Could/Should Diana be bisexual/gay?

[liopleurodon]

All of this is just rhetoric; and you've cited no sources; many people just spew out rhetoric and repeat and repeat, but rarely cite the evidence along with the rebuttals; you speak very authoritatively, but, frankly, I'm unimpressed. All evidence of observation shows homosexuality is socially influenced; after a time, some research has been presented to cast doubt on what's observed, but it requires speculation and extrapolation; there is nothing I can cite just offhand, but I can research deeper for my position, but, basically, my position is based upon observation, commonsense, and common history; and as I said previously, the examples are from small samplings of anomalies, such as the practice of cannibalism; sure, you can find it, but it's not widespread and is clearly socially attributable. There are plenty of documentaries observing animals behaving in the natural; I've seen nothing of a common source showing animals engaged in homosexual behavior, at least not in the widespread means you seem to be suggesting; as I said, it would take unusual effort and speculation to demonstrate homosexual tendencies in the wild.

Additionally, if I cite evidence that supports my position, it's deleted fast; clearly, this is a propaganda forum; go debate somewhere else and get informed. There's plenty of evidence, supporting longstanding observation, you just have to go look at it; but, this information is just rhetoric with nothing much outside of anomalies to support it.

Since we're playing this game:

Homosexuality in animals:
link

Homosexuality throughout history:
link
another link
yet another

It took me less that 5 minutes to find those sources.

Since you seem to cite "observation" and "common sense" as the source of your point of view, please explain the following anecdotal evidence: In one family with four siblings. where a very strict form of Christianity is practiced, to the point of going to church 4 times a week and avoiding contact with anyone outside that church, forbidding watching of tv, films, reading books, etc... the two older male brothers exhibit sexual attraction to other men. The two younger are not old enough to make a determination. If your argument is correct, such a thing should not be possible.

Yes, I am aware that is an oversimplification, but it illustrates how your logic is unsound.

If homosexual behavior were socially attributable, it would not be observed in cultures which reject it. You remind me of Ahmadinejad claiming there are no gays in Iran.

As for deletions, some of my comments were deleted as well, so please don't make the assumption that there si some sort of vendetta against you.

[dshipp17]

Since we're playing this game:

Homosexuality in animals:
link

Homosexuality throughout history:
link
another link
yet another

It took me less that 5 minutes to find those sources.

Since you seem to cite "observation" and "common sense" as the source of your point of view, please explain the following anecdotal evidence: In one family with four siblings. where a very strict form of Christianity is practiced, to the point of going to church 4 times a week and avoiding contact with anyone outside that church, forbidding watching of tv, films, reading books, etc... the two older male brothers exhibit sexual attraction to other men. The two younger are not old enough to make a determination. If your argument is correct, such a thing should not be possible.

Yes, I am aware that is an oversimplification, but it illustrates how your logic is unsound.

If homosexual behavior were socially attributable, it would not be observed in cultures which reject it. You remind me of Ahmadinejad claiming there are no gays in Iran.

As for deletions, some of my comments were deleted as well, so please don't make the assumption that there si some sort of vendetta against you.

Well, this quickly breaks down because the samplings will eventually get exposed to the environment out of the presence of their parents at some point, not to mention, your example almost never happens in such a settling; just look to the children of say Kenneth Copeland and Billy Graham; there are millions of other examples proportional to the Christian community, which, as a whole establishes the Christian community. And my example does not have to be limited to Christians; it's a general observation with people in general; you can look to say China, India, and Russia, where Christianity has a harder time to establish roots due to a popular religion, or, in the case of Russia, atheism.

As I said, you were able to find your examples so quickly because they're being pushed forward, while it's almost no need to research animal behavior in the wild when you can see it almost anywhere dealing with documentaries observing the wild.

Clearly, I didn't say that there are no gays, my point is that it's socially attributable and is becoming more widespread because of media pushes and pressures.

