63% of all the HIV infections in the United States occurs among the Sodomites

[celestio]

Again, this is all personalized and your opinion(Obviously wrong). The catholic church disagrees with you, there's less than 100 exorcisms a year. So you're obviously wrong on the fact that there's a lot of "demons" on earth. The reason why there's so little exorcisms(I also highly doubt any of the exorcisms performed by the church have anything to do with "supernatural demons") is because 99% of people claiming to be possessed actually have had some sort of mental illness, and has been treated with medication, not faulty "exorcisms".

Bisexual males aren't common, at least according to studies done on male sexuality. Males are either straight or guy, mostly. However, all studies done on female sexuality show that biological females are all Bisexual.

Therefore, according to your logic, god made males superior to females in the fact that if they were born straight/heterosexual, then they're not sinning in the eyes of god. But females don't have such luxury, right? So that means every female is a sin itself in the eyes of god.

Just admit it, as this pathetic argument is getting tiresome and you'e answered none of my points, and instead referring to opinionated information with no objective basis.

I'd believe the bible over the Catholic Church any day. I already gave reasons, but because of your closed-mind you won't listen to it. My theory is a combination of demonic influences and media influences. But since you ignore one, you can't see it a whole theory. That's ok. I never thought you'd believe it. I just wanted to post another alternative to the theory of yours.

I fully know you think you're right 100%. I don't agree, and I bet many people reading don't believe the conclusion for those results. They may believe the results, but the conclusion doesn't fit. If it was true that all women were bi, ignoring demonic influences, then all men should be bi too. Can you even give a logical reason why men wouldn't be bi in your opinion?

I figured I'd give another theory that explains the results, the only reason I posted in this thread.

There are plenty of theories as to why men are not as likely to be bisexual with the main one being below.

1) Men often fought wars and were away from home, leaving women alone with the children(Countries like Sparta were a perfect example where the husbands only saw the wives once a month). This means that the women would bond together to raise the children, and of course there would need to be sexual attraction for them to get along.

The fact of the matter is that all the studies done on female sexuality already show that women are by default, bisexual, and man are much more likely to be either straight or gay. Your "theories" about "demons" have absolutely no evidence behind them, and even according to the Church is a bunch of hogwash, as shown by the trivial amount of so called "exorcisms" carried out each year.

You obviously don't follow the bible, as the OT is as relevant as the NT. What you are, is a superficial christian who selectively chooses what to listen to in the bible, nothing more.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Again, this is all personalized and your opinion(Obviously wrong). The catholic church disagrees with you, there's less than 100 exorcisms a year. So you're obviously wrong on the fact that there's a lot of "demons" on earth. The reason why there's so little exorcisms(I also highly doubt any of the exorcisms performed by the church have anything to do with "supernatural demons") is because 99% of people claiming to be possessed actually have had some sort of mental illness, and has been treated with medication, not faulty "exorcisms".

Bisexual males aren't common, at least according to studies done on male sexuality. Males are either straight or guy, mostly. However, all studies done on female sexuality show that biological females are all Bisexual.

Therefore, according to your logic, god made males superior to females in the fact that if they were born straight/heterosexual, then they're not sinning in the eyes of god. But females don't have such luxury, right? So that means every female is a sin itself in the eyes of god.

Just admit it, as this pathetic argument is getting tiresome and you'e answered none of my points, and instead referring to opinionated information with no objective basis.

I'd believe the bible over the Catholic Church any day. I already gave reasons, but because of your closed-mind you won't listen to it. My theory is a combination of demonic influences and media influences. But since you ignore one, you can't see it a whole theory. That's ok. I never thought you'd believe it. I just wanted to post another alternative to the theory of yours.

I fully know you think you're right 100%. I don't agree, and I bet many people reading don't believe the conclusion for those results. They may believe the results, but the conclusion doesn't fit. If it was true that all women were bi, ignoring demonic influences, then all men should be bi too. Can you even give a logical reason why men wouldn't be bi in your opinion?

I figured I'd give another theory that explains the results, the only reason I posted in this thread.

There are plenty of theories as to why men are not as likely to be bisexual with the main one being below.

1) Men often fought wars and were away from home, leaving women alone with the children(Countries like Sparta were a perfect example where the husbands only saw the wives once a month). This means that the women would bond together to raise the children, and of course there would need to be sexual attraction for them to get along.

