NationStates Jolt Archive

Stop feeding it, Keruvalia. Please.
:mad: i'ma hafta hurt my aunt and look into this now....

"If your training yourself to dislike it, then you're choosing to dislike it, and making your body do the same thing."

Umm, no.
Simply training yourself to ignore or suppress sexual desires is not the same as actually forcing yourself to see sexuality as something grotesque.

"If your training yourself to dislike it, then you're choosing to dislike it, and making your body do the same thing."

Umm, no.
Simply training yourself to ignore or suppress sexual desires is not the same as actually forcing yourself to see sexuality as something grotesque.
.................ok................

I gotta go guys, its like midnight over here.

Ja ne! (Good-bye!)

Oh, I chose it. Many reasons...
1. Quite simply, copulation is disgusting. As is kissing. All of it is an exchange of filthy bodily fluids.
2. Irrationalty-It's a primitive desire that overcomes rational thought.


Question: Is it sexuality and the act of copulation or actual bodily fluids that disgust you? Coz really, I can't understand how people can't enjoy sexual interaction on some level. You you enjoy being hugged or is that disgusting too?

Adios, all. For now. Good God, I've created a monster...

But you can change your taste buds, can't you? Sexuality is the same way.

Uh......what kind of weirdo alien tongue do you have? Sure, the sense of taste changes over time (personal example, I used to love cigars and marijuana for their flavors, but now even the smell of either repulses me), but you can't consciously choose to like, say the flavor of Campari or balsamic vinegar or tahini or onions if they cause a revulsion reaction in you.

Certain preparations of foods you don't like can be made to appeal to you. I hate eggplant, for example, but at a wedding rehearsal dinner, I was introduced to this eggplant-based dip (likely baba ghannouj) that was seasoned so well that the normal gag reaction I have to the texture and flavor of eggplant was overcome and I loved it. At the same dinner, I finally was served octopus in a way that didn't make me dry heave at the normally rubbery texture -- this stuff was tender and flavorful and I ate so much of it that I had very little room for the avgolemono and souvlakia that came next (Greek wedding -- the restaurant was Porta in the Eastlake neighborhood of Seattle, if you're ever in town).

Point is, sexuality is the same way in that regard only. Full on S&M may be repugnant to you, but a bit of roleplay or whatever would be considered low-end bondage might bepleasing to you. Immediate 180-degree changes are rare and they're almost never self-imposed.

So no, you can't change your taste buds. You can trick them, you can very slowly adjust them, but if something crosses them that engages that gag reflex, you're not gonna ask for seconds.

Adios, all. For now. Good God, I've created a monster...

I thought you didn't procreate

Maybe homosexuals don't feel the need to put themselves through all that, if it is indeed possible to trick yourself into being straight. We should be capable of living our lives freely, doing what makes us happy, not society. ^^

Why?? Obviously you "trained" yourself against what you said your self is an "irrational" primitive desire. Why? You are living therefore someone mixed bodily fluids. I think that sex is one of the benefits of being alive. Especially tantric sex is the absolute best. Using your mind for something wonderful instead of supressing those "primal" urges. What is the point of supression anyway?? I am a lesbian and I certainly like who and what I am. Think about it.

Ok, so if we take it as a postulate that people can choose to not be sexual, then we can also take it as a postulate that people can choose not to sleep, eat, or drink. That's right. Sexuality is an instinct. The premise of this discussion is that sexuality is in some way wrong, which it isn't. It's a perfectly natural behavior that propagates the species. Someone who doesn't serve this instinct isn't doing as much harm to themeselves as someone who doesn't serve the instinct to eat, but they are doing harm to themself. Unless you have a genetic disease, why would you remove yourself from the breeding population? I seriously cite abstinance as a cause of low self-esteem in the idea that you're telling your body you're not good enough for children. Just something to think about.

Then why do Muslim women get beaten everytime their veil slips?

Because anything that surpasses the Qur'an in severity is a result of an extremely draconian interpretation of that holy book that got passed into custom and societal law in the Muslim world. It's called Shar'iya (I'm guessing at the apostrophe -- those Muslims seem to like them in English versions of their words, so someone correct me here), and it varies in severity from culture to culture. The Taliban are extremists, and other cultures aren't so much.

Either way, it's all about control. It's amazing to me the Muslim world keeps trying to pass itself off as civilized and cites it's control of sexuality as one of the ways they're superior. So once again, sex is worse, somehow than overt and completely heinous violence. I know Islam is a religion of peace, nominally, but the culture that grew up around it, having been assailed for centuries by its neighbors, has taken to becoming incredibly defensive and reactionary.

By the way, has all the veiling actually controlled sexuality? Not by my reckoning. With such severe penalties (overwhelmingly administered to the women), you'd thing it wouldn't be worth it to break Shar'iya, but it happens all the time. Civilized? No more than any other society, which is to say not really all that much.

Because anything that surpasses the Qur'an in severity is a result of an extremely draconian interpretation of that holy book that got passed into custom and societal law in the Muslim world. It's called Shar'iya (I'm guessing at the apostrophe -- those Muslims seem to like them in English versions of their words, so someone correct me here), and it varies in severity from culture to culture. The Taliban are extremists, and other cultures aren't so much.

Either way, it's all about control. It's amazing to me the Muslim world keeps trying to pass itself off as civilized and cites it's control of sexuality as one of the ways they're superior. So once again, sex is worse, somehow than overt and completely heinous violence. I know Islam is a religion of peace, nominally, but the culture that grew up around it, having been assailed for centuries by its neighbors, has taken to becoming incredibly defensive and reactionary.

By the way, has all the veiling actually controlled sexuality? Not by my reckoning. With such severe penalties (overwhelmingly administered to the women), you'd thing it wouldn't be worth it to break Shar'iya, but it happens all the time. Civilized? No more than any other society, which is to say not really all that much.

Veiled women get me pretty hot.

Veiled women get me pretty hot.

LOL, true that as long as 1. she has nice, visible curves. 2. i'm in the mood for women.

LOL, true that as long as 1. she has nice, visible curves. 2. i'm in the mood for women.

So much better after you remove the veil though. I wonder how young Middle Eastern* men can stand to live in such a repressive society.

Oh wait, it's because they can do whatever they want to the women and get away with it. Yes, I keep forgetting that.

* I made the regional distinction here because it wouldn't be fair to place the blame for that on any one religion.

So much better after you remove the veil though. I wonder how young Middle Eastern* men can stand to live in such a repressive society.

Oh wait, it's because they can do whatever they want to the women and get away with it. Yes, I keep forgetting that.

* I made the regional distinction here because it wouldn't be fair to place the blame for that on any one religion.

Actually I'm as white as Casper....there is just that mystery as to what is under the veil, ya know, like presents under a christmas tree :D

Then why do Muslim women get beaten everytime their veil slips?

Name one.

Look ... here's a woman in Iran.

http://www.staticfiends.com/masses/iran_women_peace_sign_pres_portrait.jpg

Hey! Nobody's beating her!

'When abroad' can mean 'when outside'. OK, the Taliban rule is over and women are a little more liberal in Afghanistan, but the head covering remains, even in western countries. Doesn't apply to men though

"Abroad" cannot mean "outside" in any language.

The Taliban in no way represent anything Islamic. Hijab does apply to men. You ever seen a turban? How about a kufi cap? Muslim men cover their hair, too.

I know Islam is a religion of peace, nominally, but the culture that grew up around it

There's really no such thing as the Muslim "culture". The majority of the world's Muslims are Chinese or Indonesian, so I guess if there had to be a deciding factor in what constitutes Muslim "culture", it would be Southeast Asian.

You're looking at a people who are spread all over the world and represent about 60 different languages and unlimited ethnicities.

I look at my reddish brown skin, my American Indian skin, and my crystal blue Irish eyes and I marvel at just how many people assume Muslim == Arab.

Because it's superior, silly.

:D

Where have you been all my life?

[QUOTE=The Bauhas]
Oh, I chose it. Many reasons...
1. Quite simply, copulation is disgusting. As is kissing. All of it is an exchange of filthy bodily fluids.
2. Irrationalty-It's a primitive desire that overcomes rational thought.

If those bodily fluids that are exchanged are so filthy, then why do the majority of people not become ill or die from these exchanges?

Although I think you have every right to be the way you are I still think you're insane for being anti-sexual.

If I may ask you a personal question: Do you masturbate at all?

LOL, true that as long as 1. she has nice, visible curves. 2. i'm in the mood for women.

Yeh, and I already know what she looks like under the veil. Otherwise there's always that thought in the back of the head that she might be butt-ugly.

From what I've seen in life, homosexuality is either the product of previous sexual abuse, unhealthy self-obsession, or being convinced by someone else that you are.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not you have had sex. You could be a virgin but know you're gay. You could be a virgin and know you're straight. There I just proved you wrong.

People who try to prove that homosexuality is or is not a choice need to get a life. Choice or no choice, that is still not grounds to prove the validity or non-validity of a person's sexuality.

From what I've seen in life, homosexuality is either the product of previous sexual abuse, unhealthy self-obsession, or being convinced by someone else that you are.

I have not been abused, do not really care about myself much (at least as far as appearance goes), and never spoke of it to anyone until long after I realized I was gay. It would seem your assumptions are mistaken.

The previous posters on this thread have it right, I think. Everybody is wired a little differently, but since society encourages heterosexual relationships, most people that would have tendencies toward the same sex suppress them. I consider myself to be about 95% homosexual and 5% heterosexual.

Stop living in the pre-1970 age, please, and consult any medical book written after then, please.

Tell you what. I'll call in gay tomorrow. Let's see if that'll be an acceptable reason for sick-leave.

ROFL! :D

Adios, all. For now. Good God, I've created a monster...

Haha yes, you showed your stupidity *snaps for you darling!* Ooh and I'm a homo to, but since now you've enlightened me that I chose to have a life time of discrimination and awkward social events I'm gonna hook into some vagina, check out some hooters and punch some fags! WOot oh to be straight!

Hell no! What part of "anti-sexual/asexual" ddi you miss?

Have you ever masturbated in your life though?

It's illogical to have faith in a god that you can't prove exists. I suppose all those who believe in a supreme being simply have a mental disease?

Yes.

From what I've seen in life, homosexuality is either the product of previous sexual abuse, unhealthy self-obsession, or being convinced by someone else that you are.
Living in the gay capital of Europe and thus seeing otherwise everyday with friends and colleagues, besides being bisexual myself, i call bullshit.

From what I've seen in life, homosexuality is either the product of previous sexual abuse, unhealthy self-obsession, or being convinced by someone else that you are.

Okay, I'm gay.

Never been sexually abused, I don't think I'm self-obsessed (well, not to the point where I'm sexually attracted to myself, if that's what you mean), I have never had anyone say to me "You know, Arc? You're gay." and was not seduced into it by propaganda or by watching Spongebob Squarepants (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15756,00.html). Of course you'll have to take my word for it.

I didn't choose to be gay and for a long time I denied my feelings, got depressed, got ill (stress related illness). Accepted my sexuality, got better.

If sexuality is a choice then how come the suicide rates for LGBT teens are so ridiculously high? In my mind suicide is the single most unnatural thing a person can do. There is no other animal in the world which commits suicide for reasons of other than procreation (i.e.Praying Mantis) or too feed their young (some spiders do this I think).

I thought I'd bring up the penguins (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL) , seeing no one else has.

I am of sound mental health (other than being gay... if you count that as a mental health issue, which I don't because it makes it sound like something we should seek to cure).

As for the sexuality being a choice... I think that there are two spectrums: sexuality and sexual orientation. Some people are more asexual and others more sexual. Depends on the person, but I think for most people there is some sense of sexuality after they reach puberty. In the second spectrum there is straight and gay, and I think everyone is a tiny bit bisexual. I think this because it makes sense to be able to recognise when someone of your own sex is good looking or attractive (in order to spot the "alpha-male" for example, say in primitive times). I never beleive people who say I'd never fall for a girl or I'd never fall for a guy. Because I think humans fall in love with people not sexualities or genders. Whether that love includes a sexual element depends on the person and their particular orientation.

And to call something an estimated 1 out of 10 people have (by which I mean significant enough sexual feelings for the same sex to call themselves gay or bi) a mental illness I think is a bit extreme.

That's my two cents :-)

~Archopesyoucanseehispointofview...

This does not pertain to the original post, but to some others I read in here.

On perception
Everyone recognizes very specific things about both sexes and makes certain qualitative judgements about those characteristics. I mean here, nice can and pretty eyes etc. Furthermore, since everyone makes these judgements more or less instantly, there isn't control over the act.

Sexual preference
I do not know what shapes sexual preference. Genes. Oedipus complex. Penis Envy. Whatever. What I do know, however, is that whatever your sexual preference happens to be, we're all essentially bisexual. Both sexes contain masculine and feminine characteristics (I'm talking about actions, mannerisms, features, even...etc which are identified with either males or females). Whichever you're attracted to (men or women), there exists a degree of that attraction for one in the other.
Imagine

When considering the essential bisexuality of everyone, I think about this:
There is someone of the sex opposite that which you are attracted. Their genitals are miraculously swapped and they are now compatable with your interests. You are attracted to them.
-I know that I can imagine this happening, and even name some miracles I'd like to see. I imagine that deep down, most people would fit into the "possibility of agreement" category to the situation.

Anyways, I'm not sure about a whole lot on this subject, but I think that tolerance is a word that needs to appear on this forum. Times are changing, and so are all the boundries. Go with the flow, so long as nobody's getting hurt.

