Bisexual men: Science says they're real

[DaveLegg Developer]

Oh, well since the APA in 1973 bowed to political pressure from homosexual organizations to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder, I doubt you would find anything on the subject you want information on to be of any credence.

So to be clear, what you're saying there is that you can't backup your claim at all. Thanks, that's all I wanted to hear.

This being a scientific matter, even if the paper had been refuted, it would still be in the public domain for all to read, but the mere fact you can't find anything, refuted or not, just strengthens my point that your claim is nothing but your own opinion, and not in any way an "accepted" belief in the wider world.

[sudo]

Yes, it's natural, you just have to look in the animal kingdom for similar examples. Natural doesn't imply morally right, that's a very clear distinction that needs to be made.

If they are both natural, what moral authority do you refer to in order to decide that one is perfectly moral while the other is not?

[Worthington]

Most experts in the field of sexuality would disagree with you.

Most experts in the field of sexuality happen to also be homosexual themselves.

[Udedenkz]

EDIT: Guys do not feed the troll. :huh:

I surprised that the existence of bisexuality hasn't been proven.

I actually thought this thread was a joke.

[Worthington]

So to be clear, what you're saying there is that you can't backup your claim at all. Thanks, that's all I wanted to hear.

This being a scientific matter, even if the paper had been refuted, it would still be in the public domain for all to read, but the mere fact you can't find anything, refuted or not, just strengthens my point that your claim is nothing but your own opinion, and not in any way an "accepted" belief in the wider world.

Acceptance by the wider world doesn't matter if the world's acceptors/experts can have their results manipulated by political pressure, as my video has shown.

Even if I did post a study on the subject, you'd simply say that since the "acceptance" is not there for what I show in a medical paper, it cannot be taken seriously.

[DaveLegg Developer]

Acceptance by the wider world doesn't matter if the world's acceptors/experts can have their results manipulated by political pressure, as my video has shown.

Even if I did post a study on the subject, you'd simply say that since the "acceptance" is not there for what I show in a medical paper, it cannot be taken seriously.

The whole point of 'Academic Freedom' is the ability to research without political interference.

So let us see the paper, and let us judge whether to accept it or not, rather than just assuming that we wont.

If they are both natural, what moral authority do you refer to in order to decide that one is perfectly moral while the other is not?

I have my own personal views, but with any issue, it comes down to the view of society, which is, in essence, an averaging of the views across those who ask.

Morality is inherently subjective, and as such, there is no "right" or "wrong".

[mudslag]

Most experts in the field of sexuality happen to also be homosexual themselves.

Yet again another ignorant comment with zero backing. I take it you have nothing to add to my last comment of yours?

[Worthington]

Morality is inherently subjective, and as such, there is no "right" or "wrong".

It is this kind of thinking that allows things like pedophilia to be someday accepted by our increasingly repugnant society, and yes, someday it will.

Morals never change, and they don't come from people's opinions. They are absolute and come from our singular, historical nature. We all know them from the day we are born, and it takes a lot of programming to stop living up to those inbuilt morals.

I'm done talking to you. Every person who has displayed this kind of thinking to me has shown they are capable of much degeneracy, and there is no reasoning with them.

[mudslag]

It is this kind of thinking that allows things like pedophilia to be someday accepted by our increasingly repugnant society, and yes, someday it will.

Morals never change, and they don't come from people's opinions. They are absolute and come from our singular, historical nature. I'm done talking to you. Every person who has displayed this kind of thinking to me has shown they are capable of much degeneracy, and there is no reasoning with them.

Basically you are saying you cant debate him so its better to run and tuck tail then attempt to have a formal discussion. Morals are far from absolute as they have changed over time. They change now depending on the part of the world you are in. So absolute they are not. History proves this.

[DaveLegg Developer]

Morals never change, and they don't come from people's opinions. They are absolute and come from our singular, historical nature.

How can you say that when you look at the world around you? Compare the moral opinions surrounding the treatment of women in the west, with the moral opinions of those in the middle east, where women are not even permitted to drive? In my opinion, and likely yours, those morals are wrong, but that does not change the fact that they are the moral beliefs held by a proportion of the population in that area of the world.

