Be a Supporter!

Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia

  • 4,482 Views
  • 137 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
zag
zag
  • Member since: Feb. 1, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 16:17:51 Reply

At 10/16/11 04:07 PM, StCyril wrote:
At 10/15/11 05:45 PM, toastburner wrote:
At 10/14/11 10:24 PM, StCyril wrote: Um, have you ever been sodomized or taken it up the bum bum sir? Because it doesn't look pleasant and rectum exams are no fun at all!
I have and it feels very good.
I don't think I even wanna know....

anal feels amazing when done properly. far better than any other sexual act...


BBS Signature
zag
zag
  • Member since: Feb. 1, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 16:19:31 Reply

At 10/15/11 05:26 PM, ModernPatriot wrote: Completely agree. It's about time someone else has said it. Homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction.

no more so than fapping to pictures of futanari.


BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 16:46:40 Reply

At 10/15/11 03:38 PM, Hybridization wrote:

Of course, but you seem to ignore the fact that a "homosexual gene" would have to be recessive only - and would have deteriorated very early on.

Recessive genes don't deteriorate, though. Also, I didn't ignore this fact of yours.

Genes don't come out of nowhere,

No, but genes can build more genes if I'm not mistaken.

and a mutation like this would have gone extinct due to sterilization (not that this would be a double-problem, right?).

Who says homosexuality is a mutation? Can't it be carried as a trait on a recessive gene?

I'm not saying it's an impossibility; but, there are far too many proclaimed "natural homosexuals" for it to be true in this generation or any that come after us.

"Too many"? How can you come to that conclusion at all? That's just your unqualified opinion, not scientific fact.

Theories of environmental influence seem to fly out the window when talking about homosexuality.

No they don't. They're talked about all of the time.

So, the only way it could be a biological trait is through mutation in the psychological brain,

"Psychological brain"? What the fuck does that even mean? Also, how can homosexuality only exist as a biological trait in the form of a mutation?

and there is no evidence for this. Psychology strongly supports the idea that we are almost
completely shaped by our environment (parents, friends, housing, nation, etc).

But psychology doesn't strongly support the idea that homosexuality is a result of the environment.

And homosexuality has more to do with the brain and neuroscience than it does with psychology, no doubt. Sexual orientation is completely biological, not psychological.

Even though homosexuality has more to do with neuroscience than psychology....
I don't see the point you're trying to make.

It's pretty fucking obvious if you ask me.

Neurological disorders can form from severe psychological issues - if "gay" is even a trait.

Yeah, but homosexuality isn't a disorder. The American Psychological Association doesn't even recognize homosexuality as a disorder or mental illness.

The American Psychological Association has this to say on the matter:

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach 1951 ; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953 ). Homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder (APA, 1975). Link.

Therefore, it is much more likely that "homosexuality" is purely a malignant psychological anomaly - like the other, more outcast forms of "love" listed by the OP.

The American Psychological Association disagrees with you, and I'm much more inclined to agree with them than I am with you.


Because it hinders the survival of the species entirely, (I thought this would be obvious from an evolutionary perspective). Therefore, homosexuality is a malignant disorder.

It's funny because homosexuality has been thoroughly observed in hundreds of species in the animal kingdom and those species don't seem to have much internal trouble increasing their numbers.

I respect people, but I have NO problem calling their way of life a danger to the species any more than murders (especially lesbians).

*Sigh.*

And, if any are offended by the negative connotation, oh well - I am being purely scientific on the matter because that's the only way to argue without incorporating subjective opinions (and, probably religion).

You say you're being "scientific" on the matter, but most scientists would disagree with you in a heartbeat.

I would say the same for people who have sex with animals and introduce new diseases into our race that wouldn't have infected us otherwise.

What?

(Malignant: [pathology]; threatening to survival; virulent, or otherwise harmful disease.)

This definition of the word would help you so much if scientists didn't generally disagree with what you're asserting.

Homosexuality is natural and has been proven to exist in the animal kingdom.
I understand this, but it doesn't mean the animal (probably the dolphin)

Hundreds of species in the animal kingdom have been identified as having some members exhibiting homosexual behavior.

is "homosexual", it's simply means we define the act as "gay".