I've already managed to change myself from straight to asexual. I could make myself gay, but I honestly don't want to, because sexuality as a whole does not interest me. But the fact is, human tastes and beliefs are very malleable things. Being "prison gay" is a fine example. Mind you, I don't want this to turn into another gay vs nongay thread. I'm applying this to heterosexuals as well.

If it doesn't interest you then why do you talk about it so damn much?

Living in the gay capital of Europe and thus seeing otherwise everyday with friends and colleagues, besides being bisexual myself, i call bullshit.

WTF is the gay capital of Europe?

Pffft, Homesexuality is NOT a choice! If i could fuck women, i assure you i WOULD!! It amkes me sick even thinking of it!! So Don't tell me it's not a choice! Or are u able to fuck guys and be fine about it!

I think being anti-sexual is wrong.... because it implies you are against sexuality for other people

Being asexual is fine... It's who you are.

If you're not interested in sex, and you find it disgusts you, then fair enough. But I think it's wrong to impose your ideals on others.

I happen to think being asexual, gay, lesbian, bi, pansexual, straight are all normal and just a part of a person's identity...

~Archassaidhispiece...

Myself. I'm not talking basic urges, but about the fact that you can control and manipulate your actions. Nobody is forcing you to have sex.

Unless you are raped.

WTF is the gay capital of Europe?

Cologne in Germany aparently... though I've never been there. I always thought it was london...

*shrugs*

~Arcwillshutupnow...

I would like to see Armadia decide to want to have sex. After all, it's a matter of choice, isn't it?

Stop calling yourself asexual. That's NOT the same thing as being anti-sexual. Asexuals don't even have any urges to suppress, no matter how much they might theorize about the idea of sex or be sexually invited by other people, they most likely will never do it uncoercedly because the urge isn't there. The dick or vagina may be physically fully functional, but there are no hormones setting it off so nothing happens and the asexual will, unless pressured by others, be just fine with that and not feel any disgust either way.

Sexuality has nothing to do with moral character.

Anyone get the feeling Armandian_Cheese is trying to persuade us in addition to himself about his asexuality? Anyone who keeps insisting so vehemently about a previous claim (which actually was not questioned to begin with) must be hiding something.

you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex.
If you are male, you are more than a penis. If you are a woman, you are more than a vagina. Sexuality is not just your equipment. That's like calling yourself a farmer because you have a tractor.
Sexuality encompasses the equipment, the attraction, yes the desire, and yes the behaviour, but it is more than that. Sexuality is about the whole person, just like personality and spirituality. It's not one-dimensional. It's no something which is chosen anymore than skin colour or innate talent. Congratulations on limiting your own sexuality by denying yourself the chance to be a whole, complete and healthy person.
Yay for sex, in all it's consentual forms! :fluffle:

Im going to have to quote myself on this one, if you dont fully understand the following statements assume that i am right, because i am

-------------

Sexuality is simply a biological function, it isnt orientated towards anything...

This biological function is expressed differently, it has nothing to do with how you dress, or how you speak, this is a byproduct of social identity and is the result of defining people based on thier sexuality.

Expression of sexuality (for arguments sake lets call it sexual orientation) is a result of development, and nothing else... Arguably a homosexual cannot become heterosexual, while in many cases this is true that does not make it a scientific fact... orientation 'can' change allthough 99 times out of 100 it will not.

Choice? There may be a degree of choice involved, but for shizzle sexual orientation is partly a 'result' of choices as much as it is a result of environmental stimuli... perception plays a large part also.

No one ever sat there and asked themselves 'shall i be gay' without having homosexual tendancies, though it is likely that many people with homosexual urges choose to repress them.

You can only understand homosexuality by taking it out of context, in your mind create a sexual utopia where sexuality is irrelevant and not character defining. If sexuality wasnt an issue of the gravity that it currently is, would sexuality be such a lifechoice? In theory people could express thier sexual urges towards anyone without having to think about it too much, would it then be any less a choice than chosing which chocolate bar to buy? Since in this hypothetical situation, chosing who to sleep with does not define your character or how people see/treat you people really could 'chose' who they want to sleep with, while it may still be based on innate sexual orientation (innate based on development not biology) people would be free to chose without fear of stigma or alienation.

Even if homosexuality becomes accepted by the majority, defining people by their sexuality is wrong and carries all of the problems that we percieve as being byproducts of homosexuality.

Well I think I'll just leave you with this ...

Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's an adventure.

That kind of attitude is one of the reasons homosexuals become alienated

WTF is the gay capital of Europe?
<- Have a nice day, Watson. ;)
Cologne has about 150.000 mostly open, homosexual inhabitants within a million plus some, a very active community, a lot of gay companies, hosts severeal international homosexual sports events etc. Nobody gives a fuck about two guys or gals kissing on the street, it is considered pretty usual here. The only closet gays i know about are two neighbours of mine and they come from a time where acceptance was very low (they are around mid-seventy).

I'm going to come in, take a time out from the ignorant bickering, and make an ignorant remark of my own.

I don't know how to argue against the actual point because I can't decide how to read the main topic:
1. I'm assexual and I want you to be too.
2. I'm an angsty teen who happens to be a "late bloomer". Woe is me.
3. I can't get any. :```(

Just like it's a choice of the original poster of this topic to be a complete and utter moron?

well since no one has decided to refute anything i said in my post i assume that 'i r teh win'? :D

I'm going to come in, take a time out from the ignorant bickering, and make an ignorant remark of my own.

I don't know how to argue against the actual point because I can't decide how to read the main topic:
1. I'm assexual and I want you to be too.
2. I'm an angsty teen who happens to be a "late bloomer". Woe is me.
3. I can't get any. :```(

Put 'em together and whaddaya got? Bippety boppety boo!

My roommate at uni was "asexual." Then my ex-girlfriend introduced him to a really nice girl, he got some, and now he's living the typical mid-20s bachelor life: getting drunk and trying to get laid every Friday. Armandian_Cheese, trust me: get a nice helping of pussy (or dick, that's fun too), and you'll drop your act A.S.A.F.P.

Why do people take this stuff so seriously? If we all stopped caring about sexual orientation then wouldn't we truly be accepting peoples differences?

Anyway, I say The Bohemeas has the right outlook - defining people by their sexuality is flawed. There is more to people than that.

Now, get over it and get on with it (or not if you prefer, it really is up to you.. :) )

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

OK. Yes. It is a choice. Everything in life is a "choice". You choose to get up in the morning, you choose to go to work, school, or wherever. You choose to eat everyday (or for some people... not eat) You can also choose to live your life as quadriplegic. Why do you choose not to do that? Because it would make life very difficult. Right? Well, choosing to not live as you really are is the same thing as choosing to live your life as a quadriplegic. It is a choice, like everything in life.

I actualy agree with the poster of this subject.
Untill recently I hadn't heard of asexuality, however an article I read a few weeks ago stated that asexuality does indeed occur, and (and this was the completely new part for me) can be compared to homosexuality or heterosexuality, however in this case, none of these sides seems appealing to the person involved.

This leaves one more question, though:
Is asexuality, like homosexuality a form of braindisorder, or simply a result of the person's choice?

If one kind of person seems more appealing then the other, would that be because your brain forces you to think so, or because you forced your brain to think so?

How often do homosexuals proclaim they have silently "know" all their life?
Doesn't that emidiatly render all discussion on this topic useless?
I say it doesn't. Your memory is a fragile thing, and if after many years you have decided to be homosexual, your memory of the past is easily altered.
I never stated it has to be a conscious choice, but once it HAS been made it will soon appear to you as the only obvious one.

In cultures where homosexuality isn't as outlawed as it is here, nowadays, homosexuality occurs far more often. Think of the ancient Greeks for example. Doesn't that tell you about the effect culture has on your choice? Or did all homosexuals silently go into hiding and pretend to be straight?

Society places too much importance on sexual prefference, ill let you in on a secret, politicians dont give a crap about homosexuality but they know that a lot of people do which = votes


This is the current problem with democracy :D

Just because you decide to be asexual doesn't mean that the population overall has control over their own sexual orientation.

Wow, one of the stupidest topics ever.

In order for something to be a disease or a disorder it has to be directly harmful to someone. Homosexuality is in itself not directly harmful to anyone, i.e. it's not a disorder.

Choice is a difficult thing, really. You may be able to do what you want, but you can't want whatever you want :p at least not easily.

People want sex, it's a primal force put in to us by evolution. How? Well, because those that didn't want sex(if there were any) didn't reproduce :D

who you have sex with does not define your sexuality
- Fun post. I say that depends on you linguistic paradigm (not sure if that's a word). Withing that of the ancient greeks, that'd be true, within ours you're wrong.

I notice you're writing modern english...

In reply to The Bohemeas;
I fully agree with your post,
however I would like to add that the fact that people are judged by their sexuality IS created by the homosexuals themselves aswell. (for instance the person making the "adventure" statement a few posts ago).

There ARE people who have decided for themselves to be homosexual. From that point on they won't date the opposite sex, but their own. They will love their own sex, they will be appealed to it, and in some cases won't make a secret out of it.

That is the kind of homosexual that I could calmly live with, and his or her sexuality would make NO difference for the way I approach them.

However, there's also the truly Gay type of homosexual. The type that possibly aided their brain with this choice and is MORE than happy to join the gay parade with flight attendands, pink underwear, leather handcuffs and cynical in-your-face humor.

The last type of homosexual DOES annoy me.. a lot.

One of my friends happens to be homosexual.
As logn as he behaves normaly, I will talk with him about his boyfriend, his relationship with his boyfriend, how he spent the weekend with his boyfriend, just like I would talk with any female friend. IF however the next moment he skips towards one of his friends, yelling "HEEEEEY GIRL! oooh I just LOVE that outfit" and then continues hugging the girl in a most unusual way, attracting the attention of anyone that might be in the surounding I WILL mention to him that he can start acting normaly now, and should stop being such a homo.

I would like to add that certain personality types will rabidly seek out alienation... Asexuality could be the result of having no libido, or it could be a result of someone trying to be different, its as simple as that. (ok its NOT as simple as that at all but whatever)

Asexuality is far seperated from homosexuality since it is the non expression of libido, or lack of libido, or the result of someone not being able to get laid and needing an excuse :D Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality with respect to how it is developed, statisticly a minority group but then so is driving a scoda :D

I can see how someone would put asexuality up there next to different sexual orientations but its a whole different kettle of fish

People want sex, it's a primal force put in to us by evolution. How? Well, because those that didn't want sex(if there were any) didn't reproduce :D


Well, that is the point of discussion with asexuality. Apparantly
asexuals completely lack this primal force, or perhaps feel a strong urge NOT to have it. However, does that mean their brain doesn't function, or does it function allright, they just WANT it to function this way?

Well, that is the point of discussion with asexuality. Apparantly asexuals completely lack this primal force, or perhaps feel a strong urge NOT to have it. However, does that mean their brain doesn't function, or does it function allright, they just WANT it to function this way?

Just because you are asexual doesn't mean that you lack the desire for someone else (whatever gender they may be). All it means is that you do not identify yourself as any particular gender.

I can see how someone would put asexuality up there next to different sexual orientations but its a whole different kettle of fish

Ok, perhaps that is actualy true... hmm..
But wouldn't that kindof kill this discussion alltogether? :D

In reply to The Bohemeas;
I fully agree with your post,
however I would like to add that the fact that people are judged by their sexuality IS created by the homosexuals themselves aswell. (for instance the person making the "adventure" statement a few posts ago).

There ARE people who have decided for themselves to be homosexual. From that point on they won't date the opposite sex, but their own. They will love their own sex, they will be appealed to it, and in some cases won't make a secret out of it.

That is the kind of homosexual that I could calmly live with, and his or her sexuality would make NO difference for the way I approach them.

However, there's also the truly Gay type of homosexual. The type that possibly aided their brain with this choice and is MORE than happy to join the gay parade with flight attendands, pink underwear, leather handcuffs and cynical in-your-face humor.

The last type of homosexual DOES annoy me.. a lot.

One of my friends happens to be homosexual.
As logn as he behaves normaly, I will talk with him about his boyfriend, his relationship with his boyfriend, how he spent the weekend with his boyfriend, just like I would talk with any female friend. IF however the next moment he skips towards one of his friends, yelling "HEEEEEY GIRL! oooh I just LOVE that outfit" and then continues hugging the girl in a most unusual way, attracting the attention of anyone that might be in the surounding I WILL mention to him that he can start acting normaly now, and should stop being such a homo.

yes i have touched on this in some of my posts in icantrememberwhich thread... Some people may find themselves chosing homosexuality because of the social identity which they percieve to be 'part of the package'... While im not sure i disagree with 'raving gaylords' so to speak i do think its detrimental to thier own cause.... Infact the fact that its a 'cause' in the first place is just making things worse, i dont know... its messed up at the moment and i guess it would be nieve for me to assume we can all just get along and everything can be perfect.

As i said in my previous post (which i had written in response to another post) ((err i cant even remember which thread this is now so it may be in another thread)) if sexual orientation and social identity are seperate everything would be gravy

i notice some people are defining asexuality as a gender type... im not disagreeing, just know that in that case i have been talking about something completely different

(lol)

Your response was to me in this thread ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413120&page=2

Just because you are asexual doesn't mean that you lack the desire for someone else (whatever gender they may be). All it means is that you do not identify yourself as any particular gender.

As can be read here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
"the term is sometimes used as a gender identity..."
gender identity isn't "All it means" as you've said.

Or did all homosexuals silently go into hiding and pretend to be straight?

Actually they did.

Ever read into the history of Oscar Wilde?

Or into the any of the history of homosexuality?

The Vicotorians came along and said everything was evil (well... pretty much. Praying to the christian god was okay... as long as that was it)

Gay people went underground... and it was nasty and seedy. This only furthered the hatred of them.