What degeneracy have I displayed? Does logical reasoning count as degenerate these days? My views may not be the same as yours, but at least when asked, I can back them up. I'm still waiting, many many posts later, for you to support your earlier arguments...

[WolvesHunt]

I love this heated Discussion about "penis on penis"

lets just go back to the basic that have been around for millenniums . Way before u were even a twink in your dads eye

Morals are morals, Sins are Sins.

And wrong is still wrong

and all of this will continue to be, even if people denie it to be so

--edit

morals never change. Only the people and there Thinking has

IE. its morally incorrect to get married to the same sex even though, law in some places allow it. But the mortality has not change as its STILL WRONG to do so even if its legal

same can be said about prostitution, as in were some place it legal but is still morally Wrong to do so

and bestiality, and ect, ect ,ect

[sudo]

I have my own personal views, but with any issue, it comes down to the view of society, which is, in essence, an averaging of the views across those who ask.

Earlier you asked someone to scientifically back something up, now you make of your opinion the moral authority in deciding between the two things, which both, according to you still, are natural. That doesn't sound like 'scientific backing' has any weight on your decision making.

Morality is inherently subjective, and as such, there is no "right" or "wrong".

Let me quote you contradicting yourself:

> Natural doesn't imply morally right, that's a very clear distinction that needs to be made.

You wanted to make it clear that even though they are natural, some things are morally wrong.

Essentially, you have decided that something, despite it being natural, is "morally wrong", just because you happen to like it so. You have appointed your personal views as the moral authority, and are asking other people to bear the moral responsibiluty of disagreeing with those views.

[lamminium]

Earlier you asked someone to scientifically back something up, now you make of your opinion the moral authority in deciding between the two things, which both, according to you still, are natural. That doesn't sound like 'scientific backing' has any weight on your decision making.

Morality is not a topic of natural science.

[nominak]

Gay since birth? Ask them how they knew that, because I don't recall anything before the age of 5.

Heterosexual at birth? Ask them how they knew that. I don't recall anything before the age of 5.

[DaveLegg Developer]

You'll note I didn't state which things that I deem natural I consider to be morally wrong, because I realise that varies from person to person, and what I consider to be morally right, may not be the same as what someone else does. But I think its fair to say, that whoever you ask, there is at least one thing they believe to be morally wrong.

Whether something is moral, or natural, are completely separate questions.

[AeonicVision]

It is this kind of thinking that allows things like pedophilia to be someday accepted by our increasingly repugnant society, and yes, someday it will.

Morals never change, and they don't come from people's opinions. They are absolute and come from our singular, historical nature. We all know them from the day we are born, and it takes a lot of programming to stop living up to those inbuilt morals.

I'm done talking to you. Every person who has displayed this kind of thinking to me has shown they are capable of much degeneracy, and there is no reasoning with them.

Earlier you stated homosexuality is a mental disorder.

You then later stated that the majority, if not all, of the homosexuals you've meet have been ill or schizophrenic.

So, the real question should be, considering that all you see is the worst in people: are you a sociopath? I'm sensing a lot of hate that you'll most certainly deny while re-iterating the same talking points.

Because you sure as hell like spreading negative stereotypes and trying to pan gays as damaged, but I'm seeing through the bluff.

Also, just to point this out since you can't seem to process it in bigot logic:

Pedophilia involves a VICTIM. Homosexual relations are between two consenting adults.

So, no, stop tossing around rhetorical terms you don't seem to grasp yourself. I mean, by your logic, the way women are treated in straight porn would lead to rampant increases of bestiality given the demeaning nature of many of the films but this obviously hasn't happened. Gays have been around forever, and will continue to be around forever. If that doesn't make it obvious nature is a factor here, please reconsider your understanding of science.

You keep conflating natural with moral purpose and saintliness. There are gay animals, and with some regularity. Therefore, it is a common deviation no different than sharp beaks, short beaks, digit length, hair color, etc. IT'S A RANDOM DERIVATION that can happen to anyone or anything in the womb.

You make quite the poster child of degeneracy. The louder you shout, the more obvious it is you're becoming the odd ball.

I suggest reconsidering your life, but then agian, that's what you'll suggest I and anyone else pro-gay should do.

