Why are orientation changes/conversions only 1-way?

[CLAX1911]

All Ramfel is promoting is animalistic morality.

No, justification for his bias.

It's amazing the way people will manipulate reality to justify bias.

 

[CLAX1911]

What is the purpose of a child dying of cancer, what is the purpose of life what is the purpose of death? Without these answers by some peoples definition life itself is unnatural. To say we don't know the purpose opens Pandora's box. Because if we don't know the purpose of something we have yet to learn it, meaning that we can't know for a fact that something has no purpose.

On top of that, cell phones, car batteries, cyberspace and satellite telescopes have purpose but are definitely not natural, by definition.

 

[RamFel]

I so called that one. But no worries. I shall bring those points back up for review since you can't be bothered to look them up yourself.

Yeah, I figured you’ll bring them back up as they occur in our discussion anyway, so why go back and read them?

You have no proof that procreation is nature's only purpose for sex, nor have you offered any at all during this thread. The evidence is equally towards you seeing only one purpose based upon your desires. There is no argument that procreation is a purpose, but given that sex can happen without procreation, logically it is not the only purpose.

But, my friend, you have no proof that it’s not natures only purposes, and since pregnancy is the end result of engaging in sex, it makes sense for you to conclude that procreation is it’s true purpose. Why are you waiting for a better conclusion when there are none? Why would anyone with deduction skills question it? And why do you bring up the pleasure aspect when I have already explained that the purpose of pleasure is to encourage you to have sex. For procreation.

2 + 2 does equal 4.

Why must there be a prime purpose? And should there even be one, which would indicate that there were multiple purposes, by what logic do you determine that said (supposed) prime purpose must be fulfilled each time a couple (or more) engage in sex?

By what logic do you doubt it? When you consider our two opposing conclusions, what makes you choose the “we don’t know what the purpose of homosexuality is yet (nothing is observable) but we’re sure there must be a purpose” as opposed to the “I know that the purpose of sex is procreation because I can see it, or it happens everyday (something is observable)”? Why do you question sex having a prime purpose?

Why? What logic are you using?

Insects do not engage in sex for pleasure. There are a few of the higher animals to do indeed engage in sex for pleasure, humans among them. So the comparison is not a valid one. Sex, in addition to procreation and pleasure, serves as a bonding experience between individuals who possess intimate feelings towards one another. Any one the the three purposes (with no intent to imply that there are only three purposes) or any combination can be achieved with the various sex acts.

Right. They don’t. But you seem to be confused as to why I made that comparison. Nature uses sexual desire to get us to have sex just like it uses pheromones to get insects to mate/lay eggs/ and so on.

What you intended to talk about and what argument you presented are two different things. The absence argument would indeed have to be an across the board argument. But that seems not to be your intended argument, or maybe more to the point not your intended conclusion. It would indeed make a great point towards the concept of procreation alone, but dispute your desire, human sex is not solely about procreation.

What I’m trying to convey to you is the simple concept of the need for an opposite-sex in sexual intercourse. When two men have sex together, it serves the human purposes of pleasure but does nothing for nature’s purposes and therefore it is useless and has no purpose.

You have not shown that my argument fails because you have not shown that your premise of procreation as the only purpose of sex holds true. When other animals get to the point of no longer being able to bear young they no longer engage in sex. Humans continue to do so, regardless of the ability to procreate. Thus, procreation is not the sole purpose of sex.

I think I just made a very good set of points (Above) to show that you’re absolutely wrong.

But you are looking to convince people that your viewpoint is correct. You certainly believe it to be so. But if you cannot argue effectively and logically, then you harm your position more than you help it, as you are currently doing.

Again, I think my arguments are fine, and can withstand your scrutiny.

Common sense would never tell you not to play with matches around explosives if you were never taught about explosives. The phrase "common sense isn't" doesn't put down common sense, it notes that it really isn't all that common. Common sense is the information that you grow up with and/or learn later in life to most others around you also learn. Anyone who grows up speaking Spanish will tell you it is simply common sense on when to use "Usted" or "Tu". But if one never learns Spanish, is it common sense on when to use either word?

