There Is No Gay Agenda: Girl On Girl is gay too you hypocrites.

[Mowgli]

He's right, homophobia has no place in our society in 2015.
50 years ago the things you saying about them was what white ppl said to us bro.

White homosexuals owned slaves and raped black men and boys. Especially in islands like Jamaica, which is the origin for their hatred toward gays.

The same things white people said about us. Homosexual whites ran entire civilization called Greece where they were legally culo blasting little boys in between conquering the known world.

Famous Philosophers like Plato said it was good for men to smash one another because it created a better bond on the battlefield.


They said things about homosexuals, they said things about us, then hung us. Not comparable. Dum dum. A white homo is still white, and doesnt see you as his ally,"in the struggle". More like, a tool.

 

[Gravity]

No one is saying that impulses override conscious decisions! I even provided the example of that gay people have a long history of suppressing their impulses! The fact that we can override our impulses has nothing to do with whether or not we have the impulse in the first place. The virgin example still stands in non-intercourse situations. You yourself provided the example of lusting after someone but not acting on that lust because you were married. Does that mean you never desired that person?! Of course not. Not acting on your lust doesn't mean you didn't lust. I feel like I'm going crazy!

I haven't said anything about "lust". I haven't used that term one time. You falsely accused me of saying that you had to have gay sex to be gay because all that matters is the specific act and impulses/desires don't matter. Then you responded to that fake straw man argument by saying "so that means virgins don't have a sexual orientation". You were arguing with yourself.

What I've said is that impulses alone don't outweigh a person's actions. I say that in the context of somebody voluntarily having sex with people of the same sex while claiming not to be gay because they don't feel that way inside. I'm not even talking about "impulses". I'm talking about feelings of attraction and how it's a conscious choice to be open to exploring those feelings, and to act on those feelings. I'm not talking about people deciding to suppress their lust for the same sex, I'm talking about people who have decided not to even entertain any possible feelings of attraction to the same sex. Like I said, you don't know if you like something until you try it and to try it you have consciously decide to be open to it. I've never had a desire to eat sushi, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like it if I opened my mind enough to give it a try. Not trying sushi to know if I like it is a conscious decision that I've made. They are people who have decided to be open to trying homosexuality and there are those who have decided not to be open to trying it.

No, the reason you keep reiterating your "actual" position is because it's falling apart in front of your eyes. You yourself have admitted that the percentage of people claiming to be gay for attention is insignificant. So continuing to bring up that exceptional circumstance is completely disingenuous in this discussion. We're not compiling a compendium of every single cause of people claiming to be homosexual, we're talking about a phenomenon in totality. You keep trying to use 1% to discredit 99%. Who cares if 1% of people are falsely claiming to have homosexual desires? What bearing does that have in this discussion? You can find 1% of black people who say modern times are worse than the Jim Crow era, but are you going to wield that as a legitimate POV? "It's true for some" is a useless contention on its own, unless you're just trolling. In which case, you got me.

You seem to be trolling yourself. You're damn sure arguing with yourself. You're once again distorting my argument. I didn't say that the percentage of gays by choice is insignificant because it's so small, I say it's insignificant because it's irrelevant to my point. My point is that some people choose to be gay for a variety of reasons, attention was only one of the reasons that I named initially. You chose to focus on trying to debunk that one reason in supporting your "nobody would choose to be gay because negative things can happen" argument, so I brought up well known verifiable examples(Jenner, Thug) to prove you wrong.

I've never said that "everyone who claims to be gay was born that way", i've said that people who are actually gay did not conscious choose to be gay, and that one's sexual orientation isn't chosen. I'm pushing this so hard because I can't stand illogical arguments. This isn't even about gay rights anymore, this is about rationality. But your contention that no straight man would be at a gay rights rally is idiotic. I'm a humanist, and I believe in human rights. I'm not only going to pull out the cape when my ass is on the line like a coward.

I don't really expect you to come out of the closet right here in this discussion. I expect you to deny being gay but I think that you're gay nonetheless. You're pushing a gay agenda. You also tell on yourself with that "I'm a humanist" garbage. People who talk like that are completely full of shyt. That comment is the equivalent of "I don't see race, I'm colorblind". You never trust people who talk like that.

So what's the difference between saying "gays are born that way" and saying "gays don't choose to be gay"? You're being dishonest again. When you say that it's not a choice you're saying that they were born that way.