The difference is I'll accept them for who they are. You'll look for arbitrary flaws and hold it against them. Shameful, really.

[mudslag]

morals never change. Only the people and there Thinking has

IE. its morally incorrect to get married to the same sex even though, law in some places allow it. But the mortality has not change as its STILL WRONG to do so even if its legal

same can be said about prostitution, as in were some place it legal but is still morally Wrong to do so

and bestiality, and ect, ect ,ect

It was morally acceptable to stone a woman for adultery in the past, today its not, at least in the modern world. It was morally acceptable to wed and impregnate a 12 yr old girl 1000 yrs ago, today its not, again not in the modern world. Other parts of the world to this day still accept those moral codes though. So yes morals do change.

You'll note I didn't state which things that I deem natural I consider to be morally wrong, because I realise that varies from person to person, and what I consider to be morally right, may not be the same as what someone else does. But I think its fair to say, that whoever you ask, there is at least one thing they believe to be morally wrong.

Whether something is moral, or natural, are completely separate questions.

It seems some people dont get that

[WolvesHunt]

I wish we were in the 1800's or even earlier

First off all of us would be hung for having this conversation, or at lest jailed

and the ones that are actually "gay" (male or female) would have died at the cross.

as in this topic is not up for debate..lol

[mudslag]

I wish we were in the 1800's or even earlier

First off all of us would be hung for having this conversation, or at lest jailed

and the ones that are actually "gay" (male or female) would have died at the cross.

as in this topic is not up for debate..lol

And now we are free to debate such issues, my how the moral view of society has changed. :whistle:

[WolvesHunt]

It was morally acceptable to stone a woman for adultery in the past,

Its still un-moral to commit adultery even though you are no longer sentience for death .

you mite as well be put to death for it. In fact it actually worked for them back then and people were not going broke due to legal fees, court battles, and the entire Family ripped apart.

Strict Laws = less corruption amount civil people (do not put politics in this argument )

Something Moral and Something legal are to different things

and no morals do not change ..Laws Change...

And now we are free to debate such issues, my how the moral view of society has changed. :whistle:

you mean the views of Freedom of speech. Witch was a legal issue at the time not a moral issue

laws are not based off of moral principles

[mudslag]

Its still un-moral to commit adultery even though you are no longer sentience for death .

you mite as well be put to death for it. In fact it actually worked for them back then and people were not going broke due to legal fees, court battles, and the entire Family ripped apart.

Something Moral and Something legal are to different things

and no morals do not change ..Laws Change...

You are no longer punished either, death was result of the action by society, a view that was seen morally wrong. Today there is no action against it and in fact people all over the world even practice adultery through open relationships, swinging. Some still view it as morally wrong while others dont. That right there shows that morals can be subjective and change.

[DaveLegg Developer]

Its still un-moral to commit adultery even though you are no longer sentience for death .

We're questioning the morality of the stoning, which was acceptable then, but isn't now, not the morality of the adultery. This is just a simple example to show that morality is not inherent in the universe, but changes over time.

[mudslag]

you mean the views of Freedom of speech. Not morals

Which were based on morals by the founding fathers that believed the right to speak is a moral right.

[WolvesHunt]

You are no longer punished either, death was result of the action by society, a view that was seen morally wrong. Today there is no action against it and in fact people all over the world even practice adultery through open relationships, swinging. Some still view it as morally wrong while others dont. That right there shows that morals can be subjective and change.

A sin is always punishable by death.

Since Sins are the outcome a moral Decision. Or should I say agents a moral decision, we see who's right after death...

Can I touch my self. (yes)

Is it a Sin to touch my self (yes)

is it legal to touch my self were I live? (yes)

Is it morally correct to touch my self since society as deemed me the right to do so. (NO)

you may do what you want even though you may never be punished for it, but your decision legally, & morally well always affect some one or something though your entire life. lets just make the right ones.

[mudslag]

A sin is always punishable by death.

Since Sins are the outcome a moral Decision. Or should I say agents a moral we see who's right after death...

Yet we all sin and are still here as for what happens after death, its retarded to speculate as NO ONE has the answer to that and all your doing now is attempting to change the topic even further then its already gone.