OK then, so if I enjoy fucking a guy in the ass...and I'm a guy, then it's not homosexual behavior...It's just "gay."

*Facepalm.*

It has nothing to do with inclination - which is what I've been saying this whole time. Pleasure is subjective.

No it's not. Pleasure can be scientifically measured by neuron impulses in the body. Pleasure consists entirely of biochemicals and electrical signals.

A scientific study that indicates that the brain structure is wired this way would be a better argument that "they enjoy it". I can demonstrate this with the hypothetical situation of a subject being blindfolded and given an object to pleasure him/herself with; and, chances are, they will enjoy it without ever knowing what it was (whether they were a proclaimed homosexual, heterosexual, or car-fucker).

I don't even know what you're talking about now. You really have lost me.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
ghostxero
ghostxero
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 16:52:04 Reply

i am every possible combination of these 3.....hence y i am a grown man on a site populated by kids..........


if my calculations are correct. When this baby hits 88 miles an hour, your gonna see some serious shit!

BBS Signature
II2none
II2none
  • Member since: Jul. 21, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Gamer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 16:57:20 Reply

In the U.S homosexual populous hasn't even reached 20% in any state so as far as this country it's not goin to catch on for a LONG while. This fetish doesn't keep babies booming so of course it won't become popular.


QOTW:
"I hate you because you never pass up and opportunity to mention that you are a "female"-Wreckr
How to review like your opinion matters

BBS Signature
SpaceWhale
SpaceWhale
  • Member since: Jan. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Musician
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 17:12:46 Reply

At 10/15/11 05:26 PM, ModernPatriot wrote: Completely agree. It's about time someone else has said it. Homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction.

you know, i think mr. Bees said it best.

every time i think wow this idiot cant get any more stupid you just prove me wrong


Can you feel it mister Krabs?

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 17:32:39 Reply

At 10/16/11 05:12 PM, Space-Whale wrote:
At 10/15/11 05:26 PM, ModernPatriot wrote: Completely agree. It's about time someone else has said it. Homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction.
you know, i think mr. Bees said it best.

every time i think wow this idiot cant get any more stupid you just prove me wrong

Yeah...

Homosexuality is not a sexual dysfunction by definition.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
ModernPatriot
ModernPatriot
  • Member since: May. 27, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 19:17:41 Reply

At 10/16/11 04:19 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/15/11 05:26 PM, ModernPatriot wrote: Completely agree. It's about time someone else has said it. Homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction.
no more so than fapping to pictures of futanari.

Can't help it. I just love cock girls.

At 10/16/11 05:12 PM, Space-Whale wrote:
At 10/15/11 05:26 PM, ModernPatriot wrote: Completely agree. It's about time someone else has said it. Homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction.
you know, i think mr. Bees said it best.

every time i think wow this idiot cant get any more stupid you just prove me wrong

The reason that nobody considers homosexuality to be a sexual dysfunction is because of the APA. If the APA stops considering something to be a dysfunction, then so does society as a whole. This is why pro-pedophile activists are so keen on getting the APA to declassify pedophilia as a dysfunction, and refer to it as a sexual preference.

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/16878/
as-i-predicted-pro-pedophilia-activists-
work-with-apa-to-destigmatize-sex-with-c hildren/

All this is brainwashing.


A man once described hell as a place where there is no reason. Thank you, Feminists, for dragging me into hell.

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 19:38:23 Reply

At 10/16/11 07:17 PM, ModernPatriot wrote:
The reason that nobody considers homosexuality to be a sexual dysfunction is because of the APA. If the APA stops considering something to be a dysfunction, then so does society as a whole.

There is no evidence now and there was no evidence then to suggest that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction, though.

This is why pro-pedophile activists are so keen on getting the APA to declassify pedophilia as a
dysfunction, and refer to it as a sexual preference.

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/16878/
as-i-predicted-pro-pedophilia-activists-
work-with-apa-to-destigmatize-sex-with-c hildren/

All this is brainwashing.

