As far as I understand it, it was the sea navigators that first recorded the round earth. But who cares. No matter what there was a time after that it was thought and taught tat the earth was flat. No matter how many people thought taught and proved the earth was flat would it never make it flat.

1. I could get into a serious philosophical debate to prove you wrong, but from your admittance that sea navigators were the first that recorded that the earth was round is evidence to me that you are unarmed for such a debate. But I'll give you some homework. Rene Descartes, its commonly referred to as the Cartesian Theater. Its basically a thought experiment. Without awareness, nothing exists. You cannot say that the sky is blue without someone conscious of this fact. The person conscious of this fact determines what the word "sky" means and what the word "blue" means. Thus giving "The sky is blue" its truth-value. The same is applied to the assertion "The earth is flat". If there is no consciousness to the contrary, then "The earth is flat" has truth-value. You can't retro-fit your consciousness of the earth being round to the mistake of the people alive at the time that "the earth was flat" was truth.

We are in the time of investigation of the GLBT phenomena. However there is enough proof for the medical scientist to conclude GLBT is not a choice. It exists in animals and humans. You can't study carrots to learn about homosexuality. You have to study homosexuals.

2. If anyone treats homosexuality with a discriminatory eye, it is homosexuals. Homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality. You don't need some special study for homosexuals. Sexuality is sexuality. It is not genetic. Just as english is not genetic. What is genetic is the ability to speak. But if you ask someone who speaks english "when did you first realize that you spoke english" -- they'll retrofit just as homosexuals try to retrofit. They'll assume that they've spoken english their whole lives, when in actually children learn to speak. Children learn attraction. Attraction to their favorite foods. Attraction to their favorite color. Attraction to the same or opposite sex. Go read a book.

What ever.

3. Classy. Logical even.

I did not know what I was until I was 35. Then it was confirmed by my mother when I told her about me.

4. You are giving conflicting impressions. Because this is what you said earlier:

Thats right there is very little but there are things that stand out. many of which were my gender conflict.

-- I'd venture to guess that you are confused. And much like misery, confusion likes company.

So were Jesus teachings meant to be used for hate??

5. The Bible and Jesus' teachings are two different things. But I'm sure you know this. Or, you would've said The Bible, rather than Jesus' Teachings. We've been discussing The Bible this whole time. We have yet to refer to Jesus' Teachings until now. So this is an obviously lousy argumentative tactic. Completely transparent.

Just as you should begin to assume about GLBT or myself.

6. I have yet to make an assumption about you. I have not told you that you've never faced discrimination or that you've never been a victim. I don't know you. I can't tell you about your life. I can, however, tell you about your opinion being flawed logically and lacking in objectivity.

Society is the people no matter what you say. Society is not always right.

7. There are anti-social people. There are groups that were uncivilized therefore devoid of a society. Here again, you are stepping into an arena completely unarmed. A society is a group of people bond together by a common goal and interest. Which obviously means that societies are more than simply a group of people.

For me its not about who wins or loses. Its about stoping misinformation. It about letting homophobs know that we are not going to stand by and let them promote their hypocritical ignorance no matter how educated they make it sound no matter how educated they seem. We are here and when it comes to GLBT issues we are smarter than they are because we have the upper hand, we are GLBT.

We GLBT have moms and dads brothers and sisters aunts uncles and other family. Most of them are learning that this is who we are. Some reject us out of fear and ignorance. Some reject us to save face. But the fact of the matter is most family members learn to rethink what they were taught to believe because of the love for us. Many stand and support us some stand a middle ground because they are still coming to terms with the issue. Fewer and fewer are rejecting us. As long as there are heteros they will give birth to GLBT.

Mikki can clam the win it matters not. I know I have helped many by the emails I have gotten. With that I win no matter what anyone else says.



Calling me a homophob suggests that you are homosexual. When I said that earlier you almost bit my head off. You don't regard this as misrepresentative of the truth?? I already told you how I felt about the GLBT community. I know that they are no different than heterosexuals. I've already stated that I believe that both groups arrive at their sexuality the same. You however insist that you are special. You are demanding that you are different that you stand out. Typical of the GLBT. Always wanting attention or for others to treat them specially. But you aren't special. Don't lie to yourself. Its cruel. Embrace the truth. You are GLBT the same way you are english speaking, meat eating, or whatever. You learned it. Like I learned heterosexuality. You are no different than me. Expect, I won't lie to you like you are willing to lie to yourself.

Everyone should be allowed civil unions. But only religious believers should be allowed the religious observance of marriage.


Just a question on this.
What if the religion is Wicca. Can a Wiccan priestess marry who she wants as members of the Wicca faith or would the marriage rite be just for christians.