The fact of the matter is that all the studies done on female sexuality already show that women are by default, bisexual, and man are much more likely to be either straight or gay. Your "theories" about "demons" have absolutely no evidence behind them, and even according to the Church is a bunch of hogwash, as shown by the trivial amount of so called "exorcisms" carried out each year.

You obviously don't follow the bible, as the OT is as relevant as the NT. What you are, is a superficial christian who selectively chooses what to listen to in the bible, nothing more.

1) Men fighting in wars with other men, would likely bring them together just as much as women being alone with women. I don't believe that, but your theory doesn't make sense because the same reason you would claim women would bond and grow bi would be the same reason men should, but they don't, so you haven't explained why women do and men don't.

You believe the results come to that conclusion that women are bi, I don't. There's a difference between having results, and having a conclusion. Results can be for many reasons. Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women.

You think demons are hogwash, the bible is full of demon verses, and those Christians who do not believe in them, are ones who aren't following the bible.

Your line about me not following the bible, is silly when it's not backed by anything, and people can clearly read all my posts. Everything I've written has bible verse backing.

25 verses about casting out demons

Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,a drive out demons. "

Mark 16:17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues"

For more reading on getting rid of demonic oppression, here are some books:


Christianity with Power


Defeating Dark Angels: Breaking Demonic Oppression in the Believer's Life


Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare

Though, these are just a couple, they quote others also. Anyone can look up spiritual warfare and deliverance for more viewpoints and examples.

[celestio]

Again, this is all personalized and your opinion(Obviously wrong). The catholic church disagrees with you, there's less than 100 exorcisms a year. So you're obviously wrong on the fact that there's a lot of "demons" on earth. The reason why there's so little exorcisms(I also highly doubt any of the exorcisms performed by the church have anything to do with "supernatural demons") is because 99% of people claiming to be possessed actually have had some sort of mental illness, and has been treated with medication, not faulty "exorcisms".

Bisexual males aren't common, at least according to studies done on male sexuality. Males are either straight or guy, mostly. However, all studies done on female sexuality show that biological females are all Bisexual.

Therefore, according to your logic, god made males superior to females in the fact that if they were born straight/heterosexual, then they're not sinning in the eyes of god. But females don't have such luxury, right? So that means every female is a sin itself in the eyes of god.

Just admit it, as this pathetic argument is getting tiresome and you'e answered none of my points, and instead referring to opinionated information with no objective basis.

I'd believe the bible over the Catholic Church any day. I already gave reasons, but because of your closed-mind you won't listen to it. My theory is a combination of demonic influences and media influences. But since you ignore one, you can't see it a whole theory. That's ok. I never thought you'd believe it. I just wanted to post another alternative to the theory of yours.

I fully know you think you're right 100%. I don't agree, and I bet many people reading don't believe the conclusion for those results. They may believe the results, but the conclusion doesn't fit. If it was true that all women were bi, ignoring demonic influences, then all men should be bi too. Can you even give a logical reason why men wouldn't be bi in your opinion?

I figured I'd give another theory that explains the results, the only reason I posted in this thread.

There are plenty of theories as to why men are not as likely to be bisexual with the main one being below.

1) Men often fought wars and were away from home, leaving women alone with the children(Countries like Sparta were a perfect example where the husbands only saw the wives once a month). This means that the women would bond together to raise the children, and of course there would need to be sexual attraction for them to get along.

The fact of the matter is that all the studies done on female sexuality already show that women are by default, bisexual, and man are much more likely to be either straight or gay. Your "theories" about "demons" have absolutely no evidence behind them, and even according to the Church is a bunch of hogwash, as shown by the trivial amount of so called "exorcisms" carried out each year.

You obviously don't follow the bible, as the OT is as relevant as the NT. What you are, is a superficial christian who selectively chooses what to listen to in the bible, nothing more.

1) Men fighting in wars with other men, would likely bring them together just as much as women being alone with women. I don't believe that, but your theory doesn't make sense because the same reason you would claim women would bond and grow bi would be the same reason men should, but they don't, so you haven't explained why women do and men don't.

You believe the results come to that conclusion that women are bi, I don't. There's a difference between having results, and having a conclusion. Results can be for many reasons. Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women.