[UsagiTsukino]

Loving all persons regardless of gender, sex, etc. is not equal to be sexually attracted to all persons regardless of gender, sex, etc. There are many men who love other men deeply, who would go through hell for them, but who are sexually attracted only to woman. Sexual attraction is mostly determined by your genetic makeup. If you are not sexually attracted to a woman or a man, then you are not attacted. Period. It is a physical reaction, which is out of your control. I am straight, so I get not sexually aroused by men. It has nothing to do with me not being able to love other people regardless of their gender, it has to do with me being turned on only by women.

Growing up on a island full of women does not make her automatically gay or bisexual. Maybe she needed sexual relief and had sex with fellow amazons out of sexual frustration. But this does not mean, that she will still continue to have sex with women if she is sexually attracted only to men and there are men available.

Here the define of Pansexaulity
Pansexuality, or omnisexuality, is sexual attraction, sexual desire, romantic love, or emotional attraction toward persons of all gender identities and biological sexes.[2][3] Self-identified pansexuals may consider pansexuality a sexual orientation,[4] and refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others.[5] The Oxford English Dictionary defines pansexuality as, "not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regards to gender or activity".[6

[dshipp17]

Nothing has been deleted in regards to the homosexuality argument. Please do not claim that we are censoring you and no one else as this is provably untrue.

All messages on both sides of the Intelligent Design discussion have been deleted in their entirety because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

This is not a propaganda forum, nor is it a Religion forum (as you have been repeatedly told).

All messages in regards to the topic of homosexuality in this discussion remain as they were posted. Edits were made for direct insults and/or Intelligent Design discussion only.

Well, the discussion was actually about evolution and science, when intelligent design was used by me to rebut the theory of evolution as being treated as a sound scientific principle. As usual, when rhetoric got soundly rebutted, the religion argument gets used as justification to delete a sound rebuttal to rhetoric and propaganda.

[liopleurodon]

Well, this quickly breaks down because the samplings will be exposed to the environment out of the presence of their parents at some point, not to mention, it almost never happens in such a settling.

Almost never? Is that like, perhaps 5% of the population (link)? Because that seems to be a ballpark figure for the incidence of homosexuality. What evidence do you have to support your claim? There were 3 cases of persons in that same church (~100 people) eventually revealing themselves to be gay or bi. How many others suffer in silence? Again, I am aware it is anecdotal, but it's better that your "evidence" of "it must be true because I just said so".

It also would serve to note that the above is the case of myself and my sibling (who is closeted). And not an isolated case. Such "scandals" were not uncommon.

And just because at some point you claimed to be a scientist (unless I misread), here are statements from some actual scientific organizations:

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers:

LINK Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.

Royal College of Psychiatrists:

LINK Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

American Academy of Pediatrics:

LINK Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

How about twin studies, which have been shown to be very good indicators of genetic expressions (duh!):

LINK Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

It was also laughably easy to find those sources.

[dshipp17]

Almost never? Is that like, perhaps 5% of the population (link)? Because that seems to be a ballpark figure for the incidence of homosexuality. What evidence do you have to support your claim? There were 3 cases of persons in that same church (~100 people) eventually revealing themselves to be gay or bi. How many others suffer in silence? Again, I am aware it is anecdotal, but it's better that your "evidence" of "it must be true because I just said so".

It also would serve to note that the above is the case of myself and my sibling (who is closeted). And not an isolated case. Such "scandals" were not uncommon.

And just because at some point you claimed to be a scientist (unless I misread), here are statements from some actual scientific organizations:

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers:



Royal College of Psychiatrists:



American Academy of Pediatrics:



How about twin studies, which have been shown to be very good indicators of genetic expressions (duh!):



It was also laughably easy to find those sources.

I was just responding to your request for examples; yeah, just like the anomaly of cannibalism; didn't say it didn't happen, it's just an anomaly. I'm unaware of your examples from either a Kenneth Copeland or Billy Graham church, but, again, the people got exposed to social factors. Coming out of the closet is a good slogan. Kenneth Copeland and Billy Graham preached to thousands of people every Sunday and on various evangelical trips, so, yeah, the odds increase that someone will be encountered that will do something considered taboo, to use the secular term. While a social behavior may be an anomaly, doing taboo things is very common and church is used as a vehicle to try to restrain yourself from doing things that are taboo.

