Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat

Chat For posts that don't have to do with astrological chart interpretation, but they're still important to you. Gossip, show off, hot topic, spiritual thoughts, Sun sign astrological discussions, chit chat: come in and share!


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Unread 02-09-2009, 07:45 PM
rogue_red's Avatar
rogue_red rogue_red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 562
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrologer4U


http://www.malesurvivor.org/survivors.html



"Male Survivor" is a website where men who have survived being molested go to and support each other. Here is a link to a thread which shows how being molested distorts ones sexuality, causing one to be go back and forth between male and female, one of the instances I described which people seem to disagree with... Of course the ones who have support and the wounds are not to deep, they make it through the molestation much better but for those who don't, they turn into in the closet gays who are homophobic, a danger to themselves and others. At this site, some have even expressed that they will never know if they were born to be gay or not.
Astrologer4u,
With all due respect when you post in a thread questions posted are generally seen as being open to anyone to reply to so Gaer was quite within his right to reply, whether you want him too or not.
With that being said I have some points to make.
1) Sexual abuse does distort ones sexuality. But, it also distorts our ability to trust, our sense of self, our understanding of universal power and our ability to heal ourselves. What a terrible thing it is to suffer so at the hands of those we love and trust. Even as a survivor of extensive sexual abuse and rape I find my mind and heart cannot comprehend the mindset of an abuser. I have stayed away from this thread because I find your arguement to be repugnant. Basically your arguement is that gay men are either mutant leftovers of abuse or lasciviously orientated for their own reasons. Either arguement is reprehensible and indicates an inability to rectify ones own sexual identity.

2) Your comment that women who suffer sexual abuse have more sympathy than male victims and this is why more men who are sexually abused 'become' gay is loose at best. One of the most difficult aspects of abuse to handle is the biological response to abuse. It is natural and normal for the victim of abuse to abhor the abuse and still have a biologically positive response (i am trying to politely say aroused). The victim has no control whatsoever of this biological response but it can leave a victim feeling incredibly guilty. Men/boys are far more likely to have a biological response than women/girls. Some boys who are abused and have such a response may become confused about their sexuality. They think that because they were aroused by the abuse that they must therefore be gay. Now before you start cutting and pasting this thinking I am supporting your arguement think again. The number of male children who fall into this catagory is very small and accounts for a miniscule percentage of men who call themselves gay.
Just look at the data.
Quote:
Abuse typically occurs within a long-term, on-going relationship between the offender and victim, escalates over time and lasts an average of four years.3,5 Offenders often develop a relationship with a targeted victim for months before beginning the abused 3 Sexual abuse often occurs in successive generations of the same family.2 In non-familial child abduction, one study found two-thirds of reported cases involved sexual assault.6
In up to 50 percent of reported cases, offenders are adolescents.1,5 In 82 percent of accusations recently studied the accused offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child's. Researchers estimate that between 96 to 100 percent of accused abusers are recognizably heterosexual.25 Another study found that almost half of offending fathers and stepfathers also abused children outside their family.1
Children are most vulnerable between ages eight-12.8 The average age for first abuse is 9.9 years for boys and 9.6 years for girls.6 Victimization occurs before age eight in over 20 percent of the cases. Another study found 24 percent of female child sexual abuse survivors were first abused at age five or younger.9
Estimates of child sexual abuse rates vary for many reasons. Less than 10 percent of set abuse is reported to the policed.10 Definitions of both abuse and the age of maturity affect frequency rates.6 Protective services only record reported cases and typically focus on intrafamilial abuse, thus excluding non-caretakers.6
Even in self-reporting surveys, abuse may be underreported because many people are afraid or ashamed to reveal victimization, have repressed memories of abuse, refuse to participate in studies or deny that what happened was "real" abuse.1,3,8
The National Resource Council estimates the percent of the U.S. population which has been sexually abused to range from a low of 20-24 percent to a high of 54-62 percent of the population; the higher estimate includes sexualized exposure without touching, such as masturbating in front of the child.1 The largest retrospective study on the prevalence of child sexual abuse found 27 percent of women and 16 percent of men reported abuse.4
Studies examining victimization of boys have recorded rates ranging from 3 to 31 percent of all men.1 Male victimization is particularly hard to estimate due to beliefs that only girls can be abused; that sex between older women and boys is desirable; that male victimization of boys indicates lack of masculinity and/or acquiescence by the child.8
One study found less than 2 percent of abuse reports made by children and 6 percent of those made by adults were judged false, suggesting that false allegations are rare.3 In one study, all but two children who revoked claims of abuse later disclosed new incidents of abuse. These researchers view revocation of abuse reports as part of the disclosure process rather than an indication of false claims.11
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUB...t/fsabuse1.htm