You think demons are hogwash, the bible is full of demon verses, and those Christians who do not believe in them, are ones who aren't following the bible.

Your line about me not following the bible, is silly when it's not backed by anything, and people can clearly read all my posts. Everything I've written has bible verse backing.

25 verses about casting out demons

Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,a drive out demons. "

Mark 16:17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues"

For more reading on getting rid of demonic oppression, here are some books:


Christianity with Power


Defeating Dark Angels: Breaking Demonic Oppression in the Believer's Life


Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare

Though, these are just a couple, they quote others also. Anyone can look up spiritual warfare and deliverance for more viewpoints and examples.

Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens. You'll sure be in for a surprise as this arugment is a waste of time, you're sprouting off illogical statements and frankly you make no sense. Everything has been answered so far. This fact in itself should show the bible is entirely false(Not gonna mention the indefinite amount of inaccuracies and contractions in it as well).

"Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. "

I already told you that in these studies, the men did not display any significant sexual arousal to both sexes, they preferred one(gay or straight). The women however were aroused by both sexes during sexual acts, but only aroused when viewing pictures of naked women(doing non sexual acts) and not aroused at all when viewing images of naked men(doing non sexual acts). Hence, men are mostly either gay or straight, and women are entirely bisexual on a purely sexual level(With a slight preference for other women sexually).

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens. You'll sure be in for a surprise as this arugment is a waste of time, you're sprouting off illogical statements and frankly you make no sense. Everything has been answered so far. This fact in itself should show the bible is entirely false(Not gonna mention the indefinite amount of inaccuracies and contractions in it as well).

"Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. "

I already told you that in these studies, the men did not display any sexual arousal to both sexes, they preferred one(gay or straight). The women however were aroused by both sexes during sexual acts, but only aroused when viewing pictures of naked women(doing non sexual acts) and not aroused at all when viewing images of naked men(doing non sexual acts). Hence, men are mostly either gay or straight, and women are entirely bisexual on a purely sexual level.

There's really no need to swear while posting to me, which you have been doing more recently. I've just been peacefully answering your questions and posting back to the things you have accused me of with examples to prove what I've said.

You have given the results of the test, but you have not given a reason as to why you or the person who ran the test, believe the results should give the conclusion that women are all bi-sexual.

I never argued the results, I was arguing with the conclusion based on the results.

I've already given my conclusion based upon the results and why I think it. But you don't want to hear that.

But you have not given me a reason (that I haven't debunked) for why women would all be bi-sexual and men wouldn't. If you believe these results mean that conclusion, why? Why should men not be bi-sexual just as much as women?

[celestio]

Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens. You'll sure be in for a surprise as this arugment is a waste of time, you're sprouting off illogical statements and frankly you make no sense. Everything has been answered so far. This fact in itself should show the bible is entirely false(Not gonna mention the indefinite amount of inaccuracies and contractions in it as well).

"Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. "

I already told you that in these studies, the men did not display any sexual arousal to both sexes, they preferred one(gay or straight). The women however were aroused by both sexes during sexual acts, but only aroused when viewing pictures of naked women(doing non sexual acts) and not aroused at all when viewing images of naked men(doing non sexual acts). Hence, men are mostly either gay or straight, and women are entirely bisexual on a purely sexual level.

There's really no need to swear while posting to me, which you have been doing more recently. I've just been peacefully answering your questions and posting back to the things you have accused me of with examples to prove what I've said.

You have given the results of the test, but you have not given a reason as to why you or the person who ran the test, believe the results should give the conclusion that women are all bi-sexual.

I never argued the results, I was arguing with the conclusion based on the results.

I've already given my conclusion based upon the results and why I think it. But you don't want to hear that.

But you have not given me a reason (that I haven't debunked) for why women would all be bi-sexual and men wouldn't. If you believe these results mean that conclusion, why? Why should men not be bi-sexual just as much as women?

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again.

The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual.  (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies)

Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too.

Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason?

Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin.

[celestio]

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again.

The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual.  (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies)

Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too.

Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason?

Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin.

For the millionth time, that little theory or yours has been debunked, proven false, because Gay Men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, so the whole myth about the over sexualized depiction of females in the media having any effect on sexuality is False.


