Pansexuality

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

Now who is avoiding the points with personal attacks?

What points? You haven't made any; you've just spewed bigoted personal opinion. I don't give such things the validation of a reply.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

Get back to me when many scientists hold their own theories next to Kinseys, and we'll go from there.

This is the only thing I've seen you so thus far that is flippant instead of just plain ignorant, so here's your response:

Discovery Health network backing Kinsey:
http://health.discovery.com/centers-...dckinsey.shtml

The American Public Health Association backing Kinsey:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1447862

Indiana University backing Kinsey:
http://advancing.indiana.edu/minds/kinsey.shtml

The Athena Institute backing the Kinsey Institute:
http://www.athenainstitute.com/scien...nseygrant.html

Researchers from Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center, and Weill Medical College of Cornell University backing Kinsey:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d3uxdp2da3f5lxxb/


Of course, feel free to dismiss the pile of PhD's behind these articles - you've got strong opinions, after all! That's what really counts!

[MaverickZero]

I'm not saying a bunch of blowhards that pat Kinsey on the back, I'm saying actual independant scientific research that has been done, and compared to kinsey. I can go and write an essay about Kinsey, so can anybody. You've not proved a thing, yet again.

[d.Nox]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

Surprise Surprise, Kinsey is promoting his own theory.

You haven't read the report. Kinsey isn't theorizing; he's reporting the results of observations.

Behaviour as in having multiple partners, as when you are with ONE person, unless that person has both units, you're with one gender.

What the hell? So you can only be bisexual if you're with a hermaphrodite? No definition of "bisexual" claims that, except the one in your head.

If this discussion is going to continue, you're going to have to be a lot more clear. What do you mean by "bisexuality," when you say it doesn't exist? So far, you've claimed it to be (1) based on behavior, (2) based on feelings, and now (3) based on bizarre anatomical anomalies. Which is it?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

I can go and write an essay about Kinsey, so can anybody. You've not proved a thing, yet again.

Obviously you are clueless as to how scientific journals work. Sure you could write an article about Kinsey, but nobody would publish you. If the journal felt that Kinsey wasn't credible, they wouldn't publish it anyways, in fear of tarnishing their own reputation.

Seeing how you have yet to prove anything I say wrong, the onus of proving one's point lies on you, not me. I can only do so much to show you how many scientists and otherwise brilliant minds disagree with your stupidity, but I cannot force you to smarten up. That is up to you, and if you want to stay an ignorant bigot, then you can do so.

Of course, you're only continuing to make yourself look worse by not giving an intelligent rebuttal or retraction of what you've been saying. That is consistent with the accusations of bigoted ignorance that I've made about you, so again I prove myself right, and you wrong.

[MaverickZero]

Quit twisting my words. I'm using examples, so get over it.

All I've seen out of Kinsey is a report that goes on about "bisexuality" in women. Also, I've also found that it's not yet been proven in men.

Strange.

If you actually read what I've been posting, I've claimed it's based on behaviour, period. As nobody can prove what anyone is thinking. Sure, people can SAY all they want, but to actually prove it is impossible.

[MaverickZero]

If it's "credible" why do people still argue the theory of evoloution? Why is that still in great debate about how it should be taught in schools?

Science is always changing, and rarely fully correct. Basing all your points off scientific "fact" and none off your own basis and thoughts is foolish.

If you believe everything the scientists and everyone else tells you, what's the point of free thought?

These scientists are NOT unbiased. They are trying to PROVE their side of an argument. Without the opposite argument, how is theirs credible?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

Quit twisting my words. I'm using examples, so get over it.

Failure to post external links on the internet isn't called "using examples," it's called "talking out of your ass."

All I've seen out of Kinsey is a report that goes on about "bisexuality" in women. Also, I've also found that it's not yet been proven in men.

Yet the study of sexuality of ancient Greeks and Romans which covered a span of hundreds of years of active, socially acceptable bisexuality in men means nothing to you.

If you actually read what I've been posting, I've claimed it's based on behaviour, period.

If that was the case, then you'd agree with me that bisexuality is real. Since you do not, you either are not arguing that, or are disagreeing with yourself. Either way, you look like an idiot.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

If it's "credible" why do people still argue the theory of evoloution? Why is that still in great debate about how it should be taught in schools?

The only people who argue evolution are religious extremists - people who, like you, let ignorance cloud their judgment instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming scientific proof and consensus.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

These scientists are NOT unbiased. They are trying to PROVE their side of an argument. Without the opposite argument, how is theirs credible?

