Gay Men - Progress, Technology and Disease - Unidirectional or Likely to Reverse

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
So, as usual with my prognostications, we have to sadly wait until the shjt hits the fan
No not really we can prove your theory wrong by simply asking gay people, who will tell you that their sexual preference was more less set in stone from their early teens.
 


nozzferrahhtoo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,336
Website
www.catholic.ie
What you call conspiracy theories on my behalf are far more believable than the 'fake news' and 'character assassination' that is accepted in the media today; where everything is accepted except theories that go against the neoliberal and secular agenda. Let's agree to disagree!
That would be superfluous to requirements given it is already clear that I disagree. It would have as much utility as us formalizing our agreement that we are both currently breathing. I have never really understood the meaning and motivation behind the phrase "agree to disagree".

The simple fact is that the notion you asserted that first sexual relationships influence subsequent sexual orientation is one you have offered without substantiation.

When asked for substantiation you then merely restated the hypothesis without actually adding anything.

Then when I pointed out this failing, you basically went off on an irrelevant tangent about homosexuality related societal upheaval........ none of which had anything to do with the original unsubstantiated assertion that I was questioning.

So I think a more useful, and lets face it honest, move at this point would not be "agree to disagree" (whatever that actually means) but to simply file your hypothesis under METADATA search terms like "unsubstantiated" and "contrary to what homosexuals are actually telling us".

There is simply nothing being offered from you here to relate early sexual experiences with subsequent sexual orientation. And there is nothing to "agree to disagree" with on that. It is simply a fact.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
The gay lifestyle is now a major part of what Ireland is. Why the surprise at my observation?

The simple fact is that the notion you asserted that first sexual relationships influence subsequent sexual orientation is one you have offered without substantiation.

When asked for substantiation you then merely restated the hypothesis without actually adding anything.

Then when I pointed out this failing, you basically went off on an irrelevant tangent about homosexuality related societal upheaval........ none of which had anything to do with the original unsubstantiated assertion that I was questioning.
It is generally accepted orthodox Christian teaching that one should not have sexual relationship until one intends to get married. I am talking here about heterosexual relationship. The same teaching says that promotion of the same sex lifestyle is wrong. One can ascertain from this that the bond between people that results from a sexual relationship is very strong.

It is evident that ones first sexual encounter will have a profound influence on young people that are not brought up in the Christian faith. It is as true as saying that a hotel built on the side of a heavily snow covered mountain will be hit by a landslide.

This statement has now a much greater influence on children in our modern secular society. It puzzles me why you seem to object to this statement.

The promotion of the gay lifestyle is running helter skelter in the Western World:
  • The majority of the major world companies are ardent supporters of the Pink Pound, it being a profitable 'market' in our neo-liberal system
    .
  • With 37 states allowing gay marriage and the rest banning it, employers face costly uncertainty and administrative complexities, the brief argues. “The burden imposed by inconsistent and discriminatory state laws of having to administer complicated schemes to account for differential treatment of similarly situated employees breeds unnecessary confusion, tension, and diminished employee morale.
    .
  • ‘#hometovote campaign on Twitter during last Ireland’s marriage equality referendum – the hashtag is painted on the wall of Twitter’s San Francisco HQ because of its global impact
    .
  • Our Minister for children is gay
    .
  • The next leader of Fine Gael will probably be gay.
    .
  • Leading by example is a very strong force.
    .
  • Ireland has encapsulated the gay lifestyle in our laws.
    .
  • Gay relationships are eligible for all the taxation benefits, inheritance benefits as married heterosexual couples. Even marry!
    .
  • The media never miss an opportunity to support the gay lifestyle.
    .
  • Our badly informed youth have voted for the gay lifestyle; within a leaderless vacuum.
    .
  • Marriage in Church in the best Christian tradition is frowned upon by many of our leaderless young people

Who does all this benefit?

The people who promote the neoliberal lifestyle.

The guys that have us all in massive debt repayments.

The secular and neoliberal message is that we must pay our monetary debts before we have children. This is the benefit of a gay lifestyle.

Ireland is now the international blueprint for International Financial Buccaneers on how to rob a country not only of its current wealth but its future wealth also.
 