Ok. Now looking at the data we can see that sexual abuse tends to be familial and generational and yet we dont see the same correlation to the families of gay men. In fact the opposite seems to be the case when we look at studies of sexual abusers and their sexual orientation.

Quote:
Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

Now look at this exerpt from a study on the childhood and family experiences of convicted child molesters.

Quote:
When asked whether they had been sexually abused in childhood, the majority of offenders said they had not. The exceptions were men whose defence lawyers had used childhood victimization to try to minimize the seriousness of their offences. However, when asked (a) “How old were you when you had your first sexual experience? And how old was the other party involved?”, eighty-two of the eighty-four prisoners revealed that they had been victims of child sexual abuse. The men did not define this as reportable abuse if:
they enjoyed any aspect of their relationship with the offenders;
the offenders professed to love them;
they received gifts or treats from offenders;
they enjoyed receiving genital fondling or oral sex;
perpetrators were females or youths;
they had a physiological reaction to sexual touching and believed that this indicated that they wanted sex, were “gay”, responsible and, therefore, blameworthy.
http://www.delphicentre.com.au/confe...ers/Briggs.doc

Can you see the huge disparity between the information you proport and the actual evidentiary studies. What is being said here is that less than 1% of child molesters identify with being gay and yet 97.6% of child molesters in this study were sexually abused by a male.

Male survivors of sexual abuse who suffer sexual identity issues are far less likely to be openly gay because this would involve seeing themselves as being like the abuser.
I think you may need to accept that there is a clear difference between those who suffer from sexual identity disorders and those who are gay.
For many people accepting the truth about their sexual orientation is fraught with pain and social bigotry but trying to prove that homosexuality is a choice is not going to make the truth what you want it to be.

Rogue red

EDIT. Apologies to AQ7, I had not seen your post prior to posting.
Astr4u: This will be my only response in this thread. I am not interested in argueing but simply wanted to provide some meat for the bones.

__________________
[SIGPIC]
Disclaimer: All comments posted are simply the opinions of the author unless quoted or stated otherwise. Comments are not to be taken as fact.

***Im on a journey to Eudaimonia.***
I am writing a lot at the moment.
Read my work here:
http://rogue_red.writing.com/
Life is not measured by the number of breathes you take but by the moments that take our breath away.:53:currently 9hr15min SF

Last edited by rogue_red; 02-09-2009 at 07:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Unread 02-09-2009, 07:49 PM
Kaiousei no Senshi's Avatar
Kaiousei no Senshi Kaiousei no Senshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richardson, TX, USA
Posts: 2,609
Send a message via MSN to Kaiousei no Senshi Send a message via Skype™ to Kaiousei no Senshi
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Can we freeze this right here and make everyone adopt this approach?
Oh how I would love to, but if Astro4U is really going to sit there and continue to be this way, then no, I really don't think I can. Her posts just permeate...gah. Can't even say it.

Quote:
That would be the best thing to do when sense it has become obvious that you don't have a leg to stand on. You criticize my sources but yet you bring no sources to refute, anything that I have said. I see that you had nothing to say about the "Male Survivors" and what they express in terms being confused/distorted about their sexuality...
Maybe, maybe not, but I did think it was really stupid of me to try and discuss the minds and thoughts of people who I really can't relate to. Not knowing many and not having been molested myself, so I think there's little point to it. Do they undergo psychological and emotional trauma? Certainly, I'm just not so sure it's any different than the kind girls go through. I'm willing to say I'm wrong about that, though, since it's all speculation on my part.

Quote:
Keyword, seems. You obviously don't know him as well as you think you know him if what you observe about him is seeming.
It was sarcasm, I know him quite well. Unless he's hiding it all from me, which I guess is possible, but unlikely as I've known him for a couple of years.

Quote:
I bet you would rather focus on this part since it seems the only part you think that will refute everything else that I have said...