The males wouldn't turn bisexual and this is because of polygamy. Even in the bible it shows god allowing the males to take the women from lands they conquered as slaves(sexual). Geez, come up with better arguments. Both females and males are shown to learn towards polygamy on a sexual level, but are relatively monogamous romantically.

And also, men being sexual with men has been generally frowned upon once they reached adulthood in different societies throughout the ages(Sparta again is a good example), and this may have caused them to be relatively either/or in sexuality(gay/straight). Queen Elizabeth even had a female lover, it was frowned upon with men but indifferent with women.

[popcorn1]

Is this natural selection?

Although gays form just 4% of the US population, they account for 63% of all the new HIV infections. Almost 90% of all the new cases are linked to gay / bisexual men, as more than 80% of the women newly identified with HIV were also infected by bisexual men.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_basics_factsheet.pdf



So far in the United States, some 311,087 gays have died due to the HIV infection, since the first case was diagnosed in the 1980s. Out of the ~1,200,000 people currently living with HIV in the United States, some 624,000 are gay.

This means that a total of 935,000 HIV infections have occurred among the gays ever since 1980s, out of a total population of 12 million. That represents an incidence rate of 7.8% against the general prevalence rate of 0.4% and a prevalence of <0.1% among heterosexual men.

In all my life i have never heard so much shit come out of some ones mouth as this guy
GO AND TAKE YOUR FACE FOR A SHIT COZ YOUR MOUTH IS FULL OF POOOOOOOOOOO

[MakingMoneyHoney]

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again.

The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual.  (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies)

Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too.

Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason?

Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin.

For the millionth time, that little theory or yours has been debunked, proven false, because Gay Men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, so the whole myth about the over sexualized depiction of females in the media having any effect on sexuality is False.

The males wouldn't turn bisexual and this is because of polygamy. Even in the bible it shows god allowing the males to take the women from lands they conquered as slaves(sexual). Geez, come up with better arguments. Both females and males are shown to learn towards polygamy on a sexual level, but are relatively monogamous romantically.

And also, men being sexual with men has been generally frowned upon once they reached adulthood in different societies throughout the ages(Sparta against is a good example), and this may have caused them to be relatively either/or in sexuality(gay/straight). Queen Elizabeth even had a female lover, it was frowned upon with men but indifferent with women.

My theory accounts for gay men not being attracted to women. You can re-read it. You just don't believe it. Not believing it, doesn't mean it's debunked.

I agree with your assessment that social constructs may change why straight men don't have the same reaction when viewing males, just like I believe that social constructs change why women may have a reaction when viewing females.

Even Chivers has a problem explaining why her results are the way they are: "Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston" (link)

Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi.

"Psychologist Richard Lippa teamed up with the BBC to survey over 200,000 people of all ages from all over the world concerning the strength of their sex drive and how it affects their desires. He found a similar inversion of male and female sexuality: for men, both gay and straight, higher sex drive increased the specificity of their sexual desire. Straight guys with higher sex drives tended to be more focused on women, while higher octane gay guys were more intent on men. But with women—at least nominally straight women— Lippa found the opposite effect: the higher her sex drive, the more likely a woman was to report being attracted to both men and women. Self-identified lesbians showed the same pattern as men: a higher sex drive meant more women-only focus. Perhaps this explains why nearly twice as many women as men consider themselves bisexual, while only half as many consider themselves to be exclusively gay." (link)

You'll think this strengthens your theory, but I believe that it goes to show there can be many reasons why the results would have shown up the way they did.

However, researching this to discuss it with you, has only strengthened my theory. I personally see it as a result of the demonic influence of lust in women who would be seen as having a high sex-sex drive (to those who don't believe in the sin of lust or demonic influence), the more likely to turn bi/lesbian.

[celestio]

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again.

The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual.  (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies)

Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too.

Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason?

Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin.

For the millionth time, that little theory or yours has been debunked, proven false, because Gay Men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, so the whole myth about the over sexualized depiction of females in the media having any effect on sexuality is False.

The males wouldn't turn bisexual and this is because of polygamy. Even in the bible it shows god allowing the males to take the women from lands they conquered as slaves(sexual). Geez, come up with better arguments. Both females and males are shown to learn towards polygamy on a sexual level, but are relatively monogamous romantically.