Last edited:

nozzferrahhtoo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,336
Website
www.catholic.ie
Well it seems your mask slips yet further.......

The gay lifestyle is now a major part of what Ireland is. Why the surprise at my observation?
There is a lot of fault to point out alone in the little comments you hide in the post title field. But I will address the main flaws. Firstly homosexuality is quite a minority so I do not know how it is not a "major" part of anything, except a major part of your own Irish Narrative perhaps.

Secondly I do not recall feeling, much less expressing "surprise" at all. I have suggested your hypothesis (it is a hypothesis not an observation it seems) is unsubstantiated and nonsense. I at no point suggested it was surprising. You appear to have made that part up yourself really.

The simple fact is you presented a hypothesis, when asked for support for that hypothesis you merely restated it pretty much unedited, and then when THAT was pointed out you decided to bait and switch off on a total tangent that had nothing whatsoever do do with it.

And now in THIS post you do the same thing. Once again you have not actually offered support for your hypothesis AT ALL (that early sexual relations determine future sexual orientation) but have offered yet ANOTHER tangent about what you now called "promotion of the gay lifestyle" whatever that is meant to mean.

Now I am not sure what your intention is here, but I can certainly tell you that from here it looks anything but honest.

But let us address your bait tangents all the same as they have a remarkable number of failings of their own.

It is generally accepted orthodox Christian teaching that one should not have sexual relationship until one intends to get married.
Perhaps it is, but what a nonsense proposition it is too. Do they offer anything except perhaps "god says so" to support this teaching? Or do they just espouse it because that is what THEY personally want the world to be like?

Further it seems they merely want their cake AND eat it too in this nonsense because on one hand they claim to only want people having sex after marriage, but in the other they work quite hard to deny marriage to homosexuals. So the mask slips quickly and their actual agenda..... not wanting homosexuals to have sex........ becomes entirely clear.

I am talking here about heterosexual relationship.
That is simply an outright lie. You came into this thread specifically talking about a hypothesis that early sexual relationships determine future sexual orientation. To summarize that hypothesis NOW as "I am talking about heterosexual relationships" is at best a remarkably dishonest distortion.

It is evident that ones first sexual encounter will have a profound influence on young people that are not brought up in the Christian faith.
So basically what you are doing now is once again restating your assertion but once again without evidencing it. You do know that putting words like "It is evident" and "It is obvious" before a sentence does not substantiate it any further than if you left those words out, right? Assertion is not substantiated by repetition.

The promotion of the gay lifestyle is running helter skelter in the Western World:
What is "the gay lifestyle" exactly? What does this even mean? To my knowledge their lifestyle is identical in every way to ours with the sole exception of the gender they are sexually attracted to. In every other way their lifestyle matches our own. They work. They eat. They sleep. Many of them care for and bring up children. They keep pets. They go to sport and cinema. They do everything you and I do. So what do you even think you are talking about here? Regale us with a full description of what the "lifestyle" is and what you mean by this term. Do you even know yourself?

Further nothing you listed in your.... what was it..... 11 point list constitutes a "promotion" of anything but an acceptance of it and an accommodation of it. The word "promotion" strikes me as a propaganda spin move designed to make it sound like these people are trying to go around getting more people to be gay, or to turn people gay, or to somehow perpetuate homosexuality.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
It is generally accepted orthodox Christian teaching that one should not have sexual relationship until one intends to get married. I am talking here about heterosexual relationship. The same teaching says that promotion of the same sex lifestyle is wrong. One can ascertain from this that the bond between people that results from a sexual relationship is very strong.

It is evident that ones first sexual encounter will have a profound influence on young people that are not brought up in the Christian faith. It is as true as saying that a hotel built on the side of a heavily snow covered mountain will be hit by a landslide.

This statement has now a much greater influence on children in our modern secular society. It puzzles me why you seem to object to this statement.

