|
|
|
Dear guest,
Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
|
 |
|

05-08-2008, 06:28 PM
|
 |
Squire
Queer, inter-racial and crazy; James Dobsons' worst nightmare:)
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 153
Location: DFW Texas, USA
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois
I submit the following for consideration: What about gay men in jail?
* Do you think there is a higher incidence of homosexuality in jail then in life outside of jail? If so, why?
* Why is there more homosexuality inside of jails then outside?
* Are the people who do gay sex in jail mostly naturally gay, or is it learned behavior?
|
(God bless the coffe bean growers everywhere  )
Imho, I think there are two different types of behaivor at play here.
I think you are right, WEB, in that anyone can
participate in any type of sexual behavior. But to me, there is a big difference in choosing a behavior in a hostile enviroment than in choosing a behavior in a free enviroment.
Again, it goes back to the feelings behind the behavior.
I would imagine there are plenty of prisoners who particpate in homosexual behavior in prison who never did before and never do again.
As to whether it is natural or learned, I suspect it would depend on how they lived their life outside of prison.
__________________
"If you can't do something smart, do something right."
|

05-08-2008, 06:32 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,389
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummwhat
I am sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Does this mean you choose to end the debate? Or is it something else?
|
That's rather pitiful as my remarks are plainly obvious. I'm saying:
(1) It's dishonest to complain about how one person is not responding fast enough to your comments, when that person is replying to 5 or so people at the same time and
(2) I am going to take a pause in replying to remarks because it takes me several times longer to reply to 5 people than it takes you or other people to reply to one person and that's it's really petty and dishonest not to realize that.
|

05-08-2008, 06:34 PM
|
 |
Mercenary
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 379
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois
That's rather pitiful as my remarks are plainly obvious. I'm saying:
(1) It's dishonest to complain about how one person is not responding fast enough to your comments, when that person is replying to 5 or so people at the same time and
(2) I am going to take a pause in replying to remarks because it takes me several times longer to reply to 5 people than it takes you or other people to reply to one person and that's it's really petty and dishonest not to realize that.
|
Understood. In that case I apologize. My bad, and thanks.
__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."
|

05-08-2008, 06:53 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,389
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by africanhope
No it is not. Not all men in jail have gay sex for the pleasure. For that the instances of rape in jail is just ot high. All research proof that rape (striahgt or gay) has nothing to do with sex, and everything with power. Therefor his asumption is not that far fetched. Again, both aretrue, some have sex in jaiul, as a way to satisfy a need, others rape in jail, to assert dominance.
AH
|
I disagree. Rape occurs in jail because the rapist enjoys gay sex AND is trying to assert dominance. You're not getting your dick up unless you are enjoying what you are doing.
|

05-08-2008, 07:19 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,389
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummwhat
I do not know if it is choice or not. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that prison sex, and free sex are not the same.
|
You are arguing a strawman, as you are arguing against a position that I am not holding. Prison sex and free sex are not the same. No sex is the same. Nothing is the same: NOTHING. Two screws produced in the same factory are not the same. There are molecular imperfections that make them different. However, the differences you point out are irrelevant to my point, as I have repeatedly told you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummwhat
|
You have not shown that the DOJ says different. You dropped a 37 page document on my desk without specific referral to where your source supports your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummwhat
|
Your source is based off a human rights watch report. Here is a relevant section from that report:
No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons
Quote:
|
The report is primarily based on information collected from over 200 prisoners spread among thirty-seven states. The majority of these inmates have been raped or otherwise sexually abused while in prison, and were therefore able to give firsthand accounts of the problem.
|
The source is concerned almost exclusively or nearly exclusively about rape, and non-consensual sex. So it doesn't speak to consensual sex. To use an analogy, your method of debate here is to argue that all cops are bad and to only use data of police brutality. You've simply limited your data to data that could only support your position, and that is not valid support for your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummwhat
You sir need to research your stances a bit before you speak.
|
You sir need to abide by the forum rules and exercise some civility if you wish to post. Your unsolicited and disingenuous personal advice is not permitted, nor does it have any class.
WEB
|

05-08-2008, 07:21 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,389
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummwhat
Even though he is banned. I would like to see you answer his question from earlier. If you did answer it, I would apreciate it if you can point me to where.
"When did you choose to be attracted to women."
And no comment on my last post?
|
Normally, I would, but I take exception to the lack of civility in your remarks, and so I decline to respond to the banned poster's comment, which you request.
|

