A Disgruntled D.J., Followed By Disgrutled Fans......

[montebrogan]

muzikchick and boywondernyc,

Both of you are on point and I agree 100%. Hate is wrong. NYC is built on diversity. Gay, Straights...whatever. I could care less who I party with - I'm there for the VIBE. To see homophobic remarks flowing so freely from the reactionary JP fans is disheartening. His board monitors should remove the posts, and JP himself should step up and post a message denouncing such behavior on his site.

Increase the peace.

[muzikchick]

I don't want to keep you from your sleep. I know exactly what you were trying to point out.

The theory I choose to believe, is that it is nature....you're born that way. Ofcourse, for some certain psychological factors may cause you to sway that way, but personally I believe that to be a smaller percentage.

So, I know you ment....my comment...about stupid people are born stupid (which you can argue the nature vs. nurture theory to, as well)

Anyway, it depends on who's study. None of it appears to be concrete............and it won't be.

Obviously, you chose your theory.....it's all speculative.

Whatever, that wasn't the point of this thread. People shouldn't be subjected to harrassment due to their sexual preferance.

That was the important part. That kid was being stupid, I doubt he really cared to know about scientific theories.

Whatever.

[redzinger]

Ask any mother of a gay child that "always knew" their child was gay and then tell me again that a two year old could be "learning" to be gay. Learning to be fierce, maybe!

[zeeker]

Originally posted by redzinger

Ask any mother of a gay child that "always knew" their child was gay and then tell me again that a two year old could be "learning" to be gay. Learning to be fierce, maybe!

uhhh, what about parents who seemingly have a normal heterosexual child, who get sat down when their kid comes back from his first year and told that he is all of a sudden gay? And it all comes as a complete shock.

[todd0076]

Originally posted by muzikchick

Just from the first line, it's enough to know, not to even bother reading your incoherance.

Disgraceful.

exactly

I totally agree with you making this post, because I this makes me think that I will NEVER go and support Johnathan's parties ever because his crowd is so obviously homophobic I wouldn't dare step foot near any club he is playing at. So enjoy wherever you kids end up, and thank god that the SF name won't be tarnished anymore now that Junior is back. I made a post on the Junior board and they are assuring a tight door policy on Saturday's now and that makes me feel a lot better so what these people say really doesn't matter anymore.

But I agree that JP needs to speak up and stop these CRAZIES from ruining his image

Because I know all of his fans arent like this, THANK GOD but come on people

And Boywonder well said,

[zeeker]

Originally posted by todd f

exactly

I totally agree with you making this post, because I will NEVER go and support Johnathan's parties ever because his crowd is so obviously homophobic I wouldn't dare step foot near any of these pumped up princesses from Jersey. So enjoy wherever you kids end up, and thank god that the SF name won't be tarnished anymore now that Junior is home. I made a post on the Junior board and they are assuring a tight door policy on Saturday's now and that makes me feel a lot better so what these people say really doesn't matter anymore.

But I agree that JP needs to speak up and stop these CRAZIES from ruining his image

um, when was the last time you went to SF on a Sunday morning? There ar tons of trannies prancing around and gay dudes hooking up. Don't slap some ridiculous generalization on an entire fan base because a few ignorant meat heads are upset that JP is out.

[redzinger]

Originally posted by zeeker

uhhh, what about parents who seemingly have a normal heterosexual child, who get sat down when their kid comes back from his first year and told that he is all of a sudden gay? And it all comes as a complete shock.

They may have been told the child was "all of a sudden" gay but trust me that he/she ALWAYS was gay.

Logically speaking....it makes more sense that it is genetic. I'm fascinated that people see it any other way. I'd love to hear your explanation as to why anyone would choose this.

[redzinger]

Originally posted by zeeker

um, when was the last time you went to SF on a Sunday morning? There ar tons of trannies prancing around and gay dudes hooking up. Don't slap some ridiculous generalization on an entire fan base because a few ignorant meat heads are upset that JP is out.

I've been to SF with gay friends and we've gone out of our way to camp it up and be noticed as gay. While I'm sure there were those that kept their thoughts to themselves, we found ourselves very welcomed. Many people approached us on the dancefloor curious about us. It was quite nice.