I've already addressed your science papers and I said that effort was taken to make those observations out of what is common and more clearly observable; they're readily available because of the current media push and pressures.

[UsagiTsukino]

Well delete

[slvn]

I was just responding to your request for examples; yeah, just like the anomaly of cannibalism; didn't say it didn't happen, it's just an anomaly.

But again, as homosexual behavior was the norm in Athens and other ancient Greek city-states, and was considered natural (on the part of the "active" male participant) in Rome, and was honored as a characteristic of shamans in the Americas, and has long been considered natural to a third gender in Thailand, and has been recognized since at least 600 BCE in China, how can you call its presence in any given social group an aberration?

Do you remember when Ahamdinejad said there was no homosexuality in Iran? He was laughed at by people across the ideological and cultural spectra. No one believes that Iran is without LGBTQ-oriented people--and if it were, then THAT would be the anomaly.

Seriously, how many societies would have to regard homosexuality as natural before you would agree that this attitude or belief was not an aberration?

It seems to me that you're defining "aberration" not on the basis of frequency of occurrence or on the basis of functionality, but on the basis of your preconceived notion of normalcy. And that's not something you should try to justify as "scientific."

I regard cannibalism as an aberration but because it is both relatively rare (certainly not something we can find widely documented find across the centuries on just about every continent) and dysfunctional (in that it tends to promote antisocial behavior, to put it mildly). Neither of those things is true of same-sex love.

As for same-sex behaviors among animals being an aberration due to environmental stresses, if you read http://www.thestranger.com/images/bl...osexuality.pdf , you'll see that such behavior is found in many species without any particular environmental stress having to be present. You seem to think that you can "refute" arguments you don't like by simply assuming, without evidence, that they can be explained away. That's not refutation, though, and it's not scientific. It's dogmatism, and it's wishful thinking.

[dshipp17]

that because religion create issue you as a scientist should understand that. There a reason for church and state being separated. Also what you are saying is you offend. that gays are only gays because of the media. What fact about media before hand and there were gays and they were just not in the media. If you don't like it then block the channels that you find wrong to your children. I'm Christan and straight but I have meet many Christan from strict home who were gay. Them told be how they know form a young age. Look, I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. It's a justification because there are the rules of this forum are very clear okay. Look we don't see eye to eye. Case closed. The fact is religion shouldn't be in forums like there because it let's to trouble and believe me I seen it. I study the bible and you have study the bible. Weather are not if you fine gays abnormal one thing is to love them Jesus makes that clear. Geal if you need to delete this

I'm not saying gays are only gay because of the media. When I mentioned the media, I said that it's become a vehicle to make gay seem more normal, while it's an abnormal behavior; it's being used as a vehicle to impose pressure and advance a position. However, observing homosexuality as abnormal is not related to being tolerant or intolerant of the behavior; it's just one observation of the behavior.

Again, the intelligent design versus evolution was a scientific discussion, not a religious discussion.

[dshipp17]

But again, as homosexual behavior was the norm in Athens and other ancient Greek city-states, and was considered natural (on the part of the "active" male participant) in Rome, and was honored as a characteristic of shamans in the Americas, and has long been considered natural to a third gender in Thailand, and has been recognized since at least 600 BCE in China, how can you call its presence in any given social group an aberration?

Do you remember when Ahamdinejad said there was no homosexuality in Iran? He was laughed at by people across the ideological and cultural spectra. No one believes that Iran is without LGBTQ-oriented people--and if it were, then THAT would be the anomaly.

Seriously, how many societies would have to regard homsexuality as natural before you would agree that this attitude or belief was not an aberration?

It seems to me that you're defining "aberration" not on the basis of frequency of occurrence or on the basis of functionality, but on the basis of your preconceived notion of normalcy. And that's not something you should try to justify as "scientific."

I regard cannibalism as an aberration but because it is both relatively rare (certainly not something we can find widely documented find across the centuries on just about every continent) and dysfunctional (in that it tends to promote antisocial behavior, to put it mildly). Neither of those things is treu of same =-sex love.