The promotion of the gay lifestyle is running helter skelter in the Western World:
  • The majority of the major world companies are ardent supporters of the Pink Pound, it being a profitable 'market' in our neo-liberal system
    .
  • With 37 states allowing gay marriage and the rest banning it, employers face costly uncertainty and administrative complexities, the brief argues. “The burden imposed by inconsistent and discriminatory state laws of having to administer complicated schemes to account for differential treatment of similarly situated employees breeds unnecessary confusion, tension, and diminished employee morale.
    .
  • ‘#hometovote campaign on Twitter during last Ireland’s marriage equality referendum – the hashtag is painted on the wall of Twitter’s San Francisco HQ because of its global impact
    .
  • Our Minister for children is gay
    .
  • The next leader of Fine Gael will probably be gay.
    .
  • Leading by example is a very strong force.
    .
  • Ireland has encapsulated the gay lifestyle in our laws.
    .
  • Gay relationships are eligible for all the taxation benefits, inheritance benefits as married heterosexual couples. Even marry!
    .
  • The media never miss an opportunity to support the gay lifestyle.
    .
  • Our badly informed youth have voted for the gay lifestyle; within a leaderless vacuum.
    .
  • Marriage in Church in the best Christian tradition is frowned upon by many of our leaderless young people
When you say 'support', 'promote' and 'encourage' what you really mean is acknowledge the timeless existence of and not try to hide, bury or marginalize same.
 
Last edited:

Cahal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
881
You will see some beautiful women going with the bottom 20% of men, but you wont see beautiful men going with the bottom 20% of women. In particular obesity is a big turnoff from a mans point of view, whereas less so from a womans point of view.
What really attractive woman have you seen with a unattractive guy who didn't have money. Im not saying it cant happen but its rare very rare.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
It took me a while to cop onto this, but think I've got in now. This thread will run and run, right up to April 1st when it will be revealed as a project for an upcoming comedy play, a kind of 21st century "letters of a rural TD".
Can't wait !
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
It took me a while to cop onto this, but think I've got in now. This thread will run and run, right up to April 1st when it will be revealed as a project for an upcoming comedy play, a kind of 21st century "letters of a rural TD".
Can't wait !
a monologue
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
Homosexuality is a minority. This is your fatal flaw. Such thinking is going to be turned on its head.

Firstly homosexuality is quite a minority so I do not know how it is not a "major" part of anything, .
It was in a minority, because evidently some people had what appears to have an unalterable bent in this direction.

The Christian faith has traditionally kept it a minority.

It is easier without religious opposition to fall prey to this lifestyle. I have observed this for quiet a while.

The physical attraction between members of the human species is precarious (Don't blur general boundaries of marriage, Comment, last week). Society has to make laws to work out the most favourable outcome for future survival; it is an axiom for the continuity of society that heterosexual unions should be encouraged. Historically, this has being done by supporting marriage (backed by tax breaks). The Taoiseach now proposes to dismantle this by giving equal encouragement to same sex unions. Letter, Sunday Times 21/11/2004
Now, we have rapidly kick out any religious influence on our laws.

The gay lifestyle is now encapsulated within our laws.

There is no visible impediment, except for the odd Christian scruples that are left.

The growth will be massive.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
It was in a minority, because evidently some people had what appears to have an unalterable bent in this direction.

The Christian faith has traditionally kept it a minority.

It is easier without religious opposition to fall prey to this lifestyle. I have observed this for quiet a while.



Now, we have rapidly kick out any religious influence on our laws.

The gay lifestyle is now encapsulated within our laws.

There is no visible impediment, except for the odd Christian scruples that are left.

The growth will be massive.
So we'd all be gay if it weren't for Christianity? how on Earth did humanity not turn gay before Christianity you fool?
You're basically just a tired old homophobe trying to justify oppressing the gays to settle your warped conscience. When your ilk is dead and gone the gays will live freely, unmolested by the rattle of your rosary beads.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
So we'd all be gay if it weren't for Christianity? how on Earth did humanity not turn gay before Christianity you fool?
You're basically just a tired old homophobe trying to justify oppressing the gays to settle your warped conscience. When your ilk is dead and gone the gays will live freely, unmolested by the rattle of your rosary beads.
'we'd all be gay' In your head, not mine.