Not all of us in the gay community have negative feelings towards Jonathan's party there. (This is a general comment not directed at anyone specific)

[muzikchick]

Originally posted by montebrogan

muzikchick and boywondernyc,

Both of you are on point and I agree 100%. Hate is wrong. NYC is built on diversity. Gay, Straights...whatever. I could care less who I party with - I'm there for the VIBE. To see homophobic remarks flowing so freely from the reactionary JP fans is disheartening. His board monitors should remove the posts, and JP himself should step up and post a message denouncing such behavior on his site.

Increase the peace.

Thanks for speaking out.

[todd0076]

Originally posted by zeeker

um, when was the last time you went to SF on a Sunday morning? There ar tons of trannies prancing around and gay dudes hooking up. Don't slap some ridiculous generalization on an entire fan base because a few ignorant meat heads are upset that JP is out.

Your right, I definitly was making a generalization and I apologize and I did edit my post but looking at all this negative anti-gay crap from these stupid kids is really getting on my last nerve.

[zeeker]

Originally posted by redzinger

They may have been told the child was "all of a sudden" gay but trust me that he/she ALWAYS was gay.

Logically speaking....it makes more sense that it is genetic. I'm fascinated that people see it any other way. I'd love to hear your explanation as to why anyone would choose this.

Hey, I'm not trying to change your mind or anything. But your just pecking at the surface of this whole debate. It's not coincidence that pretty much all gays support the 'nature' argument. It's a way for them to justify what a lot of society sees as unnatural.

Note: I'm just spouting out existing theories here, not making accusations or anything, lol.

This is a hard thing to agrue about online on a message board...there's too much to say to really get it all out. Again, I'm not trying to change your mind...just what I think, and what a lot of research supports. Again, it's all very inconclusive no matter how you look at it.

[zeeker]

Originally posted by todd f

Your right, I definitly was making a generalization and I apologize and I did edit my post but looking at all this negative anti-gay crap from these stupid kids is really getting on my last nerve.

I know I'm right.

[muzikchick]

Perhaps it's gotten on alot of people's nerves, as well.

No JP article in the awaited HX this weekend. Results of this lashing out?

http://www.hx.com/index.cfm

[redzinger]

Originally posted by zeeker

It's not coincidence that pretty much all gays support the 'nature' argument. It's a way for them to justify what a lot of society sees as unnatural.

Maybe we support the nature theory because we have a first person's point of view of what it is like to be gay and we're not outsiders looking in and passing judgement on something we know squat about.

I'm just asking people to LOGICALLY look at this issue. Why would anyone choose/learn (whatever word you care to use) to be gay when, as you put it yourself, a large portion of society sees it as unnatural?

As nutty and misguided as I think religious people are, at the very least, they have an excuse for saying it's a learned behavior.

But what about eveyone else. How can you LOGICALLY say that it is not genetic. It simply makes ZERO sense. There is so much variation in human reproduction, why would it not make sense that people a portion of society is not going to be born differently.

Am I supposed to be heterosexual simply because I have a penis? Therefore, every person born with eyes MUST be able to see. Anyone born with two ears MUST be able to hear. It's simply not the way reproduction works. Variation is a key element in reproduction. This is like freshman year bio, not rocket science. This is LOGICAL reasoning based on facts.

[zeeker]

Sex and Gender not the same. Gender definitions differ from culture to culture. You are born into a certain sex, but you learn your gender so to speak. And when I say 'learn' I don't mean you choose. It's not a conscious CHOICE. It's subconscious PROCESS.

Why do I like prefer the color blue to the color pink? IDK, maybe it stems from society's influence on my parents decision to paint my room blue and buy blue clothing for me when I was a baby and not pink. Maybe one day when I was a kid, I ate a lot of pink candies and got real sick. And now I associate the color pink to unpleasantness.

What if I prefer the color pink to the color blue....maybe I associate the color pink with a girls snatch and when I see pink I subconsciously relate it to past pleasurable experiences of going down on a girl. Maybe I grew up in a pink house and pink has a subconscious attachment of 'comfort' to me and thats where my preference is routed. I only mentioned 4 possibilties to explan my hypothetical preference of one color to another. of course, these possibilities are infinite and can be applied to pretty much any kind of similar situation, including sexual preference. Again, try and look at the bigger picture here.

[zeeker]

Originally posted by redzinger

This is LOGICAL reasoning based on facts.

Logical to a gay man.

[boywondernyc]

Originally posted by zeeker

Logical to a gay man.

Logical to BOTH heterosexual and homosexual people alike I'm afraid. More and more heterosexuals everyday are accepting the FACT that being 'gay' is not a learned behavior but one that someone is born with.