Only now are they starting to rear their heads... fed up of the descrimination.

Let me as you a question... have you ever considered being gay? Have you ever seen it as an option to you? Could you be gay if you wanted to?

~Arcthinksnotbutishappytobeprovedwrong...

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.
You're right. Homosexuality is a choice, so people should be free to choose what they want instead of having fascists like you whinging about them not controlling their perceptions.

As can be read here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
"the term is sometimes used as a gender identity..."
gender identity isn't "All it means" as you've said.


That's true I guess. I haven't looked into asexuality as much as I have transexualism...but what that definition is makes some sense.

Similar definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=asexual

Maybe I am thinking of a term similar to Asexual. It is morning where I am and I just finished my cup of caffeine. I need to still give it time to kick in ;)

Oh and I'd like to point out that you can be asexual and gay or straight

Asexual (in the sexual orientaion sense) just means you don't want sexual contact with your partner, it is a purely romantic attraction.

I have an asexual relationship with my best friend (who is female) but I am gay. I have sexual relationships with guys, that's the part of me that is gay.

I imagine it like a cross + with asexual to sexual vertically and straight to gay horizontally. And Where you are on the graph depends on the relationship and you.

~Archopeshisvisualimagehelped...

Well, that is the point of discussion with asexuality. Apparantly
asexuals completely lack this primal force, or perhaps feel a strong urge NOT to have it. However, does that mean their brain doesn't function, or does it function allright, they just WANT it to function this way?
- Well, we do have the possibility to surpress it. The human mind is quite powerful and can convince itself of lots of strange things and bury things really deep. Thing is, while a little surpression is good (it's no good to go around humping all the legs in sight) complete asexuality(as the word's used here) is unhealthy.

You could even say it's a mental disorder :p

OK... I cannot be bothered to read the whole topic... because, woah, its long....

But, I researched sexuality a lot as part of my university course, and in some ways agree, and in some ways disagree with the poster.

The first point I want to make is that, the people that you have sexual relations with, do not define your sexuality. Many gay people have sex with people of the opposite sex, as they do not want to accept their sexuality, due to the norms imposed on them by society.

Heterosexuality is institutionalised by the government and society in general. Co-habiting homosexual couples do not have the same rights as married couples... but are denied the option of getting married.

Homosexuality is also privatised.... with the general public opinion, which has been reinforced by governmental policy, stating that homosexuality is allowed, but as long as it is in the confines of peoples own homes, and doesn't 'impose on public safety'.

There are also data pointing to correlation between biology, genetics and sexuality, but Im not going to go into them unless anyone is actually interested.

My opinion, is that, sexuality is partly choice, but this choice is extremely influenced, by the pressures imposed on people by society, and is socially constructed by the society the individual lives in.

I actualy agree with the poster of this subject.
Untill recently I hadn't heard of asexuality, however an article I read a few weeks ago stated that asexuality does indeed occur, and (and this was the completely new part for me) can be compared to homosexuality or heterosexuality, however in this case, none of these sides seems appealing to the person involved.

This leaves one more question, though:
Is asexuality, like homosexuality a form of braindisorder, or simply a result of the person's choice?

If one kind of person seems more appealing then the other, would that be because your brain forces you to think so, or because you forced your brain to think so?

I wouldn't say it's a brain disorder any more than sexuality is. You simply don't tick from anything and as long as someone doesn't villify your disinterest in sex, you don't care. There's no apprehension or trauma involved. As someone correctly stated, since it will likely mean that you don't reproduce, this trait is rather rare. But just because it's rare doesn't mean it's a disorder or disease. That's just people assigning labels.

How often do homosexuals proclaim they have silently "know" all their life?
Doesn't that emidiatly render all discussion on this topic useless?
I say it doesn't. Your memory is a fragile thing, and if after many years you have decided to be homosexual, your memory of the past is easily altered.
I never stated it has to be a conscious choice, but once it HAS been made it will soon appear to you as the only obvious one.

In cultures where homosexuality isn't as outlawed as it is here, nowadays, homosexuality occurs far more often. Think of the ancient Greeks for example. Doesn't that tell you about the effect culture has on your choice? Or did all homosexuals silently go into hiding and pretend to be straight?
Maybe they did?

Much of the "choice" problem stems from the fact that people only see the action, not the person. Maybe most people are actually bisexual, some swinging more to one side than the others but the rest simply believe that they can choose to be either homo or hetero, because everyone around them insists on being bipolar and judgemental instead of just leaving well enough alone.

I didn't start that thread. Ah, and the fact is, we have no idea, as of yet, what controls people's initial desires. We don't know if its environmental, a subconscious choice, genes, etc. But the fact is, with enough will power, you can determine your sexuality. After all, notice how normally straight people who would puke at the sight of gay sex suddenly become gay in prison?

Oh, and I'm not asexual because I "can't get any." I find sex repulsive, love wasteful and pointless, etc.

And I'm most definitely not 12.

Actually, we do have somewhat of an idea. The development of a particular gland in the brain seems to correlate with homosexuality/heterosexuality. Of course, this isn't solid proof, but it is by far the most solid ground for a tangible reason to being gay or not.

I'd look up the name of that gland, but I'm in AP Java class right now and don't have that much extra time.

just because it's rare doesn't mean it's a disorder or disease. That's just people assigning labels.
- While I believe assigning labels to be necessary for language to be at all useful. You're right in the first sentence. I suppose I should have said that if it's harmful, then it's a disorder. And at least in some cases I think it is.

A small contribution to the "Issues of why homosexuality survives" thread is here (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800) - sorry I can't quote the research this article came from, but I plan to have a butcher's at the Proceedings article as soon as my Uni gets a copy.

Of course people choose who to have sex with, it's absurd to suggest otherwise. To suggest I didn't choose to have sex with my partner is like suggesting instinct told me to have toast instead of cornflakes this morning. Okay, the desire is there for my partner, big fucking whoo - the desire was there for toast this morning; it doesn't mean I couldn't in any possible world have had cornflakes.

N.B. Dawkinsites/other soft-determinists here, if you wish to oppose this, first explain the "third option" that we both have and do not have free will.

Then, the issue at hand can only be whether homosexuality is damaging. And thence to whom? The individuals involved? Please nobody quote that nonsense Catholic-Education article at me; when it comes to seuxal statistics all one needs to do is pick 500 gay men from Soho or San Francisco and 500 straight men from Ohio and simply not state where the sample's from. Please note the Catholic-Education article mentioned earlier in this thread does not mention how the sample was chosen, which anyone doing GCSE Biology, let alone professional social science, knows is vitally important to how the results come out. It's been done before, notably during some famously racist social studies which supposedly showed black people to have some kind of "racial commitment to crime". The black sample was taken from a below-poverty slum; the white sample from an affluent middle-class suburb of the same city, and because it was from the same city the study said the social conditions were therefore comparable. This is obviously nonsense.

Why then increased promiscuity amongst gay men, in particular? Personally, I wonder if in fact homosexual men are obeying one certain biological drive considerably more strongly than heterosexual men. It is in the nature of an awful great lot of animal species to reproduce as much as possible. Well, no, it's in the nature of them all, but it's in the nature of a lot of them to impregnate as many females as possible with their own genes, and sometimes even take unusual measures to prevent rivals' genes being passed on (lions killing a female's cubs by a previous mate, for example). Because many human socieites have developed restrictions against sleeping around does not mean humans are naturally made to mate for life, especially since a recent British study showed approximately 70% of all men and 50% of all women to have had an affair, high proportions of these still in happy marriages. After all, as someone before said, we are naturally curious, and very little beats the attraction of the unknown. I think gay men are living up to the instinct to spread one's seed - the difference between them and straight men being that they don't have to worry about getting anyone pregnant.

But shouldn't the risk of HIV keep them from being promiscuous?

Unfortunately, HIV can be caught from one sexual encounter. Even more unfortunately, neither party may know they have it at the time. Even more unfortunately, they may be straight and married for five years before the woman finds out when she tries to donate blood, or goes for surgery, or just has a routine checkup. For gay men, then, with the risk so much higher if they can't find anyone to settle down with the HIV/AIDS concern is not so much a concern as a towering, looming, inevitable monster, terrifying them. To many it has become such a crushing burden that many have decided selfishly to get themselves infected or simply not care if they do. The feeling that one may never have children is a powerful feeling which can create a powerful sense of apathy; who cares if you die young? Moreover, the attitude of society towards gay men, particularly in the United States, and the fact that the only media portrayals they see of other gay men are effeminate sluts, lead them to believe the chances of them finding love and settling down are so insignificant as to ignore. The media is not, as many conservatives claim, unnecessarily liberal - I know lots of people who've come out to their parents and had to spend years re-educating them. In one unremarkable example, the guy's mum told him:

You know you're going to get AIDS? Gay men get AIDS.
Mum, gay men get AIDS if they sleep around. I don't, and I won't, because I believe in love and monogamy and that you don't have sex outside of a long-term relationship.
Son, you're being naive. Gay men get AIDS because of that thing that they do.

Sorry, mother-in-question, a closed relationship is a closed system; the disease must be introduced into it from outside. Promiscuity is the cause of HIV/AIDS spreading, and since it's only been twenty years since HIV was identified (it's not existed for much longer) society has not had time to filter this down yet. In some places in the late 80s, before there was treatment for it, AIDS decimated homosexual populations; the rest of the West saw one clear message which religious and conservative types (no offence, I'd do it too if I could) exploited: Homosexuality kills you young. Like it was an inevitability. Sorry, but down the street from me live a couple of men in their eighties who've been living together since homosexuality was illegal in this country. Neither of them has AIDS. It is not an inevitablity. The argument for it goes as thus:

1. Homosexuality leads to promiscuity; if you are homosexual, therefore, you are promiscuous.
2. Many people have AIDS.
3. If you are promiscuous, you will sleep with many people.
4. AIDS can be caught by sleeping with people who have AIDS.
5. Therefore, if you sleep with many people you will sleep with someone who has AIDS and catch it from them.
6. Therefore homosexuality leads to AIDS.

Please tell me you can spot the logical flaws? If all the premises are true, this is fine. Unfortunately, premises 1 and 5 are not true, and as a result the inference to the conclusion is not valid. Premise 1 is disproven by the existence of monogamous homosexual men, couples who live, sleep, go out to the cinema, eat and go on garish tourist holidays around the Mediterranean together. Premise 5 is a dangerous assumption to make, but is technically not true. But the falsity of Premise 1 on its own leads to the downfall of the conclusion; this is the single most contentious claim in the debate because of that.

So, if homosexuality is not intrinsically harmful to the people involved, if what is harmful is promiscuity, should homosexuality still be condemned? Or should homosexual promiscuity be condemned just like heterosexual promiscuity? I have offered a theory as to why many gay men are more promiscuous than many straight men, why many have become apathetic about the risk of AIDS and how this can lead to increased promiscuity amongst other infected men, and why the dangerous assumption that homosexuality inevitably leads to contraction of AIDS is flawed. Throughout this entire line of reasoning, a clear theme has emerged - promiscuity is the danger, not homosexuality, and promiscuity does not inevitably follow from homosexuality, as shown by the existence of monogamous homosexual couples. Make no mistake, it is easier to sleep around in the "homosexual community", because without the risk of pregnancy sex can genuinely be seen as nothing more than pleasure for both parties, but this does not necessarily lead to increased promiscuity, as anyone may make the choice to betray their partner or not.

So then, who, if not the consenting adults involved, can homosexuality be harmful to? Is it harmful to "society", that strangely abstract, indefinable entity which both sides claim works for and against them? Christians: So what if other people sin? They'll get what they deserve from God. Educate them in what you believe to be the right Way if you feel that to be the compassionate/right thing to do, but for God's sake don't condemn them yourself - you're only driving them away by so doing. I don't see how what two people do behind closed doors harms you as a person. If you're not strong enough to see a little sinning, don't read the newspaper. If it's harmful because you find it "disgusting" or "abhorrent" be careful - some people find pierced tongues and eyebrows and lips disgusting and abhorrent, and let's face it, they're unusual (and may occasionally make the owner appear somewhat grotesque), but hardly something to shy away from like a contagion. How is it therefore harmful to "society"? Please phrase your answer in terms of the people involved, not some Hegelian concept of "society" as if it was a living entity which was appalled by the prevalence of homosexuality.

If not to the people involved, then, and if not to society, to whom is homosexuality harmful? The answer should be obvious: God. God commanded humanity against homosexuality in the strongest possible terms in the Good Book v1.0, v2.0 and v3.0, and it's only in some of the later revisions/interpretations of all three that people have tried to make it acceptable. The trouble is, though, that to be honest with you - who are you supposed to believe?

Right, let's lay aside the "Torah/Bible/Qur'an was written by fallible man" argument for a moment and have a look at the possibility that one or all of them was given by God word-for-word in semantic and pragmatic meaning alike. Um... there's a little bit of a problem here, and it goes like this:

1. The Torah is the Word of God - it is to be obeyed, and is kept in the original Hebrew for the purpose of not losing meaning to translation.
2. The Bible is the Word of God - it is to be obeyed, and when translated to the KJV (and then the NKJV) was inspired by God so no meaning was lost in the translation.
3. The Qur'an is the Word of God - it is to be obeyed, and is kept in the original Arabic for the purpose of not losing meaning in translation.
4. The Torah, the Bible and the Qur'an are all the Word of God.

Please tell me you spot the problems this creates. They correct each other; Jesus wasn't the mašíaḥ, Jesus was the Messiah, Issa was a prophet of God and the Messiah, but for a meaning of the word "Messiah" incompatible with v2.x.

