Frictional Games Forum (read-only)

Quote:It may be true that it is safe to assume that, until an act is otherwise
committed, the individual is a heterosexual, given the inherent
structure of the human body. However, this, obviously, can be
(unofficially) "overruled" by the actions the individual decides to
take.

That is simply untrue. So if I were a homosexual, then you are
suggesting that I would have chosen to be gay because I "overruled" my
inner design as a human? You know what, that doesn't make sense anywhere
because I don't choose who I get attracted to, it just is that way. In
case you didn't know, choice is active, you make choices in a conscious
state, and because my attraction to men is (in sake of this argument)
uncontrollable, what makes you think that it's a choice? You don't have
to actually get laid with someone to discover your sexuality.

(06-23-2012, 07:47 AM)Statyk Wrote: [ -> ]To Your Computer:
I admire the strong use of vocabulary, it's a valuable resource when picking arguments and displaying opinions. But do you ever think you use it too strongly?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. You'll have to list these terms or phrases, or expound more on this.

(06-23-2012, 08:36 AM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]No, it only "awakens" the sexuality that is already there, the sexuality was dictated much earlier.

And i argued that it is neutral.

(06-23-2012, 08:36 AM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]So basically you're saying that the human body is unable to feel attraction to the same biological gender?

I've always argued that we are born with the capacity for whatever side. My statement there is that the "overruling" (note the quotations) is the unauthoritative, individual act to a sexuality other than the naturally intended result (as implied by the gender). This does not rule out the natural capacity for other sides, nor does it rule out attraction to any one individual or group.

If you want to fully understand my position, you must assume, or at least acknowledge, my premise: that we are born with the capacity for all sexualities.

(06-23-2012, 09:49 AM)nackidno Wrote: [ -> ]That is simply untrue. So if I were a homosexual, then you are
suggesting that I would have chosen to be gay because I "overruled" my
inner design as a human? You know what, that doesn't make sense anywhere
because I don't choose who I get attracted to, it just is that way. In
case you didn't know, choice is active, you make choices in a conscious
state, and because my attraction to men is (in sake of this argument)
uncontrollable, what makes you think that it's a choice? You don't have
to actually get laid with someone to discover your sexuality.

My premise: We are born with the capacity for all sexualities. Therefore limiting the capacity to one sexuality is from choice. Therefore you (plural) "overruled" (limited) your "inner design" (or "attraction") to homosexuality. The intended, natural effect, however, was declared, or implied, by your gender.

While it is true that a person doesn't have to "get laid" to dictate their (chosen) sexuality (hence why i chose "sexual intercourse"), i would not confuse the capacity for all sexualities with the capacity for only one sexuality.

(06-23-2012, 01:11 PM)Your Computer Wrote: [ -> ]If you want to fully understand my position, you must assume, or at least acknowledge, my premise: that we are born with the capacity for all sexualities.

I fully understand your position, I just don't agree with it.

Do you have anything to say about the study I linked?

(06-23-2012, 01:45 PM)spukrian Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have anything to say about the study I linked?

Yes, it doesn't talk about people being born with a certain sexual preference. It is only a report on sexual arousal concerning the preferred and non-preferred stimulus types, measured by brain activity. From the introduction itself i concluded that reading it all wasn't necessary since it would be concluding the obvious, but i read it all anyway (and my expectations of the article were proved true). Arousal for the preferred stimulus types is about the same for homosexuals as they are for heterosexuals (i.e. there weren't any significant differences). This, however, can be concluded without the report or scientific tests.

I will say i did find a particular statement intriguing, quote: "When absolute ratings of nonpreferred stimuli were compared, however, heterosexual participants gave lower ratings to male stimuli than homosexual participants did to female stimuli". To me this implies that homosexuals (at least the males) have the capability to (un-)nurture themselves into heterosexuals (which is what my position implies) and that heterosexuals tend to nurture themselves greater than homosexuals to their selected stimulus type. Also, the results from Participant #16 was slightly intriguing too, as this would imply my premise.

(06-23-2012, 03:15 AM)Sexbad Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2012, 03:13 AM)Danarogon Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2012, 01:39 AM)failedALIAS Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2012, 05:05 PM)Danarogon Wrote: [ -> ]its like being human. you didn't choose to be human either.

Uh, Yeah I did. And I'm regretting it more and more everyday. I could've *Sob* Been a octopus!
It's a perfect representation of who I am: bendy, able to fit my body in anything larger than a toe, and finally the inborn urge to rape japanese school girls!

You Freaking Soul Eater fan! octopuses stink! I'd Prefer to be a bear!

Bear is actually a classification of gay guy body type. If sexuality was a choice you could totally be a bear.

I was more thinking of this guy:

---

(06-22-2012, 02:28 AM)Danarogon Wrote: [ -> ]

Why haven't any one took in consideration this video i have here yet?!

Your Computer, it's been fun discussing with you, but now the time has come for me to withdraw.

(06-23-2012, 03:25 PM)Danarogon Wrote: [ -> ]Why haven't any one took in consideration this video i have here yet?!

Because "could," "could be," "may be" are not definitive terms. There's no need to entertain a train of thought which isn't sure of itself, especially if it declares from that same train of thought a conclusion that cannot necessarily follow from the premises. It looks like there could have been more to the video which may or may not have proven something, but we are not exposed to it from that video.

I do not understand what is so wrong about homosexuality. Is it because the thought of two people having sex is disturbing to you? Well, then we might as well try to ban very old people from having sex, because that would be a disturbing site to me.

Seriously, stay out of other people's sex lives.

Quote:Because "could," "could be," "may be" are not definitive terms. There's
no need to entertain a train of thought which isn't sure of itself,
especially if it declares from that same train of thought a conclusion
that cannot necessarily follow from the premises. It looks like there
could have been more to the video which may or may not have proven
something, but we are not exposed to it from that video.

But what you are saying isn't definite either.

(06-24-2012, 11:15 AM)nackidno Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Because "could," "could be," "may be" are not definitive terms. There's
no need to entertain a train of thought which isn't sure of itself,
especially if it declares from that same train of thought a conclusion
that cannot necessarily follow from the premises. It looks like there
could have been more to the video which may or may not have proven
something, but we are not exposed to it from that video.

But what you are saying isn't definite either.

My thoughts exactly...