05-08-2008, 07:42 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,389
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
What is it exactly did I speculate about regarding homosexuals?
|
You speculate about homosexuality in the very post where you ask where you are speculating about them. As you said: "In fact I specifically said that there was no proof that that it is genetic, environmental or hormonal."
That is a speculation. Even if it were just stating the facts it's still speculating, because you would be talking about and speculating on homosexuality. The primary definition of speculate is: " to engage in thought or reflection; meditate (often fol. by on, upon, or a clause)." You have engaged in thought or reflection about homosexuality and have thereby speculated on it. It was disingenuous how you made it seem like it was strange how I would speculate about homosexuality in jails, while at the same time you speculate about homosexuality in general. That's hypocrisy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
I think you misunderstand. My point was that physiological differences between gays and straights are indisputable and that your argument of homosexuality being only a matter of choice and action is false unless they result in physiological changes. I was pointing out that your argument does not account for this matter and is therefore fundamentally flawed as a result.
|
No, I do not misunderstand, you mischaracterize my remarks. You told me how my argument is laid out and you said that I was doing it in a way in which I am not actually arguing. You said:
"If your opinion holds true then that would mean a person's body can literally change just from participating in different kinds of acts."
This is false. My belief is that for most part, sexuality is voluntary and is not conditional upon biology. Therefore, if my opinion holds true, that would NOT mean a person's body can literally change just from participating in different kinds of acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
I did not say that homosexuality was genetic. In fact I specifically said that there was no proof that that it is genetic, environmental or hormonal. What I did say was that there were physiological differences between gays and straights and that in my opinion that weakens your argument of it being a matter of choice at least not among all homosexuals. Here is the full text of my comment.
|
Then where do the physiological differences come from if not from people's DNA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
I saw no reference to rodents in the study although I only skimmed it. Either way, one cannot so easily dismiss the list of physiological, cognitive and behavioral differences between gays a straights. I'm sure if they did not exist they wouldn't documented in the first place.
|
Then you failed to see what is the data for your primary source.
Your decision to add this line: "And that was only one out of a dozen links" and make it appear as if you said this earlier, when you did not say that in the post you are quoting yourself from is very very strange.
WEB
Last edited by W.E.B. Du Bois : 05-08-2008 at 07:52 PM.
Reason: parenthetical remark at the beginning of post removed
|

05-08-2008, 07:49 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,389
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tresha
I frankly have no freakin' idea if being gay is biological or soley a chosen behaivor. But maybe I need to back up and offer a definiton of being gay. (or lesbian as the case may be  )
....
To be perfectly blunt, yes, I have had heterosexual sex, but it just wasn't what I was interested in.
|
Did you at least enjoy it?  There's a lot of things I don't do that, but I think would be fun if I tried them. 
|

05-08-2008, 08:24 PM
|
 |
Reeve
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country:
|
|
WEB, the only thing I really have to say is that I don't quite agree with your equating choosing to have gay sex as choosing to be gay. Like Tresha said, she has had sex with a guy, but she is still a lesbian. Sexual orientation is about who you feel attracted to, both emotionally and physically, not just about who you have sex with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois
Normally, I would, but I take exception to the lack of civility in your remarks, and so I decline to respond to the banned poster's comment, which you request.
|
I would be interested in hearing your response to the question, but you don't have to answer.
__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"
|

05-08-2008, 08:34 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,389
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swialiberal
WEB, the only thing I really have to say is that I don't quite agree with your equating choosing to have gay sex as choosing to be gay. Like Tresha said, she has had sex with a guy, but she is still a lesbian. Sexual orientation is about who you feel attracted to, both emotionally and physically, not just about who you have sex with.
|
That's fine. My argument about homosexuality is not (nor is anyone else's argument on this thread, possibly in this world) based upon precise science. There's a lot of speculation involved. In the old days, 50 years ago, people would be referred to psychiatry if they were gay or talked about being gay and I believe that there was a lot less homosexuality back then. It is POSSIBLE to MAKE PEOPLE STRAIGHT even if they are genetically disposed to be gay. Not necessarily by using psychiatry but by destroying the entire notion of the validity of homosexuality. Homosexuality as a lifestyle CAN BE largely destroyed by changing society's treatment of homosexuality as an issue. I believe this has been done before in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swialiberal
I would be interested in hearing your response to the question, but you don't have to answer.
|
I think that's a rude thing to ask as I've already said no. No means no.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
A vBSkinworks Design
 |
|