There's a fundamental problem for you; I need quote no others involved here. All three books claim themselves to be Divinely inspired; all three contradict each other. Did God change His mind? How is the impartial observer to distinguish between the three, let alone the others I don't know enough about to include in this debate? Hinduism, Sikhism, both claim to have Divine origins; Buddhism claims there is no Divinity but its teachings lead one to raw truth itself.

Now, before you try to quote me a religious prohibition on homosexuality, tell me which religious text I should be listening to when I form my opinions. Until you do, I'm not listening.

I couldn't care less if God's offended by homosexual behaviour if He won't even have the decency to offer some objective evidence for how we're supposed to behave. "Professing themselves wise, they became fools" my arse - that's what the Muslims think of you, if you quote that; that's what the people of any other religion think of you, or at least have the right to, and you have no objective evidence that you're right.

There. Food for thought.

-President Felix Niels of New Watenho

- While I believe assigning labels to be necessary for language to be at all useful. You're right in the first sentence. I suppose I should have said that if it's harmful, then it's a disorder. And at least in some cases I think it is.
It's only harmful if you badger the asexual into thinking that it's shameful or bad, or force them into having sex (which would be harmful to anyone). These are after all the few people who can live up to the "don't get STD's by not having any sex at all" idea. Of course, they may have problems finding a suitable life partner, but that's a problem a lot of people have regardless of sexual orientation.

It's only harmful if you badger the asexual into thinking that it's shameful or bad, or force them into having sex (which would be harmful to anyone). These are after all the few people who can live up to the "don't get STD's by not having any sex at all" idea. Of course, they may have problems finding a suitable life partner, but that's a problem a lot of people have regardless of sexual orientation.
- I was thinking more about the problems usually caused by repression. If you say there are none in this case... well that's okay, then. But I'm not sure I believe you.

- Fun post. I say that depends on you linguistic paradigm (not sure if that's a word). Withing that of the ancient greeks, that'd be true, within ours you're wrong.

I notice you're writing modern english...
i could go out this evening and have sex with a man. doesnt make me straight, just means ive had sex with a man

:D

Where have you been all my life?

Oh, around. :fluffle:

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.
Yay! Open the floodgates! Occidio, this is the chance I was waiting for...I am going to choose to be attracted to you even though I never considered myself to be homosexual or bi before, and I will stalk you to the ends of the earth to fulfill my choice!

But I have to find that beaver he mentioned first...I love chasing tail!

Today, I CHOOSE to be homosexual. Tomorrow I will choose to be heterosexual with faint bestial undertones. The day after that? Who knows!!!

i could go out this evening and have sex with a man. doesnt make me straight, just means ive had sex with a man
- Yea I misunderstood and misinterpreted what was posted.

In order for something to be a disease or a disorder it has to be directly harmful to someone. Homosexuality is in itself not directly harmful to anyone, i.e. it's not a disorder.

Choice is a difficult thing, really. You may be able to do what you want, but you can't want whatever you want :p at least not easily.

People want sex, it's a primal force put in to us by evolution. How? Well, because those that didn't want sex(if there were any) didn't reproduce :D


- Fun post. I say that depends on you linguistic paradigm (not sure if that's a word). Withing that of the ancient greeks, that'd be true, within ours you're wrong.

I notice you're writing modern english...

No not really. That's not a paradigm. And the choice of sexuality does not vary from culture to culture, nation to nation, race to race. If sexuality is a choice, then all people would have that choice. Besides, you don't even know whether paradigm is a word or not. So a person definitely can't believe you know how to recognize a linguistic paradigm. :rolleyes:

Here's a hint since you want to talk about paradigms. Paradigm is definitely a word but you obviously don't understand the definition of it. Also, "withing"? You cannot conjugate prepositions. Undering is not a word. Betweening is not a word, etc, etc.

- Yea I misunderstood and misinterpreted what was posted.
oh ok, fair enough

Asexual eh? Oh wait, you had that thread where you said people should stop fucking. Eh. People will believe wha they want. Ill stick to my opinion that Homosexuality is a disease/mental disorder.
please die

Dictionary definition of sexuality (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=72235&dict=CALD)
sexuality
noun [U]
someone's ability to experience or express sexual feelings

Sexuality is defined by sexual feelings, not the actions. You could stay a virgin your whole life but you'd still know who you were attracted to and what sexuality you were.

No-one chooses who they are attracted to. No-one chooses who they fall in love with. You can control what you do about it but you can't control the thoughts and feelings.

If you could, there would be no unrequited love or heartbreak or any emotional pain whatsoever to do with love because you'd simply choose not to have feelings for the person hurting you.

When you can find any random person who you find unattractive, annoying, boring and ignorant and can choose to be attracted to them and fall in love with them then will I listen to an argument that you choose your sexuality. Until then you'll have to accept that who you are attracted to is not a choice.

- I was thinking more about the problems usually caused by repression. If you say there are none in this case... well that's okay, then. But I'm not sure I believe you.
I do have some first hand experience of asexuality. I had no sexual urges whatsoever until I was 17 and had gotten past that laughable first stage of devirginization, which I entered simply out of curiosity. My physical development was completely ordinary. I wasn't at all apprehensive, prudish or hushed down, I simply was unable to comprehend what the fuss was all about. (I don't see why fundies whine about sex ed, it didn't tell me a lot about sex except for STD's, otherwise it was all about genital hygiene.) I didn't masturbate either - without an urge genitals are simply very ticklish, which is unpleasant but not exactly dangerous or special.

My primary interest was to find a soulmate, someone I could confide in and trust to even touch me at all, clothes on or not. A really good friend would have sufficed. Being a virgin didn't bother me the slightest, feeling alone was however horrible.

Who knows, if I had still been single I very likely wouldn't have developed any urges, but felt bitter and ignored and whined publicly over other people's sexuality out of jealousy. Most humans wither away if there is nobody they trust to touch them other than superficially.

But sometimes I wish I could return to that childishly ignorant state of hormonal inactivity. Sex and wanting sex adds a lot of complexity to life. I still don't get aroused very often, my partner (with whom I have lived for five years now, I might add) is much more inconvenienced by my infrequent interest than I. I used to feel pressured into wanting sex but am more relaxed about that now, shame and anxiety are such turn-offs. I am what I am and my happiness isn't harmful to anyone, so who cares what people say.

Hrm...just for clarification...am I gay because I'm crazy or am I crazy because I'm gay? Answer that ! mwhahaha :eek:

I'd call you crazy just for asking that question. But that's me.

No not really. That's not a paradigm. And the choice of sexuality does not vary from culture to culture, nation to nation, race to race. If sexuality is a choice, then all people would have that choice.
- Yes, but what sexuality is in terms of language differs from culture to culture. Neither ancient greek or ancient hebrew had words for describing the modern concept today known as "homosexuality" (that's also why you can't really know what the Bible says about it).

In ancient greece, your sexuality was determined by whether you were the "recieving end" of the act or not - not by whether you prefered men, women, girls or boys.

Besides, you don't even know whether paradigm is a word or not. So a person definitely can't believe you know how to recognize a linguistic paradigm. :rolleyes:

Here's a hint since you want to talk about paradigms. Paradigm is definitely a word but you obviously don't understand the definition of it.
- I do know "paradigm" is a word, I just wasn't sure "linguistic paradigm" was an expression - it would have been written in one word in Norwegian, my first language, that's why I wrote "word" in stead of "expression".

Also, "withing"? You cannot conjugate prepositions. Undering is not a word. Betweening is not a word, etc, etc.
- I meant "within". A "g" snuck in, I am sorry oh überspeller :p

I do have some first hand experience of asexuality. I had no sexual urges whatsoever until I was 17 and had gotten past that laughable first stage of devirginization, which I entered simply out of curiosity. My physical development was completely ordinary. I wasn't at all apprehensive, prudish or hushed down, I simply was unable to comprehend what the fuss was all about. (I don't see why fundies whine about sex ed, it didn't tell me a lot about sex except for STD's, otherwise it was all about genital hygiene.) I didn't masturbate either - without an urge genitals are simply very ticklish, which is unpleasant but not exactly dangerous or special.

My primary interest was to find a soulmate, someone I could confide in and trust to even touch me at all, clothes on or not. A really good friend would have sufficed. Being a virgin didn't bother me the slightest, feeling alone was however horrible.

Who knows, if I had still been single I very likely wouldn't have developed any urges, but felt bitter and ignored and whined publicly over other people's sexuality out of jealousy. Most humans wither away if there is nobody they trust to touch them other than superficially.

But sometimes I wish I could return to that childishly ignorant state of hormonal inactivity. Sex and wanting sex adds a lot of complexity to life. I still don't get aroused very often, my partner (with whom I have lived for five years now, I might add) is much more inconvenienced by my infrequent interest than I. I used to feel pressured into wanting sex but am more relaxed about that now, shame and anxiety are such turn-offs. I am what I am and my happiness isn't harmful to anyone, so who cares what people say.
- Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. I still feel forcing yourself to asexuality can be dangerous for most, but now I feel stubborn for saying so :l

Why then increased promiscuity amongst gay men, in particular? Personally, I wonder if in fact homosexual men are obeying one certain biological drive considerably more strongly than heterosexual men. It is in the nature of an awful great lot of animal species to reproduce as much as possible. Well, no, it's in the nature of them all, but it's in the nature of a lot of them to impregnate as many females as possible with their own genes, and sometimes even take unusual measures to prevent rivals' genes being passed on (lions killing a female's cubs by a previous mate, for example). Because many human socieites have developed restrictions against sleeping around does not mean humans are naturally made to mate for life, especially since a recent British study showed approximately 70% of all men and 50% of all women to have had an affair, high proportions of these still in happy marriages. After all, as someone before said, we are naturally curious, and very little beats the attraction of the unknown. I think gay men are living up to the instinct to spread one's seed - the difference between them and straight men being that they don't have to worry about getting anyone pregnant.

i always thought gay men were more likely to be promiscuous because they are MEN. isnt the biggest limiting factor in straight men's promisucuity the lack of willing females? without a woman there to say NO, men have way more sex, whether through masturbation or gay sex, when you take women out of the equation, the rates of sex go up. (although that is only in those inclined toward promiscuity, when dealing with faithful couples, lesbians have much more sex than gay men do.)

- Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. I still feel forcing yourself to asexuality can be dangerous for most, but now I feel stubborn for saying so :l
Thanks for listening. I'd say forcing oneself to asexuality isn't possible, just as it isn't possible to by will force lust for anything, whatever it may be. Everything else is hair splitting.

first of all quote: "the worst sin in islam is hatred" - i hope you like flaming...

then why the iraq/iran war with mostly (gasp) muslims involved?
then why 9/11 with all (shock horror) mislims involved?
then why countless conflicts in the middle east concerning muslims that go on even today?

you must have to hate someone pretty fucking much to kill them/gass them all/bomb them/fly a fucking plane into them!!!

next:

as for being gay/straight it IS NOT a concious choice. i personally cannot see how another man could be percieved in such a way but if you are gay, good for you its YOU life and you shouldnt be intimidated by someone elses god!

i have nothing against gays and do not count myself among them, i do believe that it is mainly physical attributes that encourage attraction but whether you are more attracted to male or female physical attributes is independant of your gender.

i see no more benefits in homosexuality than religion, which is absolutely none. if you do see benefits in homosexuality then go for it (there is no excuse for religion AT ALL).

scientist have evidence to back up that psychopaths are both mentally and physically from "normal" people so could this be similar to homosexuality (am not saying its a disorder). i dont find homosexuality desgusting, immoral or in any other way wrong but i would not appreciate it directed at me.

thinking about it the only excuses or religion are;
stupididty
insecurity
stupidity again

i have been said to have very low moral values and respect for nonsense such as tradition (how are we ever going to evolve without change!?) religion (its all sheer bullshit imho), and that is said to be a very "dilute" form of psychopath. however i am predicted 14 A* to C GCSE grades and am in no way stupid or "retarded". homosexuality is as naural as childbirth and has been to some degree accepted or at least tollerated throughout history (void concerning those bastard nazis). in short, its here to stay and i have no problem with that at all.

however;
:headbang: SCUM OF THE EARTH TIME! :headbang: (i'm sure most of you agree)

NAZIS- no description required
Twats- social groups that demand superiority! (eg femenists that say women should be payed more than men, all should be EQUAL)
Religious Fanatics- people willing to kill and die for something they cant een fucking prove exists, geez just kill yourself and do all of us a favour!*
Homophobes- read above, they are basically afraid of change and difference

*being prepared to die or kill for something sensible eg your country/homeland/loved one/family/pet is acceptable and admired, also the various core elements of a religion (eg do not steal, love thy neigbour) but not actual religion with gods an stuff, c'mon thats just retarded.

if any of this offended you i dont give a shit

telegram me for a personalised rant!

i always thought gay men were more likely to be promiscuous because they are MEN. isnt the biggest limiting factor in straight men's promisucuity the lack of willing females? without a woman there to say NO, men have way more sex, whether through masturbation or gay sex, when you take women out of the equation, the rates of sex go up. (although that is only in those inclined toward promiscuity, when dealing with faithful couples, lesbians have much more sex than gay men do.)

That too, but I wasn't willing to attempt to justify increased promiscuity amongst homosexual men on the caution of women, especially considering on average homosexual women tend to be considerably more promiscuous than straight women. And since promiscuity in both types of same-sex relationship is higher than in heterosexual relationships, it seems worthwhile to assume that the major psychological factor in this discrepancy would be the one thing one has that the other two don't - the risk of pregnancy.