I said one out of ten but it may actually be more being that more cases of boys being molested go un reported than they go reported...
No, you said nine out of ten molested boys grow up to be gay. Several other people have mentioned you saying it too, so I'm not the only one who saw it.

Quote:
"Crimes against boys bring emotional challenge from a society that does not discuss male sexuality. However, society's ignorance by default places the burden of proof completely upon the boy, not the adult responsible. For the past 25 years, statistics remain constant that 1-in-5 boys experience sexual abuse prior to the age of 16. This statistic represents a good-sized number, roughly 30,000,000 males in the United States, or the population of California."
That statistic says that 1 in 5 boys have been sexual abused before they turned sixteen, not that one in five boys who have been sexually abused grew up gay.

Quote:
Then you would have found "Male Survivors"
What search words did you use? I ran "molested, growing up gay" and other variations of it. Male survivors never came up.

Quote:
And I should say that being that you over looked a reliable/credible source such as "Male Survivors" and debunked my video as a lowsy reality show
Sorry, your Male Survivors site offered no statistics about molested boys growing up gay. Certainly some of them said they struggle now and again depending on how they feel, but it seems that all of those you quoted were heterosexuals who struggle with homosexuality due to their experiences, and not mean who are homosexual due to them. And your videos were ****, reality show. It happens. This handbook being endorsed by a governmental health agency is much more significant.

I found another PDF file book that quotes several other studies that all pretty much conclude that "There is no reason to believe that sexual abuse fundamentally changes or shapes sexual orientation." That book is called Betrayed as Boys and lists several psychological and child developmental studies throughout it and in the bibliography.

Quote:
I never said that at all, the arguement of going deeper came up when I said that even gays ridicule other gays for saying that being gay was a choice for them. You as well as other gays don't want to accept that because you feel that gays going around saying they chose to be gay, poses some kind of threat for those who say they were born gay. If you really know and believe that what you know and believe, nothing anyone say's to oppose, that should bother you at all.
Contradicting your sentiment doesn't change it. The argument for going deeper came up when you said gays should just accept that they're born that way and looking deeper somehow shows they can't.

Quote:
We have already established that being gay is not a special case so why would such measures have to be taken to explain why one is gay be the case?
I never said it was a special case. I'm TRYING to show you that it's like people trying to figure out why one dog is black and the other dog is white! Neither is "normal" in itself, it's just different and they want to know why are they different!

Quote:

You are resorting to apples and oranges again. No gay gene excist, however tall genes do..
Sorry, but a difference in the physical hypothalamus gland probably would be a genetic factor. Disagree? Just because it hasn't been identified doesn't mean it's not there.

Quote:
You can't compare two humans if the only difference between them is sexual orientation. That is why the studies are bogus and a huge distraction for gullable people who want to provide the world with a justification for why they prefer to be sexually orientated towards the same sex.
But Mendel could compare a green pea plant and a yellow pea plant and that wasn't bogus? I also find it unlikely that there can be two people the exact same and sexuality be the only difference.

Quote:
Yeah they are trying to figure it out but they never will because you can't put a put a (subconscious or conscious thought/action choice) up under a microscope and disect it unless, you are open minded towards doing an overall study and gathering of information.
Nope, but we can see that the hypothalamus gland and other things are different and try to figure out why and if that has any sort of connection or is just coincidence. That can be put under a microscope and has more scientific backing than your oxymoronical "subconscious choice" idea.

[quote]
I can't take any kind of advice from someone who is to lazy to prove their cause/arguement[/QUOTE]

I already did, twice. I can't take anything you say seriously since your proof resides in the world of reality TV.

I'm sorry Aquarius7000, I really am, I know I get goaded into this too easily but, seriously? Can you blame me? Even gaer and Lilly got caught up in it and they're well known for having a level-head. I think I've done rather well, all things considered, not getting personal and whatnot. For all I care, you can take this whole thread and burn it.

Rogue, your statistics made me sad.
__________________
Coming events cast their shadows before them.

www.medievalastrologyguide.com

Last edited by Kaiousei no Senshi; 02-09-2009 at 07:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Unread 02-09-2009, 08:25 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
We have already established that being gay is not a special case so why would such measures have to be taken to explain why one is gay be the case? What is good for the goose, should also be good for the gander. We should be asking the same questions about heterosexuals, bi sexuals and so forth.
Well, that sounds vaguely familiar to something I tried to suggest earlier in the thread's life. Namely that we should be looking at the whole spectrum of sexuality instead of focusing on homosexuality. But that is irrelevant.

