Would this guy have his job today, if he had tweeted about a different race?
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
And the have the choice to deny their natural attractions, or to act on them and be.......happy.
It is a natural condition if you are of the opposite sex...whether you choose sex with that opposite or not. The "hetero" part means opposite...and in nature opposites normally attract. However even if you choose not to engage the opposite sex, you don't stop being a heterosexual.
Maybe a "metrosexual" but you're still heterosexual. (laughing) So what are you if you are attracted to the same sex, but choose not to engage in same sex?
How would I know that person is homosexual? Just by their attraction to the same sex?
If they have no choice this is impossible. Same sex is all they are capable of having in your explanation. It's not a choice, it's all they can do...right?
They have no choice about being attracted to only the same sex. And YES, even if they had never participated in an act of homosexual sex....they would still be homosexual.
Why? I love food, but you don't know I'm obese until I eat more than a normal person does. How else would you know I'm really attracted to food enough to make me obese unless I use that natural attraction to eat a hell of a lot of food?
You knowing means absolutely JACK to the definition of wether homosexuality is natural, normal or perverse. I don't even know why you'd bring it up.
Loving food doesn't make you anything but a food loving person....being obese makes you obese. It is not relevant to this discussion at all.
How would you know? I guess if they tell you what attracts them, but if they never said anything or never did anything with another same sex partner you're saying they'd still be homosexual just because of their attraction?
OK then, suppose they don't like either sex? What do you call them?
A-sexual I guess? but is an A-sexual human normal? Different I'd sure give you that, but normal?
Naw.....
I wouldn't know unless they told me...that's my point boomer! Once they either told me what their sexual preference is, or showed me, then I can decide if it's normal, natural or perverse.
Once I've learned they preferred men or I've seen them having Sex with other Men if they are Men... then I most certainly can then decide that preference is neither natural or normal and is in my opinion perverse.
Last edited:
In terms of identifying what is "normal" consumption of a food loving person and what would be considered "non normal" it most certainly is relevant.
I'm using the example to prove the point my Man. You wouldn't know I was obese unless I ate more food than the average person does. Likewise, you don't know someone is homosexual unless you see them doing homosexual things...attractions be damned.
You're saying it's only their attractions which makes them homosexual. I'm saying you can't possibly know that unless they either tell you what attracts them, or you actually see them doing or having homosexual sex.
They know......THEY know. Again, what does you knowing have anything to do with it? And, again as well, the term normal can be interchangeable with AVERAGE or COMMON, but many use it to reference what is socially acceptable (which is the only real use to apply to our debate because I concede the fact that homosexuality is not the average or most common sexual condition in nature).
Someone not having attraction to either sex might be a natural state, I don't know for sure. It is not socially accepted, probably because of its lack of frequency or the forms of sexual attraction that are a result (zoophilia, etc). And I would not defend it as a natural state. Homosexuality however, from my experiences with homosexuals, I would defend as a natural state, and a socially acceptable or "normal" state of sexuality
I don't...and that's the point boomer my man! I'm still what I am regardless if you know it or not. Until or unless I either show you or tell you what I am, you'd have no idea. Just like the homosexual. After you learn what I am, or watch what I do, then you get to decide if I'm a right wingnut, or a pretty cool Dude who is interesting, funny, and opinionated.
However until you engage me, or experience my preferences of behavior or my choices...you don't know what the Hell I am or who I am or what I like or even think like. But none of that changes who I am all along, until you get to see it for yourself right?
So substitute homosexuality for my race and then this analogy should become crystal clear for you my friend.
Last edited:
If you are a homosexual this makes perfect sense boomer my man. For them in fact, you're probably right. However that does not make it by default a "normal" state or even a normal desire or attraction. It is something that exists true enough....but it cannot be argued to be normal. Only a different type of choice which is what I've been arguing it is all along.
You don't think there is anything "wrong" with it...and as far as I'm concerned if that's what consenting adults want to do I can't stop that or change them or force them to think or do otherwise. As long as we both recognize it is indeed their choice, and not a natural condition.
I will not however accept it as normal because it is not. I think we finally agree here boomboom!
Last edited:
No we don't agree at all. It is a natural state for homosexuals, and it might not be normal is the sense that it is the average sexuality....but it's normal in the sense that it is socially accepted to me.
I think it's funny how the Killary zombies,said Trump didn't have the temperament to be POTUS. And then Killary goes on a drunken rampage for 3 days after the election.Smashing 150 'tv that was given to her by a Saudi prince with a bottle of 950,000 bottle of champagne, and throwing a cake topper so viciously that it was imbeded into the wall. It took the hotel staff 3 days to cleanup all of the damages that Killarys crew did!!.. Now who has temperament issues??? LMFAO!
I know you roll with just about anything or just about anything rolls for you boomboom my Man. I like you but you do scare me sometimes.
Last edited:
Link it up for us Lenny....would love to read that. Or at least source it for us where you saw that? Sounds like her... remember she used to toss a pretty mean lamp stand or two at 'ol Bill back in the day at the WH while cursing the SS agents out like a drunken lush at a stripper's club.
Not surprised really.
I don't see homosexual behavior as deviant, wrong, obscene, perverse, or unnatural. To compare it to something like pedophilia is wrong. You think homosexuals are criminals? Mentally disturbed? Dangerous?
Yes to all. On your first statement boom
I've said it (homosexuality) is a dangerous choice...deviant even...perverse if you like....criminal? No...but sick in my opinion. It's not a crime because you do have consenting adults, but by definition they then have some measure of control over it deriving from that mutual consent.
