Which forum?Originally posted by AverageFC
I posted this on another forum and was called a woman demeaning fascist.
Really don't want to say. somewhat different identify you know.Originally posted by Alpha Male
Which forum?
(from a dude)Seriously, what the ****? Possession, power? So this guy thinks that when I have sex with my husband, it's his way of peeing on me to mark his territory? And he doesn't love me, he's just in it for the power trip? Riiiiiggggghhhhtttt...The need to exert power over another person comes from insecurity, it's not a necessary ingredient, nor healthy, ingredient to throw into the relationship mix.
(from an english dude)Some interesting and cogent points are utterly subsumed when I reach a line like this:
well documented explanation, I urge you to read William T Still, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies, 1990. It is will change the way you view the world.
Men and women are not the same. Feminism has perverted itself so that it can no longer distinguish between "equality" and "homogenity." There is enough in that article to stimulate valid and relevant discussion (along with plenty of ****e) but when I read about the dreaded Illuminati and the ancient plans of secret societies then I roll my eyes and move along.
You are linking to an article which connects feminism to the Nazis, the new world order and commies. Elsewhere in the site it claims the CIA are behind feminism and that Bush is behind the NWO. If you are going to buy into all this you must buy into the total NWO theory and accept that Bush, Hitler and Stalin were all in cahoots and that we sheep are pretty much screwed which ever way we look at it.
Lets deal with the more important issue here, your dislike for feminism and women in general who wish to be anything but the possession of the male in their life (father or husband)
Where did this come from? Why are you so against feminism?
Feminism, like any form of extremisim, relies on binary arguments. If not black, then white. Notice how internalizing traditional feminine gender roles equals 'enslavement'? Ergo the opposite must be true and traditional masculine gender roles must equal freedom. See how the binary works?Originally posted by A-Unit
Refuted much of what I stated and said...
"i don't want to be thrown back into the kitchen. i don't want to be enslaved."
Don't forget homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom in just about every species.Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Feminism, like any form of extremisim, relies on binary arguments. If not black, then white. Notice how internalizing traditional feminine gender roles equals 'enslavement'? Ergo the opposite must be true and traditional masculine gender roles must equal freedom. See how the binary works?
As far as the issue of homosexuality is concerned, it basically comes down to one unanswered question: Is homosexuality a conditioned behavior or is it a behavioral expression of biological imperatives? In other words, nature vs. nurture. If it is in fact a biological issue and there is a 'gay gene' or a combination of genetic circumstances that cause a person to behave homosexualy then any argument of a homosexual person's ability to behave differently is theoretically out of their control, they were made that way. This of course begs the question that if it is a genetic 'flaw' (for lack of a better term) can it be corrected medically? Should it be corrected medically? According to strictly scientific thought, any mutation that is not beneficial to the survival of a species is a harmful mutation.
However, if homosexuality is a learned/conditioned behavior, then we run into a whole mess of other problems. Essentially, it becomes an issue of choice rather than a civil rights argument. Blacks in the 50's & 60's couldn't help but be black and the discrimination they experienced was not only ignorant, but un just. If a homosexual is discriminated against, it's equally unjust, but the behavioral element is a confounding variable. It would stand to reason that if it is a conditioned behavior then it could be unconditioned. I doubt that under the societal strictures of today and the climate of political correctness that is prevalent that any such experiment would either never be funded or vigorously protested against in the first place. And this is just evidence of a firmly held societal conditioning about homosexuality. "They can't help it" is the mantra, but it's based on anecdotal studies and popular repetions.
More evidence exists that gender (and sexual preference) is a learned condition than that which supports the biological theory. Heterosexual prison inmates that return to society gay after their incarceration is a common one. In an all male population the only recourse for sexual release is either masturbation or homosexuality. It would follow that this behavior was conditioned due to it being the only form of positive reinforcement with regards to sexual needs.
Then you have to consider bi-sexual individuals. Did they recieve only part of the genetic material necessary to make them homosexual or heterosexual? Or did they progress through puberty and stages of defining their sexuality by recieving reinforcement for sexual behaviors that included both sexes? What about people born into transgender? Do they define their sexuality through their behavior by choice or their conditioning?
This question confounds feminism in the extreme and so you'll always see support for the genetic answer, but a staunch denial in the regards to how genetics define gender. One of the base tenent of feminism is that gender is a conditioned status and that traditional gender roles are the result of upbrining and societal expectations. Androgyny is an idealized state and the method to achieving it is behavioral control. Yet this contradicts everything feminists believe with regards to homosexuality (i.e the genetic argument). If gender is learned, then homosexuals can modify their behaviors and become heterosexuals, but if gender is a genetic determinate then they and women can't help but be homosexuals and women in their sexual roles.
Not true. This is simply propaganda spread by homosexuals and/or the "modern" feminist ideaology.Originally posted by Don Ronny
BTW, most people who are afraid of homosexuals have a little homo inside of them.
Originally posted by AverageFC
Really don't want to say. somewhat different identify you know.