LOLOOLOLOL Let's take an excerpt of text from your completely reliable link and break it apart:

But there are many, as I have detailed here, who see pedophiles as an oppressed minority. They see the road to freedom as being the same road homosexuals marched down. The first step would be the removal of pedophilia as a mental illness, a move the APA has already considered.

It's funny because this claim within the text that the APA has considered redefining pedophilia is actually unsourced; the link within this part of the excerpt sent me to a error 404(Which means the page does not exist, in case you didn't know) page of a Christian lobbying organization that works in Washington D.C. Although I have yet to see the source for myself, I doubt it would've been reliable anyway.

Link me to a page from the APA website discussing this matter and I'll be more inclined to believe people like you, ModernPatriot.

Then, using the research of Kinsey and others mentioned above, the move would be made to abolish the age of consent. With the seeming support of science, this could be possible and it would effectively legalize pedophilia. With the legal burden lifted, the effort would then shift to normalization and acceptance. This is done by pedophiles casting themselves as a minority, a victim of a culture that rejects them. March after march makes the sight of a fifty year old man giving a six year old boy a deep tongue kiss nothing more than a sign of America's tolerance, regardless of who gets hurt.

This would obviously never happen. Also, this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, The APA likely won't comply with these pedophiles' wishes. Pedophiles are exploiting the young and innocent. With homosexuals, no one's being harmed.

And you say there's brainwashing going on, ModernPatriot? Who's doing the brainwashing?


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
camobch0
camobch0
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Gamer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-16 20:41:46 Reply

Pedophilia harms children always, zoophilia harms innocent animals (I'm pretty sure there aren't any animals who want to fuck a human), and adult consensual homosexuality is no more damaging than adult consensual heterosexuality.


A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.

BBS Signature
StCyril
StCyril
  • Member since: Feb. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-17 06:30:08 Reply

At 10/16/11 07:38 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: There is no evidence now and there was no evidence then to suggest that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction, though.

There really isn't any evidence to the contrary either though... In short, no one truly knows what causes it...

This is why pro-pedophile activists are so keen on getting the APA to declassify pedophilia as a
dysfunction, and refer to it as a sexual preference.

Ugh....

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/16878/

This really isnt good source material... ANYONE can go online and blog.

as-i-predicted-pro-pedophilia-activists-
work-with-apa-to-destigmatize-sex-with-c hildren/

Never happen.

All this is brainwashing.

What!?

LOLOOLOLOL Let's take an excerpt of text from your completely reliable link and break it apart:

Seconded...

But there are many, as I have detailed here, who see pedophiles as an oppressed minority.

No they're not. What they have is definitely a mental defect! At one point long ago, this may have been acceptable (1800s) but that was long ago. Times have changed and people have evolved.

They see the road to freedom as being the same road homosexuals marched down. The first step would be the removal of pedophilia as a mental illness, a move the APA has already considered.

And then....

It's funny because this claim within the text that the APA has considered redefining pedophilia is actually unsourced; the link within this part of the excerpt sent me to a error 404(Which means the page does not exist, in case you didn't know)

Typical of sites like the American blogger.

page of a Christian lobbying organization that works in Washington D.C. Although I have yet to see the source for myself, I doubt it would've been reliable anyway.

A christian organization working for this? What are they the Westboro Baptist church?

Link me to a page from the APA website discussing this matter and I'll be more inclined to believe people like you, ModernPatriot.

Won't happen...

Then, using the research of Kinsey and others mentioned above, the move would be made to abolish the age of consent. With the seeming support of science, this could be possible and it would effectively legalize pedophilia. With the legal burden lifted, the effort would then shift to normalization and acceptance. This is done by pedophiles casting themselves as a minority, a victim of a culture that rejects them. March after march makes the sight of a fifty year old man giving a six year old boy a deep tongue kiss nothing more than a sign of America's tolerance, regardless of who gets hurt.

This would obviously never happen. Also, this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, if I'm not mistaken.

