. My perception is from interaction, not from scientific facts.

Why would someone want to hear about what two dudes/women do with their person time. The parts don't fit. If you have to bring vaseline into the picture, something ain't right. Procreation can't be the end result, so why bother. You can mess around with jerbals all you want. I don't want to hear about it. :smh:
 
dacontinent said:
Help me out here...Are you saying that this genetic imprint changes after birth?

How did you pull that out of my statement? I in no way implied that your genetic imprint changes. The central argument with supporting evidence is that one's gender is more complex then physical appearance. Again, it has been proven that a genetic (XY) male could mature in a external manner completly similar to a female and these conditions are not diagnosed at birth.

http://atoz.iqhealth.com/HealthAnswers/encyclopedia/HTMLfiles/2483.html

Testicular Feminization: Testicular feminization occurs in a person who is genetically male and has the external appearance of a female, But can't bare children.

I know it's hard to understand but it's fact. I don't know how else to break it down!!!! (fustrated).
 
lil_j said:
How did you pull that out of my statement? I in no way implied that your genetic imprint changes. The central argument with supporting evidence is that one's gender is more complex then physical appearance. Again, it has been proven that a genetic (XY) male could mature in a external manner completly similar to a female and these conditions are not diagnosed at birth.

http://atoz.iqhealth.com/HealthAnswers/encyclopedia/HTMLfiles/2483.html

Testicular Feminization: Testicular feminization occurs in a person who is genetically male and has the external appearance of a female, But can't bare children.

I know it's hard to understand but it's fact. I don't know how else to break it down!!!! (fustrated).

Okay...I think I have the picture of this abnormality. However, I am still having trouble with its linkage to homosexuality and what kind of statistics such cases have in the homosexual community. What can you tell us?
 
Ok,

1. As I dissect your statement, you are failing to let go of the term 'homosexual'. In the true sense ones sex is determined by their chromatic designation (XX = female) (XY=male). So geneticly, a homosexual would be any sexual behavior between XY & XY or XX & XX.

2. Ones sexual identity (what influences their behavior) is not just based on XX & XY. As I have stated before and provided scientific evidence, people may mature (physiologically and psycholigically) in a manner inconsistent with their chromatic designation.


Here is the dillema:

Let's say you and your wife are trying to have kids. After several unsucessfull attempts you all go to see the doctor. Through extensive medical test they discover the reason for her infertility. She is genetically a man, as in (XY chromosomes)!!!! In hindsight, not only were you unaware of this, your wife was unaware of it either. Externally your wife looked like a woman (hair, feminin characteristics, and even has female genetalia). She was raised as a woman by her parents because naturally that's what they thought she was. At some point in your wife's maturation maybe she was sexually attracted to other females. Maybe she did not act on, maybe she did, but she didn't tell anyone because society and religion taught her that it was unnatural and wrong for to be with other females. She went on to marry you and denied her feelings for other women.

Ignorant to the fact that she was a male, scientifically both of you were partaking in homosexual acts because both of you are male (XY) and (XY). Will you divorce her? If you stay together will you be considered homosexual and your behavior homosexual? Those are personal moral dillemas.

I presented that example for several reason: MAIN POINTS

1. To illustrate how wrongly and loosely the term homosexual and homosexual 'behavior is being used when your basis is only physical.

2. To illustrate how sexuality is not just genetic, but physiological AND psychological. Hence the abnormalities may occur at different levels. (but not neccesarily at all levels)

3. To Illustrate how widespread these abnormalities may be. (Keepin in mind these conditions are rarely diagnosed at birth, only in the most severe cases.)

4. To illustrate how the INDIVIDUAL ITSELF and SOCIETY may be IGNORANT to whats going on with people and their sexuality. Hence many people may be unknowingly engaging in homosexual acts as provided by the example I presented to you.


My point is I didn't know what true sexuality was until I took the time to educate myself. All I am trying to do through this discussion is educate you and others, and not to prove someone wong. I did my best to provide scientific evidence for every single point. Society is indeed ignorant to just about everything I posted. However, I strongly beleive once society is educated about this issue, the nature and tone of this debate will drastically change.
 
lil_j said:
Ok,

1. As I dissect your statement, you are failing to let go of the term 'homosexual'. In the true sense ones sex is determined by their chromatic designation (XX = female) (XY=male). So geneticly, a homosexual would be any sexual behavior between XY & XY or XX & XX.

2. Ones sexual identity (what influences their behavior) is not just based on XX & XY. As I have stated before and provided scientific evidence, people may mature (physiologically and psycholigically) in a manner inconsistent with their chromatic designation.


Here is the dillema:

Let's say you and your wife are trying to have kids. After several unsucessfull attempts you all go to see the doctor. Through extensive medical test they discover the reason for her infertility. She is genetically a man, as in (XY chromosomes)!!!! In hindsight, not only were you unaware of this, your wife was unaware of it either. Externally your wife looked like a woman (hair, feminin characteristics, and even has female genetalia). She was raised as a woman by her parents because naturally that's what they thought she was. At some point in your wife's maturation maybe she was sexually attracted to other females. Maybe she did not act on, maybe she did, but she didn't tell anyone because society and religion taught her that it was unnatural and wrong for to be with other females. She went on to marry you and denied her feelings for other women.

Ignorant to the fact that she was a male, scientifically both of you were partaking in homosexual acts because both of you are male (XY) and (XY). Will you divorce her? If you stay together will you be considered homosexual and your behavior homosexual? Those are personal moral dillemas.