No, I will be the very person that will be talking on their behalf when the Political Correct Mob turns on them.
 

nozzferrahhtoo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,336
Website
www.catholic.ie
Once again you use your tangents to try and distract from the fact you are not backing up the original hypothesis you asserted. What is your play here exactly? Do you think if you throw out enough tangents people will simply forget your original claim, and my original unmet requests that you substantiate that claim?

Homosexuality is a minority. This is your fatal flaw. Such thinking is going to be turned on its head.
And do you think calling a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade, is also a flaw? Because yes the statistics show that homosexuals are indeed a minority. Do you have evidence or citation to suggest otherwise? Or do you simply need to imagine otherwise in order to allow your unsubstantiated narratives to maintain internal coherence and consistency? Because assertion without citation appears to be your main MO of choice around here. Maybe you could educate yourself on reality rather than merely invent your own internally: https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/

It was in a minority, because evidently some people had what appears to have an unalterable bent in this direction. The Christian faith has traditionally kept it a minority. It is easier without religious opposition to fall prey to this lifestyle. I have observed this for quiet a while.
Another one of those things you assert but do not substantiate. I do not think Christianity kept it in the minority at all. At best I suspect Christianity was merely one of the reasons homosexuals maintained secrecy and stayed unseen and hidden and too scared to admit who they were.

Now, we have rapidly kick out any religious influence on our laws.
Yes, and when I was 6 I took the stablizers off my bike too. Even if religion did influence our morality and laws..... and as I said I strongly doubt the claim they did, especially since as usual you asserted that claim without substance....... that does not mean we require religion in any way NOW to do so. At some point the training wheels of unsubstantiated nonsense have to come off, and we need to move forward on our own.

The gay lifestyle is now encapsulated within our laws.
Oh look, using the phrase "gay lifestyle" again while ENTIRELY ignoring and dodging my request to have you define your terms. How did I KNOW you were going to do that, huh? Could it be because your MO is as clear as day perchance? Could it be that you have shown yourself to contrive to be willfully dishonest, and I knew damn well you would do so again? Yes, yes I think it very much could.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
'we'd all be gay' In your head, not mine.

No, I will be the very person that will be talking on their behalf when the Political Correct Mob turns on them.
You'll be talking on their behalf by oppressing their lifestyles with Christianity is it?
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
Take care with what you wish for!

You'll be talking on their behalf by oppressing their lifestyles with Christianity is it?
Maybe you prefer Islam

Because, the odds are improving; that, that is what you are going to get!
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
Once again you use your tangents to try and distract from the fact you are not backing up the original hypothesis you asserted. What is your play here exactly? Do you think if you throw out enough tangents people will simply forget your original claim, and my original unmet requests that you substantiate that claim?
I gave you an answer. Maybe you think that the tens of millions of people who believe/believed in the Christian understanding of homosexual relationship were/are wrong.

And do you think calling a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade, is also a flaw? Because yes the statistics show that homosexuals are indeed a minority. Do you have evidence or citation to suggest otherwise? Or do you simply need to imagine otherwise in order to allow your unsubstantiated narratives to maintain internal coherence and consistency? Because assertion without citation appears to be your main MO of choice around here. Maybe you could educate yourself on reality rather than merely invent your own internally: https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/
From your link
'Are people born gay or lesbian or does this develop due to upbringing and environmental factors?

This statistic shows the shift in Americans' views from 1977 to 2016 as to whether people are born gay or lesbian, or their sexual orientation develops due to upbringing and environmental factors. In 1977, 13 percent of respondents stated that they believe people were born gay or lesbian. In 2015, 51 percent of respondents believed people were born gay or lesbian.'

87% would agree with me forty years ago. 49% would agree with me today. That is: the gay lifestyle can be influenced by environment.

Another one of those things you assert but do not substantiate. I do not think Christianity kept it in the minority at all. At best I suspect Christianity was merely one of the reasons homosexuals maintained secrecy and stayed unseen and hidden and too scared to admit who they were.
It was not perfect, but what we have today is no way an improvement.

Yes, and when I was 6 I took the stablizers off my bike too. Even if religion did influence our morality and laws..... and as I said I strongly doubt the claim they did, especially since as usual you asserted that claim without substance....... that does not mean we require religion in any way NOW to do so. At some point the training wheels of unsubstantiated nonsense have to come off, and we need to move forward on our own.
Yea! You do not need to spell it out. You are Superman!