You're not... this is pretty scarey if anyone ever decided to listen to crew balls like this. Though I will say that attitudes like the one off of his link did start because it worked for homosexuality...

Anyway, The APA likely won't comply with these pedophiles' wishes. Pedophiles are exploiting the young and innocent. With homosexuals, no one's being harmed.

That's true, but if both work the same way, sexual preferences that stem from an imbalance in the brain or just a perversion of mental condition, then should not a treatment be made available for both if someone wants it?

And you say there's brainwashing going on, ModernPatriot? Who's doing the brainwashing?

Seconded.... ModernPatriot... my post at the begining of this whole mess was not in favor of homosexuality or pedophilia, or anything of the sort.

My point is that if you take away the fact that one happens between two consenting people while the other two obviously don't, they are all three the same thing. An alternative and unusual sexual preference. Although there is no real treatment for any of the above, there is work going on to treat Pedophilia at least.

I can't say whether or not research is being done for zoophilia as quite frankly it is a pretty rare occurance. However my argument is this... if you think about it, all three are the same thing: a sexual preference that is triggered either by nature, nurture, or a mental defect. So regardless of the fact that people may be offended, should treatments not be researched for the people who want them because someone might be offended?

It seems to me that hurt feelings is not really a good reason not to help those who don't want to suffer through dealing with any one of the three...


Best Thread Ever!
"I think StCyril deserves a Highfive for getting two threads made about him and half the BBS pissed off over nothing!" - Seeinthedark

BBS Signature
Suprememessage
Suprememessage
  • Member since: Dec. 29, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Melancholy
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-17 06:32:35 Reply

Because the first two can scar people for life and are against nature, and homosexuality can be done with no lasting side effects.

CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-17 07:15:40 Reply

At 10/17/11 06:32 AM, Suprememessage wrote: Because the first two can scar people for life and are against nature, and homosexuality can be done with no lasting side effects.

If it weren't for what we today call pedophilia, or at least in Western countries, we would likely not exist. As you push back further into time you will notice the life expectancy of humans dropped. So much so that you could die coming out of your teenage years and some today don't make it past infancy. But the human race continued, simply due to people have sex as soon as puberty set in. It wasn't all that long ago that young girls were married to adult men. Pedophilia differs from person to person, country to country, all on the basis of consent. The idea anyone (usually) under the age of 18 is unable to make a sexual decision on their own, but as soon as they turn 18 they magically have such an ability. So to say an 18 year old in a relationship with a 17 year old would be called a pedophile in a number of countries. The fact is you can easily make more arguments in support of pedophilia, within reason, then you can for homosexuality.

Zoophilia or Bestiality obviously doesn't create any known natural benefit (continuation of the species), just like homosexuality. However in the case of pleasure it is entirely subjective. There are men that get off screwing tail pipes and women that get off on the washing machine. We kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of "innocent" animals daily, and last time I checked they never gave their consent...so why would someone require consent to screw an animal.

Necrophilia is in the same non-natural-benefit as Bestiality. The pleasure is again subjective, and consent can be given before death via verbally on the death bed, or through a will (for example). Obviously it is disgusting, or at least as we have been programmed to think by our culture.

So the question is, why is it if human rights are not being broken. If these things are not seen visually, not heard audibly, consent is present when applicable. Are the other "perversions" or bits of "mental illness" not allowed to follow the same path that homosexuality has?

p.s: I do not support, promote, condone, or advocate any sexuality outside of heterosexuality or beautiful lesbians (i'm allowed to be bias). To each their own, just keep it to yourself.

Suprememessage
Suprememessage
  • Member since: Dec. 29, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Melancholy
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-17 07:17:29 Reply

At 10/17/11 07:15 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

But pre-pubescants can't have children, meaning that it's useless to us anyway.

CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-17 07:28:38 Reply

At 10/17/11 07:17 AM, Suprememessage wrote: But pre-pubescants can't have children, meaning that it's useless to us anyway.

In the case of prepubescent's the natural benefit is obviously cut out. However that still leaves pleasure which is unique to each person, and consent which varies just as much as pleasure does.