Ahhh, here we are. Now we get down to the bone of your foolishness. You're one of those "what have you done for me lately" brothers, huh. Unwilling to consider the complaints of others until yours are sated. Devoid of moral courage. Your goal is not to uncover the truth, but to justify your grievances. Selfish. You should have just said this from the jump and we could have skipped all this discourse.

fukk you.

Young Thug isn't gay btw, he's pretending to be so to troll people like you, so trying to make a point about how "some" gay people are faking it for attention because Young Thug is faking it for attention is invalid.

You lack basic comprehension skills my man. I never said that Thug was gay. He claims that he's not gay so if he's faking anything, it's being straight. The point that I make with Thug is that we live in a society that promotes/celebrates alternative lifestyles in an effort to normalize them and that has lead to some people using those alternative lifestyles for attention. Whether it's Thug trolling people with his sexuality, Bruce turning into Caitlin for the attention, or random chics on the street being attention-whore lesbians because people tell them that it's cool. Some people use the gay/trans shyt to get attention. You said that nobody does and you're wrong.

You know what's dumb as fukk? Thinking that because you don't act on an impulse, the impulse doesn't exist. That's just about as dumb as thinking that a person's actions are always indicative of their immediate desire. It's like saying that making out with an ugly chick because you were playing wingman means that you must have been attracted to that chick. You're speaking as if you're a child just acting on their immediate desire, with no regard for other factors. You probably think the lady in the fast food drive-thru really loves her job because she's smiling all the time. Yeah, the only person who actually knows your sexual orientation is you. Same goes for any desire. You have to accept that.

You're arguing with yourself here. I've already addressed you distorting my argument projecting that "you said that impulses don't matter" lie on me.

ok b


ok b

I know you're just trolling with this comment, but I'm being 100% serious when I say you might actually just be bisexual if you think sexual orientation is so mutable.

Not trolling at all. You sound like a closeted homosexual(since you deny it). I don't even get your charge here. What does me thinking that sexuality is "mutable" or fluid have to do with being bisexual? Explain that leap. You've said yourself that sexuality is on a spectrum, so why do you deny that it's mutable? If sexuality is on a spectrum, then doesn't it make sense that those who are near the middle can choose what they want to be?

Seen through me? I've been saying this from the jump! Of course environmental factors cannot be ruled out, most modern science says the same thing. But it's far more complex than you're thinking. Homosexual coupling has most definitely not been the norm for most of history, yet gay people have been being produced at a steady clip. So to think that this thousands of years old phenomenon is the result of an incredibly modern phenomenon (gay coupling) is patently absurd. The environmental factors scientist talk about in regards to this issue are things like prenatal stress levels, birth order, gender conformity as an adolescent, etc. A homosexual or accepting familial environment will definitely have an effect on the child, but not enough to "turn" a kid.

It's funny watching you argue against yourself. I never said that gay parents "turn" they're kids gay. In fact I said:

I'm not saying that all children raised by gays will turn out gay the same way that all kids raised by drug/alcohol abusers will turn out to be drug/alcohol abusers. However, it's completely dishonest to pretend as if it's not an influence or that it's no factor.

You can't even understand the simple English that I speak in, let alone tell what I'm thinking. You pretending that a child's parents aren't part of the environmental factors that can influence that child's sexuality points to your pro-gay agenda. Again, I used the term "influence" not "turn". As a seemingly closeted gay person and staunch gay advocate, you have a vested interest in dismissing the potential influence on sexuality that homosexual parents can have.

We, as a society, don't analyze issues strictly according to our primitive instincts. Watch the video I previously posted. Read Thomas Malthus.

I haven't analyzed any issue strictly according to primitive instincts. I said that homosexuality is a defect then explained exactly how/why it's a defect.

fukk that video.

Yeah, the problem is that you still keep trying to bring action into the discussion. One's sexual orientation is an impulse, and action has no bearing on impulse. People who take a vow of celibacy don't lose their sexual orientation.

You keep repeating the same dumb ass arguments that I have already refuted. I have not said that you to have gay/straight sex to be gay/straight. I have not said that impulses don't matter. That's a straw man position that you created. I've said that who a person claims to be attracted to matters but it doesn't outweigh their actions. I say that in the context of people doing gay shyt while saying that they aren't gay because they don't feel gay inside. You're saying that a person's actions don't matter and that their sexuality is only based on how they claim to feel inside, which opens the door for that down low fakkit mentality.