And also, men being sexual with men has been generally frowned upon once they reached adulthood in different societies throughout the ages(Sparta against is a good example), and this may have caused them to be relatively either/or in sexuality(gay/straight). Queen Elizabeth even had a female lover, it was frowned upon with men but indifferent with women.

My theory accounts for gay men not being attracted to women. You can re-read it. You just don't believe it. Not believing it, doesn't mean it's debunked.

I agree with your assessment that social constructs may change why straight men don't have the same reaction when viewing males, just like I believe that social constructs change why women may have a reaction when viewing females.

Even Chivers has a problem explaining why her results are the way they are: "Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston" (link)

Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi.

"Psychologist Richard Lippa teamed up with the BBC to survey over 200,000 people of all ages from all over the world concerning the strength of their sex drive and how it affects their desires. He found a similar inversion of male and female sexuality: for men, both gay and straight, higher sex drive increased the specificity of their sexual desire. Straight guys with higher sex drives tended to be more focused on women, while higher octane gay guys were more intent on men. But with women—at least nominally straight women— Lippa found the opposite effect: the higher her sex drive, the more likely a woman was to report being attracted to both men and women. Self-identified lesbians showed the same pattern as men: a higher sex drive meant more women-only focus. Perhaps this explains why nearly twice as many women as men consider themselves bisexual, while only half as many consider themselves to be exclusively gay." (link)

You'll think this strengthens your theory, but I believe that it goes to show there can be many reasons why the results would have shown up the way they did.

However, researching this to discuss it with you, has only strengthened my theory. I personally see it as a result of the demonic influence of lust in women who would be seen as having a high sex-sex drive (to those who don't believe in the sin of lust or demonic influence), the more likely to turn bi/lesbian.

You are making absolutely no sense. Your "theory" stated that the over sexualization of females in the media is what may have caused women to "become bisexual". I responded by saying Gay men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, debunking your little "theory".

Yes, the only sensible thing you've said so far is, "Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi. ", but even that is just a theory and hasn't been proven or had much research done on it. For ex: it's sometimes thought that women with higher testosterone levels are more likely to be bisexual. So it goes either way.

And regardless, they both show that women are bisexual.

And again, I said if you want to test this yourself, get Any female friend you can find, relative, whatever, and have their sexual arousal tested by a sexologist(You can watch), while looking at lesbian porn. Hopefully then you'll see that women truly are by default, bisexual.

Also, men are not more sexual than women, it's actually the opposite. Women can achieve orgasms multiple times in a row, and get aroused by far more stimuli than men, even getting aroused by animals mating, as shown by Dr Chivers, Dr Diamond, and more. Please go research about this.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again.

The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual.  (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies)

Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too.

Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason?

Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin.

For the millionth time, that little theory or yours has been debunked, proven false, because Gay Men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, so the whole myth about the over sexualized depiction of females in the media having any effect on sexuality is False.

The males wouldn't turn bisexual and this is because of polygamy. Even in the bible it shows god allowing the males to take the women from lands they conquered as slaves(sexual). Geez, come up with better arguments. Both females and males are shown to learn towards polygamy on a sexual level, but are relatively monogamous romantically.

And also, men being sexual with men has been generally frowned upon once they reached adulthood in different societies throughout the ages(Sparta against is a good example), and this may have caused them to be relatively either/or in sexuality(gay/straight). Queen Elizabeth even had a female lover, it was frowned upon with men but indifferent with women.

My theory accounts for gay men not being attracted to women. You can re-read it. You just don't believe it. Not believing it, doesn't mean it's debunked.

I agree with your assessment that social constructs may change why straight men don't have the same reaction when viewing males, just like I believe that social constructs change why women may have a reaction when viewing females.

Even Chivers has a problem explaining why her results are the way they are: "Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston" (link)

Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi.

"Psychologist Richard Lippa teamed up with the BBC to survey over 200,000 people of all ages from all over the world concerning the strength of their sex drive and how it affects their desires. He found a similar inversion of male and female sexuality: for men, both gay and straight, higher sex drive increased the specificity of their sexual desire. Straight guys with higher sex drives tended to be more focused on women, while higher octane gay guys were more intent on men. But with women—at least nominally straight women— Lippa found the opposite effect: the higher her sex drive, the more likely a woman was to report being attracted to both men and women. Self-identified lesbians showed the same pattern as men: a higher sex drive meant more women-only focus. Perhaps this explains why nearly twice as many women as men consider themselves bisexual, while only half as many consider themselves to be exclusively gay." (link)

You'll think this strengthens your theory, but I believe that it goes to show there can be many reasons why the results would have shown up the way they did.