TruBluFoxx
TruBluFoxx
  • Member since: Sep. 2, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-17 08:11:45 Reply

At 10/16/11 08:41 PM, camobch0 wrote: Pedophilia harms children always, zoophilia harms innocent animals (I'm pretty sure there aren't any animals who want to fuck a human), and adult consensual homosexuality is no more damaging than adult consensual heterosexuality.

I have a feeling that this should have ended the conversation...


BBS Signature
StCyril
StCyril
  • Member since: Feb. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-18 21:41:04 Reply

At 10/17/11 07:28 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:
At 10/17/11 07:17 AM, Suprememessage wrote: But pre-pubescants can't have children, meaning that it's useless to us anyway.
In the case of prepubescent's the natural benefit is obviously cut out. However that still leaves pleasure which is unique to each person, and consent which varies just as much as pleasure does.

I'm sorry, thats where I think the line gets drawn, if someone hasn't even reached pubescence? I mean come on, I would even argue a few years into it just because some people's hormones get so out of control then pumping the break on a car turns them on!


Best Thread Ever!
"I think StCyril deserves a Highfive for getting two threads made about him and half the BBS pissed off over nothing!" - Seeinthedark

BBS Signature
Love
Love
  • Member since: May. 26, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Melancholy
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 12:46:44 Reply

At 10/16/11 04:46 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:
At 10/15/11 03:38 PM, Hybridization wrote:
Of course, but you seem to ignore the fact that a "homosexual gene" would have to be recessive only - and would have deteriorated very early on.
Recessive genes don't deteriorate, though. Also, I didn't ignore this fact of yours.

The genes themselves don't deteriorate, but after several generations, the number of carriers can easily disappear within the species - I don't know how you can argue against this. You may not have ignored it, but you certainly don't understand it.

Genes don't come out of nowhere,
No, but genes can build more genes if I'm not mistaken.

You're not mistaken; but again, you misunderstand the subject. Given what I have said above, dominant genes would build at a faster rate than the recessive (understandably?), so how on Earth could this recessive gene overtake a dominant gene when it would have to build at a less than 25% rate EVEN IF "homosexuality" could be passed on through family. The dominant gene would overtake nearly all recessive very rapidly. (An example of this would be purple-colored irises).

and a mutation like this would have gone extinct due to sterilization (not that this would be a double-problem, right?).
Who says homosexuality is a mutation? Can't it be carried as a trait on a recessive gene?

I believe someone else had suggested that it could be a mutation. If this was not you, I apologize. However, the point is still valid. And, I believe I thoroughly explained your second question already.

I'm not saying it's an impossibility; but, there are far too many proclaimed "natural homosexuals" for it to be true in this generation or any that come after us.
"Too many"? How can you come to that conclusion at all? That's just your unqualified opinion, not scientific fact.

Haha, what world do you live in? Are you saying that there aren't many people who claim they are homosexual? And, you've dismissed the scientific reasoning I've provided throughout our entire "debate". Stop asking for it if you don't understand it.

Theories of environmental influence seem to fly out the window when talking about homosexuality.
No they don't. They're talked about all of the time.

And they are immediately dismissed and ignored when brought to the table (much like this entire thread). You try to argue that homosexuality is natural, yet, you dismiss contradicting evidence (environment), even fail to address it thoroughly enough for anyone to make a counter-argument.

So, the only way it could be a biological trait is through mutation in the psychological brain,
"Psychological brain"? What the fuck does that even mean?

Lol

Also, how can homosexuality only exist as a biological trait in the form of a mutation?

Because it is theoretically impossible to be passed on. My points before have been hypotheticals that would disprove the idea even if it was possible for same-sex couples to have genetic children (is this too hard to understand too?).

and there is no evidence for this. Psychology strongly supports the idea that we are almost
completely shaped by our environment (parents, friends, housing, nation, etc).
But psychology doesn't strongly support the idea that homosexuality is a result of the environment.

This is simply not true - clearly an absolute stab in the dark, and a subject you have no background in whatsoever.

Even though homosexuality has more to do with neuroscience than psychology....
I don't see the point you're trying to make.
It's pretty fucking obvious if you ask me.