-Felix Niels

That too, but I wasn't willing to attempt to justify increased promiscuity amongst homosexual men on the caution of women, especially considering on average homosexual women tend to be considerably more promiscuous than straight women. And since promiscuity in both types of same-sex relationship is higher than in heterosexual relationships, it seems worthwhile to assume that the major psychological factor in this discrepancy would be the one thing one has that the other two don't - the risk of pregnancy.

-Felix Niels
Makes me think of something George Carlin said:
"Catholics and other Christians are against abortions, and they're against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals? Leave these fucking people alone, for Christ sakes! Here is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion, and the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside! You'd think they'd make natural allies. Go look for consistency in religion. "

I'm not sure if it's already been said but the APA that homosexuality is not a choice. If it was a choice it would seem that the therapy to change sexuality would be much more successful and sexuality wouldn't lead to suicide so much.

That too, but I wasn't willing to attempt to justify increased promiscuity amongst homosexual men on the caution of women, especially considering on average homosexual women tend to be considerably more promiscuous than straight women. And since promiscuity in both types of same-sex relationship is higher than in heterosexual relationships, it seems worthwhile to assume that the major psychological factor in this discrepancy would be the one thing one has that the other two don't - the risk of pregnancy.

-Felix Niels


Got a stat on that homosexual women being more promiscuous than straight women or just pulling it out of the void?

I'm not sure if it's already been said but the APA that homosexuality is not a choice. If it was a choice it would seem that the therapy to change sexuality would be much more successful and sexuality wouldn't lead to suicide so much.

First, everything I've ever learned about psychology and heredity says that homosexuality--along with most other traits--is partially genetic, partially environment, and partially choice: You have predispositions you're born with, your environment can serve to activate or deactivate those predispositions more or less, and in the end you can decide how much you serve these predispositions of yours (at least, to a degree). As such, I think it would be important to augment the debate to instead investigate how much homosexuals choose their sexuality.

And negative results (such as homosexuality leading to suicide, or discrimination, or such) are hardly evidence that something is not a choice. If so, then the death penalty would have stopped murders a long time ago.

First, everything I've ever learned about psychology and heredity says that homosexuality--along with most other traits--is partially genetic, partially environment, and partially choice: You have predispositions you're born with, your environment can serve to activate or deactivate those predispositions more or less, and in the end you can decide how much you serve these predispositions of yours (at least, to a degree). As such, I think it would be important to augment the debate to instead investigate how much homosexuals choose their sexuality.

By "how much you serve these predispositions", I assume you mean how many times you act upon your attractions - which has nothing to do with defining sexuality. *Everyone* has the choice to pursue or not pursue. It is who you are attracted to that determines your sexuality.

- Yes, but what sexuality is in terms of language differs from culture to culture. Neither ancient greek or ancient hebrew had words for describing the modern concept today known as "homosexuality" (that's also why you can't really know what the Bible says about it).

In ancient greece, your sexuality was determined by whether you were the "recieving end" of the act or not - not by whether you prefered men, women, girls or boys.


- I do know "paradigm" is a word, I just wasn't sure "linguistic paradigm" was an expression - it would have been written in one word in Norwegian, my first language, that's why I wrote "word" in stead of "expression".


- I meant "within". A "g" snuck in, I am sorry oh überspeller :p


- Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. I still feel forcing yourself to asexuality can be dangerous for most, but now I feel stubborn for saying so :l

That still is ridiculous. You shouldn't use the flaws of a language to speak for what you believe in. That may be so about ancient Greek but I have decided on my own that sexuality is not a choice. You should make the same choice on your own as well.

We are not talking in ancient Greek. We are talking in modern English so it would be best if you used modern concepts, not refer to the concepts of ancient cultures. It is also wise to use the concepts of the language in which you are speaking in. Language is created on standard terms so all the speakers of that language can understand other speakers.

There are languages that do not have words for snow but snow still exists. Using the idea that saying "sexuality is a choice" is a linguisitc paradigm is incorrect. Look at the definition. You had said something about how the ancient Greeks looked at the choice of homosexuality. You said nothing about the way modern society views homosexuality as a choice or how you view homosexuality. And, no, linguistic paradigm is not correct. Just call it a paradigm.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.
It's not a perception. All you have done is told us how you are repressing your own natural sexuality. Here's a wise phrase that will come in useful within a few months/years: Don't try suicide.

I do NOT believe that people can help it if they are attracted to the same sex. You just are, and you certainly dont choose to be. However I guess you would CHOOSE who you had sex with. But its very very hard to go against your sexual nature and it takes some real strength to not give in which most people cannot be expected to do, and I think its really unfair that you are expected to do so.

Personally, I think that who somebody takes to be is nobody else's business, so long as its not a child.

I just dont like the ultra feminine dude who act like ''queens'' they piss me off. You can be gay,which is personal, and still act like a normal respectable person in public.

I'm a dude and I love Lesbians, (best friends you could ever want, and its so sexy).

I'm a dude and I love Lesbians, (best friends you could ever want, and its so sexy).
Really? Picture two 80 years old fat lesbians getting it on in bondage gear. Still have a hard-on?

For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

Is that because you can't get any? :p

Oh and I'd like to point out that you can be asexual and gay or straight

Asexual (in the sexual orientaion sense) just means you don't want sexual contact with your partner, it is a purely romantic attraction.

I have an asexual relationship with my best friend (who is female) but I am gay. I have sexual relationships with guys, that's the part of me that is gay.

I imagine it like a cross + with asexual to sexual vertically and straight to gay horizontally. And Where you are on the graph depends on the relationship and you.

~Archopeshisvisualimagehelped...

If that is so, then straight guys who are really good friends are in a very gay, very asexual relationship

it is a choice but only if you are constipated.

If people want to be gay and lesbian or bi let them it's there choice and for all of ya'll that think it's bad ya are just a bunch of dumb as fucking goodie christians. Cause i dated 2 and ya can go to hell if you guys don't agree!

I would agree that homosexual and heterosexual behavior is a choice. But homo or hetero attraction is not. There is a difference IMHO.

This is what i belive to be utterly and completely TRUE.... a distinction almost no one on this thread make... they are just so outraged by the initial post that they run to the opposite side instead of considering the possiblities some of what the creator of the thread could be true. Attraction and action hence forth are not equal.

First, everything I've ever learned about psychology and heredity says that homosexuality--along with most other traits--is partially genetic, partially environment, and partially choice: You have predispositions you're born with, your environment can serve to activate or deactivate those predispositions more or less, and in the end you can decide how much you serve these predispositions of yours (at least, to a degree). As such, I think it would be important to augment the debate to instead investigate how much homosexuals choose their sexuality.

And negative results (such as homosexuality leading to suicide, or discrimination, or such) are hardly evidence that something is not a choice. If so, then the death penalty would have stopped murders a long time ago.

Suicide is a little diffrent than the death penalty because the criminal dosen't choose to be given the death penalty while the person commiting suicide does.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

It's not a perception. All you have done is told us how you are repressing your own natural sexuality. Here's a wise phrase that will come in useful within a few months/years: Don't try suicide.
Erm, what? I'm honestly sick of you people who seem to believe sex is the only means of joy and happiness. I don't need sex, and I don't want it. I'll clarify a few things, as I may have been confusing.

Mentally, I have always been asexual. I dislike sex, and am repulsed by romance. However, when i was younger, I began to view marriage and sex as an inescapable inevitability, since my hormones and societal pressure began to kick in. But what I realized is that physical urges are just that---urges. Urges are controllable, and meldable. While I understand its very hard for someone to imagine switching away from their natural leanings, (which come forth in ways I do not know, and do not particularly care about) it is possible. Human beings can mold themselves in amazing ways, it just requires intense work and will.

Erm, what? I'm honestly sick of you people who seem to believe sex is the only means of joy and happiness. I don't need sex, and I don't want it.

Neither do many hetero-, bi-, and homo-sexuals.

But what I realized is that physical urges are just that---urges. Urges are controllable, and meldable. While I understand its very hard for someone to imagine switching away from their natural leanings, (which come forth in ways I do not know, and do not particularly care about) it is possible. Human beings can mold themselves in amazing ways, it just requires intense work and will.

Controlling urges has nothing at all to do with sexuality, which is simply defined by the urges themselves. Whether or not you act on them has nothing at all to do with your sexuality.

Mentally, I have always been asexual. I dislike sex, and am repulsed by romance. However, when i was younger, I began to view marriage and sex as an inescapable inevitability, since my hormones and societal pressure began to kick in. But what I realized is that physical urges are just that---urges. Urges are controllable, and meldable. While I understand its very hard for someone to imagine switching away from their natural leanings, (which come forth in ways I do not know, and do not particularly care about) it is possible. Human beings can mold themselves in amazing ways, it just requires intense work and will.
But the fact that you have these urges means that you are by definition not asexual. If that were true you would have no sexual urges that needed controlling.

If Humans did not have logical processes of a high level they would be Bi-sexual.

Animals have sex with other animals of the same sex all the time. We would be just the same. To the body, an Orgasm is an Orgasm, no matter who makes you orgasm. Its the mind that determines which sex you want to preform with.

I'm totally heterosexual, I believe I choose what I am attracted to.

Perhaps we are attracted to sexing everything, just our filters block our own thoughts from surfacing.

It's only harmful if you badger the asexual into thinking that it's shameful or bad, or force them into having sex (which would be harmful to anyone). These are after all the few people who can live up to the "don't get STD's by not having any sex at all" idea. Of course, they may have problems finding a suitable life partner, but that's a problem a lot of people have regardless of sexual orientation.
I'm most definitely not interested in finding a "life partner." I'm a bit more extreme on the asexual side than even my friend, New Anthrus, since I'm also fairly anti-romantic.

Erm, what? I'm honestly sick of you people who seem to believe sex is the only means of joy and happiness. I don't need sex, and I don't want it. I'll clarify a few things, as I may have been confusing.

Mentally, I have always been asexual. I dislike sex, and am repulsed by romance.
And you can't choose to like these things, right? Why would then homo-, hetero- or bisexuals be able to choose what they like?

But the fact that you have these urges means that you are by definition not asexual. If that were true you would have no sexual urges that needed controlling.
Everyone has random urges. If you defined someone by their unconscious hormonal fluctuations, most people would be bi. After all, studies have found that men are initially aroused by almost any sexual act, no matter who it is between. After the conscious mind comes in, they of course reject it. Also, the urges, I believe, will pass once I'm out of the volatile adolescent stage.

If Humans did not have logical processes of a high level they would be Bi-sexual.

I see, so being bisexual is illogical now?

I'm totally heterosexual, I believe I choose what I am attracted to.

Really? Does it go like this:

You walk into a room and think "Damn! That person is hawt! Oh wait, no they aren't, they happen to be the same gender as me. I'm going to be attracted to that oppositely gendered person over there instead!"

And you can't choose to like these things, right? Why would then homo-, hetero- or bisexuals be able to choose what they like?
But I can. I dislike sex for logical reasons, but could engage in it and eventually force myself to like it.

But I can. I dislike sex for logical reasons, but could engage in it and eventually force myself to like it.
You should talk to a real prostitute some day. Nobody likes forced sex. At best you get numb to it.

This is what I mean when I say that people who have never even had sex shouldn't go dictating what those who have tried should and should not think.

But I can. I dislike sex for logical reasons, but could engage in it and eventually force myself to like it.

I can force myself to not eat. If I concentrate hard enough, I can stop feeling hungry. That doesn't change the fact that I naturally crave food.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

I haven't read through the rest of the thread yet (I don't know if I'll bother- I came into this debate late and I don't want to wade through 6 pages) so it's possible I'll repeat something someone's already said. Sorry about that.

I disagree with you.
*Sex* is a choice, *sexuality* is not. You don't have to actually have sex, but you can't do anything about the desire to have it. You can ignore it, but you can't make it go away.

While its true that you can fall in love with someone on the internet without knowing what sex they are, in truth, most of us know whether or not we find our own sex attractive or not. There are even gay animals!

I don't know any gay people who didn't always know they were gay. It's the way we are or are not born. simple. Anyone who claims its a choice, just wants an excuse for being a bigot.

Its about who loves whom at the end of the day, what the heck does it matter for Pete's sake. Get a life, get someone and love them.

Everyone has random urges. If you defined someone by their unconscious hormonal fluctuations, most people would be bi. After all, studies have found that men are initially aroused by almost any sexual act, no matter who it is between. After the conscious mind comes in, they of course reject it. Also, the urges, I believe, will pass once I'm out of the volatile adolescent stage.
1) Most people are bisexual. Not strongly mind you, but very few people are either completly straight or completly gay. And we do define a person's sexuality by their random urges.

2) No they won't, they will solidify. The volatility you speak of is nothing more than the insecurity and inexperience of adolescence.

General statements like 'most people are bi' need to be backed up with proof to have any validity.

Vague remarks like 'studies have shown' ring alarm bells for me. *which* studies? By whom?

Well...I guess I can sort of see why you don't like Marvin Gaye AC.

But I still don't understand. Its as though you are somehow afraid of it. Its really nothing to be ashamed of. I mean, don't go around doing it willy-nilly and don't do it to someone who doesn't want it done for obvious reasons...but its more or less intended that what's born is supposed to make born other things. The survival of species depends on it...although if you choose not to do it then its perfectly reasonable and your own choice.

I personally do not see why you are so up in arms about it. Its not so big a problem as you might think it is. There are perfectly good and reasonable people who've had sex. I know a few, as a matter of fact. And while I personally shun it at this age, I can't go about denying that, well, I'm attracted to certain people. It can't be helped, since humans are meant, like other organisms, to reproduce. Its up to us to do it in a more responsible fashion and not do it too much.

