Tammy lynn sytch

[Guest Risk]

I posted before I saw your thread, I think it addresses somethings that are in my post.  Limme check it.

[Guest Risk]

Here are some quotations which support my argument of the current subject:

 

Dr. William Byrne, resident of psychiatry at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, says that "The public is now getting the impression that there’s this mountain of evidence being built to support the idea that homosexuality is biological. But in fact what we’re seeing is a stream of zeros being added together."

Dr. John W. Money, Ph.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and one of the most widely recognized authorities on the subject, said in an article in Perspectives in Human Sexuality: "Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child’s psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth."

 

Eminent psychiatrist, Dr. Charles Socarides, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, says this: "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate…." Concerning the claim that sexual orientation is related to brain structure and hormones, Dr. Socarides says, "There’s no possibility of somebody developing homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes. It’s just impossible…a cluster of the brain cannot determine sexual object choice. We know that for a fact."

 

Masters and Johnson, the most widely known authorities in the field of human sexual behavior, have written: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies."

 

Researchers William Byne and Bruce Parsons, in "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatiy, March 1993, vol. 50, write that "While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking."

[Guest]

The general point of your quotes seems to be that you come down fully on the nurture side of the great Nature-Nurture divide.  Fair enough.  But why exactly, in your own words, do you think humans and animals have pursued same-sex sexual relations for millenia if it's not a natural thing for them to fo?  Do you blame the parents?  Television?  What?  I'm not being confrontational anymore (and I don't actually think you're an idiot), I'm just really curious about arguments of this sort.  

 

The majority of gay people I know have had these feelings from as far back as they can remember experiencing attraction towards another person.  How do you explain that?  They don't TRULY feel attracted to that person?  That just seems bizarre to me; why would people do it if they didn't truly want to?  For attention?  While I accept that there are a minority who see it as 'cool' to be experimental, there are many, many more who are embarrassed by their feelings and regard themselves as freaks, more often than not because of people with attitudes like yourself.  Why should they have to live their lives with shame because certain folk don't think it's natural for them to have those feelings?  They can't help it, it's just there.

 

I don't think homosexualty can be passed at birth because everyone is descended from a heterosexual relationship.

 

That's a fair enough opinion, but if not carried in genes, why do you think the desire to seek a same-sex relationship exists in some people and not others?  Or do you simply think it doesn't exist at all, as you stated earlier in the thread?  That they are just deluding themselves?  Again, I'd just like to say I'm no longer mad with you or think you're a judgemental prick, I'm now just interested in your opinions.

 

BTW, whether Tammy has genuine inclinations or not, if I were her I'd stay the hell away from Missy after seeing the size of those crabs.  Sheesh!

[Guest Risk]

I don't think Tammy "Crack Bytch" Sytch would mind the crabs.  

 

Basically, I think there are seven reasons homosexuality exists.

 

1) Some males are born with low testorone levels when still in the fetal stage.  I'm not sure exactly how this happens, but I have read about it.

 

2) Confusion, some animals look alike and smell alike.  

 

3) Some, perhaps, like the sexual stimuli from a homosexual sex.  It is possible to achieve an orgasm through the anus by "exciting" nerves in the penis through the skin.

 

4) Some females may mount others to tell the males they are ready to mate.

 

5) Dominance.  Some animals(and, sadly, humans)feel the need to dominate others to show their superiority.  This is also true for heterosexual relationships.  

 

6) Parents can always be a factor, in many ways.

 

7) Concepts of beauty.  If someone spends most of their time with males or females and is isolated from males or females, they may associate beauty with the male or females.

[Guest]

I stand corrected.  You clearly have thought about this stuff.  I don't know whether that makes your opinions more or less alarming than when it just looked like you were mouthing off for the sake of it.  

 

1) Some males are born with low testorone levels when still in the fetal stage.  I'm not sure exactly how this happens, but I have read about it.

 

You're using this as an example of one of the reasons homosexuality exists, but it completely contradicts the argument you made earlier that there’s no possibility of somebody developing homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes.  Your very first point is of the 'nature' school of thinking.  You're saying that, indeed, some people could just be born that way - which is the very point you were trying to refute!???

 

2) Confusion, some animals look alike and smell alike.  

 

I'm sure that's right.  Billions of gay/bisexual people have made a silly mistake based on poor eyesight and/or a stuffy nose.  i blame the pollen count.  They'll be sorry in the morning.