Although MANY have not learned of that yet and the debate continues.

[zeeker]

Originally posted by boywondernyc

Logical to BOTH heterosexual and homosexual people alike I'm afraid. More and more heterosexuals everyday are accepting the FACT that being 'gay' is not a learned behavior but one that someone is born with.

Although MANY have not learned of that yet and the debate continues.

uh, nope.

I have a pretty open view of the whole debate. There's support for both arguments. Which makes sense, because it's a combination of nature and nurture when sexual preference is concerned. I acknowledge that. But the people who sit there and say it's all genetic....well, you're misinformed, and probably feel the way you do for a reason....i.e. you're gay, or have a best friend or family member who's gay, blah blah blah.

[zeeker]

Originally posted by boywondernyc

Logical to BOTH heterosexual and homosexual people alike I'm afraid. More and more heterosexuals everyday are accepting the FACT that being 'gay' is not a learned behavior but one that someone is born with.

Although MANY have not learned of that yet and the debate continues.

oh, just to toss out your whole notion that it's something you are born with, consider the following....a perfectly normal boy grows up, he is 'born' gay so to speak. Say this kid gets sexually abused by a male as a child, and later in life, he becomes attracted exclusively to males. Right there is an an example of 'learned' homosexuality.

what about sick fucks who are attracted to animals? Were they 'born' with that attraction? I think not.

[redzinger]

I highly doubt you were ever blue-bashed. You know...attacked and had the shit beat out of you for liking the color blue over pink.

So please, if my logic is purely the logic of a gay man....feed me some heterosexual logic and tell me why it is that I have always enjoyed men over women. Cause you're about to rock my world.

I assure you, I had the exact same upbringing as both of my two older and very very VERY vagina loving older brothers.

Consider taste. We have taste buds for several reasons. While it can work as a warning system for us to avoid potentially harmful food, it more serves the purpose of making food desireable. It's the same reason orgasms are desirable. It makes sex fun and not a chore. Our bodies are hardwired to make us propogate the species without us really having to think about it. Obviously we're not all jumping in bed just to better mankind.

But what makes something taste good? According to you, perhaps you like something because it was served to you as a child and you associate it with feeling satisfied and so you continue to like it to this day feeling satisfied everytime and most likely might even choose this certain food over another equally-as-good food. That's very much possible and I will agree with you on the level of associative feelings. But you tell me I need to look at the bigger picture. I think you do. I think your argument stops there. My argument is that....no matter what...you never could have like that food to begin with had your body not been hardwired to accept it as pleasing. We can learn to appreciate foods over the course of our lifetime that at one time were displeasing to us....but in the end, my argument is that there are always going to be certain foods you like and certain you will NEVER like no matter what. I do not believe I learned to like men. I always did. What I learned to like was foreskin. (Yes, I just went there) But I never could have liked that foreskin had I not been prewired to like c**k.

This has been a fun discussion.

[zeeker]

and btw, I'm not saying that homosexuality is the only learned behavior...I'm talking about heterosexuality as well. Let's talk about a hypothetical society in which only males live together...given enough time, primal sexual instincts would eventually take over and in all likelihood, homosexuality would result.

I'm taking a class on ancient history in school now, and we recently talked about how homosexuality was encouraged in the ancient Roman armies....it was a way for the soldiers to form a strong emotional bond that would result in more passionate fighting against the enemy. This is another situation where homosexuality is LEARNED. I can go on and on.

[redzinger]

Originally posted by zeeker

we recently talked about how homosexuality was encouraged in the ancient Roman armies.... This is another situation where homosexuality is LEARNED. I can go on and on.

What a simplistic text book view of the situation. You think it became a big homosexual f**k-fest back then simply because it was encouraged???? I guarantee you that there were men in that army that did not get involved in homosexuality because they found it gross. I assure you that there were men that had their prayers answered and were getting plowed all day long. And I can assure you that there there were those in between that were possibly able to enjoy the sex but, in the end, given a choice between men and women....would choose a woman because that is what they emotionally are attatched to. I believe any straight men under certain circumstances can learn to appreciate gay sex but not actually be gay. BIG difference. Look at male prisoners for example.

[zeeker]

Originally posted by redzinger

I highly doubt you were ever blue-bashed. You know...attacked and had the shit beat out of you for liking the color blue over pink.