And as long as the age gap isn't wide and its consentual, its really nobody's business who you do it with. Use protection and be careful, but beyond that its your own business.

Personally, I don't find men too attractive, although I tend to be a good judge of it. But if somebody did find men attractive, or if the same was the case between women, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

General statements like 'most people are bi' need to be backed up with proof to have any validity.

Vague remarks like 'studies have shown' ring alarm bells for me. *which* studies? By whom?

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).

1) Most people are bisexual. Not strongly mind you, but very few people are either completly straight or completly gay. And we do define a person's sexuality by their random urges.

That's what my gut tells me too. I mean, most complex characteristics display a degree of polygenicity, why not sexuality?

I'm sure it's already been said many times, but I can't let it go. Besides, no harm could come from pounding how wrong you are into your head as much as possible.

The very fact that you had to 'train yourself' to be anti-sexual proves that your not being anti-sexual in the first place was not a choice. You came into the world with sexuality in place in your brain, you just chose to ignore it. YOU are being unnatural by going against the instincts you were given. Sure, you can choose to not be homosexual or heterosexual if you want to, but that's only if you don't like the impulses you were given at birth. You DO have your own sexual impulses naturally, you can choose to change them, but if you don't want to, why should you? There's no reason to screw with mother nature.

I'm sure it's already been said many times, but I can't let it go. Besides, no harm could come from pounding how wrong you are into your head as much as possible.

The very fact that you had to 'train yourself' to be anti-sexual proves that your not being anti-sexual in the first place was not a choice. You came into the world with sexuality in place in your brain, you just chose to ignore it. YOU are being unnatural by going against the instincts you were given. Sure, you can choose to not be homosexual or heterosexual if you want to, but that's only if you don't like the impulses you were given at birth. You DO have your own sexual impulses naturally, you can choose to change them, but if you don't want to, why should you? There's no reason to screw with mother nature.

Bzzzt! Mother Nature is wrong. Human reproduction needs to stop, now.
I suggest we use forced castration at birth. It will take a couple generations for our public high schools to convince their students that the penis is a vestigial appendage, but I'm pretty sure they can do it. After all, they've already done such a good job brainwashing our youth about everything else...

Granted, my observations of this thread along with 50 cents will only get you a 50 cent cup of coffee (assuming you live somewhere coffee is still that cheap), but I'm going to share what I've noticed anyways.

Everyone in this thread is about trying to force everyone to exist their way and assumes that because they are a way, then everyone must be that way. Maybe sexuality is a choice for some people, but it doesn't follow that it is for everyone. If you can choose to be gay, straight, bi, asexual, whatever then good for you. Don't assume that I can make that choice--or that I would or should want to do so. Sure, I can choose not to act on my urges, but exactly what good does that do? What good does not enjoying romantic feelings coupled with carnal pleasure serve? There is a time and a place for all things, including sex. Why avoid it?

Someone said it earlier, and I think it stands repeating, the question shouldn't be is any of this a choice but it should be does making that choice stand to harm anyone? I've seen no one offer me one way in which heterosexuality, homosexuality, or asexuality harms anyone. Sure, it has to be limited to sex between consenting adults, but beyond that what harm does it offer?

If you cannot show me where it causes harm, you have no arguement to make, regardless of the issue of choice.

Homosexuality cannot be genetic. It is impossible. Due to the fact that homosexuals cannot produce offspring amongst themselves, then the genes would not be carried on, thus not transferring to later generations. It must be a choice, otherwise homosexuality would be a farily constant rate throughout history, when in fact, we only find it in large numbers where tolerated and the choice is allowed to occur. As with any behavior, when it is accepted by society, it will thrive, and because it is dependant upon societal tendency, it cannot be purely (or in any respect) genetic.

Homosexuality cannot be genetic. It is impossible. Due to the fact that homosexuals cannot produce offspring amongst themselves, then the genes would not be carried on, thus not transferring to later generations.
you havent heard of dominant and recessive genes then?

Homosexuality cannot be genetic. It is impossible. Due to the fact that homosexuals cannot produce offspring amongst themselves, then the genes would not be carried on, thus not transferring to later generations. It must be a choice, otherwise homosexuality would be a farily constant rate throughout history, when in fact, we only find it in large numbers where tolerated and the choice is allowed to occur. As with any behavior, when it is accepted by society, it will thrive, and because it is dependant upon societal tendency, it cannot be purely (or in any respect) genetic.
Wrong thread buddy. But quick note, we only find it where it was tolerated because it was hidden where it was not tolerated. It was still there. Anyway, thats enough of a derail.

Genes can only be carried on where there is offspring, which is impossible in a homosexual relation. Besides, natural evolution does not create changes that allow a species to render itself unable to reproduce. NO RECESSIVE GENES BECAUSE THERE IS NO OFFSPRING.

Homosexuality cannot be genetic. It is impossible. Due to the fact that homosexuals cannot produce offspring amongst themselves, then the genes would not be carried on, thus not transferring to later generations. It must be a choice, otherwise homosexuality would be a farily constant rate throughout history, when in fact, we only find it in large numbers where tolerated and the choice is allowed to occur. As with any behavior, when it is accepted by society, it will thrive, and because it is dependant upon societal tendency, it cannot be purely (or in any respect) genetic.


And let me guess, you have no degree in any type of science and took no course past high school biology, right?

Traits that hender reproductivity hang around all the time. While I am loathe to compare homosexuality to a disease, I am going to do so because it makes for easy comparison. Have you ever heard of Tay-Sach's Disease?

It it an autosomal recessive disease that kills children within the first 3-5 years of life (autosomal recessive means that it is not sex-linked [affects both genders equally] and that you have to have two copies of the gene for the trait to be expressed). If what you said was true, Tay-Sachs would've stopped being seen centuries ago, but it is still around.

This is because people with one copy of the Tay-Sachs gene and one copy of the normal gene do not have the disease and are not affected. If you assumed homosexuality operated under a one gene trait similiar to Tay-Sachs, you can clearly see that it would still be around. However, the one gene theory for homosexuality is highly, highly unlikely.

What is more likely is that a complex interplay of multiple genes and environment (in the womb and in early life), along with early psychological experiences, determine human sexuality. The liklihood that it is so complex means that it can easily not be a choice, but still be around for pretty much all time.

Of course, I reiterate that as I said before, the question regarding gay rights shouldn't be if its a choice, but if it does any harm and therefore merits the limitation of rights and second-class citizenships that are currently being given homosexuals.

Yet to transfer Tay-Sachs, there must still be offspring.

Yet to transfer Tay-Sachs, there must still be offspring.
did you read this bit;
It it an autosomal recessive disease that kills children within the first 3-5 years of life
?

how can a 5 year old kid pass on their genes to offspring?

Yet to transfer Tay-Sachs, there must still be offspring.
Yes, and straight parents that have a recessive "gay gene" or combinations of genes thereof, would pass this onto their offsrping. Not so hard to understand.

I don't really like the kinsey scale. I think sexuality is better represented in the upper right quadrant of a x,y grid.

Yet to transfer Tay-Sachs, there must still be offspring.

Not what I'm saying. If you have one copy of the Tay-Sachs gene, you could still transfer it to your offspring who has one copy of the wild type (normal) gene and would not have the disease. That is why Tay-Sachs keeps popping up and would offer an explanation for how homosexuality could keep occurring.

Of course, as I previously pointed out homosexuality is not likely to be about a single gene--indeed its genetic component is probably made up of a variety of different possible components from multiple different genes. These gene versions might do other things (there is a theory that one allelle found commonly in gay men seems to INCREASE reproductive fitness in women) that help keep them around.

Beyond that, a trait does not have to directly benefit the individual to be a benefit to the species as a whole. Homosexuals produce none of their own offspring (thereby not creating a drain on resources) but help support their siblings children and the rest of society by their productivity--they create resources without making additional drains which actually BENEFITS reproductivity of the species as a whole.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html

Thankyou :)

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

*GASP* you're right! all the compiled scientific evidence on human sexuality, longitudinal psychological studies, animal modeling information, chemical and hormonal typing, and personal experiences of the majority of the human population are NOTHING when compared to the stated opinion of some dude on the internet!

i'm convinced. seriously. why are you laughing?

Homosexuality cannot be genetic. It is impossible. Due to the fact that homosexuals cannot produce offspring amongst themselves, then the genes would not be carried on, thus not transferring to later generations. It must be a choice, otherwise homosexuality would be a farily constant rate throughout history, when in fact, we only find it in large numbers where tolerated and the choice is allowed to occur. As with any behavior, when it is accepted by society, it will thrive, and because it is dependant upon societal tendency, it cannot be purely (or in any respect) genetic.

When the same topic of debate came up on this forum a couple of years ago (I had a different nation back then, before I was *bitten*) someone raised the point that research had done that showed that homosexuality in males was due to a difference in the hypothalmus (part of the brain). This was caused by something that happened to the foetus in the womb. Therefore a person could be born gay, yet it not be genetic.

As I recall they didn't seem to have anything to say about lesbians, I suppose they might find something similar if research is done on them.

I wonder if I can find the link...it's been ages.

When the same topic of debate came up on this forum a couple of years ago (I had a different nation back then, before I was *bitten*) someone raised the point that research had done that showed that homosexuality in males was due to a difference in the hypothalmus (part of the brain). This was caused by something that happened to the foetus in the womb. Therefore a person could be born gay, yet it not be genetic.

As I recall they didn't seem to have anything to say about lesbians, I suppose they might find something similar if research is done on them.

I wonder if I can find the link...it's been ages.


I've read that too. They thought it was due to an over-abundance of testosterone being present in the uterus (so ironically, gay men are super masculine, not effiminate ;) ). However to my knowledge that has neither been supportive or refuted since that time.

did you read this bit;

?

how can a 5 year old kid pass on their genes to offspring?

With many genetic diseases you can be a carrier of the gene that gives you the disease without having the disease yourself. The 5 year old kid has the disease and dies but (for example) his sister carries the gene for the disease and passes it on to her son, who gets the disease and dies...

I just want to stick in again that while I am using disease genetics to explain why homosexuality is still around, I do not believe that homosexuality is or shoudl be considered a disease as there is no morbidity or mortality associated with it as compared to the heterosexual population.

Homosexuality cannot be genetic. .

See my earlier post about the hypothalmus being affected during foetal growth.


It is impossible. Due to the fact that homosexuals cannot produce offspring amongst themselves,

Gay men can still have children with women if they want. They may not enjoy the act itself, but if they want children they're perfectly capable of producing them the old fashioned way, without any modern fertility treatments.

It must be a choice, otherwise homosexuality would be a farily constant rate throughout history, when in fact, we only find it in large numbers where tolerated and the choice is allowed to occur. .

More likely it has occured at a constant rate, but we only *hear* about it at periods when and places where it is tolerated. If you thought you might be stoned to death because of your sexuality wouldn't you hide it?

I just want to stick in again that while I am using disease genetics to explain why homosexuality is still around, I do not believe that homosexuality is or shoudl be considered a disease as there is no morbidity or mortality associated with it as compared to the heterosexual population.

True.

Hmm, it's ite that seems to equate sadism and feces fetishes with homosexuality.
It's just a tad off....
:rolleyes:

I don't feel like going to read the site and see what you mean, because it's late and my eyes are starting to burn...

What comparison is it that they are making that is invalid? I haven't ever been presented with evidence that they are not all in the same broad category of sexual perversions, only evidence as to whether homosexuality is natural, whether it is harmful, whether it affects people other than the participants, etcetera. I'm not saying that those things necessarily ARE all in the same category, but considering that part of the anti-homosexuality argument revolves around the idea that they are comparable, I find it odd (though not really significant, being anecdotal) that I personally haven't seen even an attempted refutation of the grouping.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html
Kinsey was a pedophile supporter and a fraud. The man was so deranged that he actively supported pedophiles in their "experiments", circumcised himself in a bathtub, and made up fraudulent data spouting that 10% of humans were gay (the number is actually from 1 to 2 percent).

I just want to stick in again that while I am using disease genetics to explain why homosexuality is still around, I do not believe that homosexuality is or shoudl be considered a disease as there is no morbidity or mortality associated with it as compared to the heterosexual population.
Well, I think it's premature to claim homosexuality is caused by genetics. It could be, but I like George W. Bush's humble, honest admittance of the fact that we don't know. Human science hasn't gotten to the bottom of everything.

I don't really like the kinsey scale. I think sexuality is better represented in the upper right quadrant of a x,y grid.

Maybe a Klein scale would suit you better.

http://www.biresource.org/pamphlets/klein_graph.html

i feel this way about it... i dont believe in Homosexuality but i do not and will not say its wrong because i cannot judge that... its not my place to... only god may judge people not i... so i can say the bible clearly states Homosexuality is wrong therefore i believe it is wrong but to come out and tell a homosexual i think they are wrong would never happen... i just dont associate with them

Bullshit. Also, what are your credentials to label anything a disease? As I said earlier, I'll accept an M.D., but prefer a Ph.D. with clinical experience. Normal rules and levels of evidence apply, of course.

I don't have a Ph. D. yet, but do have a M.A. in counseling psychology, and an M.S. in clinical psychology. I am also entering my second year as a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology. I must say that I have found this thread both disturbing and amusing. First, the creator of this thread has himself stated that he has Heterosexual urges. I find this funny due to the obvious inability to totally destroy his Heterosexual urges, and his assumed inability to create Homosexual ones. Next, a mental disease/disorder is qualified by having a hugely adverse effect on ones ability to function in life. Homosexuality has not been thought of as a disorder since the DSM-III (1970s) I believe (I don't have time to check my findings, as it is finals week, and I am bogged down in studying, but I am sure a quick google will confirm this).