I happen to know a Wicca priestess.

you'll two dont havin nothing to do eh? you'll mussie dont work! :jawdroop:

Anyway, good discussion here, but i would really like to ask Mikki:

If anyone treats homosexuality with a discriminatory eye, it is homosexuals. Homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality. You don't need some special study for homosexuals. Sexuality is sexuality. It is not genetic. Just as english is not genetic. What is genetic is the ability to speak. But if you ask someone who speaks english "when did you first realize that you spoke english" -- they'll retrofit just as homosexuals try to retrofit. They'll assume that they've spoken english their whole lives, when in actually children learn to speak. Children learn attraction. Attraction to their favorite foods. Attraction to their favorite color. Attraction to the same or opposite sex. Go read a book.

1. how can you say homosexuals are the ones who discriminate against themselves? i'm not looking at this from a simplistic view, but it is almost nonsensical this statement. i am heterosexual, sure and secure of my sexuality, but how blatant must discrimination be for you to accept that even if homosexuals discriminate against each other, the level on which it may occur is insignificant in comparison to how they are discriminated against by heterosexuals - particulary in developing countries...like Bahamas!!! Be it in employment/social life/religion - in each way these people are dicsriminated against - and its sickening! particularly when it comes from the church - which is not much better!

2. are you daring to compare homosexuality to speaking english?! i get your point about neither being genetic, but i think on this issue, there is a rather large grey area amongst authorities with regard to homosexuality/genetics/biology.

3. how do you explain a 3 or 4 year boy, who has grown up with both parents, not yet in school, but has developed an interest in barbie, lipstick and high heel shoes? could it not be a case of that child being born with more female hormones than normal?

you'll two dont havin nothing to do eh? you'll mussie dont work! :jawdroop:

Anyway, good discussion here, but i would really like to ask Mikki:



1. how can you say homosexuals are the ones who discriminate against themselves? i'm not looking at this from a simplistic view, but it is almost nonsensical this statement. i am heterosexual, sure and secure of my sexuality, but how blatant must discrimination be for you to accept that even if homosexuals discriminate against each other, the level on which it may occur is insignificant in comparison to how they are discriminated against by heterosexuals - particulary in developing countries...like Bahamas!!! Be it in employment/social life/religion - in each way these people are dicsriminated against - and its sickening! particularly when it comes from the church - which is not much better!

2. are you daring to compare homosexuality to speaking english?! i get your point about neither being genetic, but i think on this issue, there is a rather large grey area amongst authorities with regard to homosexuality/genetics/biology.

3. how do you explain a 3 or 4 year boy, who has grown up with both parents, not yet in school, but has developed an interest in barbie, lipstick and high heel shoes? could it not be a case of that child being born with more female hormones than normal?
(this question is strictly for you).Why do you believe homosexuals are being discriminated against?

Vicky:

1. You should be allowed to express your religious beliefs freely. Unless those freedoms impose on societal rules and regulations -- for example, virgin sacrifice.

Aniskan Moon-Angel:

1. I didn't say homosexuals discriminated against themselves. I'm saying that they are creating a special classification that isn't there. In a sense requesting to be discriminated for -- and I am fully aware that they are discriminated against.

2. Yes, I am comparing it to speaking english. If you want to continue this discussion, can you reference studies that support your opinion. I can, and I can guess the studies that you will reference...check below.

3. What you are describing is called "amorphism" -- not homosexuality. The studies that suggest homosexuality is genetic are all studies about amorphism. And you are doing a fine job of generalizing homosexuals, which commonly leads to discrimination. There are little boys that grow up playing with GI Joe and toy guns that still end up homosexual. Amorphism is far from homosexual.

Mikki, can you ever answer a question without asking for a gaddamn bibliography??? its a bit boring to always read your posts asking for written sources! yes sources are important in a debate, but dammit this is a forum - an online forum!

now i come from a legal background, and as previously mentioned, im obvioulsly not as knowledgeable as you and vicky are on this subject (you seem to be very well read in the area - but to be honest, i'm not so dedicated)...but anyway, since im discussing "amorphism" can you then answer my question - with regard to that? also, how do you distinguish amorphism and homosexuality? is it that homosexuality is a choice? im being honest, i would like to know.