Celibacy is defined as abstaining from marriage and sex. Abstaining from sex does not mean obtaining from showing attraction to those that you are attracted to. Your analogy is invalid. A person who has taken a vow of celibacy can still show attraction to those that they are attracted to.

Sexuality is a spectrum, so it makes sense that some people who identify as heterosexual would have some low level of attraction to members of the same sex. Our society has strict rules for sexual discourse, so it makes sense that those low levels of attraction would be ignored, because they can be. But it doesn't mean that the low levels were never there, and it doesn't mean that those who have high levels of attraction to the same sex wouldn't have those desire if they are not allowed to be expressed. Your basically saying that you would be gay if everyone in your social circle was gay, which is absurd given the fact there are still gays in societies where homosexuality is punishable by death. Sexual orientation isn't contagious.

I haven't said that(bold) and you're an snake for falsely accusing me of saying that. I've said that I could choose to be gay if I wanted to. I choose not to be gay. I don't know why you have such a hard time comprehending simple English. If you as man has sex with with other men for any reason other being raped, then you're gay. I don't care what you claim to feel inside.

That's the gist of this exchange. You want to pretend as if men can have sex with other men without being gay. Now why in the world would a supposedly straight man fight tooth and nail to push that bullshyt perspective? Especially knowing the problem with the down low shyt in our community and the role it plays in spreading hiv?

 

[King Kreole]

I haven't said anything about "lust". I haven't used that term one time. You falsely accused me of saying that you had to have gay sex to be gay because all that matters is the specific act and impulses/desires don't matter. Then you responded to that fake straw man argument by saying "so that means virgins don't have a sexual orientation". You were arguing with yourself.

What I've said is that impulses alone don't outweigh a person's actions. I say that in the context of somebody voluntarily having sex with people of the same sex while claiming not to be gay because they don't feel that way inside. I'm not even talking about "impulses". I'm talking about feelings of attraction and how it's a conscious choice to be open to exploring those feelings, and to act on those feelings. I'm not talking about people deciding to suppress their lust for the same sex, I'm talking about people who have decided not to even entertain any possible feelings of attraction to the same sex. Like I said, you don't know if you like something until you try it and to try it you have consciously decide to be open to it. I've never had a desire to eat sushi, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like it if I opened my mind enough to give it a try. Not trying sushi to know if I like it is a conscious decision that I've made. They are people who have decided to be open to trying homosexuality and there are those who have decided not to be open to trying it.

The whole problem with your argument is that you are saying that impulses alone don't outweigh a person's actions w/r/t sexual orientation, and that is categorically false because the whole definition of sexual orientation is based on impulses. The definition of homosexuality is being attracted to members of the same sex, it has nothing to do with acting on those attractions. The definition of heterosexuality is being attracted to members of the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with acting on those attractions. The impulse most definitely outweighs the action. A gay man can kiss a woman and still be gay if he doesn't feel any sexual attraction towards women. A straight man can be in a position to never act on his heterosexual impulse because he is in an environment where there are no females, and it doesn't mean he's no longer heterosexual. What you're positing by saying actions are more important than impulses is that that man cannot be heterosexual because he has no opportunity to act on his heterosexual impulse, which is ridiculous.

The other big problem with your argument is that you're saying people can choose to be open to a sexual impulse, which again is not the case. You can control whether or not you act on that impulse, but sexual drive and impulse are hormonal. You can't choose to alter the levels of testosterone, estrogen or progesterone flowing through your body. You just made the same mistake again by stating "There are people who have decided to be open to trying homosexuality". You don't try homosexuality, you are or are not homosexual. You can try homosexual sex or acts, but you can't try the state of being. And before you claim I misquoted you again, here are direct quotes:
"What you're saying is simply not true because we know that sexuality is a conscious choice for some people."

"Bisexuality is not an involuntary or subconscious choice."

And then when I checked you on that, you responded with:

"People have impulses to do all goes of shyt but it's the act that makes it real."

So you're obviously of the wrong belief that a)sexual orientation is a conscious choice for some people, and b) sexual orientation is not legitimate until you act on it.