Despite what you say, and I'd need to verify what you say a little closer, they are few and far between by comparison. Clearly, being transgender is a different issue because it's a physical condition. I empathize with them, similar to people who are bullied. I wanted to give Ahamdinejad a fair shot when I heard rumors of him denying the holocaust of WWII (but the holocaust of the Christians at the time of WWI is a lot less known and publicized, where a greater number of Christians were exterminated), but after I verified it was true and heard him speak, I don't really take much he says seriously, because he appears to be being deliberately provocative; more likely than not, there are people who practice homosexuality in Iran.

[kane]

Here the define of Pansexaulity
Pansexuality, or omnisexuality, is sexual attraction, sexual desire, romantic love, or emotional attraction toward persons of all gender identities and biological sexes.[2][3] Self-identified pansexuals may consider pansexuality a sexual orientation,[4] and refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others.[5] The Oxford English Dictionary defines pansexuality as, "not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regards to gender or activity".[6

Well, I learned something new. But still, the fact that WW loves all of humanity does not mean she has to be automatically sexually attracted to both genders or even to a non human being (who does not look humanlike).

btw. is Pansexuality not basically Bisexuality? We only have two genders.

[UsagiTsukino]

Well to get back to the Diana topic. I think it all as to do with how they write it.

[slvn]

Despite what you say, and I'd need to verify what you say a little closer, they are few and far between by comparison. Clearly, being transgender is a different issue because it's a physical condition. I empathize with them, similar to people who are bullied.

"Few and far between" meaning what? If LGBTQ people are 5% of the population, is that an aberration? If they are 10%? What's the basis for your definition of aberration? And what makes you think that if something is unusual then it must be produced by culture and not by nature, or only produced by nature under some kind of extreme circumstances? Is having red hair unnatural because it is less frequent than other hair colors?

Or if you mean that cultures that recognize that same-sex desire is natural (whether or not that consider homosexual behavior permissible) are few and far between, then I'd like to see you try to prove that. Even in an officially Christian culture like Renaissance Italy, homosexuality was widespread and considered quite natural by many of the people of the cities, though officially not tolerated and sometimes persecuted. The church officially might have called sodomy "unnatural," but I'm sure many members of the flock unofficially considered it "doing what comes naturally."

It's true that the persecution of LGBTQ people is historically quite common, but I wouldn't call it "normal." As Marston (hello, general vicinity of the topic of the forum!) points out in Emotions of Normal People, "normal" doesn't always mean "common"; it can also mean "functional" or "healthy." (Marston thought emotionally "normal" people--those predisposed towards love rather than ego-gratification and aggression or slavishness--were actually quite uncommon.) I'm sure we can agree that the persecution of people based on their sexuality is not "normal" in the sense of "functional" or "healthy" at all.

How many geographical areas can you name in which homsexuality is or was completely absent? Wouldn't those societies be the statistical aberrations?

[Legato]

This has nothing to do with the topic.

[Gaelforce]

Well, the discussion was actually about evolution and science, when intelligent design was used by me to rebut the theory of evolution as being treated as a sound scientific principle. As usual, when rhetoric got soundly rebutted, the religion argument gets used as justification to delete a sound rebuttal to rhetoric and propaganda.

No, this is untrue.

The discussion was about sexual orientation and another poster commented about teaching about sexual orientation with young students.

YOU then brought Intelligent Design and Evolution into the discussion despite the fact that they have nothing to do with Wonder Woman or sexual preferences.

I let that stand until several people refused to let it drop and that portion of the discussion got insulting. I then went back and deleted/edited every single message having to do with Intelligent Design/Evolution. Yours was the first, but it was not the last.

You were the one who took it off in a tangent. It was not about evolution/ID until you made it about that topic.

It is also outrageous that you categorize your own posts as 'sound rebuttal' and everyone else's replies as 'rhetoric and propaganda.' That is insulting to everyone who posts here and such insults are not welcome on this forum.

Cut it out.