Do you expect your wife to submit to you?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
im confused robbie. you initially claimed it was an individuals free will that enabled them to decide what sexual acts the commit.

you now appear to be saying that is peoples environment? so can i choose to be gay, or do i need to be in a specific environment first?

as for the anecdotal evidence, you are correct. my stories from work are intended ...[text shortened]... aviours and daily records.

of course it suits your argument much better to assume i am lying.

You can choose to be gay and your environment may also have an impact on your choice. Clearly this is what happens in prison. Why you are confused I cannot say? Why you should deem that the two should be mutually exclusive also I cannot say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You can choose to be gay and your environment may also have an impact on your choice. Clearly this is what happens in prison. Why you are confused I cannot say? Why you should deem that the two should be mutually exclusive also I cannot say.

play nice the 2 of you

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are they aroused? probably not, just expediencies sake. whether they try anything with children remains to be seen, they may have some moral misgivings which prevents them, certainly their genetics has nothing to do with it. You fail again, try a different variation, that ones busted.

so we have two men in a cell having sex.....neither of them are aroused????..........did you study biology at school?


do you believe its 'moral misgivings' that stops most men from wanting to have sex with children?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so we have two men in a cell having sex.....neither of them are aroused????..........did you study biology at school?


do you believe its 'moral misgivings' that stops most men from wanting to have sex with children?

you have two men in a cell having sex because they are confined to a cell, how difficult is that to understand? It could be sheer boredom. Prior to this they were heterosexuals or according to you secret gays in denial whose gayness just happened to coincide with their incarceration, now call me cynical but is that really a coincidence? i don't think so. Why its so difficult for you to accept that people are free moral agents responsible for their own actions I cannot say.

Even rampant materialists recognise that environment is the biggest factor.

Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

There are a number of reasons I suspect, its socially unacceptable even among criminal elements, its morally unacceptable and its particularly impractical if one thinks about the physiology of the human body. I doubt their genetics has anything to do with it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have two men in a cell having sex because they are confined to a cell, how difficult is that to understand? It could be sheer boredom. Prior to this they were heterosexuals or according to you secret gays in denial whose gayness just happened to coincide with their incarceration, now call me cynical but is that really a coincidence? i don't think ...[text shortened]... hinks about the physiology of the human body. I doubt their genetics has anything to do with it.

its difficult to understand because thats not how sex works. sex occurs when one or more people become sexually aroused. if neither are sexually aroused then they wouldnt be having sex, just waggling their flaccid penis's at each other.

so just to clarify- you do not have sex with kids because -

society frowns on it.
its not moral.
the physiology makes it impractical.


youre not a well man robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have two men in a cell having sex because they are confined to a cell, how difficult is that to understand? It could be sheer boredom. Prior to this they were heterosexuals or according to you secret gays in denial whose gayness just happened to coincide with their incarceration, now call me cynical but is that really a coincidence? i don't think ...[text shortened]... hinks about the physiology of the human body. I doubt their genetics has anything to do with it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html


do you accept that it is partly due to a gay gene?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html


do you accept that it is partly due to a gay gene?

No i reject a genetic causation entirely. Predisposition is not the same as causation. There is no such thing as a gay gene and the human gnome has been mapped now for decades. This is well known and understood.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its difficult to understand because thats not how sex works. sex occurs when one or more people become sexually aroused. if neither are sexually aroused then they wouldnt be having sex, just waggling their flaccid penis's at each other.

so just to clarify- you do not have sex with kids because -

society frowns on it.
its not moral.
the physiology makes it impractical.


youre not a well man robbie.

I am perfectly healthy and remain capable of rational thought, I certainly don't need quacks like you with your crackpot theories diagnosing me.

The question was not asked about me personally and i resent your intellectually dishonest attempts to make it personal. All other attempts to do so will be ignored. It seems a feature of posters like you who devoid of reason and substance feel the need to resort to these tabloid measures. if you cannot debate objectively then go to the general forum or somewhere else. This is spirituality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i reject a genetic causation entirely. Predisposition is not the same as causation. There is no such thing as a gay gene and the human gnome has been mapped now for decades.

right so you present some scientific research but dont actually agree with its findings. why should i trust this scientist if you dont?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
right so you present some scientific research but dont actually agree with its findings. why should i trust this scientist if you dont?

You have no necessity to trust him and are free to dismiss his claims.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am perfectly healthy and remain capable of rational thought, I certainly don't need quacks like you with your crackpot theories diagnosing me.

if they are the only reasons you wouldnt have sex with a child then things are not right upstairs.

the first thing the majority of people would say when asked that question, is that they are not sexually attracted to children.


oddly, didnt even make your list.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if they are the only reasons you wouldnt have sex with a child then things are not right upstairs.

the first thing the majority of people would say when asked that question, is that they are not sexually attracted to children.


oddly, didnt even make your list.

all attempts to make the debate personal will be ignored. I resent your intellectual dishonesty in this regard. I did not claim my list was exhaustive, perhaps you can point out where I did say that and can you cite the reference where the majority of people have stated that the reason they do not have sex with children is that they do not find them attractive - thanks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You have no necessity to trust him and are free to dismiss his claims.

i was wondering why you posted a link to scientific research that you disagree with...in order to support your argument?!?!?!?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i was wondering why you posted a link to scientific research that you disagree with...in order to support your argument?!?!?!?

where is your citation that the reason people do not have sex with children is that they find them unattractive? you said that's what the majority of people say, where is it? or are we to assume that you have nothing to produce but your own balloon head propaganda? as far as I can discern the reason that its unacceptable are moral and ethical, that coercion is wrong, that violation is wrong, that loss if innocency is wrong, that inflicting pain is wrong, nowhere can i find a reference to anyone that has said the majority of people do not have sex with children because they find them unattractive. So where is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all attempts to make the debate personal will be ignored. I resent your intellectual dishonesty in this regard. I did not claim my list was exhaustive, perhaps you can point out where I did say that and can you cite the reference where the majority of people have stated that the reason they do not have sex with children is that they do not find them attractive - thanks.

I did not claim my list was exhaustive

what would you add to your list?

can you cite the reference where the majority of people have stated that the reason they do not have sex with children is that they do not find them attractive

if you need evidence, can i assume that you disagree? and that you think the majority of people wouldnt say that do not find children attractive?