Discuss with just facts?

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Lmao calm down.

I asked you how you chose your sexuality and why you chose it. I asked you how you trained yourself to be attracted to the same sex, and if you had to suppress heterosexual feelings.

I just assumed you were qualified to speak on yourself, my bad.

also, fyi, when people claim something is a social construct, they can at least express how they see that construct appear and impact people. “It’s a social construct” is not a “get out responding free” card lmao

And yes, if you’re going to say that sexuality isn’t innate, you are saying that people chose something life threatening and that meant they’d not have equality and would have to hide their relationships or force themselves into heterosexual relationships as a cover, you’re basically saying they chose a sexuality that they had to suppress or keep a secret- I am incredibly curious about why so many people would do this to themselves when they could just choose to be heterosexual, I asked you that and you said “many reasons” but failed to offer even one. But I guess you can ignore that part since it’s clearly out of your depth. You claim that it’s media, but won’t address the fact that sexuality existed before media did. And that many people have a sexuality that goes against what media pushes on people. I just think when you argue against something that most people accept as a given, questions pop up, and it’s odd that you’d snap and defend not answering it, when you are the one who came here with a view that most people don’t share- so the onus would actually be on you to prove what you claim. Nobody else blinked when the other commenter said sex was innate. Only you did. You introduced a new claim- you should be able to easily back it up. The burden would be on you but go ahead and take it off because clearly you can’t carry it.

I will say tho, media is a poor answer becuse the narrative for decades was “hetero good, homo bad, bi not a thing” and we still had homosexuals and bisexuals. There’s not more bisexual people now, imo. There’s just more openly bisexual people now. But whatever. Clearly you can’t handle debate so we can drop it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I asked you that and you said “many reasons” but failed to offer even one.

You're being disingenuous. I listed three in my response:

People have plenty of reasons for sexuality - trauma, being exposed to something at the time of sexuality discovery and certainly socialization.

These things are known to cement in paraphilia.

Do I think those people choose a sexuality like they choose cereal? Absolutely not, but to pretend we understand how experience, nurture, effects sexuality and whether or not humans have one at all (which is my point - you keep appealing to emotionally appealing examples to people who face social ostracization and punishment for homosexuality as if that is proof of innate sexuality). I don't believe sexuality is innate. Homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. I think we were a socially sexual species that uses sex for both social bonding, recreation and reproduction. I believe we've all been so thoroughly programmed about sexuality to make a claim about it without evidence (like it's innate - again, any evidence for that, and I'd love to counter that, but an argument of whataboutism appealing to my emotional state is no better than TRA do with gender) is not logical.

You claim that it’s media, but won’t address the fact that sexuality existed before media did.

What sexuality do we know of that precedes media? Dworkin certainly shows how Marquis de Sade affected a world's sexuality without broadcast media.

Question for you - how do YOU explain the rise in women reporting as bisexual to have changed from 13% from 2% while men have stayed at 2%?

And that many people have a sexuality that goes against what media pushes on people.

Which is often shaped by a variety of factors of environment, like trauma, but not only trauma, which can cement us into things against the social norms, even things that are harmful or can cause us to be ostracised or murdered.

you are the one who came here with a view that most people don’t share

Which doesn't mean you're right. Again, it was our side, the LGBT that claimed all sexuality was innate (no evidence), doubling down on Catholicism who claimed a specific sexuality was innate (no evidence), because we cannot express the proved (evidence) fact that sexuality can change and be affected by trauma and experience. Just because we all agreed to something without evidence and feel the need to continue defending that false statement because the modern gender movement is using it to violate lesbian's boundaries, does not mean it's science or fact. There is more evidence to the contrary than to support innate sexuality.

Nobody else blinked when the other commenter said sex was innate.

Sexuality, you mean? Correct, because, again, who is going to argue the last inclusive message that was universally accepted without proof (and claims of bigotry or right-wing alignment if you challenged it). You're being pretty aggressive with me about it, which is why other people won't even consider challenging their thought on it or looking for evidence. Not that I agree with him on much, but Salty has been saying this for years, and no one has ever actually debated him with any studies or facts countering it because there are none.

I am not introducing a new claim that needs to be defended. I'm pointing out a lack of evidence in your claim.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Lmao you still won’t answer the questions about yourself? And do you think everyone had trauma or decided to sleep with the same sex because they saw it on a television show? Even people who lived before television?

I didn’t appeal to emotion. I asked you how you made your choice of sexuality since nobody else I’ve ever met had made that claim, and I figured you’d be able to explain it since you’re so confident in your assertion.

You are absolutely introducing a new claim- you’re the only person here claiming it... it wasn’t even my claim lol, people here say all the time that sexuality is innate. You’re the one saying it’s not. Sounds like a new claim to me.

You keep saying it’s because media and society and all this bs but that doesn’t explain why people have sexualities that are counter to what media promotes. Nobody would be gay until maybe a few decades ago- and then where would the media get the idea to portray homosexuality? We should all be jumping at the chance to sleep with trans people based on today’s media. You can’t account for variance you can’t account for the fact that billions of people have a sexuality that is different from what society pushes- even historically this is the case. And you still can’t explain why your own responses about your sexuality contradict what you said about sexuality not being innate. Also- how would anyone ever become any sexuality to begin with, like waaaaay back in time before it was ever recorded? We know there were homosexuals and bisexuals in the past- where did they get the idea, when media didn’t exist? You can blame trauma, but who traumatized the first person to traumatize someone into a sexuality? Who exposed the first gay people to being gay?

Of course exposure informs sexuality- how do we find out what we are attracted to until we encounter it? That doesn’t mean we are influenced by it. A lesbian can be exposed to a male and a female. She’s only going to respond sexually to a female. And she likely grew up with the media depicting heterosexual relationships as the norm. As a female, she’s more likely to have experienced some type of sexual trauma, but it’s not a given. A gay man can be exposed to a male and a female. He’s not going to respond to the female form the way he will to the male. He may face pressure to be hetero- so how does that factor into your claim? Him being gay despite pressure to be straight? As far as trauma- if someone is molested by a person the same sex does that make them gay or straight m? Opposite sex?

I’d also take a wild guess and say I’m pretty sure sexuality existed before books. Since you know... there were people on the planet able to make books. And before them people were around to make words but that may be a different convo. It’s worth noting that since a lot of books denounced homosexuality, it must’ve been around for them to denounce. Which would mean that those books are media- those books weren’t in favor of a sexuality that must’ve been present and known to exist for them to write about it.

Eta- can I ask if you’re gc or qt?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not sure why discussing this.

Homosexuality exist in mammals without society. Done.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You know what? Yes. It’s that simple lol