As I noted before, common sense once held that the world was flat, and that the sun travelled around the earth. Simply claiming "common sense" does not automatically make it true. Common sense also doesn't necessarily hold consistent. At one time if you had wanted to learn a trade then the common sense thing to do was to apprentice to someone in that trade. Today that is no longer true. Today it is common sense to attend a school if you want to learn anything.

So I guess you’ll have to prove that homosexuality has a true purpose with science, once you figure out what that purpose is. Because if you don’t believe in common sense, then what are you using to conclude that sex has three or four purposes, or that desire is a purpose of sex? Do you have a scientific paper in your hand that tells you that? Let’s see the science.

I'll go ahead and post this and I'll use a separate post to recap the previous ones. I'm generous like that.

Homework? If and when I have time.

 

[maquiscat]

Yeah, I figured you’ll bring them back up as they occur in our discussion anyway, so why go back and read them?

Homework? If and when I have time.

And the prediction holds true to form.

But, my friend, you have no proof that it’s not natures only purposes, and since pregnancy is the end result of engaging in sex, it makes sense for you to conclude that procreation is it’s true purpose. Why are you waiting for a better conclusion when there are none? Why would anyone with deduction skills question it? And why do you bring up the pleasure aspect when I have already explained that the purpose of pleasure is to encourage you to have sex. For procreation.

2 + 2 does equal 4.

And 1+1=10 as well as 8+1=10. These are true factual statements even if you fail to perceive their truth. Pregnancy is not the end result of sex, but a possible one. You might have an argument if pregnancy resulted each and every time sex was engaged in. But since it doesn't and in some cases can't then it stands to common sense that you've reached a faulty conclusion.

By what logic do you doubt it? When you consider our two opposing conclusions, what makes you choose the “we don’t know what the purpose of homosexuality is yet (nothing is observable) but we’re sure there must be a purpose” as opposed to the “I know that the purpose of sex is procreation because I can see it, or it happens everyday (something is observable)”? Why do you question sex having a prime purpose?

Why? What logic are you using?

The logic is simple, yet still seems to be beyond you. If we observe that a given thing/event/action/whatever achieves multiple results and does not always achieve those results in each instance of the thing/event/etc. or achieves different results at different times, in different combinations, then logically it holds multiple purposes.

Right. They don’t. But you seem to be confused as to why I made that comparison. Nature uses sexual desire to get us to have sex just like it uses pheromones to get insects to mate/lay eggs/ and so on.

Your statement simply does nothing to counter the concept of multiple purposes. Were what you said to be true then a child would result each time, or at least a pregnancy. When insects and other animals cannot procreate, with the exception of those few that were previously noted to engage in sex for pleasure, they do not engage in sex.

What I’m trying to convey to you is the simple concept of the need for an opposite-sex in sexual intercourse. When two men have sex together, it serves the human purposes of pleasure but does nothing for nature’s purposes and therefore it is useless and has no purpose.

opposite sex is only needed for natural procreation, not for sexual activities. A distinction you are failing to grasp. Again, by your logic, when a sterile male/female couple engage in sex it does nothing for what you call nature's purpose. By your own words, you sir, engage in useless, purposeless, unnatural sex.

So I guess you’ll have to prove that homosexuality has a true purpose with science, once you figure out what that purpose is. Because if you don’t believe in common sense, then what are you using to conclude that sex has three or four purposes, or that desire is a purpose of sex? Do you have a scientific paper in your hand that tells you that? Let’s see the science.

You first have to show that something natural has to have a known purpose or even a purpose period. We're right back at the example of the appendix. It is natural, yet it's purpose is unknown. There are theories, but nothing yet proven. Yet there is no denying that it is natural. And even if we knew what it's purpose once was, it seems to no longer serves that purpose, so we're still back to something natural without purpose. Your entire base line premise that something natural has to have a purpose or that it's purpose has to be known cannot hold up to scrutiny. Even showing that several natural things do have a purpose, does not logically extend to all natural things have a purpose.