You seem to be trolling yourself. You're damn sure arguing with yourself. You're once again distorting my argument. I didn't say that the percentage of gays by choice is insignificant because it's so small, I say it's insignificant because it's irrelevant to my point. My point is that some people choose to be gay for a variety of reasons, attention was only one of the reasons that I named initially. You chose to focus on trying to debunk that one reason in supporting your "nobody would choose to be gay because negative things can happen" argument, so I brought up well known verifiable examples(Jenner, Thug) to prove you wrong.

You're point is still illegitimate because you're still using terminology like "choose to be gay". Young Thug and Caitlyn Jenner are not evidence of this, because a) Young Thug is not gay and him presenting himself as such doesn't make it so, and b) Caitlyn Jenner is not gay, she's transgender, and according to her she has always been transgender. So you're bringing up 2 cases of non-gay people to prove a point about how some people can choose to be gay. Neither one has claimed to choose their sexual orientation.

I don't really expect you to come out of the closet right here in this discussion. I expect you to deny being gay but I think that you're gay nonetheless. You're pushing a gay agenda. You also tell on yourself with that "I'm a humanist" garbage. People who talk like that are completely full of shyt. That comment is the equivalent of "I don't see race, I'm colorblind". You never trust people who talk like that.

So what's the difference between saying "gays are born that way" and saying "gays don't choose to be gay"? You're being dishonest again. When you say that it's not a choice you're saying that they were born that way.

If you think I'm gay based on me caping for gay rights, that's your prerogative. I guess you think James Reeb and Viola Luizzo and James Zwerg were black too. "It is not possible to be in favour of justice for some people and not be in favour of justice for all people." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But I guess that's just humanist garbage to you, and he's completely full of shyt. And btw, the difference between those two statements is that there is an area of time where we are being influenced by our postnatal environment yet not choosing the outcome. For example if rates of homosexuality were shown to increase in environments where the child was bottle fed instead of breast fed, he wasn't born gay but he didn't choose to be gay. His environment dictated that.

fukk you.

You lack basic comprehension skills my man. I never said that Thug was gay. He claims that he's not gay so if he's faking anything, it's being straight. The point that I make with Thug is that we live in a society that promotes/celebrates alternative lifestyles in an effort to normalize them and that has lead to some people using those alternative lifestyles for attention. Whether it's Thug trolling people with his sexuality, Bruce turning into Caitlin for the attention, or random chics on the street being attention-whore lesbians because people tell them that it's cool. Some people use the gay/trans shyt to get attention. You said that nobody does and you're wrong.

Again, I never said nobody is using it to get attention. I even acknowledged that Young Thug's efficacy in getting attention was predicated on a society where this topic is of interest to the general public. I said that nobody is choosing to be gay to get attention. You can choose to present as gay, but you cannot choose to switch your sexual orientation. So even if we become a society fully accepting of homosexuals, there is no reason to believe rates of homosexuality will increase. Rates of out gays will most definitely increase, but there's no reason to believe there would be an effect on people becoming actually gay. The concern should be that we'll see and increasing number of people pretending to be gay to receive attention, not that homosexuality is a false phenomenon. Claiming homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle is also bunk, because there is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. The only thing that differentiates homosexuals from heterosexuals is the direction of their sexual preference. They can present the same in every other facet of life.

You're arguing with yourself here. I've already addressed you distorting my argument projecting that "you said that impulses don't matter" lie on me.

Again, the problem with your argument isn't that you don't believe impulses exist, it's the degree to which you're crediting action over impulse in determining sexual orientation. You've said, and I quote, "Nah bruh, you suck pipe and get hit in your booty by other dudes then you're gay(bisexual if you're still dealing with women too). You don't get to choose to do gay stuff while being straight." and "Having some level of attraction to people from both sexes doesn't make you bisexual, acting on those attractions to people from both sexes makes you bisexual." I didn't make those quotes up, you yourself said them. You directly claimed that it doesn't matter if you have sexual impulses, what matters is if you act on those impulses. Now you're slowly coming around and seeing that was wrong. Just take the Lesson and keep it moving breh.

Not trolling at all. You sound like a closeted homosexual(since you deny it). I don't even get your charge here. What does me thinking that sexuality is "mutable" or fluid have to do with being bisexual? Explain that leap. You've said yourself that sexuality is on a spectrum, so why do you deny that it's mutable? If sexuality is on a spectrum, then doesn't it make sense that those who are near the middle can choose what they want to be?

