: : On the one hand you can change religion, your saying you cant change sexuality.: Tell that to red-blooded father-of-two Oscar Wilde.
No I'm telling you that if your naturalist argument is correct instances like Oscar Wilde couldnt happen, bisexuality couldn't happen, that would seem to re-enforce what I was saying.
: On what evidence do you base your claims, Lark?
I'm not caliming anthing I was just reiterating your position and explaining the logical conclusions dont balance out.
: Lab tests revealed that 86% of subjects show a greater or lesser sexual response to same-sex stimuli; all the evidence suggests that bisexuality is the closest thing to a 'natural state' in the human case.
I dont understand exactly what your saying here, when I hear of these type of tests I often try to reflect on my own experiences to see if they are just nonsense, now going by my experiences, never having felt any attraction to other males, presumably I'm no exception or freak, this is a rubbish test or claim.
:It comes down to where your preferences lie; and is no more a matter of choice than your favourite colour.
Choice, LIFESTYLE CHOICE, a vindication of my view I think and I thank you.
: Is it more 'natural' to be Prod or Catholic? - if you just went by what the majority in N.I. said, you'd say Catholic, simply because of the balance of the human environment. If you're a Catholic, Catholicism is the right way to be. Does this give Catholics the right to burn Protestant churches?
I think you've got the roles of catholic and protestant reversed there.
: You can 'change' your sexuality; insofar as you can become celibate, or just exercise monosexuality (i.e. either hetero- or homosexuality).
Right earlier you said that bisexuality was the only natural condition and it was a matter of choice now your changing your line of thinking, do you see the contradiction?
: : If homosexuals are a distinct brand of beings to heterosexuals are not sadists etc. a distinct brand also
: No; see below. Sadists can be either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual; it's more of an attitude to power in sex than a sexual orientation as such.
Sexuality is all the one thing, these types of behaviour are, if I follow your thinking varients of sexuality.
: : I'm prepared to tolerate homosexuals because I believe in self-government but I wont accept them as any more normal or of a distinct status to the likes of sadists or masochists etc.
: Why? Give me a good, sound reason, Lark.
Because if they homosexual lobby is prepared to advocate their behaviour as natural, yet hetero-advocacy is phobic, intolerant, sexist etc. there must be a counter force putting the alternative position or view. This doesnt require violence etc.
If a child going through puberty, with all that confusion, approaches you and says I think I'm attracted to the same sex, if your convinced of the homo-supremist position your immediate reaction must be that's fantastic, lets have a party etc. Now position would be are you sure, think this out, there are a lot of pressures and influences on you.
: Most of the 'fetishes' are more the expression of power-relationships than expressions of love between equals; they rely on a 'doer' and a 'victim'; a 'master/mistress' and a 'slave'.
Whatever you say, is homosexuality devoid of such things? Apart from trying to become the dominant media etc.
: Now, both heterosexual and homosexual sex can be 'exploitative' - the one-night-stand is mutual itch-scratching in most cases; but there is no measureable medical or psychological difference between heterosexual and homosexual love.
This exploitative element is good? Is it not more common among homosexuals? I would find it hard to believe it isnt when their culture, media, clubs, pubs and societies all revolve around the same issue sexual relationships, specifically sexual gratification.
: The only differences are societally and/or religiously based.
I resent the implication of brainwashing there, I suppose I'm secretly afraid that I may be gay or something aswell?