Calling me a homophob suggests that you are homosexual. When I said that earlier you almost bit my head off. You don't regard this as misrepresentative of the truth?? I already told you how I felt about the GLBT community. I know that they are no different than heterosexuals. I've already stated that I believe that both groups arrive at their sexuality the same. You however insist that you are special. You are demanding that you are different that you stand out. Typical of the GLBT. Always wanting attention or for others to treat them specially. But you aren't special. Don't lie to yourself. Its cruel. Embrace the truth. You are GLBT the same way you are english speaking, meat eating, or whatever. You learned it. Like I learned heterosexuality. You are no different than me. Expect, I won't lie to you like you are willing to lie to yourself.


So far your posts (while I may not agree with them) seem very well reasoned and thought out. Please do not sink to the level of making broad generalizations and assumptions. It destroys much of the credibility of your argument, especially when your assumptions are incorrect.

Mikki, can you ever answer a question without asking for a gaddamn bibliography??? its a bit boring to always read your posts asking for written sources! yes sources are important in a debate, but dammit this is a forum - an online forum!

now i come from a legal background, and as previously mentioned, im obvioulsly not as knowledgeable as you and vicky are on this subject (you seem to be very well read in the area - but to be honest, i'm not so dedicated)...but anyway, since im discussing "amorphism" can you then answer my question - with regard to that? also, how do you distinguish amorphism and homosexuality? is it that homosexuality is a choice? im being honest, i would like to know.


I agree. That is part of the reason why this thread is going on so long since I recall there was a little debate about sources earlier. It's not like we are writing a paper here...it is just a forum...geez.

1. I could get into a serious philosophical debate to prove you wrong, but from your admittance that sea navigators were the first that recorded that the earth was round is evidence to me that you are unarmed for such a debate. But I'll give you some homework. Rene Descartes, its commonly referred to as the Cartesian Theater. Its basically a thought experiment. Without awareness, nothing exists. You cannot say that the sky is blue without someone conscious of this fact. The person conscious of this fact determines what the word "sky" means and what the word "blue" means. Thus giving "The sky is blue" its truth-value. The same is applied to the assertion "The earth is flat". If there is no consciousness to the contrary, then "The earth is flat" has truth-value. You can't retro-fit your consciousness of the earth being round to the mistake of the people alive at the time that "the earth was flat" was truth.
You are very right I don't know Rene Descartes. But agian you try to dazzle with brilliance. But this experiment was mentioned by me long ago. with different words "How can you tell someone who is born blind of the color red?" This is with out having the higher education you seem to have. Truth is made void by fact. I don't care how much truth there is to a flat earth the fact is it is round. The fact is GLBT exist and we are human you can not tell me what I know of my self as a transgender person. You are like the blind man trying to understand the color red. The thing that gets me is you as a str8 person want to tell me you know more about being transgendered than I do. You a str8 person want to tell homosexuals you know more about being homosexual than homosexuals do.
FACT you don't have a clue and you never will.


2. If anyone treats homosexuality with a discriminatory eye, it is homosexuals. Homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality. You don't need some special study for homosexuals. Sexuality is sexuality. It is not genetic. Uh thick head blind eyes. I have not said it is genetic. I have said it is in the womb. Where genes, chromosomes and hormones create a life. Just as english is not genetic. What is genetic is the ability to speak. But if you ask someone who speaks english "when did you first realize that you spoke english" -- So when did you realize you were heterosexual? You said around 14. Why did you not realize you were homosexual in stead? they'll retrofit just as homosexuals try to retrofit. So as a hetero you retrofit from homosexual? You are a blind man that does not understand the color red and because you don't understand it you feel no one else can either not even someone with sight. They'll assume that they've spoken english their whole lives, when in actually children learn to speak. Children learn attraction. So who teaches GLBT attraction??? Who teaches someone to be an outcast ??? Attraction to their favorite foods. Attraction to their favorite color. Attraction to the same or opposite sex. Go read a book.



3. Classy. Logical even.



4. You are giving conflicting impressions. Because this is what you said earlier:
So how is it conflicting sound more like confirming.


-- I'd venture to guess that you are confused. And much like misery, confusion likes company.
I understand its normal to me. You just can't accept that I understand and you can't


5. The Bible and Jesus' teachings are two different things. But I'm sure you know this. Or, you would've said The Bible, rather than Jesus' Teachings. We've been discussing The Bible this whole time. We have yet to refer to Jesus' Teachings until now. So this is an obviously lousy argumentative tactic. Completely transparent.
The basis is Christianity. Christianity comes from the teachings of Jesus. The rest of the Bible is other sources. We have already said the Bible can be used to justify just about any kind of hate or discrimination even murder. Try it with the teachings of Jesus.