I'm not denying it's mutable, i'm saying that people who have always had some significant level of attraction to both sexes would naturally believe that everyone is like that, that everyone can choose. And again, you seem to think bisexuality is flipping between being heterosexual and homosexual. It's not, it's it's own state. Bisexuals don't choose to be heterosexual one day then homosexual the next.

You can't even understand the simple English that I speak in, let alone tell what I'm thinking. You pretending that a child's parents aren't part of the environmental factors that can influence that child's sexuality points to your pro-gay agenda. Again, I used the term "influence" not "turn". As a seemingly closeted gay person and staunch gay advocate, you have a vested interest in dismissing the potential influence on sexuality that homosexual parents can have.

I was speaking generally here, responding to your claim "Of course a kid being raised by a homosexual parent or couple is going to have some kind of influence on the kid." I agreed that there is an environmental role that parents can play, I was just qualifying your statement that it's not a large role, which you agreed with.

I haven't analyzed any issue strictly according to primitive instincts. I said that homosexuality is a defect then explained exactly how/why it's a defect.

fukk that video.

ok well the video explains exact scenarios where homosexuality/bisexuality can be utilized as an advantage, so if you're gonna refuse to watch it, that's pretty much that.

You keep repeating the same dumb ass arguments that I have already refuted. I have not said that you to have gay/straight sex to be gay/straight. I have not said that impulses don't matter. That's a straw man position that you created.

"You can do gay shyt but still be straight". Get all the way the fukk out of here with that.

You don't get to choose to do gay stuff while being straight.

You're saying that a person's actions don't matter and that their sexuality is only based on how they claim to feel inside, which opens the door for that down low fakkit mentality.

...yeah. Again, if a person is engaging in homosexual behaviour and is enjoying it, they are gay or bisexual. If a person is engaging in homosexual behaviour and is not receiving sexual pleasure from it, they are not gay or bisexual. You're going to have to wrap your mind around that idea.

I haven't said that(bold) and you're an snake for falsely accusing me of saying that. I've said that I could choose to be gay if I wanted to. I choose not to be gay. I don't know why you have such a hard time comprehending simple English. If you as man has sex with with other men for any reason other being raped, then you're gay. I don't care what you claim to feel inside.

That's the gist of this exchange. You want to pretend as if men can have sex with other men without being gay. Now why in the world would a supposedly straight man fight tooth and nail to push that bullshyt perspective? Especially knowing the problem with the down low shyt in our community and the role it plays in spreading hiv?

Bruh, this is why I'm saying you might actually just be bisexual. Because I know that no matter how hard I tried, I can't find another man sexually attractive. I'm not receiving the impulse. I'm a heterosexual. I didn't choose to be, and I can't control it. I get sexually aroused by women. If you are receiving sexual attraction impulses from men and just choosing not to act on them, you're bisexual breh. And you sound like you're desperately trying to convince yourself you're not bisexual because you haven't acted on your homosexual impulses. Funny enough, the more homosexuality and bisexuality are accepted by our society, the less gay and bi people will have to hide their activities and can stop the down lo shyt.

Anyway, we've written a book in here and I feel like we've pretty much reached an impasse, so I'm gonna bow out. Feel free to respond to my post though.

Toodles dahling!

 

[Ashley Banks]

That's a lot of typing

 

[King Kreole]

That's a lot of typing

I'm a writer, it comes easy to me.

 

[Okocha]

can we now talk about something else this lgbt agenda can only work if you allow then to feed you that crap!

 

[Gravity]

The whole problem with your argument is that you are saying that impulses alone don't outweigh a person's actions w/r/t sexual orientation, and that is categorically false because the whole definition of sexual orientation is based on impulses. The definition of homosexuality is being attracted to members of the same sex, it has nothing to do with acting on those attractions. The definition of heterosexuality is being attracted to members of the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with acting on those attractions.

Sexual orientation:
one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
the definition of sexual-orientation
The word "impulse" isn't anywhere in that definition. I don't know why you keep using the word impulse. Impulse is a strong urge. I haven't talked about people with strong urges. I've talked about people who've made a conscious decision not to be open to certain feelings in comparison to those who've decided to be open to those same feelings. Based on that definition of sexual orientation, a person's words don't outweigh their actions. Meaning, a person saying that they aren't gay wouldn't outweigh them showing(action) attraction to the same sex. You have an obvious agenda in pushing this "your sexual orientation is what you say it is, not based on who you show attraction to" agenda and that's down low gay shyt.

