• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Bisexual men: Science says they're real

Recommended Posts

soonerproud    22

Annd, let's kill that attraction debate, seriously. Yes I used 2 "n"s on purpose to emphasize a missed opportunity to make a point the first time. :p Just because you are attracted to someone or something doesn't make it right. But again, I COMPLETELY agree with their right to be together and if a bill ever came across my way, which I think one did at one point, I would vote yes for the right for homosexual couples to get married. They deserve to be happy just like everyone else.

As far as attractions, I'm guessing you guys are saying these people should get married as well right?

http://www.inquisitr.com/6745/japanese-man-wants-to-marry-anime-character/

http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/blogs/smitten/2009/08/this-woman-has-fallen-in-love.html

There are a ton more examples but I'm done posting them. Google is great for that...

Those two sources are just plain stupid. The Eiffel Tower can not enter in to a contract as it is a thing, not a person and the the anime is a drawing. This is an apples and oranges comparison and a lazy mans argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman    476

Those two sources are just plain stupid. The Eiffel Tower can not enter in to a contract as it is a thing, not a person and the the anime is a drawing. This is an apples and oranges comparison and a lazy mans argument.

And I was making a point. Attraction is normal correct? That's the argument being made and I agree, it is a lazy man argument. If we are going to open the flood gates, let's open them the entire way. Is it NATURAL? I don't think so but if a homosexual couple wants to be together, I am cool with that. But when we put it in black and white, it's not natural point blank period and that's the point I was making with those two links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    8,759

As far as sterilization, I think you either skipped or misread what I said right before that so I will quote myself...

I pointed out that gay couples can't have children and that's why I don't see it as normal. One problem I find with the self righteous here on Neowin is that they are sticklers for the smallest thing which is sad because all it does is cause confusion. I would EXPECT someone to say the third thing I put in bold "Heterosexual couples can't have kids" because again, we have a lot of what I call clueless people on Neowin that argue just to argue.

We all know that biologically a man and a woman can have a child. A man and a man can't, a woman and a woman can't. But because so many people like to grasp for straws, I pointed out infertility or in my words sterilization issues before anyone else brought it up to put homosexual couples and heterosexual couples on the same level so to speak.

It just furthers my stance that I agree with Worthington on a lot of what he has to say, people keep bringing up **** that has nothing to do with the topic and using it as a talking point, that does include you by the way. I know a lot of people that refuse to have kids and they are heterosexual couples. But, you went on to say this...

You say people bring up stuff that doesnt have to do with the topic, which begs the question as to why did you state "They way I look at it, if two people were "meant" to be together they would be able to biologically have children". Correct me if Im wrong but I dont think that was the topic or even a subject till you brought it up. I agree topics such as this has a tendency to reach out to other areas that generally fall into the subject, just pointing out that this part wasnt the part being debated about.

The over all point about gays having kids though is that they are still capable of having kids, biologically nothing is wrong in that regard, they just cant with each other. Science on the other hand is quickly changing that aspect though. And kids still dont have anything to do with marriage in itself which led me to my point that its still a moot subject on whether or not they should be allowed to marry. So trying to make a argument off the stance that gays cant have kids is moot. One has nothing to do with the other and neither are needed for the other.

Who cares if relationships aren't a necessity for procreation? Worthington, from what I have read, is pointing out that it is unnatural for homosexual couples to be together. I haven't read EVERYTHING he has written but again, from what I have read, I agree. That doesn't mean that I disagree with them being together. If a heterosexual couple decides to have kids, providing one partner isn't sterile, they can do so. It's NOT the same for a homosexual couple. I don't even see why the thread has to go past that...

Worthington has pointed out an opinion, not fact. For him its unnatural but he ignores the fact that attraction is the basis for relationships. FTR attraction isnt just about physical looks. My point with that is if people are naturally attracted to each other, that invalidates the notion that its not natural. As for kids, again you brought that subject up. So Im not sure why you say this thread cant get past it when it wasnt the topic for 95% of this thread. Gays can have kids in a number of ways, so again its moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,656

Look guys, I'll say this once -

sexuality is caused by both genetic and environmental factors, be they intrauterine hormone or chemical flushes or postnatal socialization. Some studies show a difference in the response to male & female pheremones, and others show structural changes in various parts of the brain. Some are traced back to how one of the X chromosomes in the mother is passed on and expressed. In the vast majority of cases evidence indicates the cases from physical changes are present at birth.

We now return control of your television set to you until next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    8,759

And I was making a point. Attraction is normal correct? That's the argument being made and I agree, it is a lazy man argument. If we are going to open the flood gates, let's open them the entire way. Is it NATURAL? I don't think so but if a homosexual couple wants to be together, I am cool with that. But when we put it in black and white, it's not natural point blank period and that's the point I was making with those two links.

As pointed out, you cant have a contract with an object, or an animal for that matter so there is nothing to worry about, no flood gates exist in this manner so its moot. FYI the world isnt black and white so trying to put a subject into a category like that diminishes your over all point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hardcore Til I Die    286

"Bisexual men: Science says they're real"

Thanks Professor Obvious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nominak    982

Annd, let's kill that attraction debate, seriously. Yes I used 2 "n"s on purpose to emphasize a missed opportunity to make a point the first time. :p Just because you are attracted to someone or something doesn't make it right. But again, I COMPLETELY agree with their right to be together and if a bill ever came across my way, which I think one did at one point, I would vote yes for the right for homosexual couples to get married. They deserve to be happy just like everyone else.