Oh look, using the phrase "gay lifestyle" again while ENTIRELY ignoring and dodging my request to have you define your terms. How did I KNOW you were going to do that, huh? Could it be because your MO is as clear as day perchance? Could it be that you have shown yourself to contrive to be willfully dishonest, and I knew damn well you would do so again? Yes, yes I think it very much could.
And maybe, I think the question is unworthy of you. Just google the phrase, if you want to know what I mean.
 

nozzferrahhtoo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,336
Website
www.catholic.ie
I gave you an answer. Maybe you think that the tens of millions of people who believe/believed in the Christian understanding of homosexual relationship were/are wrong.
Except you gave me no answer, and I made no comment on Christians at all. I focused SOLELY on the claim that early sexual relationships can influence future sexual orientation. You asserted this, were questioned on the assertion to which you just re-asserted it, and then when questioned a second time you ENTIRELY deflected into a complete change of subject.

From your link
The only thing you should take from my link is contextually what I was rebutting with the link. You are ONCE AGAIN dodging substantiating your assertions with a move into changing the subject. You know the more you use an MO, the more people are likely to spot it's use right??

AGAIN you called into question the claim that homosexuality is a minority thing. I have shown you a citation (and I have multiple more if you want them) to show that it is. Have you offered a SINGLE citation to show that it is not? No. Of course you have not. You never do.

This statistic shows the shift in Americans' views from 1977 to 2016 as to whether people are born gay or lesbian, or their sexual orientation develops due to upbringing and environmental factors.
I have no doubt that that opinion is shifting. But it has nothing AT ALL to do with the claim I was rebutting when I offered the link. Your dodge tactic by bait and switch subject changing is as transparent as it is dishonest.

But as a scientifically minded person I have NO INTEREST AT ALL in the % of peoples views on the matter. I want to know what is actually TRUE about the matter. And what is true is what is important to me, regardless of whether 2% of people, 50% of people or 100% of people believe that truth.

Do not conflate peoples changing views on what is true, with what actually IS true. The question is NOT how many people you find agree with your claim about the factors that lead to sexual orientation..... the question IS how much substantiation can you bring to the table that they do. So far alas the answer to that question is: None. Zilch. Zero. Nadda. Nichts. Bugger all. Nothing. Squat. Take your pick.

That said however the statistics are NOT going in your favor.........

In 1977, 13 percent of respondents stated that they believe people were born gay or lesbian. In 2015, 51 percent of respondents believed people were born gay or lesbian.' 87% would agree with me forty years ago. 49% would agree with me today. That is: the gay lifestyle can be influenced by environment.
............ as SIGNIFICANTLY less people agree with you today. Why? Because knowledge is growing on the subject and more and more people are responding to that knowledge. For example we have scanned the brains of homosexuals and found common structural differences among them contrasted with heterosexuals. That kind of data can not simply be explained away by things like "They choose to be gay". Nor, despite the fact anecdote is not evidence, can we merely ignore and dismiss the WEALTH of homosexual anecdote coming to us time and time and time again from homosexuals saying they never made a conscious choice of their sexuality and it is in every way something they find as innate in them, as you and I find out heterosexuality innate in us.

It was not perfect, but what we have today is no way an improvement. Yea! You do not need to spell it out. You are Superman! And maybe, I think the question is unworthy of you. Just google the phrase, if you want to know what I mean.
Ah "go google it yourself". The undying mantra of someone who has no evidence of their own to offer so they attempt to sent detractors on a wild goose chase for what likely is not actually there.

No way. No how. No thanks. If YOU can not support YOUR claims with substantiation of any kind.... I am not about to go off and hunt that substantiation for you.

But I think today IS an improvement. Because what we have today is simply the same as we had before..... except people today feel they can be open about who and what they are............ they now know there is nothing wrong, immoral, or mentally ill about who and what they are.......... and they do not need to hide themselves from the world in constant fear of judgement, retribution and hate.

If you do not see that as an improvement........ well that tells us all we need to know about YOU.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom