Yes I can. One is an absolute. The other isn't. There is no absolute homosexual like there is no absolute cold or absolute heat. There's always the possibility of something hotter. There's always the possibility of a homosexual experiencing heterosexuality. Some homosexuals are more likely than others. Just as an oven is more likely to be hotter than a desert.

You giving an absolute is an exercise in ignorance. There are no absolutes.


I find this so confusing because my entire argument thus far has been based on YOU stating an absolute. Go back to post 478, where you stated:

If all men died tomorrow, the last living homosexual would become heterosexual.


Correct me if in my "exercise in ignorance" I misunderstood you, but that seems like an absolute to me. You stated that with all the men in the world gone the last living homosexual WOULD become hetero. There is no "could", no "likely", and certainly no "maybe" in this sentence or any relation to where the homosexual man may be on the spectrum. You stated this as a definitive fact. So now based on what you said previously about using absolutes as "an exercise in ignorance", doesn't that mean YOUR ignorance muscles are getting a better workout then mine?

Finekameo:

No, its not an absolute. It starts with the word "IF". Because if you are the last homosexual man. How is it possible for you to be homosexual with no man to be attracted to?? If you are a carnivore, and all meat disappeared tomorrow -- even if you never eating plants -- you can't be called a carnivore because there is no meat.

Vicky:

Nope. Never met CG. My girlfriend's from Guyana. She was raised Hindu. We have...

*looks on the wall*

...literally hundreds of books on the subject of Hinduism and Buddhism.

which bring me to another thing. if a person goes against their preffered sexual experiance under stressed circumstances does that make them a blank. using i believe mikkie example in other words if i was placed in a situtaion where i had no choice but to eat a bowl of maggots. am i now a maggot eater. if a person has 4 straight relationships over the last two years and 2 homosexual one this year are they straight, gay, or bi. i met a girl in college who told me that that crap is too confusing and she doesnt concern herself with it, shes a sexual being and decided when she is with a guy she is straight and when she is with a girl she is gay. maybe she's on to something

The problem is people want to create labels and want people to fit into. The problem with that is there is always someone that does not fit.

For me if a Joe has sex with a man because Joe is in a situation where its not really a choice ( like all the women are dead) it does not make him homosexual.

Now if Joe would normally only have sex or intimate love relation with men/a man then he is homosexual.
If Joe normally has sex or intimate love relation with men/man and women/a woman that makes him bisexual.

ooooohhhhh, i gat ya u now. i have met a woman who was like that maybe u r not to this degree but she couldnt stand men. she wanted them wipe off the planet

I have not hate for men I just know I have no sexual attraction to them what so ever .

yeah that did come out wrong, i meant nothing against your marriage. what i meant was if the law saw you for what you are or wanted to be seen as, a woman, then they would just consider you GF an GF.

The law has to accept what my legal documents say. You see the Bahamas Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and I express my self as a female.
If I chose to walk down an isle in a wedding dress the law can't stop the wedding.

My dream is to be my wifes bride in a 2 bride wedding. One day we will renew our vows.

The problem is people want to create labels and want people to fit into. The problem with that is there is always someone that does not fit.

People want social order. For this to occur there must be rules. There are exceptions to rules, but not extremes. We cannot provide for extreme or our rules are useless and our social order collapses. Even to have this conversation we have to have labels and definitions. You use them. I use them. Without them this conversation doesn't exist. I don't want to force you to abide by rules. Nobody does. For example, if a christian speaks of creationism in the context of his belief then I can accept that. But if a christian speaks of creationism as factual -- then he or she is breaking the rules. A bahamian can speak english, but as long as he or she recognizes that "ting'um" is breaking the rules then I have no problem with that. If you speak of homosexuality in the proper context with the proper definitions -- we have no quarrel. When you start talking foolishness then there is a problem.

wow i am surprised. i never thought i would meet one bahamian budist let alone 2!!!!???? GOOD FOR YALL

Uh Mikki is no Buddhist read post 428. A true Buddhist would have never made a comment like that. But you must ref 427 to see why he said what he did.
Let me rephrase that as a Buddhist he has a long way to go.