However, researching this to discuss it with you, has only strengthened my theory. I personally see it as a result of the demonic influence of lust in women who would be seen as having a high sex-sex drive (to those who don't believe in the sin of lust or demonic influence), the more likely to turn bi/lesbian.

You are making absolutely no sense. Your "theory" stated that the over sexualization of females in the media is what may have caused women to "become bisexual". I responded by saying Gay men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, debunking your little "theory".

Yes, the only sensible thing you've said so far is, "Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi. ", but even that is just a theory and hasn't been proven or had much research done on it. For ex: it's sometimes thought that women with higher testosterone levels are more likely to be bisexual. So it goes either way.

And regardless, they both show that women are bisexual.

And again, I said if you want to test this yourself, get Any female friend you can find, relative, whatever, and have their sexual arousal tested by a sexologist(You can watch), while looking at lesbian porn. Hopefully then you'll see that women truly are by default, bisexual.

Also, men are not more sexual than women, it's actually the opposite. Women can achieve orgasms multiple times in a row, and get aroused by far more stimuli than men, even getting aroused by animals mating, as shown by Dr Chivers, Dr Diamond, and more. Please go research about this.

I already explained that, but you ignored that part of my post. I understand you don't believe in demonic forces. However, you can't debunk a theory when you ignore it. But let's just agree that you don't believe in it. I never thought you would.

I never argued the results of the test. Trying to argue me to re-do the test is pointless, when I said I never was arguing the results of the test.

I just don't think she explained why she thinks her results should mean the conclusion. I can clearly say why what I think happens. I have a theory. She only has results and is confused as to what they mean:

Even Chivers has a problem explaining why her results are the way they are: "Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston" (link)

[cryptocoiner]

Is this natural selection?

Although gays form just 4% of the US population, they account for 63% of all the new HIV infections. Almost 90% of all the new cases are linked to gay / bisexual men, as more than 80% of the women newly identified with HIV were also infected by bisexual men.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_basics_factsheet.pdf



So far in the United States, some 311,087 gays have died due to the HIV infection, since the first case was diagnosed in the 1980s. Out of the ~1,200,000 people currently living with HIV in the United States, some 624,000 are gay.

This means that a total of 935,000 HIV infections have occurred among the gays ever since 1980s, out of a total population of 12 million. That represents an incidence rate of 7.8% against the general prevalence rate of 0.4% and a prevalence of <0.1% among heterosexual men.

Yes its tru. Homosexuals way more likely to be infected by HIV couse they changing partners more frequently. Also probabilyty of getting AIDS trough anal sex is way more higher. It's like this everywhere in this world. In america situation not that bad. In some african countryes for example 20% of the population infected with HIV.

[Ayers]

are HIV virus still that dangerous i heard that it can be killed at 60°, and there are numerous people that survived it, it's curable already

[Gervais]

Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens.

Can you link me to this study that proves 100% of women are bisexual? Have they tested 100% of women? I don't think so. And being sexually aroused by something does not make them bi or homosexual. I'm sure if you did the same studies with men watching gay porn you'd get a lot of them aroused too but have no real desire to have sex with other men. I would actually pay for bryantcoleman to go do this test because I believe he's actually a latent or repressed homosexual and that's why he's so angry with them because of his fear of getting turned on which he hasn't learnt to deal with yet.

[bryant.coleman]

are HIV virus still that dangerous i heard that it can be killed at 60°, and there are numerous people that survived it, it's curable already

Without the ARV treatment, the HIV will kill 99.99999% of the people within 12 years from the date of infection. Only those with mutations in CCR5 receptors (these people can be counted in a handful) will survive the HIV infection for more than 12 years (Stephen Crohn is a notable example). And no, HIV can't be cured by heating your blood to 60°. People have tried this method, but they failed. 

[celestio]

Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens.