True scientists do not try to prove anything. Actual scientists try to find fact.

Actually, in most fields, skewing a study to try to prove one's argument can land you in serious trouble. Perhaps you should tell your professors that any research they do is inherently biased and see how well they react to that.

[MaverickZero]

Are we living like the ancient Romans and Greeks? Society has changed. As have the people.

I'm arguing my point, which you morons keep twisting in efforts to make me look like an idiot, instead of giving me what I'm asking you to prove.

You haven't come up with any independant studies, you have only provided back patting tripe, and useless information.

I am not going to waste my time searching for examples for you, especially when you want nothing more than to argue petty garbage. My examples are clear and to the point, and they expose the holes in your arguments. So you try and discredit them by saying I don't have proof?

Common knowledge.

Darwin is not openly criticized? After years of him being the be all end all of evoloution?

Just because nobody has openly criticized Kinsey on his research and pointed out the holes in it, doesn't mean that it's a spotless piece of scientific genius.

[MaverickZero]

Religious extremists... that's cute. There are plenty of scientists, religious and non alike, that have problems with his theories.

I'm not saying either way on it, however I am saying that there is the possibility that it isn't correct.

It's healthy to have an open skepticism of Science. To believe blindly like you, and many people do is just plain stupid.

[Underwater Ophelia]

I think there's an easy way to solve this problem.
Maverick, you've seen plenty of sources for how we feel.
You haven't provided any.
If you can, and it's credible, then I'm sure many of us would be more open to hearing what you have to say. However, as of now all of what you're saying can only be attributed to you.

[MaverickZero]

When I have the time, and the energy to go and cite everything from where I base my theories from I will.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

Are we living like the ancient Romans and Greeks? Society has changed. As have the people.

So now you're arguing that we are substantially physiologically different from people living less than 2000 years ago? That's cute; I'm dying to see you prove that.

Furthermore, I can't wait to see you prove that while claiming that evolution doesn't exist.

You need to take Underwater Ophelia's advice and back up your inane rhetoric, or back off the topic.

[drewsilla]

How I love you people!!!

[Lapin]

Originally Posted by delicti

Nah, in real life I bet he's struggling with his own sexuality and would be devastated if we summarily rejected his advances. I think I could live with that. :-D

I think I could laugh at that.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

When I have the time, and the energy to go and cite everything from where I base my theories from I will.

Um, ok. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously based on your word alone.

[GenniferBone]

Sexuality is a very personal thing. I identify as bisexual, though by definition I'm more pansexual.

The problem with Pansexuality is that it's a very nebulus title.

Now, as for opinion on Gay\Straight\Bisexual and weather it excists or not-

It's not your fucking business. Unless YOU are the person I'm buggering, I don't really want you telling me what is and is not my personal experience.

I don't tell straight people they are fooling themselves, I don't tell Christans they follow a false God, and I don't tell people what is and is not art- all of that is very personal, and while you or I may have an opinion, it only apples to the person voicing it.

Don't tell me who I am. I don't care what you think.

Who and what I keep under my skirt is MY business. You want it, come and get it. You don't, then I leave you alone.

Now if you will excuse me, I have sex magick to attend to.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

I don't like how some people think they can say whether or not bisexuality exists. Unless YOU are the person with the feelings then you have no right to say what they feel and don't feel.

And pansexuality I think exists. Someone out there feels it or the word wouldn't exist.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Ok, I'm not even responding to this. From now on, I can't possibly take anything you say seriously, because this is far too dis-jointed and uses no basis. Don't even respond to this if you don't want to, because I just can't handle talking to people whose minds work this way.

Everyone is reading this crap, right? Please tell me I'm not the insane one?

I agree with you entirely.

[Valerius]

Let's all have one giant Gnet Orgy to prove our bisexuality!

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by MaverickZero

When I have the time, and the energy to go and cite everything from where I base my theories from I will.

This gets my vote for "cop out of the year."

We should have Gnet awards. I'm sure you'd pick up several nominations .

[Corpsey]

Woah... I just wanted one simple answer...

Bi-sexuality exists, and it was what made the Romans and Greeks more interesting to discuss.

"Mummy, what does it mean that they liked to have bi-sexual orgies?" - 7 year old Corpsey

"Uhm.... they liked to party. A Lot" - Odd expression on Mother's face.

[GenniferBone]

I agree with Valerius.