At what point have I ever said that I don't believe in common sense? I've only pointed out that it doesn't mean what you think it does. Go visit a foreign country with which you have no prior experience. You will make so many mistakes and trip-ups, people will wonder if you have any common sense. I would happen to me as well, or anyone else. Even though a given thing makes common sense to you and to those with whom you share a common experience base it does not necessarily make common sense to others who do not share that experience base. Likewise, not all that is common sense to me and others who share an experience base with me will not necessarily be so to you. And then there are the things what both you and I have in common in our experience bases that would allow us both to see something as common sense. Common sense is only "common" when the area is limited, otherwise you find that it is not as common as you might think.

 

[RamFel]

And 1+1=10 as well as 8+1=10. These are true factual statements even if you fail to perceive their truth. Pregnancy is not the end result of sex, but a possible one. You might have an argument if pregnancy resulted each and every time sex was engaged in. But since it doesn't and in some cases can't then it stands to common sense that you've reached a faulty conclusion.

Now you’re just playing game with “possibilities”. Of course there is not always a pregnancy, but it is the intent, and you’re statement that it does not always happen does very little to bolster your argument.

The logic is simple, yet still seems to be beyond you. If we observe that a given thing/event/action/whatever achieves multiple results and does not always achieve those results in each instance of the thing/event/etc. or achieves different results at different times, in different combinations, then logically it holds multiple purposes.

That doesn’t even begin to make sense. A car doesn’t always start, but there’s no doubt that the car was designed for transportation, even though it won’t always start. Sex doesn’t just try to please the two participants. It always tries to succeed in getting one of them pregnant, even though it fails sometimes. Those are the magic words; “always tries to succeed”. It doesn’t half step, or tries to do half the job. It always tries to do the entire job; to make the woman pregnant, thus procreation is it’s true purpose.

Your statement simply does nothing to counter the concept of multiple purposes. Were what you said to be true then a child would result each time, or at least a pregnancy. When insects and other animals cannot procreate, with the exception of those few that were previously noted to engage in sex for pleasure, they do not engage in sex.

Yes it does, by showing how humans are driven to sex. I just used insects as an example. But driven to sex for what reason? For pleasure? For companionship and closeness? Really? See how silly that sounds? Of course it does. It sounds ridiculous.

opposite sex is only needed for natural procreation, not for sexual activities. A distinction you are failing to grasp. Again, by your logic, when a sterile male/female couple engage in sex it does nothing for what you call nature's purpose. By your own words, you sir, engage in useless, purposeless, unnatural sex.

True, but by people. Not by nature. A distinction you are failing to grasp. Sterile couples are still driven to try, even though they can’t make babies, because the drive to procreate is still there, and still strong. So you’re wrong. By my logic, it does not make sterile couples unnatural, but all very natural.

You first have to show that something natural has to have a known purpose or even a purpose period. We're right back at the example of the appendix. It is natural, yet it's purpose is unknown. There are theories, but nothing yet proven. Yet there is no denying that it is natural. And even if we knew what it's purpose once was, it seems to no longer serves that purpose, so we're still back to something natural without purpose. Your entire base line premise that something natural has to have a purpose or that it's purpose has to be known cannot hold up to scrutiny. Even showing that several natural things do have a purpose, does not logically extend to all natural things have a purpose.

At what point have I ever said that I don't believe in common sense? I've only pointed out that it doesn't mean what you think it does. Go visit a foreign country with which you have no prior experience. You will make so many mistakes and trip-ups, people will wonder if you have any common sense. I would happen to me as well, or anyone else. Even though a given thing makes common sense to you and to those with whom you share a common experience base it does not necessarily make common sense to others who do not share that experience base. Likewise, not all that is common sense to me and others who share an experience base with me will not necessarily be so to you. And then there are the things what both you and I have in common in our experience bases that would allow us both to see something as common sense. Common sense is only "common" when the area is limited, otherwise you find that it is not as common as you might think.