He has no concept as to what this means. I listen to this most every day.
http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/mp3/metta.mp3

the song with english translation
The Chant of Metta Text

http://www.buddhanet.net/chant-metta.htm

I find this so confusing because my entire argument thus far has been based on YOU stating an absolute. Go back to post 478, where you stated:


Correct me if in my "exercise in ignorance" I misunderstood you, but that seems like an absolute to me. You stated that with all the men in the world gone the last living homosexual WOULD become hetero. There is no "could", no "likely", and certainly no "maybe" in this sentence or any relation to where the homosexual man may be on the spectrum. You stated this as a definitive fact. So now based on what you said previously about using absolutes as "an exercise in ignorance", doesn't that mean YOUR ignorance muscles are getting a better workout then mine?

We must remember Mikki is making statments as a heterosexual. He has no clue.
:shaky: :shaky: ignorance muscles. thay is funny.

Freedom of Expression:

23.- (1) Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purposes of this Article the said freedom includes freedom to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.


I can be of the opinion that I am God. But that doesn't mean that the Bahamas government and Bahamian people are obligated to treat me as God.

Uh Mikki is no Buddhist read post 428. A true Buddhist would have never made a comment like that. But you must ref 427 to see why he said what he did.
Let me rephrase that as a Buddhist he has a long way to go.

He has no concept as to what this means. I listen to this most every day.
http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/mp3/metta.mp3

the song with english translation
The Chant of Metta Text

http://www.buddhanet.net/chant-metta.htm



Did I wish you harm?? Plenty of Buddhists make fun of others. Most famously, Jerry Seinfeld. Besides there are several Buddhist sects. Some orthodox, some unorthodox. If you want to know, ask me. Don't judge me. I have yet to judge you.

People want social order. For this to occur there must be rules. There are exceptions to rules, but not extremes. We cannot provide for extreme or our rules are useless and our social order collapses. Even to have this conversation we have to have labels and definitions. You use them. I use them. Without them this conversation doesn't exist. I don't want to force you to abide by rules. Nobody does. For example, if a christian speaks of creationism in the context of his belief then I can accept that. But if a christian speaks of creationism as factual -- then he or she is breaking the rules. A bahamian can speak english, but as long as he or she recognizes that "ting'um" is breaking the rules then I have no problem with that. If you speak of homosexuality in the proper context with the proper definitions -- we have no quarrel. When you start talking foolishness then there is a problem.

What is one person foolishness is another person insight. What someone calls progress another call destruction. (re worded so as not to offend)

Mikki you don't stand in our shoes there for not qualified to talk about GLBT issues. Just as I can't talk about being str8. Just as someone born blind can't tell you about a sunset.

Freedom of Expression:




I can be of the opinion that I am God. But that doesn't mean that the Bahamas government and Bahamian people are obligated to treat me as God.

Yod can be god all you like as long as you do not hurt anyone or influance some one to hurt anyone. If you find people to worship you as god by all means enjoy.

Incorrect. What is foolishness is foolishness. If you can go to the dictionary and type in the word foolishness and find a definition, then what you said makes no sense. There is not one rule for you and another rule for me.

Yes, I am fully aware that I can express the thought that I am God. But my expression means nothing if there are rules against it. You said the law *HAS* to accept what your legal documents say. Good luck with that. If you are examined by a doctor and he writes "male" -- as much as you can say otherwise and claim that he isn't you so he can't tell you what you are -- you would be wrong.

Did I wish you harm?? Plenty of Buddhists make fun of others. Most famously, Jerry Seinfeld. Besides there are several Buddhist sects. Some orthodox, some unorthodox. If you want to know, ask me. Don't judge me. I have yet to judge you.

You used the word sissy as an insult not as a joke.

Incorrect. What is foolishness is foolishness. If you can go to the dictionary and type in the word foolishness and find a definition, then what you said makes no sense. There is not one rule for you and another rule for me.
Thats why when the Wright brothers were trying to fly it was foolishness.
Yes, I am fully aware that I can express the thought that I am God. But my expression means nothing if there are rules against it. You said the law *HAS* to accept what your legal documents say. Good luck with that. If you are examined by a doctor and he writes "male" -- as much as you can say otherwise and claim that he isn't you so he can't tell you what you are -- you would be wrong.
and that is why I can get a second opinion. I would then go to a doctor that understand gender identity issues (as I have) and be classed as a transwomen. I just have not used the law or surgery to change this. Someone else opinion does not make me who I am. I Am That I Am made me as I am. I don't need anyone to confirm it for my knowledge.