Can you link me to this study that proves 100% of women are bisexual? Have they tested 100% of women? I don't think so. And being sexually aroused by something does not make them bi or homosexual. I'm sure if you did the same studies with men watching gay porn you'd get a lot of them aroused too but have no real desire to have sex with other men. I would actually pay for bryantcoleman to go do this test because I believe he's actually a latent or repressed homosexual and that's why he's so angry with them because of his fear of getting turned on which he hasn't learnt to deal with yet.

Read through my posts and you'll see all the linked studies as I don't feel the need to go over this again.

Every single study done on female sexuality objectively(Testing their arousal due to blood flow to the vagina) has shown that women are Bisexual. Sexual arousal is the basis for sexual attraction, so yes that does make then bisexual. The act of bisexuality or homosexuality is different from being bisexual or homosexual(The act can be irrelevant and have no basis on your sexuality). A straight man can kiss another man and be perfectly straight for example.

In all studies done on male sexuality, gay men showed no sexual attraction to females, and straight men no sexual attraction to men.

bryant.coleman is the most pathetic man I've met on this forum, even surpassing the likes of BADecker. Yes I would as well.

[Possum577]

So anyone practicing anal or oral sex or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity.

Or anyone who is a resident of Sodom, from the bible of course.

Is this really a surprise?

P.S. Sodomy does not mean homosexual.

[nutildah]

Funny, I thought the number would have been higher.

Having said that, I feel slightly dumber after having thumbed through this thread.

You're still pissed off about gay marriage being legalised aren't you?

OP did not respond.

[chalkboard17]

I disagree with your argument. A majority of the heterosexual men (including myself) engage in anal sex

63% of all the HIV infections in the United States occurs among the Sodomites
sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Once again, you are still mad because gay people have gotten a little bit more of freedom, right?

are HIV virus still that dangerous i heard that it can be killed at 60°, and there are numerous people that survived it, it's curable already

Without the ARV treatment, the HIV will kill 99.99999% of the people within 12 years from the date of infection. Only those with mutations in CCR5 receptors (these people can be counted in a handful) will survive the HIV infection for more than 12 years (Stephen Crohn is a notable example). And no, HIV can't be cured by heating your blood to 60°. People have tried this method, but they failed.  

And nearly every infected person in the western world has access to ARV. People with HIV are almost reaching non-infected life expectancy.


Having read most of the thread I can guess most people are mad because gay people have sex more often. Typical cry of those who get laid rarely as has already been pointed out. They do have sex more easily because gay men will want sex and not money, protection etc that women want. Also, women are taught to view sex as bad things (mostly by conservatives as the ones in this thread that are mad gays have sex more often)

[freedomno1]

Is this natural selection?

Although gays form just 4% of the US population, they account for 63% of all the new HIV infections. Almost 90% of all the new cases are linked to gay / bisexual men, as more than 80% of the women newly identified with HIV were also infected by bisexual men.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_basics_factsheet.pdf



So far in the United States, some 311,087 gays have died due to the HIV infection, since the first case was diagnosed in the 1980s. Out of the ~1,200,000 people currently living with HIV in the United States, some 624,000 are gay.

This means that a total of 935,000 HIV infections have occurred among the gays ever since 1980s, out of a total population of 12 million. That represents an incidence rate of 7.8% against the general prevalence rate of 0.4% and a prevalence of <0.1% among heterosexual men.

Well the stats don't lie
It would explain why blood banks restricted blood transfusions from gay individuals and also the question on that topic referring to the last time they had sex with someone seeing that it takes time for HIV and those type of diseases to emerge.

What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men?

Men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

FDA's primary responsibility with regard to blood and blood products is to assure the safety of patients who receive these life-saving products. FDA uses multiple layers of safeguards in its approach to ensuring blood safety, which include donor screening and deferral based on risk factors, blood testing for markers of infection, inventory controls, and deferral registries. The use of these multiple layers helps to assure the safety of the products in the event that one layer fails.

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Between 2008 and 2010, the estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However the incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations. The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years. Since younger individuals are more likely to donate blood, the implications of this increase in incidence need to be further evaluated.

Is FDA's policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

FDA's deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation.

Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. From 2007 through 2010, among adult and adolescent males, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to MSM increased, while the numbers of infections attributed to other risks among males decreased. Among adult and adolescent females, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to injection drug use and heterosexual contact both decreased.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

Good old FDA providing stats since the 1970s