In my opinion (which mirrors many people in the clinical psych field) is that sexuality exists on a sliding scale. Some men lean toward men, but may still find women attractive, while others find women totally unattractive (sexually speaking). The same is true for women, straight individuals, etc. etc... I do believe that sexuality is not a choice, although it can be supressed as discussed earlier. One more quick note, supression of sexuality can cause significant anxiety as I have witnessed in my own clinical experience.

Sorry if this isn't the most well worded text, I am tired and have about 6 cups of coffee in me...

Just my 3 cents

Well, I think it's premature to claim homosexuality is caused by genetics. It could be, but I like George W. Bush's humble, honest admittance of the fact that we don't know. Human science hasn't gotten to the bottom of everything.


When did I say it was absolutely caused by genetics? I said I think it likely (and the evidence does support this) that there is a complex interplay between genetics, environment, and psychology at work here. Perhaps I take too for granted that people understand that nothing in science is certain and is only probability and liklihood. My apologies for that.

i feel this way about it... i dont believe in Homosexuality but i do not and will not say its wrong because i cannot judge that... its not my place to... only god may judge people not i... so i can say the bible clearly states Homosexuality is wrong therefore i believe it is wrong but to come out and tell a homosexual i think they are wrong would never happen... i just dont associate with them

Do you mean you think its a myth?

Homosexuals are like Sasquatch? :D

(I know that is not what you meant. Just kidding.)

Besides, do you seriously believe that homosexuality in ANY way threatens the heterosexual ability to pump out another unit ever nine months? Even if homos were to become 50% of the population, there'd still be plenty of water-headed miracle baby-children to replace you and be the vessel into which you pour your sociopolitical views.I think I'm in love! :D

To AM, it's okay to not be ready for sex, but you may want to stop trying to brainwash yourself into believing that something normal, natural and healthy is a disgusting waste of time. The fact that you're still actively repressing your desires tells us you're definately not asexual anyway. You're simply anti-sex. Not the same thing at all.

Just relax about the whole issue, and leave the rest of us to wallow in our lascivious lives. The passage of time will probably make the entire point moot, anyway.

Kinsey was a pedophile supporter and a fraud. The man was so deranged that he actively supported pedophiles in their "experiments", circumcised himself in a bathtub, and made up fraudulent data spouting that 10% of humans were gay (the number is actually from 1 to 2 percent).

Speaking of fraudulent data ....

Sure, everything human beings do is a choice made. Some people choose to murder, some choose to rape or steal. Some people actually choose to do no harm to others at all.

Whom one has sex with is usually a matter of choice. Rape, of course, is a different matter and has nothing to do with sex.

Everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to perform any given action; as human beings, we have the gift of free will. It's all about mind over matter.

Yup. I never have wanted sex, don't want sex, and never will. I do have random hormonally triggered urges (My hormones are sadly, beyond my control) but my mind is pretty good at squashing them. Ah, and it also helps that I am horrifically ugly, stupid, and obnoxious. It's really a perfect bargain, you see. I desire no one, and no one desires me.

This is actually quite sad. Serious. No insult intended.

How do you know you don't like sex if you haven't tried it?

Perhaps you should seek some help. There are some real issues here.

Sure, everything human beings do is a choice made. Some people choose to murder, some choose to rape or steal. Some people actually choose to do no harm to others at all.

Whom one has sex with is usually a matter of choice. Rape, of course, is a different matter and has nothing to do with sex.

Everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to perform any given action; as human beings, we have the gift of free will. It's all about mind over matter.


Choosing to have sex or not is certainly not the same thing as choosing your sexuality (aka who you are sexually and romantically attracted to). I could live a completely celibate life and still be gay.

wow - this post was way above average stupidity level, which is usually pretty high in this forum, but it was fun to read everyone make fun of the kid

but at the same time this makes me feel ashamed of myself - isnt it kinda wrong to laugh at retards?

meh - i'll get over it

This is actually quite sad. Serious. No insult intended.

How do you know you don't like sex if you haven't tried it?

Perhaps you should seek some help. There are some real issues here.

ah, but whose level of 'normal' are we comparing this to? perhaps he's the normal one, and we're all just easily controlled tools?

As far as i can see it there are two theories governing the masses. Evolution, and Creation. If the Creation Theory is the winner, homosexuality is forbidden by every major religion, Christianity, (Look at the bible for proof, sodom... fire... need i say more?) Islam, Hindu, Judiasm. Now, if they are all wrong then Evolution is the winner. But if you think about it, Darwin said that only the genotypes that would promote the species should suceed. He said to imagine all of the species with one specific genotype and see if it would promote the species. Homosexuality does not! IF we were all gay, no babies would come! Homosexuality is not natural, it is a choice we all make. Granted, some have more tendencies then the other, but i have had tendencies to kill someone, but i haven't done it now have I? ... well at least that you know about.. muhaaahaaaahaaa... btw.. I follow the prior theory, god is alive and cries at the perverse morals that the world has taken on. But we don't have to hurt the gays, just send them all to a island and they will all die off.... no babies... :) BUSH ROCKS!

ah, but whose level of 'normal' are we comparing this to? perhaps he's the normal one, and we're all just easily controlled tools?

Or perhaps there's a normal for everybody that is slightly different, some more so than others? Realy, the frequency with which people confuse "normal" and "the norm" on this forum (and in real life) is quite astounding.

There are so many things wrong here that I hardly know where to begin, so I'm just going to go in temporal order with what you posted.


But if you think about it, Darwin said that only the genotypes that would promote the species should suceed. He said to imagine all of the species with one specific genotype and see if it would promote the species. Homosexuality does not!

Yes, genotypes that promote the species--not the individual. There are several theories that homosexuality can benefit the species as a whole by acting as a mean of population control and as a support for sibilings children (which are then more likely to survive and reproduce because they have more adults looking out for them). So there's your first incorrect assumption ruined.

IF we were all gay, no babies would come!

That's a big if--and one that isn't going to come true. Not all people are gay and they aren't going to be. And there is the little fact that homosexuals can still reproduce--just because we don't enjoy sex with the opposite gender doesn't mean that we cannot have sex with them. If there were only gay men and women left, we could still continue the species just fine. We aren't infertile.


Homosexuality is not natural, it is a choice we all make.

Really? Someone had better tell those many gay animals that have been observed that its not natural and not a choice--since you know, non-sapient animals are able to make conscious decisions.


Granted, some have more tendencies then the other, but i have had tendencies to kill someone, but i haven't done it now have I? ... well at least that you know about.. muhaaahaaaahaaa...

Exactly how does homosexuality equate to murder? Murder hurts people and denies others their rights, homosexuality does not. I would equate the denial of equality to homosexuals as being more akin to murder than homosexuality itself is.

But we don't have to hurt the gays, just send them all to a island and they will all die off.... no babies...

Except for the little fact that, as I said above, gay people CAN reproduce if they choose. Throw in teh fact that straight people would still be reproducing on the mainland and that some of their children would be gay (as most gay people are the children of heterosexuals) we can conclude that homosexuality will still exist.

I don't have a Ph. D. yet, but do have a M.A. in counseling psychology, and an M.S. in clinical psychology. I am also entering my second year as a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology. I must say that I have found this thread both disturbing and amusing. First, the creator of this thread has himself stated that he has Heterosexual urges. I find this funny due to the obvious inability to totally destroy his Heterosexual urges, and his assumed inability to create Homosexual ones. Next, a mental disease/disorder is qualified by having a hugely adverse effect on ones ability to function in life. Homosexuality has not been thought of as a disorder since the DSM-III (1970s) I believe (I don't have time to check my findings, as it is finals week, and I am bogged down in studying, but I am sure a quick google will confirm this).

In my opinion (which mirrors many people in the clinical psych field) is that sexuality exists on a sliding scale. Some men lean toward men, but may still find women attractive, while others find women totally unattractive (sexually speaking). The same is true for women, straight individuals, etc. etc... I do believe that sexuality is not a choice, although it can be supressed as discussed earlier. One more quick note, supression of sexuality can cause significant anxiety as I have witnessed in my own clinical experience.

Sorry if this isn't the most well worded text, I am tired and have about 6 cups of coffee in me...

Just my 3 cents
Holy crap! A person who knows what they are talking about! This can't be allowed.

Originally Posted by Marian Rome
given the social stigma attached, why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay?

Because it's superior, silly.

.........XD now THAT is funny ... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You Americans are nuts! :eek:

wow - this post was way above average stupidity level, which is usually pretty high in this forum, but it was fun to read everyone make fun of the kid

but at the same time this makes me feel ashamed of myself - isnt it kinda wrong to laugh at retards?

meh - i'll get over it
Thanks, really. The level of politeness and sophistication emanating from you is incredible.

This is actually quite sad. Serious. No insult intended.

How do you know you don't like sex if you haven't tried it?

Perhaps you should seek some help. There are some real issues here.
No, I'm quite happy with the state of things. And I don't need to try something to know if I like it or not, especially considering the very concept sickens me to the core.

And no, I don't need "help." My choice is simply a choice of sexuality. Is being gay a mental disorder? No. And neither is asexuality.

I don't have a Ph. D. yet, but do have a M.A. in counseling psychology, and an M.S. in clinical psychology. I am also entering my second year as a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology. I must say that I have found this thread both disturbing and amusing. First, the creator of this thread has himself stated that he has Heterosexual urges. I find this funny due to the obvious inability to totally destroy his Heterosexual urges, and his assumed inability to create Homosexual ones. Next, a mental disease/disorder is qualified by having a hugely adverse effect on ones ability to function in life. Homosexuality has not been thought of as a disorder since the DSM-III (1970s) I believe (I don't have time to check my findings, as it is finals week, and I am bogged down in studying, but I am sure a quick google will confirm this).

In my opinion (which mirrors many people in the clinical psych field) is that sexuality exists on a sliding scale. Some men lean toward men, but may still find women attractive, while others find women totally unattractive (sexually speaking). The same is true for women, straight individuals, etc. etc... I do believe that sexuality is not a choice, although it can be supressed as discussed earlier. One more quick note, supression of sexuality can cause significant anxiety as I have witnessed in my own clinical experience.

Sorry if this isn't the most well worded text, I am tired and have about 6 cups of coffee in me...

Just my 3 cents
You COMPLETELY misinterpreted me. I have heterosexual urges. Why? Because I'm a teenager! I have no control over my hormones. However, I can control my mind, and I have made the choice to disavow sex, and romantic behavior. I became anti-sexual because of a logical, rational choice. My point is that people shouldn't allow their natural leanings to determine their fate. We all have original leanings, but we can mold and steer our minds.

No, I'm quite happy with the state of things. And I don't need to try something to know if I like it or not, especially considering the very concept sickens me to the core.

And no, I don't need "help." My choice is simply a choice of sexuality. Is being gay a mental disorder? No. And neither is asexuality.

I know it's none of my business, but it sounds like you've had some kind of trauma.

Kinsey was a pedophile supporter and a fraud. The man was so deranged that he actively supported pedophiles in their "experiments", circumcised himself in a bathtub, and made up fraudulent data spouting that 10% of humans were gay (the number is actually from 1 to 2 percent).

Where do you get *your* percentage from?

Choosing to have sex or not is certainly not the same thing as choosing your sexuality (aka who you are sexually and romantically attracted to). I could live a completely celibate life and still be gay.

Absolutely. That's what I was trying to say a page or so back.

Actions and inclination are not the same thing.

As far as i can see it there are two theories governing the masses. Evolution, and Creation. If the Creation Theory is the winner, homosexuality is forbidden by every major religion, Christianity, (Look at the bible for proof, sodom... fire... need i say more?) Islam, Hindu, Judiasm. Now, if they are all wrong then Evolution is the winner. But if you think about it, Darwin said that only the genotypes that would promote the species should suceed. He said to imagine all of the species with one specific genotype and see if it would promote the species. Homosexuality does not! IF we were all gay, no babies would come! Homosexuality is not natural, it is a choice we all make. Granted, some have more tendencies then the other, but i have had tendencies to kill someone, but i haven't done it now have I? ... well at least that you know about.. muhaaahaaaahaaa... btw.. I follow the prior theory, god is alive and cries at the perverse morals that the world has taken on. But we don't have to hurt the gays, just send them all to a island and they will all die off.... no babies... :) BUSH ROCKS!

Was that bad satire or genuine stupidity?

No, I'm quite happy with the state of things. And I don't need to try something to know if I like it or not, especially considering the very concept sickens me to the core.

And no, I don't need "help." My choice is simply a choice of sexuality. Is being gay a mental disorder? No. And neither is asexuality.

If you have sexual urges at all, then whether you act on them or not you are not asexual.

Also, since you're still young I suspect your views on sex will change over time. Lots of people's do. I wasn't interested in sex until I hit university.

You COMPLETELY misinterpreted me. I have heterosexual urges. Why? Because I'm a teenager! .

More likely, because you're heterosexual. Millions of people have heterosexual urges who aren't teenagers.

I have no control over my hormones. However, I can control my mind, and I have made the choice to disavow sex, and romantic behavior. I became anti-sexual because of a logical, rational choice. My point is that people shouldn't allow their natural leanings to determine their fate. We all have original leanings, but we can mold and steer our minds.

Of course we can. But as I said in several previous posts, we can control our actions, not our inclinations.

Despite what the term "sexuality" might imply, there's a lot more behind being heterosexual or homosexual than just sex.

More likely, because you're heterosexual. Millions of people have heterosexual urges who aren't teenagers.



