Bisexuals?

[Mumei]

You asked me to explain the obvious, so, as I said, any explanation I give would be for naught. It is indeed a debate/discussion forum, but that does not mean taking people by the hand and re-explining the obvious. I'm sorry you can't recognize the obvious discrepancy.

Try again.

You can't do it because there's nothing to explain. You are wrong, I have proven you wrong, and you cannot do a thing about it, so you resort to, "I'm sorry you can't see it."

And withthat, I'm sorry you lack the reading comprehension skills to see that the information conveyed in both messages is the same.

 

[MachZer0]

Try again.

You can't do it because there's nothing to explain. You are wrong, I have proven you wrong,

I haven't seen you prove anything other than the definition of "discrepancy" which was never in doubt to begin with.

And withthat, I'm sorry you lack the reading comprehension skills to see that the information conveyed in both messages is the same.

If personal attacks prove your point, I guess you win.

 

[ews]

"Most people are not 100% straight or 100% homosexual."

This means that at least 50%, if not more, of people swing "both ways" to some degree…

[Does this say that since most people are not 100% straight or 100% homosexual that is means that ½ the people are swingers?]

 

[Mumei]

I haven't seen you prove anything other than the definition of "discrepancy" which was never in doubt to begin with.

I explained the meaning of the two. Here, I'll go back and get it again.

The numbers being different doesn't mean that there is a discrepancy.

They both say that a minority are 100% homosexual, or completely homosexual. One of them also says that a minority of people are 100% or completely heterosexual. The 100% number does not refer to any statistics. The 1 - 3% numbers, while supposed to be used as statistics, are not accurate.

Before you say, "Well, why did you use them?!" take a look back at our conversation. You tried to use the supposed minority status of heterosexuals as, "Well, if we're a minority, maybe we deserve discrimination protections!"

I said that if conservatives took that attitude, that they might as well support sexual orientation discrimination, because it covers heterosexuals and homosexuals, and homosexuals are, by their own beliefs (which is why I quoted the inaccurate conservative numbers; to say what they actually believe) a small minority.

Explain why that is wrong.

If personal attacks prove your point, I guess you win.

No, personal attacks are your only point.

You have been playing the, "You're too stupid for me to deign to explain this to," card since the first time I asked you to explain. And before that, you've made baseless attacks and cast aspersions on anyone who is homosexual, which are also attacks on me.

 

[Mumei]

"Most people are not 100% straight or 100% homosexual."

This means that at least 50%, if not more, of people swing "both ways" to some degree…

[Does this say that since most people are not 100% straight or 100% homosexual that is means that ½ the people are swingers?]

The Kinsey Scale ranges from 0 (completely heterosexual) to 6 (completely homosexual). 1 and 2 are heterosexual with degrees of homosexual inclinations. 3 is equally homosexuald and heterosexual (or bisexuals). 4 and 5 are homosexual with some heterosexual inclinations.

There are reasons to cast doubt on the accuracy of these claims. The Kinsey Reports are the source of the likely inaccurate "10%" figure for homosexuals. I'd recommend reading online for a better explanation of the criticisms of the report, because I'm really not all that good at it, and I think reading directly from the source would be better than any awkward paraphrasing I could do.

 

[trunks2k]

"Most people are not 100% straight or 100% homosexual."

This means that at least 50%, if not more, of people swing "both ways" to some degree…

[Does this say that since most people are not 100% straight or 100% homosexual that is means that ½ the people are swingers?]

Umm.. no. "Swinging both ways" does not make a person a "swinger." That's two totally different contexts of the word.

The argument that most people are bisexual to some degree, is a bit tenuous, in that it sorta takes an overly literal definition of bisexual. If a guy, on the rarest of occasions looks at another guy and thinks "he's pretty hot", he probably wouldn't categorize himself as anything other than straight. However that rare and fleeting attraction to another male means that a person would not be a 0 on the Kinsey scale.

I would bet that if you were to ask most people if they have ever had some sort of attraction to a member of the same sex, they would say yes if they were being really honest. It might have only been one time, but in terms of the Kinsey scale, that's a degree of bisexuality.

If you were to draw an arbitrary line on the Kinsey scale, say at 1, and categorize those with a score less than or equal to 1 as heterosexual (since whatever homosexual attractions they have are insignificant), then I'd bet the over 75% of the population is going to fall in there.

 

[invisible trousers]

Sometimes derailing threads by arguing about semantics is the best thing you can do when you don't have facts on your side.

 

[MachZer0]

And before that, you've made baseless attacks and cast aspersions on anyone who is homosexual, which are also attacks on me.

This is a thread about ethics. I find homosexual acts to be very unethical. If that is offensive to you, so be it. However, if there was no debate on the ethics of homosexual acts, there would be no need for a thread such as this one.

 

[ews]

The Kinsey Scale ranges from 0 (completely heterosexual) to 6 (completely homosexual). 1 and 2 are heterosexual with degrees of homosexual inclinations. 3 is equally homosexuald and heterosexual (or bisexuals). 4 and 5 are homosexual with some heterosexual inclinations.

There are reasons to cast doubt on the accuracy of these claims. The Kinsey Reports are the source of the likely inaccurate "10%" figure for homosexuals. I'd recommend reading online for a better explanation of the criticisms of the report, because I'm really not all that good at it, and I think reading directly from the source would be better than any awkward paraphrasing I could do.

I do have my doubts and have for some time about the Kinsey Report. Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a well schooled Harvard man did a remarkable thing bringing us out of the funk we were in sexually back then. But I do have issues with the numbers the report came up with. I’m also thinking about those numbers and asking myself if they apply today.

Umm.. no. "Swinging both ways" does not make a person a "swinger." That's two totally different contexts of the word.