Quote:
Again if being gay is normal, one should have a normal answer that they don't have to go to a scientist to get.
Why? What is your logic for that?

Kai:
Quote:
You say that people should just accept the "born that way" argument, and that's cool, I think they should too, but then you go on to scrutinize people finding deeper.
A4U:
Quote:
I never said that at all, the arguement of going deeper came up when I said that even gays ridicule other gays for saying that being gay was a choice for them.
Which is definitely not how it went down.

In fact, A4U, if we go back a couple posts, after I said this:
Quote:
Believing that you are born gay does not mean that you know why you are gay.
You said this:
Quote:
The *reason* why you are gay (that's if you feel being gay is natural) should be because you are born that way, that should suffice.
That is when the argument of going deeper came up.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Unread 02-09-2009, 08:26 PM
gaer gaer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,272
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_red
This will be my only response in this thread. I am not interested in argueing but simply wanted to provide some meat for the bones.
Thank you for sharing your own experience.

The reason I have continued to post is that it was my fear that the people who have had first-hand experience would be intimidated into not posting.

It's sad but true that often those who have the most to say are the last to express themselves.

I think all your points were exceptionally well-balanced and well presented. You made several of the points I tried to make, but much better!

g
__________________
View my chart:

Voltaire: "Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes."
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Unread 02-09-2009, 08:28 PM
aquarius7000's Avatar
aquarius7000 aquarius7000 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,244
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Oh how I would love to, but if Astro4U is really going to sit there and continue to be this way, then no, I really don't think I can. Her posts just permeate...gah. Can't even say it.
Thanks for responding, Kai. If nothing more, that bit has certainly answered all my questions in one go:
Quote:
Is it really worth your time and energy to keep going round and round in circles and come to nowhere near a fruitful conclusion. Perhaps 10 new threads were started today, how about contributing there? How about answering so many other unanswered question floating around?

Ok, this is the chat section, but do things really have to come down to this level and must YOU be party to it, repeatedly?????

plus proven to me yet again that:
Quote:
This discussion, sorry to say, has turned SO futile and is developing in terms of nothing but personal attacks and mortification.
Sigh..

Wish I could 'help'.
AQ7
__________________
The strange obsession that the acceptance of particular religious metaphysics is necessary for salvation, and that the non-acceptance thereof is a heinous sin, condemning one to eternal punishment in hell is simply a way of fear-mongering and controlling the psyche of the masses.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Unread 02-09-2009, 08:43 PM
rogue_red's Avatar
rogue_red rogue_red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 562
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiousei no Senshi
Rogue, your statistics made me sad.
They made me sad too Kai, I had to be very selective about which parts i posted as the full text is extremely disturbing. Heartbreaking even

*hugs for kai*

Gaer; thankyou for your compliments. My response was a 'humanitarian' move.

*hugs for gaer*

EternalAutumn; you are doing great, your eagerness to understand is commendable.

*hugs for EA*

AQ7; *hugs just because*

Lovingly

Rogue red
__________________
[SIGPIC]
Disclaimer: All comments posted are simply the opinions of the author unless quoted or stated otherwise. Comments are not to be taken as fact.

***Im on a journey to Eudaimonia.***
I am writing a lot at the moment.
Read my work here:
http://rogue_red.writing.com/
Life is not measured by the number of breathes you take but by the moments that take our breath away.:53:currently 9hr15min SF
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Unread 02-09-2009, 09:14 PM
Astrologer4U Astrologer4U is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 715
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_red
Astrologer4u,
With all due respect when you post in a thread questions posted are generally seen as being open to anyone to reply to so Gaer was quite within his right to reply, whether you want him too or not.
You are coming in on the tail end of a discusion and your conlusions about what I said to gaer are wrong. This is the reason why adults should let other adults speak for themsleves... I never said gaer could not reply, I said that he was replying without full knowledge because just like you, he came in on the tail end of the discussion, saw something I said and totally misconstrued what I said to fit what he already concluded about my part of the discussion/ arguement or what have you.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Unread 02-09-2009, 09:19 PM
aquarius7000's Avatar
aquarius7000 aquarius7000 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,244
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ53
Those who walk away from the fight, win it.