The impulse most definitely outweighs the action. A gay man can kiss a woman and still be gay if he doesn't feel any sexual attraction towards women. A straight man can be in a position to never act on his heterosexual impulse because he is in an environment where there are no females, and it doesn't mean he's no longer heterosexual. What you're positing by saying actions are more important than impulses is that that man cannot be heterosexual because he has no opportunity to act on his heterosexual impulse, which is ridiculous.

You're still lying in effort just to have something to say. I have never said that inner feelings(stop using the word impulses) don't matter. You keep making these stupid ass nonsensical analogies to cloud the issue when I've been very clear. I've said that what a person claims to feel inside doesn't outweigh what they actually do. What part of that don't you get? I've even broken down the context in which I'm sayin that in. If a man is out here having sex with other men then he's gay regardless of what he claims to feel inside. That down low "I have sex with other men but I'm not gay" shyt that you're pushing does not fly. Sorry.

The other big problem with your argument is that you're saying people can choose to be open to a sexual impulse, which again is not the case. You can control whether or not you act on that impulse, but sexual drive and impulse are hormonal. You can't choose to alter the levels of testosterone, estrogen or progesterone flowing through your body. You just made the same mistake again by stating "There are people who have decided to be open to trying homosexuality". You don't try homosexuality, you are or are not homosexual. You can try homosexual sex or acts, but you can't try the state of being. And before you claim I misquoted you again, here are direct quotes:
"What you're saying is simply not true because we know that sexuality is a conscious choice for some people."

"Bisexuality is not an involuntary or subconscious choice."

And then when I checked you on that, you responded with:

"People have impulses to do all goes of shyt but it's the act that makes it real."

So you're obviously of the wrong belief that a)sexual orientation is a conscious choice for some people, and b) sexual orientation is not legitimate until you act on it.

You haven't "checked" anything. You're just talking in circles distorting my argument while repeating the same dumb shyt over and over. All that talk about "impulses" is a deflection to your down low "you can do gay shyt and not be gay" agenda. Your position is "Having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex isn't being a homosexual". That's an irrational position that not too many people agree with. I'll never agree with that. We've made this a lot more complicated than it really is.

You're point is still illegitimate because you're still using terminology like "choose to be gay". Young Thug and Caitlyn Jenner are not evidence of this, because a) Young Thug is not gay and him presenting himself as such doesn't make it so, and b) Caitlyn Jenner is not gay, she's transgender, and according to her she has always been transgender. So you're bringing up 2 cases of non-gay people to prove a point about how some people can choose to be gay. Neither one has claimed to choose their sexual orientation.

I'm going to have to chalk your lack of comprehension to a overall lack of intelligence. I didn't use Thug and Jenner as examples of those who choose to be gay. I used them as examples of people who exploit alternative lifestyles for the attention amongst other reasons. It Thug isn't gay then that just solidifies my point even more. He's a man who chooses to make people suspect that he's gay just for the attention. You said that nobody would do that.

Why do you deny that Thug is gay btw? He's gay according to your own definition of homosexual. You defined being homosexual as being attracted to those of the same sex and Thug has definitely shown attraction for other men. He calls other men "bae" and "lover". Then there's things like this:

So according to you we don't have to wait for evidence of Thug actually being with other men. His "impulse" to see another man as sexy is enough to classify him as a homosexual(bisexual).

If you think I'm gay based on me caping for gay rights, that's your prerogative. I guess you think James Reeb and Viola Luizzo and James Zwerg were black too. "It is not possible to be in favour of justice for some people and not be in favour of justice for all people." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But I guess that's just humanist garbage to you, and he's completely full of shyt.

MLK's "I have a dream that one day race won't matter and whitw Jesus is the answer" position was certainly full of shyt. He actually woke up to realize that dream was bullshyt right before he was killed. You're full of shyt, you have a clear agenda.

And btw, the difference between those two statements is that there is an area of time where we are being influenced by our postnatal environment yet not choosing the outcome. For example if rates of homosexuality were shown to increase in environments where the child was bottle fed instead of breast fed, he wasn't born gay but he didn't choose to be gay. His environment dictated that.

This is interesting though because you're saying that it's possible for environmental factors can dictate or "turn" children gay while denying that parents can turn a child gay. You'd entertain the possibility that being fed by a bottle can "turn" a child gay but you won't entertain the possibility that being raised by gay parents can turn a child gay. When you have an agenda it's hard to be consistent.