Pedophiles on the other hand are criminals because Sex with Children is indeed a crime (as it should be). But I'm asking you to explain to me the difference between their perversions boom. You're arguing in the case of homosexual perversion...they have no control over it and it is quite natural. All I want to know is why you don't offer that same explanation to Pedophiles who only are naturally attracted to kids or stimulated by them? I'm not talking about them actually having Sex with them because as I said that is a crime.
What's the difference though Boom to you in their perverse sexual attractions? Isn't that what you said is all that's needed which defines someone as gay?
I think a sexual attraction to young children is a psychological problem (it is about control - violation of something pure - something else as perverse) I don't think homosexuality is at all. There are heterosexual pedophiles, there are homosexual pedophiles. There is nothing deviant or perverse about homosexual attraction. Only to someone like you that feels righteous in their self-centered ideology.
OK, thanks for your explanation boom. As I understand you, in the case of an attraction for little kids the natural attraction has nothing to do with one's natural feelings...it's a psychological problem.
In the case of homosexuals, their natural attraction to the same sex is not at all psychological, it's just how they naturally feel as a condition of their birth. Only homosexual attractions are normal, but when those same natural sexual attractions or urges turn in the mind to little kids, then it's a psychological problem.
Got it boom. Thanks for clearing that up for me my Man!
Last edited:
Where do you get all of that about Pedophiles just from their "natural attraction" to Children? Not Sex with them boom, just their uncontrollable attraction which by your own definition is all that makes them Pedophiles just like the same uncontrollable attraction to the same sex for Homosexuals?
Last edited:
Just in case you try to say "I didn't say that". That was your argument for saying you'd know if one is Homosexual even if they don't engage in same sex (which I claimed is impossible to know unless they either do so or at least tell you what type of sex they prefer)
So, is this the same for Pedophiles? (just the attraction part)
Why not?
Like I said.....there are homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles. That fact makes it independent of sexual attraction to the same or opposite sex. So therefore it IS different. You say that your heterosexuality is natural, but if that heterosexuality turned into an attraction for a female that was pre-pubescent----it becomes a much different attraction.
Yes it is...because my natural (hetero) condition is opposite of a Female if I chose Sex with them or not.
In the case of a minor, even if I have that attraction and don't act on it, it's still perverse because Adults should not be desiring sex with little kids. But I'm still a heterosexual even with those depraved thoughts.
That is not what you are arguing for Homosexuals boom. I'm simply trying to apply the same logic you use to explain their attraction (natural or not) for the same sex and applying the same standard to Pedophile attraction (not sex) and wondering why one is only a psychological problem to you and the other is normal yet the only variable as I see it is the object of their attraction, not the natural attraction itself?
You've certainly explained a difference in the object of the attraction, but you have not explained why one is normal and the other is a psychological disorder?
(btw..I'm of the opinion that both are psychological disorders, as well as unnatural attractions)
Last edited:
Why not? It is for them right boom? It's as natural to them as it is for Homosexuals...they can't help it isn't that your argument for Homosexuals?
I'm arguing the same thing for Homosexuals and you said I was wrong boom!
Why only do you get to decide what's wrong with someone's uncontrollable natural attractions and I can't?
One: pedophilia is the attraction to a FORCED sexual relationship with a vulnerable partner.
Two: this sexual relationship does not exist is nature. Mostly because prepubescent animals do not exhibit the sensual attractive features (scent, etc..) that initiates sexual attraction. The most common attraction for men are breasts (this is an attraction to a mate that has reached puberty).
Three: If a pedophile is attracted to children when they are children: that's not pedophilia it's either homo or heterosexuality. So, it's only when someone is grown past puberty themselves can they develop an attraction to prepubescent children. This makes it, to me, both an unatural attraction and probably a product of psychological development (most likely a disorder relating to the pedophiles own childhood trauma)
No it's not Boom
"A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa). "Child molesters are defined by their acts; pedophiles are defined by their desires"
You are describing Child molesters if you're talking about "force", and ascribing their actions to simple natural attractions of Pedophiles. Remember I said, there is no actual sex involved, only the natural attraction just as in the case of homosexuals.
In the second boldface, that's not for gays, according to you. They have no natural attraction to Female breasts, only for a hairy Male's ass. Right Boom?
Third in bold is the classic definition of a Pedophile. The rest only occurs when actual Sex is involved, and that's EXACTLY the opposite of what you are arguing that makes one Homosexual! You said no sex need be involved, only attraction in order for one to be considered Homosexual. That is exactly what you've been arguing in this thread.
So why is a simple attraction to Children in the case of a Pedophile ascribed all of these other undesirable traits in your definition, yet when it comes to Homosexuals, they need do nothing more than just desire Sex with their own kind to be considered "normal" to you?
I just described why. It is the attraction to a forced relationship, no prepubescent child is sexually driven....ther fore the attraction is to someone that is NOT attracted to the pedophile and is NOT attracted to sexual activity in any manner.
A hairy ass is also a sign of puberty having been reached isn't it? So you can take that bs attempt and....well you know....
And the point, that you glossed over, was that I see homosexuality as natural partially because these attractions exist in nature, but pedophilia does not (post pubescent sexual relationships do, but NOT prepubescent).
Third what I meant was.....a pedophile attraction couldn't possibly exist at young ages, since it is the attraction to prepubescent children in grown men or women....however homosexual attraction DOES exist in young ages. This is the main element to my identification of homosexuality as natural and pedophilia as unnatural.
Latest posts
-
-
WVSPORTS.COM Frazier drafted by the Pittsburgh Steelers in second round
- Latest: twinsmom3130
-
-