EJ:cheers:
EJ, :cheers:.

As they say, discretion is the better part of valour.

Meet you elsewhere.

AQ7
__________________
The strange obsession that the acceptance of particular religious metaphysics is necessary for salvation, and that the non-acceptance thereof is a heinous sin, condemning one to eternal punishment in hell is simply a way of fear-mongering and controlling the psyche of the masses.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Unread 02-09-2009, 09:41 PM
Astrologer4U Astrologer4U is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 715
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalautumn
Well, that sounds vaguely familiar to something I tried to suggest earlier in the thread's life. Namely that we should be looking at the whole spectrum of sexuality instead of focusing on homosexuality. But that is irrelevant.

At this point, I would have to agree...


Why? What is your logic for that?

Not that you are really wanted a response but the logic is this, people should be depending on themselves/critically thinking, instead of relying on every whim of a scientists word.

Below: You should have supplied the proof step by step if you really know what you are talking about. Your word is not the gospel. We don't have the luxury of quoting just so you can make things up about what someone else said and in the order for which they said. Everything I said is right here in this thread, it is not like you have to go retrieve my quotes from somewhere else.

Kai:

Quote:
Quote:
You say that people should just accept the "born that way" argument, and that's cool, I think they should too, but then you go on to scrutinize people finding deeper.
A4U:

Quote:
Quote:
I never said that at all, the arguement of going deeper came up when I said that even gays ridicule other gays for saying that being gay was a choice for them.
That would be your rearranged version of how things wen down. The above is not the order of how things came about....




In fact, A4U, if we go back a couple posts, after I said this:

Quote:
Quote:
Believing that you are born gay does not mean that you know why you are gay.
You said this:

Quote:
Quote:
The *reason* why you are gay (that's if you feel being gay is natural) should be because you are born that way, that should suffice.

That is when the argument of going deeper came up.
Before the above even occured, the conversation had already turned deep long ago. It all happen when sexual orientations were posted. The gay people contributing to this thread did not like being grouped in with pedophiles. Heterosexuals, was also in the group, but for obvious reasons, that part was over looked and the gay people in this thread wanted to feel as though they were being compared to pedophiles. At that point, I had to mention why I had even talked about pedophiles which you said your self you now understood my reason for doing.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Unread 02-09-2009, 09:41 PM
Astrologer4U Astrologer4U is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 715
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Page posted twice, had to delete this one.

Last edited by Astrologer4U; 02-09-2009 at 09:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Unread 02-10-2009, 12:54 AM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
That would be your rearranged version of how things wen down. The above is not the order of how things came about....
Well, the order of how things went down is plainly viewable to everyone, so if I am wrong, I am wrong, and if you are wrong, you are wrong. There's no arguing it. I would never purposefully rearrange what you said to make you sound "bad", and if I did I sincerely apologize. But I believe that I did not.

Quote:
Below: You should have supplied the proof step by step if you really know what you are talking about. Your word is not the gospel. We don't have the luxury of quoting just so you can make things up about what someone else said and in the order for which they said. Everything I said is right here in this thread, it is not like you have to go retrieve my quotes from somewhere else.
I don't know why you would accuse me of putting words in your mouth and changing the order of them. I have no reason to do that, and I personally am above that. If there was a mistake in the order (but not in what you said because I directly quoted you), it was a honest mistake and I apologize. Again.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand...

Quote:
Not that you are really wanted a response but the logic is this, people should be depending on themselves/critically thinking, instead of relying on every whim of a scientists word.
[You are mistaken. I did want an honest response. Like I said, I'm trying to understand without assuming things. Even though you have agreed with this statement, you seem to be doing the opposite quite often. I think we can all be open in this thread; asking questions about someone's opinions doesn't have to be the same thing as criticizing them.]