6. I have yet to make an assumption about you. I have not told you that you've never faced discrimination or that you've never been a victim. I don't know you. I can't tell you about your life. I can, however, tell you about your opinion being flawed logically and lacking in objectivity.
I can say the same thing, "I can, however, tell you about your opinion being flawed logically and lacking in objectivity." That is right I have to look at this through transgender eyes. Just as the indian had to look at what the white man called progress through indian eyes and call it destruction.

Keep responding you keep me fuel.

7. There are anti-social people. There are groups that were uncivilized therefore devoid of a society. Here again, you are stepping into an arena completely unarmed. A society is a group of people bond together by a common goal and interest. Which obviously means that societies are more than simply a group of people.

Calling me a homophob suggests that you are homosexual. When I said that earlier you almost bit my head off. You don't regard this as misrepresentative of the truth?? I already told you how I felt about the GLBT community. I know that they are no different than heterosexuals. I've already stated that I believe that both groups arrive at their sexuality the same. You however insist that you are special. You are demanding that you are different that you stand out. Typical of the GLBT. Always wanting attention or for others to treat them specially. But you aren't special. Don't lie to yourself. Its cruel. Embrace the truth. You are GLBT the same way you are english speaking, meat eating, or whatever. You learned it. Like I learned heterosexuality. You are no different than me. Expect, I won't lie to you like you are willing to lie to yourself.


Where did you learn heterosexuality from???

Do you think the more words you type the more you are heard???

Vicky:

1. You should be allowed to express your religious beliefs freely. Unless those freedoms impose on societal rules and regulations -- for example, virgin sacrifice.

Aniskan Moon-Angel:

1. I didn't say homosexuals discriminated against themselves. I'm saying that they are creating a special classification that isn't there. In a sense requesting to be discriminated for -- and I am fully aware that they are discriminated against.

2. Yes, I am comparing it to speaking english. If you want to continue this discussion, can you reference studies that support your opinion. I can, and I can guess the studies that you will reference...check below.

3. What you are describing is called "amorphism" -- not homosexuality. The studies that suggest homosexuality is genetic are all studies about amorphism. And you are doing a fine job of generalizing homosexuals, which commonly leads to discrimination. There are little boys that grow up playing with GI Joe and toy guns that still end up homosexual. Amorphism is far from homosexual.

I know what you are saying but I think you are using Amorphism in the wrong context. The definition does not really link to gender.

Mikki, can you ever answer a question without asking for a gaddamn bibliography??? its a bit boring to always read your posts asking for written sources! yes sources are important in a debate, but dammit this is a forum - an online forum!

now i come from a legal background, and as previously mentioned, im obvioulsly not as knowledgeable as you and vicky are on this subject (you seem to be very well read in the area - but to be honest, i'm not so dedicated)...but anyway, since im discussing "amorphism" can you then answer my question - with regard to that? also, how do you distinguish amorphism and homosexuality? is it that homosexuality is a choice? im being honest, i would like to know.


1. Yes, this is an online forum. Does that make the issue any less serious?? If so then we can end the discussion here and quit wasting time. If we are to get an understanding of what each other is saying then we have to learn where each person is coming from and why they are saying what they are saying. Simple. You may shy away from this, but I do not. You don't have to read my posts or respond. If you feel I'm wasting your time, then I would suggest you do yourself a big favour and ignore me.

2. I have an accounting & philosophy background. I like to debate. In order to debate I like to be informed. Amorphism is the tendency of ambiguity in regard to gender identity -- I guess would be the best way to say it -- we call the women that display amorphism "Tom Boys", but we don't begin to assume that they are homosexual now do we?? Just think how many Tom Boys you've grown up with. Very few were ever considered homosexual. But on the flip side, every little boy with feminine qualities we referred to as a sissy or homosexual. But that is not the case. Amorphism has nothing to do with sexual preference. A lot of homosexual men may display amorphism -- which is why most of the research done on homosexuality is a joke. Masculine homosexuals were never studied. Homosexual women were never studied. Because just as we misjudge, researchers misjudged. They assumed feminine men equaled homosexual and masculine women equaled Tom Boy. Oh, and amorphism is genetic in men. Which is what led people to believe that homosexuality is genetic when in actuality it was feminism that was genetic.

Please do not sink to the level of making broad generalizations and assumptions. It destroys much of the credibility of your argument, especially when your assumptions are incorrect.

I fail to see how I've made a generalization without merit. This discussion speaks in general terms. How is my generalization invalid and I will withdraw it.