Yet despite what you say about common sense, when something clearly makes sense, and is fully and clearly explained, clear as a bell, the obvious option, you instead opt for the unproven, dark mystery of homosexuality with no explanation is offered by you as to why it exists, or why you think it’s natural. And because you think we should believe the unproven, we are expected to ignore the good explanation and accept the bad. Why would any of us voluntarily choose to live in ignorance?

Well, that’s you I guess, but it’s not me. I choose to know the truth.

You speak as if you knew what you are talking about, as if you were some kind of expert, but you really don’t know anything, do you?

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm not making any pro- or anti-gay point, but why does it seem that orientation conversions are only 1-way, ie straight to gay? A person may have been married with children and a dozen opposite gender partners, and then decide/announce/realize they are gay. But I never hear of it going the other way. A gay person decides/realizes/announces they are hetero.

Do you think that is ALWAYS because they were in self denial/self realization?

Just a discussion topic, I'm not trying to make any point of it.

I truly believe it goes both ways.

 

[joko104]

How would you explain homosexuality existing if it weren't natural? Where did it come from?

He had no answer, did he? He does entirely contradict himself back and forth.

 

[CLAX1911]

He had no answer, did he? He does entirely contradict himself back and forth.

How could he respond? There is no response that is valid. He apparently knows that.

 

[RamFel]

How would you explain homosexuality existing if it weren't natural? Where did it come from?

If you look real hard, you can find my answer, but I'll give it to you again.

Homosexuality comes from people's sinful desires, and Satan. God created you, not your condition.

 

[RamFel]

No, justification for his bias.

It's amazing the way people will manipulate reality to justify bias.

It's not bias.

 

[RamFel]

What is the purpose of a child dying of cancer, what is the purpose of life what is the purpose of death? Without these answers by some peoples definition life itself is unnatural. To say we don't know the purpose opens Pandora's box. Because if we don't know the purpose of something we have yet to learn it, meaning that we can't know for a fact that something has no purpose.

On top of that, cell phones, car batteries, cyberspace and satellite telescopes have purpose but are definitely not natural, by definition.

You haven't been reading my posts. Homosexual sex has no purpose, not even pleasure or bonding, closeness, etc. Sex's purpose is procreation. Sexual pleasure is man's reason for sex, and desire is man's purpose for sex. And sometimes, whenever man thinks of it, for making babies.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you look real hard, you can find my answer, but I'll give it to you again.

Homosexuality comes from people's sinful desires, and Satan. God created you, not your condition.

So it's natural. And you have some BS rhetoric about satan. Thanks for finally conceding that point.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's not bias.

Yes according to the definition of the word bias it's definitely a bias.

bi·asˈbīəs/noun1.prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

You even misinterpreted religion to support your bias.

 

[roguenuke]

You haven't been reading my posts. Homosexual sex has no purpose, not even pleasure or bonding, closeness, etc. Sex's purpose is procreation. Sexual pleasure is man's reason for sex, and desire is man's purpose for sex. And sometimes, whenever man thinks of it, for making babies.

And you are wrong. Pleasure and bonding are both purposes of sex. Statistically, they are the absolute most common purposes of sex of any type, for anyone. Bonding is the main reason for sex. We are more than capable of making children now without sex.

 

[CLAX1911]

You haven't been reading my posts. Homosexual sex has no purpose, not even pleasure or bonding, closeness, etc. Sex's purpose is procreation. Sexual pleasure is man's reason for sex, and desire is man's purpose for sex. And sometimes, whenever man thinks of it, for making babies.

You must be mistaken, yes homosexual sex dose bring pleasure and bonding I have been doing out for quite some time now and it's quite pleasurable and it brings my husband and I closer. I know for a fact that you are wrong here. You haven't a clue.

And your nonsense about having a purpose making something natural, is just that, nonsense. Cell phones have a purpose, but I guess you think they grow on trees. Cars have a purpose but I guess you think they ate raised on a farm.

this purpose nonsense is completely man made, man assigns purpose to things.