You yourself mentioned something about it either being a conscious or subconscious choice. All the critical thinking in the world would not penetrate the subconscious, so how do you expect people to understand it? All we have for windows into the subconscious are dreams and such, and those aren't usually made up of easily decoded thoughts, reasons, and explanations. Also, I don't think many people, especially on this forum, are "relying on every whim of a scientist's word". There are some people who look to science for an excuse for them and their life, but I feel that that is a minority of the population. However, with the subject of homosexuality, there is very little conclusive information on the "why", and also the "how" (besides probably being somewhat genetic). I think that because there is so much information and so little of it is true, people try their best to find the most unbiased and logically "pure" theories, and science has offered up something for the people to eat; that it is likely that genetic composition affects an individual's sexuality, at most partially, at least minutely. There is no way "ordinary" people could apply critical thinking (taking an average person, middle class, etc.) and come up with the same results that scientists can find in a laboratory, through experimentation, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Unread 02-10-2009, 01:13 AM
Astrologer4U Astrologer4U is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 715
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalautumn
Well, the order of how things went down is plainly viewable to everyone, so if I am wrong, I am wrong, and if you are wrong, you are wrong. There's no arguing it. I would never purposefully rearrange what you said to make you sound "bad", and if I did I sincerely apologize. But I believe that I did notI don't know why you would accuse me of putting words in your mouth and changing the order of them. I have no reason to do that, and I personally am above that. If there was a mistake in the order (but not in what you said because I directly quoted you), it was a honest mistake and I apologize. Again.


Well, you did mess with the order of the conversation. The order in which you posted what Kai said and what I said afterwards him, was not correct and with your making such a mistake like that at a convienient time when I am being ambushed... LOL doesn't make you appear to have made that mistake by accident, but for some reason I believe that you had no ill intent so let's just drop it and move on...


[You are mistaken. I did want an honest response. Like I said, I'm trying to understand without assuming things. Even though you have agreed with this statement, you seem to be doing the opposite quite often. I think we can all be open in this thread; asking questions about someone's opinions doesn't have to be the same thing as criticizing them.]

Okay, we are moving on now as I said, everything I mistook you for doing in that instance was based on the ambush and I apologize for seeing you in particular light shortly after we had earlier came to an understanding. It's just that I have come to see that people around here pretend like they have moved so I think it is cool to move on until either an ambush occurs or something about me is said in another thread pertaining an old incident.

You yourself mentioned something about it either being a conscious or subconscious choice. All the critical thinking in the world would not penetrate the subconscious, so how do you expect people to understand it?

I don't expect people to understand it but if they don't understand, they should just simply say that. All the negative ego bouncing around is unecessary in a debate, if one can not handle the heat just get the heck out of the kitchen. I was serious about this discussion, I went and did my research and all. I could not find the statistics I mentioned because they were hearsay from this teen counselor that I know but I had asked him today where did he get his statistics from and he was the one who told me about the website where the 1 out of 5 is reported to be molested boys but he went on to say that he didn't have proof of a statistical number because lots of cases go un reported and the kids he meets are not monitored or cared for up into their adult age. Any way, I don't play around with this kind of stuff.

All we have for windows into the subconscious are dreams and such, and those aren't usually made up of easily decoded thoughts, reasons, and explanations. Also, I don't think many people, especially on this forum, are "relying on every whim of a scientist's word". There are some people who look to science for an excuse for them and their life, but I feel that that is a minority of the population. However, with the subject of homosexuality, there is very little conclusive information on the "why", and also the "how" (besides probably being somewhat genetic). I think that because there is so much information and so little of it is true, people try their best to find the most unbiased and logically "pure" theories, and science has offered up something for the people to eat; that it is likely that genetic composition affects an individual's sexuality, at most partially, at least minutely. There is no way "ordinary" people could apply critical thinking (taking an average person, middle class, etc.) and come up with the same results that scientists can find in a laboratory, through experimentation, etc.

The above is correct and true... You are right and that is only fair to say.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Unread 10-20-2009, 05:17 AM
Astro-Intuitive's Avatar
Astro-Intuitive Astro-Intuitive is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 89
Re: non-astrological discussion of homosexuality

rogue_red,

I am highly...HIGHLY impressed by your posts! Would love the honor to discuss any subject with you.

Warm Regards,
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Calling all Vedic astrologers..... freedomlover Vedic Astrology 38 12-13-2011 12:14 PM
Dear Mama; a Capricorn's Plight ninashtia Natal Astrology 6 10-14-2010 11:25 AM
Theological Discussion (amongst other things) LionKing Spiritual Realm 42 10-22-2008 03:00 AM



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.