Apparently not if I cued for elaboration, idiot!

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach 1951 ; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953 ). Homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder (APA, 1975). Link.

So, you are using this to argue against a hypothetical that already accepts the fact that homosexuality is a gene at all? You're not (or, rather, your source is not) addressing the issue or defending your argument in the slightest.

Therefore, it is much more likely that "homosexuality" is purely a malignant psychological anomaly - like the other, more outcast forms of "love" listed by the OP.
The American Psychological Association disagrees with you, and I'm much more inclined to agree with them than I am with you.

Great! I'm sure the psychology program administrators and Phd's in the field at my university would love to argue about how your sacred APA doesn't address the problem. But, good for you not thinking for yourself! I could care less if you agree with me or not, but you're forfeiting the argument in a childish "talk-to-the-hand" method.

Because it hinders the survival of the species entirely, (I thought this would be obvious from an evolutionary perspective). Therefore, homosexuality is a malignant disorder.
It's funny because homosexuality has been thoroughly observed in hundreds of species in the animal kingdom and those species don't seem to have much internal trouble increasing their numbers.

It's funny because "homosexuality" is a human construct that defines gay sexual acts; and therefore, your point furthers my argument that it is not a biological "anything". Nice work!

I respect people, but I have NO problem calling their way of life a danger to the species any more than murders (especially lesbians).
*Sigh.*

Are you going to cry now? Or do I have to explain it to you.

And, if any are offended by the negative connotation, oh well - I am being purely scientific on the matter because that's the only way to argue without incorporating subjective opinions (and, probably religion).
You say you're being "scientific" on the matter, but most scientists would disagree with you in a heartbeat.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a scientist. This is a surprise! Unfortunately, you also need a degree in psychology. Oh but I'm sure your knowledge of the community's stance is more than enough!

I would say the same for people who have sex with animals and introduce new diseases into our race that wouldn't have infected us otherwise.
What?

Hmmm, I guess you're not a scientist after all...Why did you lie to me :(

Homosexuality is natural and has been proven to exist in the animal kingdom.
I understand this, but it doesn't mean the animal (probably the dolphin)
Hundreds of species in the animal kingdom have been identified as having some members exhibiting homosexual behavior.

I know, that's why I gave an example. (?)

is "homosexual", it's simply means we define the act as "gay".
OK then, so if I enjoy fucking a guy in the ass...and I'm a guy, then it's not homosexual behavior...It's just "gay."

*Facepalm.*

Biological homosexuality? You know, the subject our argument has been on this whole time? Where have I used the phrase "homosexual behavior", and then please direct me to the response that I suggested it was any different than "gay acts".

And to this complete nonsense: yes it would be homosexual behavior (and also gay, obviously?). However, it would not indicate that you were naturally gay.

It has nothing to do with inclination - which is what I've been saying this whole time. Pleasure is subjective.
No it's not. Pleasure can be scientifically measured by neuron impulses in the body. Pleasure consists entirely of biochemicals and electrical signals.

And those measurements are subjective from person to person. (Hence, the definition).

You're making yourself look like a fool.

I don't even know what you're talking about now. You really have lost me.

Don't worry. I'm confident you had no idea what we were talking about to begin with.


BBS Signature
Love
Love
  • Member since: May. 26, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Melancholy
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 13:50:45 Reply

At 10/16/11 08:41 PM, camobch0 wrote: ... (I'm pretty sure there aren't any animals who want to fuck a human)

Lol, this needs to be on a T-shirt.


BBS Signature
DonCarrera
DonCarrera
  • Member since: May. 13, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 13:52:44 Reply

At 10/19/11 01:50 PM, Hybridization wrote: Lol, this needs to be on a T-shirt.

Find a website where you can add your own custom captions to T-Shirts and do it!
No one is stopping you, girl.

zag
zag
  • Member since: Feb. 1, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 15:33:49 Reply

At 10/16/11 08:41 PM, camobch0 wrote: ...I'm pretty sure there aren't any animals who want to fuck a human

honestly, animals just want to get off. if they really weren't interested at all, they wouldn't hump human legs.