Here's some quotes:
(from a woman)
(from a dude)
(from an english dude)
"Flaw" is a perfect term. There is no better term. That's just what homosexuality is a flaw. We would have died out thousands of years ago if homosexuality was dominant.Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
This of course begs the question that if it is a genetic 'flaw' (for lack of a better term) can it be corrected medically? Should it be corrected medically?
This is not true. Heterosexuals going into prison and practising homosexual activites there come out into society as regular heterosexuals again. I don't know what you read, but it's either homosexual/feminist propaganda disguising itself as a scientific study, or a misinterpretation (by you or the person writing the study).Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Heterosexual prison inmates that return to society gay after their incarceration is a common one.
And yet homosexuals seem to appear spontaeneously in society without a "gene" being passed along.Homosexuals cannot reproduce. This is nature's way of weeding out this flaw from the species.
And yet homosexuals seem to appear spontaeneously in society without a "gene" being passed along.
I've read a couple of times that it has to do with the dose of chemicals male embryos receive shortly after conception which causes them to gain a Y chromosome. SInce all embryos start out as female (XX) it takes a certain amount of Y hormone to make them male. (someone more versed in reproductive biology could be more accurate I'm sure )
Those with slightly too little hormone may become homosexual.
At least that was the theory. This would make not as much a genetic abnormality as an accident of conception....
Can anyone explain it better than me?
Hmm that sounds about right. Thanks pal.Originally posted by DJDamage
Actually Males have both X and Y chromosomes while the females have two X chromosomes. The female always give out an X chromosomes while for the male its a 50-50 chance he is either going to give an X chromosme or a Y chromosome. If he gives out the X its going to be a girl, if he gives out the Y its going to be a boy.
I took a science coarse in University once that aimed to look at different theories and debunk others which were not scientific studies. We have learned that who ever claimed that Homosexuality was as result of genes, never actually tested that theory and therefore the media just picked up that story and everyone accepted it as the truth.
If you look at psycological studies, there is more evidence that there is something in the brain of the indvidual that creates homosexuality. Our brain and bodies were design to produce and mate with the opposite sex, therefore there has to be something WRONG with the person's brain function if he chooses otherwise.
There are many brain diseases out there that causes handicapped in individuals upon birth. I do not understand why homosexuality is not one of them. I could accept someone being a homosexual but for them to claim that is normal and encourage that behaviour is a bit puzzling to me.
Thats insecurity, the idea of being the thing that you despise keeps building up in the sub-conscious & messes you up.Originally posted by Don Ronny
Leave it to a guy who calls himself a "homophobe" to start a thread like this.
BTW, most people who are afraid of homosexuals have a little homo inside of them.
You cannot completely annhiliate an abnormality. It keeps the population low so that it does not become a problem.Originally posted by Alpha Male
And yet homosexuals seem to appear spontaeneously in society without a "gene" being passed along.
I've read a couple of times that it has to do with the dose of chemicals male embryos receive shortly after conception which causes them to gain a Y chromosome. SInce all embryos start out as female (XX) it takes a certain amount of Y hormone to make them male. (someone more versed in reproductive biology could be more accurate I'm sure )
Those with slightly too little hormone may become homosexual.
At least that was the theory. This would make not as much a genetic abnormality as an accident of conception....
Can anyone explain it better than me?
Are you saying homosexuals use it as proof that they are "normal" by that statement?Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
This flies in the face of the genetic root homosexuals would have us all believe is the root of the behavior and reinforces the behavioristic theory.
As ever on this site, generalisations are used as the fundamental basis for any argument.Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
They want special privileges from the traditional system (men paying, being "gentlemen" by using special deferential manners and language to women, being the main breadwinner, etc) but not the old-fashioned obligations (being modest and ladylike, being a housewife, etc).
Originally posted by AMF
As ever on this site, generalisations are used as the fundamental basis for any argument.
MANY women INSIST on paying.
MANY women are patronised and even insulted by the use of "deferential manners" towards them, and those that arent often view such gestures as anachronistic, or at best, "charming".
For MANY women, the status as main breadwinner is of vital importance to ther self-esteem and general identity.
MANY women - indeed, the vast majority - retain "ladylike modesty", although such terms are as outmoded and - in a real, day-to-day sense - as irrelevant as the concept of male chivalry.
Your use of these terms, and indeed your argument in general, typifies the human mind. Lazy in generalisation, susceptibility to incomplete or inaccurate information, susceptibility to conformity, coercion and chauvinism, and above all, resistance to change. A mind refusing, kicking and screaming, to be dragged into the 21st Century, despite the evidence - as can be seen with erosion of traditional gender-role obligations (i.e., concepts of honour for men) - that anachronisms can survive only for eccentric or curiosity value.
As a general point, too, just consider that gender is infact a continuous dimension and not categorical. There is NO practicable way to define it (in any complete or holistic sense.)
You lying bastard!!Originally posted by Alpha Male
Don't forget homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom in just about every species.