Again, I never said nobody is using it to get attention. I even acknowledged that Young Thug's efficacy in getting attention was predicated on a society where this topic is of interest to the general public. I said that nobody is choosing to be gay to get attention. You can choose to present as gay, but you cannot choose to switch your sexual orientation. So even if we become a society fully accepting of homosexuals, there is no reason to believe rates of homosexuality will increase. Rates of out gays will most definitely increase, but there's no reason to believe there would be an effect on people becoming actually gay. The concern should be that we'll see and increasing number of people pretending to be gay to receive attention, not that homosexuality is a false phenomenon.

Well since you outrageously claim that a person can be in a homosexual relationship and not be gay, there's really no need in debating the "is sexuality a choice" issue anymore. Like I said, I'm never going to agree with your "voluntarily choosing to have gay sex doesn't make you gay" position.

Claiming homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle is also bunk, because there is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. The only thing that differentiates homosexuals from heterosexuals is the direction of their sexual preference. They can present the same in every other facet of life.

at this bullshyt. at you being straight.

Again, the problem with your argument isn't that you don't believe impulses exist

That's exactly what you accused me of saying though. acknowledge the fact that you either lied or aren't smart enough to comprehend what I've been saying.

I'm not denying it's mutable, i'm saying that people who have always had some significant level of attraction to both sexes would naturally believe that everyone is like that, that everyone can choose. And again, you seem to think bisexuality is flipping between being heterosexual and homosexual. It's not, it's it's own state. Bisexuals don't choose to be heterosexual one day then homosexual the next.

Your whole argument is that NOBODY chooses their sexuality tho. You're inconsistent because your only objective is to push a certain agenda.

I was speaking generally here, responding to your claim "Of course a kid being raised by a homosexual parent or couple is going to have some kind of influence on the kid." I agreed that there is an environmental role that parents can play, I was just qualifying your statement that it's not a large role, which you agreed with.

I haven't agreed to any such thing. I don't know why you insist upon lying. While I wouldn't say that a kid raised by gays will automatically be gay theirself, I think that parents are major influences over their children.

...yeah. Again, if a person is engaging in homosexual behaviour and is enjoying it, they are gay or bisexual. If a person is engaging in homosexual behaviour and is not receiving sexual pleasure from it, they are not gay or bisexual. You're going to have to wrap your mind around that idea.

You don't need to clarify your position. I get it. You don't think that you can judge a person on what they do, you rely on what they say. Knowing that a man has sex with other men doesn't make him gay. He has to admit to enjoying the sex that he has with other men to be gay according to you. That opens the door for you and all your fellow down low homosexuals who want to sleep with men without being gay. "Well as long as I don't admit to enjoying gay sex I'm not gay". I feel sorry for you and anybody else ignorant enough to go through life judging people by what they say and not what they do. You're just a fool for people to take advantage of.

Bruh, this is why I'm saying you might actually just be bisexual. Because I know that no matter how hard I tried, I can't find another man sexually attractive. I'm not receiving the impulse. I'm a heterosexual. I didn't choose to be, and I can't control it. I get sexually aroused by women. If you are receiving sexual attraction impulses from men and just choosing not to act on them, you're bisexual breh. And you sound like you're desperately trying to convince yourself you're not bisexual because you haven't acted on your homosexual impulses. Funny enough, the more homosexuality and bisexuality are accepted by our society, the less gay and bi people will have to hide their activities and can stop the down lo shyt.

See, I would literally slap the shyt out you if this was an offline discussion for deliberately distorting what I'm saying here. I haven't said anything about having gay impulses. I said that one could be gay if they choose to. You're arguing that the act of having voluntary gay sex in and of itself doesn't make you gay and I'm arguing that it does. That's the context that this conversation is in. As a man if you decide to go out here and do something with another man then that would make you gay despite your lies about not being attracted to men. That down low loophole that you're fighting for doesn't fly. If have gay sex you're gay, period.

Anyway, we've written a book in here and I feel like we've pretty much reached an impasse, so I'm gonna bow out. Feel free to respond to my post though.

Toodles dahling!

Well yea, I'm never going to agree or respect with your down low gay agenda. I suspect that one day you'll gain the courage to hop your little fakkit ass out of the closet and stop lying to yourself.