You are very right I don't know Rene Descartes. But agian you try to dazzle with brilliance. But this experiment was mentioned by me long ago. with different words "How can you tell someone who is born blind of the color red?" This is with out having the higher education you seem to have. Truth is made void by fact. I don't care how much truth there is to a flat earth the fact is it is round. The fact is GLBT exist and we are human you can not tell me what I know of my self as a transgender person. You are like the blind man trying to understand the color red. The thing that gets me is you as a str8 person want to tell me you know more about being transgendered than I do. You a str8 person want to tell homosexuals you know more about being homosexual than homosexuals do.
FACT you don't have a clue and you never will.

1. Ok. So an american can't know more about Bahamian history than a Bahamian?? A car driver automatically knows more about driving cars than a non-car driver?? I don't think so. Homosexuality is a behaviorism. Behaviorists know more about homosexuality than homosexuals. Botanists know more about trees than trees do. And my opinions don't come from higher learning, I studied accounting. My opinions come from my own interest in philosophy, biology, religion, or whatever. Truth is not made void by fact. Truth defines fact. A blind man is no different than anyone else. The red you see, is not the same red that I see. I'd love for your to prove that it is.

Uh thick head blind eyes. I have not said it is genetic. I have said it is in the womb. Where genes, chromosomes and hormones create a life.

2. So genes and chromosomes aren't genetic?? I know they aren't spelled the same...but...hmmmm...genes as I recall are quite genetic. And since chromosome contain genes, I'm willing to guess that they are genetic too. But you're the expert.

So when did you realize you were heterosexual? You said around 14. Why did you not realize you were homosexual in stead?

3. I find men attractive. I wouldn't act on that attraction. Just like you can take a pile of cow feces and make it look like the best meal ever, it looks appealing but I would never eat it. But if I were in prison there's a strong chance I might act on homosexual desires. Just like if I were starving to death I might eat cow dung. Sexuality is a spectrum. We all have desires along that spectrum. Most have strong desires towards either extreme, bi-sexuals are usually in the middle of that line. If all men died tomorrow, the last living homosexual would become heterosexual. Just like if I, a heterosexual man, went to prison for the rest of my life, I would likely become homosexual.

The basis is Christianity. Christianity comes from the teachings of Jesus. The rest of the Bible is other sources. We have already said the Bible can be used to justify just about any kind of hate or discrimination even murder. Try it with the teachings of Jesus.

4. I would disagree with that. But then that would change the dynamic of the discussion. Christianity comes from Platonism, Pythagorianism and Literalism. Very little of the teachings of Jesus are in fact the teachings of Jesus let alone the basis of christianity.

I can say the same thing, "I can, however, tell you about your opinion being flawed logically and lacking in objectivity." That is right I have to look at this through transgender eyes. Just as the indian had to look at what the white man called progress through indian eyes and call it destruction.

5. Are you equating me to the white man?? Have I harmed you?? Oppressed you?? Discriminated against you?? What have I done to you except exposed what you have done to yourself.

Do you think the more words you type the more you are heard???

6. Actually no, I post less than you do. I try to post everything I have to say in one post, with complete sentences and messages. I don't try to post 3-4 consecutive posts. Noticed I tried to address everyone in this one post. You should be careful how you point fingers. I learned heterosexuality the same place you did. From society. Same place you learned Bahamian culture from. Did you go to a Bahamian culture class to become a certified Bahamian?? No, you learned from interacting with people. That's the same way you learn sexuality. That's the same way you learn what your favorite color is. Your favorite food. Even the way you learn english. From interacting socially.

I know what you are saying but I think you are using Amorphism in the wrong context. The definition does not really link to gender.

7. I'm not saying that it does. I'm saying that the studies done suggesting that homosexuality is not a product of socialization are making this claim.

Yes, this is an online forum. Does that make the issue any less serious?? If so then we can end the discussion here and quit wasting time. If we are to get an understanding of what each other is saying then we have to learn where each person is coming from and why they are saying what they are saying. Simple. You may shy away from this, but I do not. You don't have to read my posts or respond. If you feel I'm wasting your time, then I would suggest you do yourself a big favour and ignore me

Once again you miss the point. I enjoy reading your posts very much-you make very good and well reasoned points. However, you can perhaps use less camparative means of getting your point across...if you are capable of doing so. All in all, it would save you lots of time writing (and us lots of time reading)...much of what you say is valid, (and for that reason i will continue to read) but it takes you sentences upon sentences to express your point. Try to be more concise please - if thats not too big a challenge.

Now can you (*briefly*) outline the distinction between homosexuality and amorphism? Unless I have skipped the explanation as i scanned your response, you failed (again) in answering a specific question -in your quest to illustrate how well read you are.

PS: leave out the illustration too this time please, I have a creative mind and can do that for myself.

Do you think the more words you type the more you are heard???

Vicky you can't be serious.....look at your post #443 or 421...lol...they are novels...