I presented that example for several reason: MAIN POINTS

1. To illustrate how wrongly and loosely the term homosexual and homosexual 'behavior is being used when your basis is only physical.

2. To illustrate how sexuality is not just genetic, but physiological AND psychological. Hence the abnormalities may occur at different levels. (but not neccesarily at all levels)

3. To Illustrate how widespread these abnormalities may be. (Keepin in mind these conditions are rarely diagnosed at birth, only in the most severe cases.)

4. To illustrate how the INDIVIDUAL ITSELF and SOCIETY may be IGNORANT to whats going on with people and their sexuality. Hence many people may be unknowingly engaging in homosexual acts as provided by the example I presented to you.


My point is I didn't know what true sexuality was until I took the time to educate myself. All I am trying to do through this discussion is educate you and others, and not to prove someone wong. I did my best to provide scientific evidence for every single point. Society is indeed ignorant to just about everything I posted. However, I strongly beleive once society is educated about this issue, the nature and tone of this debate will drastically change.

My continued use of the term homosexual is not a failure but a refusal. You have presented some interesting concepts, but no empirical evidence nor statistics. Persons with XY chromosomes and female genitalia still produce eggs and not sperm; the inverse is still true for XX bearers with a phallus.

My point remains that those with the same genitalia CANNOT reproduce humans through joint sexual activity, while it is possible for most persons with genitals capable of interlocking. Yes, there is more to sex than reproduction, but without reproduction there will eventually be no more sex.
 
My continued use of the term homosexual is not a failure but a refusal. You have presented some interesting concepts, but no empirical evidence nor statistics. Persons with XY chromosomes and female genitalia still produce eggs and not sperm; the inverse is still true for XX bearers with a phallus.

My point remains that those with the same genitalia CANNOT reproduce humans through joint sexual activity, while it is possible for most persons with genitals capable of interlocking. Yes, there is more to sex than reproduction, but without reproduction there will eventually be no more sex.



My continued use of the term homosexual is not a failure but a refusal. You have presented some interesting concepts, but no empirical evidence nor statistics.

I provided scientific facts, not concepts and backed them up with medical sources. If you took the time to read the links I posted, you would see that there are some statistical and empirical evidence within those links.

http://atoz.iqhealth.com/HealthAnsw...files/2483.html
http://www.geocities.com/g0yz/benders.htm
http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/androgen/details.html

Persons with XY chromosomes and female genitalia still produce eggs and not sperm; the inverse is still true for XX bearers with a phallus.

Ummm, that runs contrary to scientific facts

http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/21_OVERVIEW.HTM

My point remains that those with the same genitalia CANNOT reproduce humans through joint sexual activity, while it is possible for most persons with genitals capable of interlocking. Yes, there is more to sex than reproduction, but without reproduction there will eventually be no more sex.

Neither can people with the same XX or XY designation.

No matter how much scientific evidence I provide, you refuse to believe the evidence and you continue to arbitrarily set your own standard for what is and what isn't. You can never win an argument with someone who doesn't bother to acknowledges facts.
 
lil_j said:
...I provided scientific facts, not concepts and backed them up with medical sources. If you took the time to read the links I posted, you would see that there are some statistical and empirical evidence within those links.

http://atoz.iqhealth.com/HealthAnsw...files/2483.html
http://www.geocities.com/g0yz/benders.htm
http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/androgen/details.html
http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/21_OVERVIEW.HTM
...

I have read every link that you posted except http://atoz.iqhealth.com/HealthAnsw...files/2483.html (because the address did not resolve). Lots of intriguing and useful facts and information...but nothing to tie it to homosexual behavior. That is all that I have asked for.

lil_j said:
... No matter how much scientific evidence I provide, you refuse to believe the evidence and you continue to arbitrarily set your own standard for what is and what isn't. You can never win an argument with someone who doesn't bother to acknowledges facts.

Facts are just that: facts. Neither of us has been arbitrary. You have your genetic position and mine is based on human function. They are diverse. Facts are that people with genetic abnormalities exist and are born every day. Facts are that functional homosexual behavior does not reproduce life. Both are sets of facts. The question is what to make of homosexual behavior in light of those facts.
 
July 5, 2005
Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited
By BENEDICT CAREY
Some people are attracted to women; some are attracted to men. And some, if Sigmund Freud, Dr. Alfred Kinsey and millions of self-described bisexuals are to be believed, are drawn to both sexes.
But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.
The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.
People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.
In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.
The study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the estimated 1.7 percent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their professed desires.
"Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using physiological measures," said Dr. Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the study.
The discrepancy between what is happening in people's minds and what is going on in their bodies, she said, presents a puzzle "that the field now has to crack, and it raises this question about what we mean when we talk about desire."
"We have assumed that everyone means the same thing," she added, "but here we have evidence that that is not the case."
Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions could be drawn.
Bisexual desires are sometimes transient and they are still poorly understood. Men and women also appear to differ in the frequency of bisexual attractions. "The last thing you want," said Dr. Randall Sell, an assistant professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia University, "is for some therapists to see this study and start telling bisexual people that they're wrong, that they're really on their way to homosexuality."
He added, "We don't know nearly enough about sexual orientation and identity" to jump to these conclusions.
In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men. Thirty-three of the men identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as straight and 38 as homosexual.

Link for complete article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/h...&ex=1121140800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
 



Back
Top