The argument that most people are bisexual to some degree, is a bit tenuous, in that it sorta takes an overly literal definition of bisexual. If a guy, on the rarest of occasions looks at another guy and thinks "he's pretty hot", he probably wouldn't categorize himself as anything other than straight. However that rare and fleeting attraction to another male means that a person would not be a 0 on the Kinsey scale.

I would bet that if you were to ask most people if they have ever had some sort of attraction to a member of the same sex, they would say yes if they were being really honest. It might have only been one time, but in terms of the Kinsey scale, that's a degree of bisexuality.

If you were to draw an arbitrary line on the Kinsey scale, say at 1, and categorize those with a score less than or equal to 1 as heterosexual (since whatever homosexual attractions they have are insignificant), then I'd bet the over 75% of the population is going to fall in there.

 

[invisible trousers]

If homosexual acts are unethical, and heterosexuals participate in these exact acts, all sexual acts are unethical.

 

[Mumei]

This is a thread about ethics. I find homosexual acts to be very unethical. If that is offensive to you, so be it. However, if there was no debate on the ethics of homosexual acts, there would be no need for a thread such as this one.

This is not a debate. You need to defend your positions. You have done nothing but state your opinion on the matter. Now that I am aware that you believe homosexual acts to be immoral, perhaps you can now tell me why you view it as immoral without a call to religion.

And oddly enough, it is estimated that 40% of heterosexuals engage in sodomy at one time or another. And even those who oppose sodomy can admit that there is no harm in it. Even Dr. Holsinger says so, in his controversial paper - though you have to look for it.

 

[MachZer0]

If homosexual acts are unethical, and heterosexuals participate in these exact acts, all sexual acts are unethical.

Outside of marriage, it would indeed be immoral for heterosexuals to engage in sexual acts, yes

 

[MachZer0]

This is not a debate. You need to defend your positions. You have done nothing but state your opinion on the matter. Now that I am aware that you believe homosexual acts to be immoral, perhaps you can now tell me why you view it as immoral without a call to religion.

Why would you exclude religion from a discussion of ethics.

And oddly enough, it is estimated that 40% of heterosexuals engage in sodomy at one time or another. And even those who oppose sodomy can admit that there is no harm in it. Even Dr. Holsinger says so, in his controversial paper - though you have to look for it.

So I would have to do your research for you

 

[Mumei]

Why would you exclude religion from a discussion of ethics.

Your religion can form the basis of your beliefs. Your religion isn't a debating point. To bring others around to your view, you need to do without religion.

So I would have to do your research for you

I was thinking you'd welcome the change of pace. You know, actually finding information, looking it up; you know, all that stuff you normally don't do.

But apparently I was wrong. I'll do it for you:

"Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse."

Here is the full report.

Holsinger goes on to detail all the problems that can be see in homosexual men when there is not adequate lubrication. Remember, kids: sodomy for heterosexual women is A-ok. Sodomy for gay men is eeeeevill and causes all sorts of problems, because only they do it wrong.

You should probably note that the report is being attacked as we speak for its complete lack of scientific objectivity.

 

[MachZer0]

Your religion can form the basis of your beliefs. Your religion isn't a debating point. To bring others around to your view, you need to do without religion.



I was thinking you'd welcome the change of pace. You know, actually finding information, looking it up; you know, all that stuff you normally don't do.

But apparently I was wrong. I'll do it for you:

"Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse."

Here is the full report.

Holsinger goes on to detail all the problems that can be see in homosexual men when there is not adequate lubrication. Remember, kids: sodomy for heterosexual women is A-ok. Sodomy for gay men is eeeeevill and causes all sorts of problems, because only they do it wrong.

You should probably note that the report is being attacked as we speak for its complete lack of scientific objectivity.

Nuff said about that report

 

[Mumei]

Hey, no.

Your side likes the report. In fact, your side is touting Holsinger for Surgeon General of the United States. And he has an ex-gay program at his church.

It is the liberals who are attacking it, silly. Your fellow conservatives believe that Dr. Holsinger is completely correct.

 

[MachZer0]

Hey, no.

Your side likes the report. In fact, your side is touting Holsinger for Surgeon General of the United States. And he has an ex-gay program at his church.

It is the liberals who are attacking it, silly. Your fellow conservatives believe that Dr. Holsinger is completely correct.

So you introduced a report that your side already opposes? Interesting. It should be noted that what the report points out is that the male model requires external lubrication whereas the female model, properly administered, is self lubricating. That clearly points to the homosexual act as unnatural. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Mumei]

So you introduced a report that your side already opposes? Interesting. It should be noted that what the report points out is that the male model requires external lubrication whereas the female model, properly administered, is self lubricating. That clearly points to the homosexual act as unnatural. Thanks for pointing that out.

Sure.

I introduced a report by someone on your side. You would likely find it more credible (despite its lack thereof) than one from an objective source.

And it suggests that penile-vaginal sex is self-lubricating. Both heterosexual and homosexual anal-penile sex requires external lubrication - and 40% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal-penile sex.

But thanks for pointing that out.

 

[MachZer0]

Sure.

I introduced a report by someone on your side. You would likely find it more credible (despite its lack thereof) than one from an objective source.

And it suggests that penile-vaginal sex is self-lubricating. Both heterosexual and homosexual anal-penile sex requires external lubrication - and 40% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal-penile sex.

But thanks for pointing that out.

Exactly, pointing out that anal sex is abnormal and unnatural. That part, at least is clear now and we both agree.

 

[Mumei]

Exactly, pointing out that anal sex is abnormal and unnatural. That part, at least is clear now and we both agree.

Anal sex is abnormal. That doesn't make it wrong. And more sexual acts than you can imagine are natural - because they occur in nature, including things as bizarre as beak-genital propulsion or echolocation sex, both occurring in dolphins.