As far as attractions, I'm guessing you guys are saying these people should get married as well right?

http://www.inquisitr.com/6745/japanese-man-wants-to-marry-anime-character/

http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/blogs/smitten/2009/08/this-woman-has-fallen-in-love.html

There are a ton more examples but I'm done posting them. Google is great for that...

Those 2 articles are just people who are attention ######. Nothing more. They don't have any real physical attraction to said objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman    476

You say people bring up stuff that doesnt have to do with the topic, which begs the question as to why did you state "They way I look at it, if two people were "meant" to be together they would be able to biologically have children". Correct me if Im wrong but I dont think that was the topic or even a subject till you brought it up. I agree topics such as this has a tendency to reach out to other areas that generally fall into the subject, just pointing out that this part wasnt the part being debated about.

Worthington has pointed out an opinion, not fact. For him its unnatural but he ignores the fact that attraction is the basis for relationships. FTR attraction isnt just about physical looks. My point with that is if people are naturally attracted to each other, that invalidates the notion that its not natural. As for kids, again you brought that subject up. So Im not sure why you say this thread cant get past it when it wasnt the topic for 95% of this thread. Gays can have kids in a number of ways, so again its moot.

As pointed out, you cant have a contract with an object, or an animal for that matter so there is nothing to worry about, no flood gates exist in this manner so its moot. FYI the world isnt black and white so trying to put a subject into a category like that diminishes your over all point.

The thread went from one place to the next quickly. It went from "Bisexual men: Science says they're real" to a debate it being right or wrong. Realistically the thread could have stopped at "Oh okay, that makes sense..." but it didn't. I stated my opinion on everything being said and I was dragged into it so let's isolate it right now. Am I okay with gay relationships and marriage? Hell yeah. Do I think it's natural? No. Where did kids come in? People of the same sex can't procreate with each other, period. I don't care what science is doing and I don't care about them adopting. If you give a little child a play set of blocks and sockets of different shapes, the triangle will NEVER fit in the circle no matter how hard you try. You can grab a saw and manipulate the circle but that doesn't make it natural or right. I understand trying to spin it in your favor but let me be clear about what I mean. Anything else is just talk.

And P.S., someone, I think you actually, made a point that attraction is natural. If attraction is natural then should it matter if the object of attraction is an object or an animal? Yes? More evidence of spin. This is why I hate politics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,636

the triangle will NEVER fit in the circle no matter how hard you try.

Just need to apply some lube, man :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seahorsepip    610

Before you say that you hate gays take this test to see if you aren't one yourself ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    8,759

The thread went from one place to the next quickly. It went from "Bisexual men: Science says they're real" to a debate it being right or wrong. Realistically the thread could have stopped at "Oh okay, that makes sense..." but it didn't. I stated my opinion on everything being said and I was dragged into it so let's isolate it right now. Am I okay with gay relationships and marriage? Hell yeah. Do I think it's natural? No. Where did kids come in? People of the same sex can't procreate with each other, period. I don't care what science is doing and I don't care about them adopting. If you give a little child a play set of blocks and sockets of different shapes, the triangle will NEVER fit in the circle no matter how hard you try. You can grab a saw and manipulate the circle but that doesn't make it natural or right. I understand trying to spin it in your favor but let me be clear about what I mean. Anything else is just talk.

Why should it have stopped with "Oh okay, that makes sense..." and by whom? If you dont like where the thread takes the direction, then dont participate, you do have that option. The only person dragging you through anything is you, by participating, period. Procreating has zero to do with someone's right to marry someone else, so that point is moot. Not everyone will have kids and if they want kids, there is a number of ways they can have/get them. But again this isnt related to being together or getting married and regardless of your view of gays having kids is moot cause you cant stop it. Im not sure what spin you think is going on.

And P.S., someone, I think you actually, made a point that attraction is natural. If attraction is natural then should it matter if the object of attraction is an object or an animal? Yes? More evidence of spin. This is why I hate politics...

Um spin for what exactly? I dont care if someone loves a bridge, that in no way affects me or anyone else. I do think an animal is a different story, they cant speak up for themselves. But attraction in of itself is harmless to anyone else so again what spin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite    127

The problem is that only sexual acts, sexual foreplay and sexual expression are sexuality, and you people think that hugging, feelings, connections have anything to do with that.

By lumping them all together, all you do is teach young people that giving a ******* is an way to connect with a person when all it is is physical stimulation and has nothing to do with the bonds humans form with each other.

Ever wonder why there's so many kids getting pregnant at age 15? Ever wonder why many guys can't keep a steady girlfriend and just sit around on porn sites? Ever wonder why more and more women "experiment" with other women in high school and college?

It's because these so-called academics, Freudian psychologist, sexual "liberation" movements and sex education courses in school have purposely reprogrammed people to think like animals. To consider mere genital stimulation as a proper form of human bond formation rather than just being the small, separate sets of acts that are meaningless other than the purposes of procreation and recreational activity.

Degeneracy of the species, in its purest form. We're turned from thinkers, lovers, and seekers of higher meaning to fetishists, chronic masturbators, and sex crazed nihilists who believe that the only things that matter are the stimulation of their genitals and anus...followed by a hug of course, just to keep it "nice".

Good post.

Since you are gay I was wondering if you could answer a question from a homosexual perspective? Do you cringe if you're checking out an ass that you suspect belongs to a male but then find out it's actually a woman's? Just curious.

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.