So please, if my logic is purely the logic of a gay man....feed me some heterosexual logic and tell me why it is that I have always enjoyed men over women. Cause you're about to rock my world.

I assure you, I had the exact same upbringing as both of my two older and very very VERY vagina loving older brothers.

Consider taste. We have taste buds for several reasons. While it can work as a warning system for us to avoid potentially harmful food, it more serves the purpose of making food desireable. It's the same reason orgasms are desirable. It makes sex fun and not a chore. Our bodies are hardwired to make us propogate the species without us really having to think about it. Obviously we're not all jumping in bed just to better mankind.

But what makes something taste good? According to you, perhaps you like something because it was served to you as a child and you associate it with feeling satisfied and so you continue to like it to this day feeling satisfied everytime and most likely might even choose this certain food over another equally-as-good food. That's very much possible and I will agree with you on the level of associative feelings. But you tell me I need to look at the bigger picture. I think you do. I think your argument stops there. My argument is that....no matter what...you never could have like that food to begin with had your body not been hardwired to accept it as pleasing. We can learn to appreciate foods over the course of our lifetime that at one time were displeasing to us....but in the end, my argument is that there are always going to be certain foods you like and certain you will NEVER like no matter what. I do not believe I learned to like men. I always did. What I learned to like was foreskin. (Yes, I just went there) But I never could have liked that foreskin had I not been prewired to like c**k.

This has been a fun discussion.

hey, I don't knwo what triggered your homosexuality. The fact that your brothers aren't gay doesn't mean anything. You may have been raised in a similar way, but their brains interpreted and responded to the environment different then you. I'm not saying something traumatic happened to you and now you like guys. You jjust interpreted and responded differently. Read my last two posts before this one. Clearly examples of a learned behavior.

In terms of your 'warning system' example regarding taste buds...consider this...

a person's taste buds allow them to interpret a taste and determine it is way to spicy to be eaten, and the food is spit out. Now, another person, who grew up down south in let's say, Alabama, loves hot food. It's part of his family's cooking tradition. He was raised eating very spicy foods, and hence finds spicy foods delecious. But that New Englander who hates spicy foods does not, because they were raised eating more bland foods. This is all hypothetical, but clearly points to the fact that INTERPRETATION and RESPONSE of your environment is what is attributed to liking, or disliking certain foods, colors, sexes, etc...

Of course, most learned behaviors are learned in a much more subtle way than in our food analogies. Subtle to the point where you wouldn't be able to recognize that there were the attributional factors responsible for homosexuality, in the case of our 'debate' lol

IDK, I think I'm making the better arguments here. I think I'm winning.

[zeeker]

Originally posted by redzinger

What a simplistic text book view of the situation. You think it became a big homosexual f**k-fest back then simply because it was encouraged???? I guarantee you that there were men in that army that did not get involved in homosexuality because they found it gross. I assure you that there were men that had their prayers answered and were getting plowed all day long. And I can assure you that there there were those in between that were possibly able to enjoy the sex but, in the end, given a choice between men and women....would choose a woman because that is what they emotionally are attatched to. I believe any straight men under certain circumstances can learn to appreciate gay sex but not actually be gay. BIG difference. Look at male prisoners for example.

my point is, that there were men in those armies who were straight, but after being placed in a homosexual situation like that, learned homosexual behaviors. it doesn't matter if they would prefer a woman to a man afterwards. Just the fact that they now have an attraction to men, even if it's slight, proves my point. You're trying to use extremes to justify your argument. I never said that a once straight man woudl all of a sudden become a raging homosexual overnight. It's possible, not likely. But possible.

[redzinger]

Originally posted by zeeker

but their brains interpreted and responded to the environment different then you.

*Bells* *Whistles*

And does everyone interpret things the exact same way?

No

Because there is variation in the species. I interpret pleasurable sex as being with a man because I'm gay. You interpret it as with a woman because you are straight.

You are not getting down to the very root of what makes us decide things.

We are hardwired for certain things.

My answer to your Roman soldier gender bending example was not extreme, rather, your blanket statement that homosexuality was encouraged amongst the soldiers and all of a sudden men were gay was extreme. Your argument is not solid. You're saying that just because the men were sleeping together that they had an "attraction" to one another. Simply not true. Very young boys often masturbate together. It's not a gay thing. They are not attracted to one another. They are emotionally attracted to women but have the ability to appreciate pleasure with one another.

I just checked my answering machine, and the entire world agrees I'm making the better argument.