But I would like to hear proof that homosexual sex doesn't bring pleasure or bonding. This ought to be really good.

 

[CLAX1911]

And you are wrong. Pleasure and bonding are both purposes of sex. Statistically, they are the absolute most common purposes of sex of any type, for anyone. Bonding is the main reason for sex. We are more than capable of making children now without sex.

No, you misunderstand. You see the Bible talks about certain unnatural forms of sex. In order for some people to pervert the Bible's meaning to fit their bias they have to deem things to be unnatural with no explanation as to how they are unnatural.

This is a personal struggle, he is convinced that nature means sinless, he is completely wrong in regard to everything, science, the Bible, and reality. Man's nature is to sin.

Not that homosexuality is a sin but in certain peoples minds it is. Anyway back to the issue, he is confusing divine with nature.

You see if homosexuality was natural, or if he accepted it as natural, because it has been proven again and againto be natural, than the unnatural lust that the people burned with for their own gender in Romans 1:26,27 wouldn't support his bias.

Put it this way if a person was biased against black people he could find some support for that in the Bible if a person was biased against Jews he could find some support for it in the Bible. This is how it has been used to justify war in the past. It's been used to justify rape and murder hated, I believe it was particularly altered to support hatred in some cases.

When a person says the sentience that starts with "God thinks...", "God hates...", "God says..." Just mentally change that in your mind where it says God they really mean I. They are just using God to defend their distaste for others. That is why I call them demigods. When some person defines what God is, the just crammed God into the shoebox of their mind making what they think God is into their own interpretation, thus creating a God unto themselves. Oldest sin in the Bible. They become their own golden ox or idol.

Just listen to the message if it starts with the word God and it is about separating people, chastising people, or making people appear lower it's not really the voice of God but of the demigod. All one has to do is read John 3:16 and see that God loves the world. Other verses that contradict that are altered by the likes of these people today that claim what God thinks, hates, or says. The only difference is that they had a church title and had the power to change the Bible.

 

[RamFel]

Yes according to the definition of the word bias it's definitely a bias.

bi·asˈbīəs/noun1.prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

You even misinterpreted religion to support your bias.

You might want everyone to believe it is, but it's not.

What it is however, is my posting the truth in the midst of your misinformation. It's high time we learn that homosexuality is not natural. You're gay, and I'm sorry for that, but just because you like it is not a valid reason to go around telling everybody how natural it is, when it is not. It doesn't mean that I'm hateful. It just means that I want the real truth to be known.

 

[CLAX1911]

You might want everyone to believe it is, but it's not.

What it is however, is my posting the truth in the midst of your misinformation. It's high time we learn that homosexuality is not natural. You're gay, and I'm sorry for that, but just because you like it is not a valid reason to go around telling everybody how natural it is, when it is not. It doesn't mean that I'm hateful. It just means that I want the real truth to be known.

You are rejecting truth. I don't really care what people believe. I don't deal in misinformation. Homosexuality is perfectly natural for homosexuals. Why are you sorry that i am gay? If i wasn't i would never know the love i feel for my husband. I wouldn't trade that for anything. That is a perfectly valid reason to tell everybody how natural it is.

I Don't believe you are being hateful toward me. I simply think you are being superficial you can't simply accept people for who they are, often times that is a sign of some form of self loathing. I am sorry for you. It seems very important to you that the world accepts your view on what is or isn't natural. I am perfectly okay that your opinion us that homosexuality isn't natural. I have only been exposing that as an opinion. You are free to have it believe what you wish.

You claim to want the truth but seem unwilling or incapable of accepting it. I don't know what more can be said. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear because that would be a lie. I feel perfectly natural in my relationship with a person of the same sex. If you don't believe that that is your business. But i have spoken the truth.

 

[RamFel]

You are rejecting truth.

No I’m not.

I don't really care what people believe. I don't deal in misinformation.