At 10/16/11 04:19 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/15/11 05:26 PM, ModernPatriot wrote:
no more so than fapping to pictures of futanari.
Can't help it. I just love cock girls.

homosexuals can't help it. they just love members of the same sex.
it's neither wrong, nor right. it just is.


BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 15:51:51 Reply

I think it's because homosexuality is viewed as something natural. You certainly see gay animals, but you don't see a lot of animals having sex with underaged animals...I don't think? As for zoophilia, well, because I think whenever animals have been attracted to humans, it's never been worked out well. Pedophilia is about abuse at least most of the time and zoophilia is something simply everyone is against.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Suprememessage
Suprememessage
  • Member since: Dec. 29, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Melancholy
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 15:53:45 Reply

At 10/17/11 07:28 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:
At 10/17/11 07:17 AM, Suprememessage wrote: But pre-pubescants can't have children, meaning that it's useless to us anyway.
In the case of prepubescent's the natural benefit is obviously cut out. However that still leaves pleasure which is unique to each person, and consent which varies just as much as pleasure does.

But it invalidates you saying that it's why we are still here today, since only if the female could have birth would it have anything to do with the continuity of the human race.

TruBluFoxx
TruBluFoxx
  • Member since: Sep. 2, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 16:10:34 Reply

At 10/19/11 03:33 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/16/11 08:41 PM, camobch0 wrote: ...I'm pretty sure there aren't any animals who want to fuck a human
honestly, animals just want to get off. if they really weren't interested at all, they wouldn't hump human legs.

The humping is a dominance thing....


BBS Signature
zag
zag
  • Member since: Feb. 1, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 16:20:46 Reply

At 10/19/11 04:10 PM, TruBluFoxx wrote:
At 10/19/11 03:33 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/16/11 08:41 PM, camobch0 wrote: ...I'm pretty sure there aren't any animals who want to fuck a human
honestly, animals just want to get off. if they really weren't interested at all, they wouldn't hump human legs.
The humping is a dominance thing....

primarily, yes. however, pleasure also plays a role.
dogs feel pleasure from sex. while procreating is the largest reason they do it, I promise you that there are animals that just enjoy cumming.


BBS Signature
BasedBubbus
BasedBubbus
  • Member since: Jul. 8, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 16:22:57 Reply

As long as you don't rape any little girls they're all cool with me.


I'm a single father and a multimillionaire.

BBS Signature
zag
zag
  • Member since: Feb. 1, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 16:26:46 Reply

At 10/19/11 04:22 PM, MiloBased wrote: As long as you don't rape any little girls they're all cool with me.

little boys are safe for the picking then? ;)


BBS Signature
BasedBubbus
BasedBubbus
  • Member since: Jul. 8, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 16:27:46 Reply

At 10/19/11 04:26 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/19/11 04:22 PM, MiloBased wrote: As long as you don't rape any little girls they're all cool with me.
little boys are safe for the picking then? ;)

no


I'm a single father and a multimillionaire.

BBS Signature
zag
zag
  • Member since: Feb. 1, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Writer
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 16:36:15 Reply

At 10/19/11 04:27 PM, MiloBased wrote:
At 10/19/11 04:26 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/19/11 04:22 PM, MiloBased wrote: As long as you don't rape any little girls they're all cool with me.
little boys are safe for the picking then? ;)
no

d'aww :'(

you should have been more specific above :P

BBS Signature
BasedBubbus
BasedBubbus
  • Member since: Jul. 8, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Homosexuality/Ped ophelia/Zoophilia 2011-10-19 16:37:17 Reply

At 10/19/11 04:36 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/19/11 04:27 PM, MiloBased wrote:
At 10/19/11 04:26 PM, zag wrote:
At 10/19/11 04:22 PM, MiloBased wrote: As long as you don't rape any little girls they're all cool with me.
little boys are safe for the picking then? ;)
no
d'aww :'(

you should have been more specific above :P

no i shouldn't have


I'm a single father and a multimillionaire.

BBS Signature