Tim Hardaway and his love of gays

[Viking]

It's global warming ... and it's Al Gore's fault, the ****ing liberal studmuffingot.

[storch]

Originally posted by Viking
It's global warming ... and it's Al Gore's fault, the ****ing liberal studmuffingot.

well now there ya go. do you see what one visit and a tithe offering at the local lutheran church does??  good job.  I'm very proud of you.

[Viking]

Thank you Master.

[Entr0py]

I won't interact with people who have too thin a skin.   I don't mind most gays but don't even bother to try to interact with blacks for instance..  they are far too sensitive and have far too big a chip on their shoulder for me to even bother with.

Some of this is societal...  blacks and gays (to name a few) are tending to believe the victimhood crap that liberal socialists spout...   they are whiny and demanding and unfun to be around.

come at me like an equal and I will treat you like an equal... come at me like I owe you and I will leave in disgust.   Real men don't act that way.  

lazs

Thats funny, for some reason this part of your post sounds like it was written in the Chicago blue collar accent (blaaaaacks) with the a's in the middle sounding real nasally. Anyone from the area knows what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I've read this sort of statement in your posts before. I think it is somwhat irresponsible of you to assign behavioral characteristics to a whole race or sexual orientation group based on a limited interaction sample. I've witnessed unattractive behavior by people of all races and orientations and I dont think it's healthy to extrapolate thier behavior to include an entire group.
Besides, I take pride in having to fight, scrape, and scratch for every single thing i have and I've never been anyones victim. Black people are not a monolith. Black trash exists just as White trash does. Sounds like thats what you've been dealing with.

[lazs2]

entropy.. we would probly get along but... you would have to realize that since so many negros/african american/melinen superior/ s are as I have described that it has affected how I interact with you BEFORE I get to know you... so many are as I describe that I just don't bother... And why should I?  

BTW.. ok.. there you go again... I don't even know what passive agressive means.

But... we are back to things that happen in the womb and things that happen after...  in the womb=born that way?   out of the womb=environmental?  or, close enough?

Now.. lets take it further..  if you believe that most of our sexuality is simply that we are born that way... I agree.   If you are saying that we are born some sort of asexual and that environment decides if we are gay or straight..  then I don't agree with you.

I don't think straight people can become permenently gay or gay people straight... in short...  we are hardwired.

I do believe that we can be influenced to some temporary shift but that given choice... we will revert to our hardwired self.

Am I also right in saying that what you believe is simply... what you believe if you can't assign specific numbers to genetic/chemical and environmental?   That any numbers of percent you assign would simply be your opinion?

My opinion is that we are born that way... any deviation from how we are hardwired is simply a matter of convienience or circumstance and not the real person who will revert to his hardwired sexual preference if given the chance.

To not believe this is to believe that no one is born hetro.   That we are fooling ourselves and that with a little education and training... we could become real flamers.

lazs

[BTW]

Laz I think you are looking at sexuality in a very narrow scope. I don't think its like a light switch where you're either gay or straight. I think it would be more of a degree and even type. Even the same basic sexual orientation can be different based on the culture you live in. So heck yea, I believe environment has a whole lot to do with sexual orientation.

There is no natural reason for a grown man to be aroused by the sight of a woman's breast, yet that is considered a heterosexual response in our culture. And the response is environmentally conditioned. Its a conditioned behavior. Are men faking this attraction to breasts? I know I'm not and I know there's no natural reason for it. I never decided to form this abnormal attraction, but something in my upbringing conditioned it.

Every sexual orientation also have abnormal fetishes. These fetishes are a very real part of the persons orientation and not faked by any means. And yet they can only be explained as conditioned responses.

There is profound evidence that environment affects sexual orientation on a permanent basis.

[lazs2]

BTW... you are making no sense..  You seem to be saying that once we find this nebulous "conditioning" that has made us gay or straight...  that there is no reason that we can't form a persons sexuality with environment.  

You would have to say that straight people... people born hetro... could be conditioned to permenently reverse their sexual beings and turn homo and never look back?

I am saying that it is hardwired into us at birth..  that environment plays a tiny role and that it can only cause temporary confusion in a person as they are reaching puberty but that the4 person will eventually revert to his hardwired sexual preference.

It would seem crazy to not think this were true.   It would make survival of man... much less every other species... a very iffy thing.

Are you saying that in animals that the homo ones or hetro for that mater, are simply that way cause of.... of the way they are raised?

Are you saying that gays can be turned into hetros with the right environment after they are born?   That hetros can be permenently turned into homos with a little teaching?

What is your point?

lazs

[BTW]

I'll make you a deal Laz. Quote the part you think doesn't make sense and I'll try to clear it up for you. Don't make up something, attribute it to me ( I suspect thats why you don't quote?) and tell me it doesn't make sense.

[eskimo2]

The Kinsey scale attempts to measure sexual orientation, from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). It was first published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) by Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others, and was also prominent in the complementary work Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

Introducing the scale, Kinsey wrote:

“ Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)
 ”

The scale is as follows:

Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Scale

[lukster]

Originally posted by eskimo2
The Kinsey scale attempts to measure sexual orientation, from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). It was first published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) by Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others, and was also prominent in the complementary work Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

Introducing the scale, Kinsey wrote:

“ Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)
 ”

The scale is as follows:

Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Scale

I always thought sexuality was about sex. There are only three (not six) possibilities imo. Heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.

[storch]

there is one category of sex.  that is hetero, then there is deviant sex as practiced by liberals, and other homos.

[BTW]

Originally posted by lukster
I always thought sexuality was about sex. There are only three (not six) possibilities imo. Heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.

You've never listened to rock'n'roll. If your total sexual experience in life has been coitus, you're either a liar or abnormal and deprived

[BTW]

Originally posted by storch
there is one category of sex.  that is hetero, then there is deviant sex as practiced by liberals, and other homos.

Deviant sex would be foreplay in the redneck world?

[Jackal1]

How high is the water Momma?
Well...it`s not water, but it has sure got deep in a hurry.

[lazs2]

btw..  "There is no natural reason for a grown man to be aroused by the sight of a woman's breast, yet that is considered a heterosexual response in our culture. And the response is environmentally conditioned."

So you are saying that there is no natural reason for hetros to get aroused by women?   that they were not born that way?   Or is it just the narrow term "breasts" that you are talking about (don't want to put words in your mouth)

How exactly do you know that we aren't born to get aroused by breasts?   If we are born hetro that is.   I mean..  The way men function is that we have to be aroused in order to procreate...  It would seem that if any of our sexuality was genetic (which you admit to at least some) then we would have to have triggers.

Why do animals get aroused?   certainly not from what other animals whisper to them in the lockerrooms or books they have read?

My guess is that we, hetros, are aroused by breasts because they get us that much closer to the real goal and that a woman bent over doing chores would arouse the natural instinct even more in hetros.   I really don't know what the natural trigger is for homos but I am sure there are a few and for the same reasons.

environment may distort the natural triggers to some extent tho...like fetishes..  The brain is very powerful but.. that does not mean the person was not born with the sexual preference he has.

Some fetishes are harmful and can be considered damage by environment.. some are irreparable.  

But..  what is your point?   You say that at least some of our orientation happens in the womb.   I would agree.

Do you also agree that if it does that it could be said "we are born that way"?

lazs