But knowingly, or unknowingly, you have been.

Homosexuality is perfectly natural for homosexuals.

Yes, I guess homosexuals can see it that way.

Why are you sorry that i am gay? If i wasn't i would never know the love i feel for my husband. I wouldn't trade that for anything. That is a perfectly valid reason to tell everybody how natural it is.

Because you’re not in your natural state. For example, you state here that you feel love for your husband. I think you feel something, and I don’t know what that is, but only opposite sexes can feel “romantic love” for their spouses. Maybe you feel something akin to romantic love, but true romantic love only happens between men and women.

I Don't believe you are being hateful toward me. I simply think you are being superficial you can't simply accept people for who they are, often times that is a sign of some form of self loathing.

Right. I’m not hateful towards you or any gay man or woman. I think some gay’s truly believe that their gayness is something good, normal, and natural. I think some gays do not. And I don’t self-loath myself.

I am sorry for you. It seems very important to you that the world accepts your view on what is or isn't natural. I am perfectly okay that your opinion us that homosexuality

No need for pity on your part, but thanks anyway. My view doesn’t matter. The truth matters. If I am wrong (which I seriously doubt), then when I find out, I can accept it. But there is too much solid evidence that homosexuality is not natural, and woefully little evidence that it is.

You claim to want the truth but seem unwilling or incapable of accepting it. I don't know what more can be said. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear because that would be a lie. I feel perfectly natural in my relationship with a person of the same sex. If you don't believe that that is your business. But i have spoken the truth.

As I said, woefully little evidence on your side.

 

[CLAX1911]

No I’m not.

Yes you are, you reject truth that you don't like

But knowingly, or unknowingly, you have been.

Things you disagree with are not misinformation.

Yes, I guess homosexuals can see it that way.

Plenty of people see it that way.

Because you’re not in your natural state. For example, you state here that you feel love for your husband. I think you feel something, and I don’t know what that is, but only opposite sexes can feel “romantic love” for their spouses. Maybe you feel something akin to romantic love, but true romantic love only happens between men and women.

Opinionated hogwash isn't proof ram i am sorry.

Now if you have evidence please post it, otherwise I consider this argument an utter failure in your part.

Right. I’m not hateful towards you or any gay man or woman. I think some gay’s truly believe that their gayness is something good, normal, and natural. I think some gays do not. And I don’t self-loath myself.

No you aren't hateful. Why so desperate to convince gay people something that they know its a complete lie? You have told me some really bizarre things, attempted to say that you know how I feel better than I do.

Deny it all you want, but that is absolutely the strongest sign of self loathing.

No need for pity on your part, but thanks anyway. My view doesn’t matter. The truth matters. If I am wrong (which I seriously doubt), then when I find out, I can accept it. But there is too much solid evidence that homosexuality is not natural, and woefully little evidence that it is.

You already believe that you are right, no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise no matter how conclusive. There is plenty of sold evidence that homosexuality is natural.

This is really a stupid discussion its not super natural it wasn't created in a laboratory, so it by definition is perfectly natural. Your refusal to understand what nature is, is your problem. Until you really understand the definition you will never know the truth.

I do pity you, you deserve it, you have denied reality and substituted a delusion where you are blind to evidence. The saddest part you do it to support your position on something that has nothing to do with you.

You don't want truth, you want support of your opinion. Sorry I disagree with your opinion. You haven't proven it, i don't think you can.

As I said, woefully little evidence on your side.

there is absolutely no evidence to support your opinion. I don't have a side. Reality isn't a side.

You have provided no evidence to prove that homosexuality is unnatural. Unnatural means crated by man or supernatural. You can't prove that its supernatural though you attempted to say that when you were saying that it was satan. And if homosexuality is man made so is all sexuality, clearly its not.

Prove that man made it or that a supernatural presence exists. Otherwise you have completely failed, and everybody can assume that it is natural.

You claim to have this truth, speak it.

 

[JCHSALEM]

People, conversion is not a real thing. Kthxbai