 

3) Some, perhaps, like the sexual stimuli from a homosexual sex.  It is possible to achieve an orgasm through the anus by "exciting" nerves in the penis through the skin.

 

No shit, Sherlock.  That'll be why they like having sex with each other, I suppose.

 

4) Some females may mount others to tell the males they are ready to mate.

 

I give you that one without any objections, Risk.  I've seen entire dancefloors get the horn when girls get all jiggy wit it.  If it is truly their intention to turn men on by 'mounting' each other, then they achieve it admirably.  For some bisexual women, I have no doubt this is used as a ploy.  But lesbians would not do this.  They're just not interested in men sexually, sorry.

 

5) Dominance.  Some animals(and, sadly, humans)feel the need to dominate others to show their superiority.  This is also true for heterosexual relationships.

 

Again, this is a fair point, but again I would stress that this is a minority reason for homosexual activity.  For every "get on your knees and squeal like a pig" power trip, their are an infinitely greater number of homosexual encounters based on genuine love, affection or attraction.

 

6) Parents can always be a factor, in many ways.

 

7) Concepts of beauty.  If someone spends most of their time with males or females and is isolated from males or females, they may associate beauty with the male or females.

 

These are your two strongest points.  I can't argue them.  Whether homosexuality is a result of nature or nurture, I can't say.  All the facts aren't in yet and until they are, no one can say one way or the other for sure.  Not even the eminent psychiatrist Dr Charles Socarides, unfortunately.  The one thing that is clear is that it exists.  It has existed for a long time, and it will continue to exist in the future.  So why judge it to be immoral when it's a simple fact of life which does you no harm?

 

And in the interests of pulling this thread back towards something vaguely wrestling related ..... Triple-H sucks!!!  Really.  He may be 'bi' a lot of things, but lingual ain't one of them.  (copyright KOTR '98).

[Guest Risk]

I meant low testosterone levels can attribute to one deciding to pursue a homosexual relationship.  But, a lot of those with low teststerone levels still are heterosexual.  I'm looking at homosexuality from a scientific standpoint, not a religious one, I just believe in isn't innate at birth.  One important law is freedom.

 

Most crimes involve taking away the freedom of others.  THAT is what I coincider to be truly immoral.  I'm one of those people who belies man should be more animalistic, but still retain our morals and sciences.  Maybe we can end this topic now.  

[Guest Risk]

Hey.  I just had an idea.  What if the reason most guys like girls fooling around with each other is like the cow thing?  Hm.

[Guest]

Risk,

Yes, let's end the topic, or it will just start chasing its own tail.  I enjoyed talking with you.  Really.  I still don't agree with you, but as the great scouse philosopher John Power once said "don't you think life would be a little drab if we had the same thoughts?".  I certainly no longer think you're an idiot or a bigot, I think you're a perfectly intelligent person with views different to my own.  Just be careful about the way you express those views sometimes, hmmm?

 

I don't know if guys like to watch girls fooling around together because of the cow thing or not, I think it's just the fact that there's twice the number of, uh, udders to look at.  So sir, I charge a glass to you, to the validity of freedom of expression, and to Tammy Sytch's crack.  Pipe.  Roll on the video.

[Guest]

Just re-read this thread with a friend of sapphic inclination.  I'm afraid I have to retract my concession that you may indeed be intelligent.  I tried to be liberal with you, but no it would appear you really are the lowest form of pondscum there is, Risk.  And my friend, a psychology major, assures me there is a 93.76% chance the girls you know told you they were bisexual to mess with your small, bigoted mind and to avoid your small, bigoted penis.  Sorry, couldn't let it lie.  'Go to hell, you ingrate' would appear to be the message.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Wow Mr.Open-Mind resorts to name calling when someone has a different opinion. This is just typical liberal behavior.

[Guest]

To anyone besides myself or Risk who may give a shit,

 

Just to close this thread once and for all, I am posting a concluding note that the last 'Deputy Hawk' message was not written by myself but by a female friend who had been reading the thread on my computer.  She was, I guess, impersonating me because she thought it would be funny.  I didn't share the feeling, as I felt Risk and I signed off from the discussion on good terms.  I have discussed this with Risk amicably in private, and I have severely reprimanded my friend over her 'joke'.  She is, incidentally, a lesbian.  They're clearly all cunts.  Kidding.  Thank you and goodnight.

[Guest Risk]

Thanks for posting Deputy.  This thread is now officially closed.