Of course we can. But as I said in several previous posts, we can control our actions, not our inclinations.
Actually, I think it's pretty well established that people's inclinations can be changed through conditioning. Of course it usually takes a definite concious decision to do that. Personally, I believe that a lot of what people think of as 'natural inclinations' are just culturally conditioned ones.

I mean, do you think that people have really changed that much since the the times of ancient greece, when bisexuality was normal? It seems more reasoanbly to conclude that sexuality isn't as innate a thing as some people think.

Don't get me wrong - I think that homosexuality is at least as legitimate as heterosexuality, heck it's better in that it doesn't produce children in an already overpopulated world, and homosexuals are more likely to adopt children.

Personally, I think that people who insist that homosexuality is innate do so because subconciously they think there's something wrong with it that has to be justified.

I also agree with Armandian Cheese that sexuality isn't so important that someone's life is incomplete without it (I assume he believes this though I didn't see him say it outright), though I don't go so far as to repudiate sexuality altogether. I think there are even cases where a straight man could lead a happier life being gay, or vise-versa.

Something to think about, anyway.

There are gay penguins... so much for choice...

Have any proof?
Are you serious? Proof? Proof that people can refrain from having sex? You have got to be kidding me.

some study showed that homos and straights have different types of brains lets not get into detail but another recent study showed that the brain can change from say straight to gay or gay to straight to hetero and so on depending on actions. what you feed your mind and your body determines who you are sexually or not

There are gay penguins... so much for choice...

Oh but remember, they chose to be gay; you see it was all that sexual propaganda warping their minds, making them subconsciously choose their own sexuality. All that damn penguin late night HBO and those penguin smut magazines!

Asexual eh? Oh wait, you had that thread where you said people should stop fucking. Eh. People will believe wha they want. Ill stick to my opinion that Homosexuality is a disease/mental disorder.


If anything is a disease/mental disorder it's intolerance and fear of the unknown. What business is it of yours what people do in their personal lives? :headbang:

I agree! Although sex is completely 100% natural and has been happening since the dawn of life in this universe, it disgusts me in ever way! So does the sunset! And rain! I've trained myself not to pee. I'll never pee again, do you hear me god? NEVER?!

There are gay penguins... so much for choice...

You can make a staight rat gay and a gay rat straight. besides humans are far more intelligent than a damn penguin

I agree! Although sex is completely 100% natural and has been happening since the dawn of life in this universe, it disgusts me in ever way! So does the sunset! And rain! I've trained myself not to pee. I'll never pee again, do you hear me god? NEVER?!

as his blatter explodes ands he is rushed to the hospital

Eh. People will believe what they want. Ill stick to my opinion that Homosexuality is a disease/mental disorder.

Agreed! :mp5:

They don't? Oh really? You do know that it's fairly well established that homosexuality is almost a norm in many same-sex prisons? Desperate men(and women) do desperate things...

Just because youre having gay sex doesn't mean you're gay.
It's called rape.

Was that bad satire or genuine stupidity?

To the person you're commenting on....

Who's the one with perverse morals? Do you understand the hypocrisy of claiming "morality" by sending those different from you off to die? I really hope that was satire. If people cannot emerge from their comfort zones every now-and-again, then the very insanity of the above post will become even more of a reality. Fundamentalism is fundamentally inimical to democracy, decency and the progress of civilization. :headbang:

...then let me ask you this...

for all you men out there, could you wake up tomorrow and want to give another man Oral sex? can you choice to get turned on by this? Can you wake up and want to have sex with a man?

Just because youre having gay sex doesn't mean you're gay.
It's called rape.

:headbang:
do that until you develop some sensibility.

There are gay penguins... so much for choice...
Well, that establishes that homosexuality occurs in nature, which isn't really a surprise. That doesn't establish in any way whatsoever that one's sexuality is immutable.

I did a little looking around since you didn't provide sources, and found this (http://www.sensualism.com/gay/). Anyway, if these are the gay penguins you're talking about, then the fact that they were raised in captivity and relative isolation seems like an argument in favor of sexuality being changeable. Since the penguins spent all their time together, they were each others most natural choice of mates. We have no way of knowing what their 'innate' sexual preference may have been, but they chose homosexuality when no other option was available.

Of course, there are probably gay penguins in the wild, but that doesn't mean it's neccesarily innate either - different penguins will have experienced slightly diffferent childhoods etc.

Having said all this, I believe that there probably is an innate component to sexuality, but I think people way overemphasize it. I think choice is a much bigger factor than a lot of people seem to think.

You can make a staight rat gay and a gay rat straight. besides humans are far more intelligent than a damn penguin
Hey, just noticed your post. Can you post a source for that? It would be really useful for future discussions.

ah, but whose level of 'normal' are we comparing this to? perhaps he's the normal one, and we're all just easily controlled tools?

You're right on. So long as we quibble of such things we will remain subjigated and malleable. It's called divide and conquer, and it's a systemic cancer that not only controls us, but teaches us to control ourselves. The standard everyone lives by is not an objective standard, but one that normalizes only certain things -- mainly that which benefits most in the systems of privilege and oppression -- and that which deviates from it is stigmatized. All of us did not normalize these standards in our society, a system that perpetuates itself by oppressing many to privilege few did. It is not an individual problem, but a systemic one as I said earlier. Even if you don't recognize that this is a possibility, that very fact may be proof that such a system exists. A nazi communications officer once said that if one controlled the population without their knowledge, then complete control could be possible. An invisible foe is one not easily felled. Even those that benefit from this system are damaged by it, because what those with power crave is more power...and incidentally become stricken with paranoia of losing it. Before you judge people, I would ask "Am I acting on my own or am I simply an appendage of the status quo enacting the disciplinary practices that have been socialized in me to swat a deviation from an arbitrary norm?" I ask myself that question dozens of times daily. It takes a conscious effort to resist paths of least resistance (that is, choices one makes that are easiest and have the fewest overt consequences...in other words, making decisions that don't deviate from the status quo).

:headbang: wow, i really cant believe this is what im hearing...do you know the health, *and i pause before i put it this was but its true* risks associated with homosexuality? just look: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html. If you feel this is too biased, just do some research, you;; be amazed at the statistics. Its just not healthy! Not only that, think about the children. Its not just the issue of, if they grow up with gay parents they'll be gay. It that what if that kid grows up and doesnt approve of their lifestyle? They CANT do ANYTHING to change it and they DIDNT pick their parents so its NOT FAIR TO THE KIDS!

THINK ABOUT THE KIDS!

Well if the parents raise their kids to believe in things like, I dunno, love and compassion, then that won't be an issue, will it?

Has anyone spared a thought for what all this focus on sexual orientation has done to the simple and straightforward word 'gay' as in 'happy and gay' ? I can't call anyone gay anymore without being stared at or hit upon? :rolleyes:

Im sorry but that sounds really unessecary to have sex with someone who you dont want to have sex with just for a kid when you could go to another country or something to have a artificial insemination done.

Sex is free.

To make a point the point I've been trying to make clearer, i agree that homosexuality is undeniably natural since it occurs in nature. What I don't understand is why people insist that just because it's natural it must be immutable and innate. I've never seen any strong evidence that this is the case, and my own personal experience is that people can change who they're attracted to over time. I'm sure there is some natural component, but I for one, don't think that sexual orientation is a permanent characterstic of a human being and I'd like to see evidence to the contrary if there is any.

I've personally known people who have gone from being attracted to the opposite sex to being attracted to the same sex. The arguments I've seen for homosexuality being innate seem dangerously close to being arguments from lack of imagination to me.

:headbang:
do that until you develop some sensibility.

When a guy in jail drops the soap in the showers, and is raped, that doesn't make him gay. And Bubba behind him isn't necessarily gay either, he's not doing it because he thinks the other guy is a total hottie; he's doing it to gain power, the take his masculinity away. When you're crazy, and you want to hurt people to get to the top, and your only weapon is your own body, it leads to things like that. Child molesters don't commit those crimes because they think kids are sexy, they do it for power. What's not sensible in that theory? Because yours doesn't seem to be working out to well..

To make a point the point I've been trying to make clearer, i agree that homosexuality is undeniably natural since it occurs in nature. What I don't understand is why people insist that just because it's natural it must be immutable and innate. I've never seen any strong evidence that this is the case, and my own personal experience is that people can change who they're attracted to over time. I'm sure there is some natural component, but I for one, don't think that sexual orientation is a permanent characterstic of a human being and I'd like to see evidence to the contrary if there is any.

I've personally known people who have gone from being attracted to the opposite sex to being attracted to the same sex. The arguments I've seen for homosexuality being innate seem dangerously close to being arguments from lack of imagination to me.

And if you try hard enough someday you may become a real boy, Pinocchio!

And if you try hard enough someday you may become a real boy, Pinochio!
Heh, there's a real mature argument. Oh well, I'm sure it sounded cool in your head. :rolleyes:

Heh, there's a real mature argument. Oh well, I'm sure it sounded cool in your head. :rolleyes:

Thank you. It did.

Glad you liked it.

Have any proof?

What kind of proof can you provide for that kind of statement anyway. Does it matter if it makes sense?

Everything in life is a choice, unless those choices are influenced by some external force.

With many genetic diseases you can be a carrier of the gene that gives you the disease without having the disease yourself. The 5 year old kid has the disease and dies but (for example) his sister carries the gene for the disease and passes it on to her son, who gets the disease and dies...
thats what im saying, so how could that not be applied to any gene for homosexuality?

(not that i believe there is any one gene, or any one cause, i just think the other guy was talking bullshit)

I've read that too. They thought it was due to an over-abundance of testosterone being present in the uterus (so ironically, gay men are super masculine, not effiminate ;) ). However to my knowledge that has neither been supportive or refuted since that time.
- I kind of remember having heard someone say Freud thought the same thing. Something about "dominating another member of the dominant sex".

Homosexuality is not natural, it is a choice we all make. - Well, let me be the first to give a big "so what?" on both points!

Natural does not equal good. And "choice" is a much more difficult word than you seem to believe.

That still is ridiculous. You shouldn't use the flaws of a language to speak for what you believe in. That may be so about ancient Greek but I have decided on my own that sexuality is not a choice. You should make the same choice on your own as well.
- I never said whether I thought sexuality to be a choice. My answer would probably be "yes and no" - but I really don't feel it matters.

I have no doubt that the first poster has managed to repress his sexual urges, and in that way I suppose it's a choice. But it's the "if I'm dirt-poor, sick and haven't eaten for days I can still choose to become the wealthiest man in the world" kind of choice. Only not as desireable :p
And, no, linguistic paradigm is not correct. Just call it a paradigm.
- "Paradigm" on it's own is cheesy :|

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.You fail to consider that sexual urges based on your sexual preference is not a choice. If you choose to be asexual, then I believe you are denying a vital part of your sexual and life experience.

I've personally known people who have gone from being attracted to the opposite sex to being attracted to the same sex. The arguments I've seen for homosexuality being innate seem dangerously close to being arguments from lack of imagination to me.
Or, these people might actually be bisexual. Stop being polar.

i think it's a matter of semantics; some people say that sexuality is whatever you EXPRESS (i.e. whoever you choose to act sexually with) while others believe sexuality also includes the sexual and romantic feelings that you don't act upon. of course we all can control how we express our sexuality, and we may even be able to ignore or repress many of the feelings and thoughts we have, but there will always be a level of our sexuality that is beyond conscious access. to try to deny its existence is probably unhealthy and definitely futile.

Or, these people might actually be bisexual. Stop being polar.
yeah, WHY DOES EVERYBODY FORGET ABOUT BISEXUALITY?! if a person thinks they are straight and then finds out they are attracted to same-sex individuals, why does that mean they are then gay? why can't they like both? and why does it mean their sexuality has changed, rather than that they have just discovered a new fascet to their sexuality that they previously had not experienced?

yeah, WHY DOES EVERYBODY FORGET ABOUT BISEXUALITY?! if a person thinks they are straight and then finds out they are attracted to same-sex individuals, why does that mean they are then gay? why can't they like both? and why does it mean their sexuality has changed, rather than that they have just discovered a new fascet to their sexuality that they previously had not experienced?
Quite. This bipolarity idea is rather contagious too. They might themselves claim that they've "changed" because they don't even consider that bisexuality exists. Bisexuals are often discriminated against even by gays. Such a stupid creature is the human.

Quite. This bipolarity idea is rather contagious too. They might themselves claim that they've "changed" because they don't even consider that bisexuality exists. Bisexuals are often discriminated against even by gays. Such a stupid creature is the human.
a gay male friend of mine refuses to believe bisexuality exists, and says its just gay people who dont want to admit theyre gay...

a gay male friend of mine refuses to believe bisexuality exists, and says its just gay people who dont want to admit theyre gay...
You could always ask him: In what way would admitting to be bisexual make life easier? Sexuality shouldn't be a political matter. Just goes to show that gays can be just as tunnel sighted as heteronormatives...

who you have sex with does not define your sexuality
really?

yeah, WHY DOES EVERYBODY FORGET ABOUT BISEXUALITY?! if a person thinks they are straight and then finds out they are attracted to same-sex individuals, why does that mean they are then gay? why can't they like both? and why does it mean their sexuality has changed, rather than that they have just discovered a new fascet to their sexuality that they previously had not experienced?

I've never understood heterosexuality or homosexuality. Call me a dirty ho, but I don't care whether the person who's got my penis in their mouth has a penis of their own.

EDIT: and this, by the way, is my choice. And I get annoyed by people telling me I'm "not really bi" because I feel I've chosen to be so, and that people who have sex mostly or exclusively with members of their own sex, and do so because they like it, and feel they could have sex with members of the opposite sex if they wanted, "aren't really gay". Since when was it up to you to decide the criteria for "being really gay"?

I've never understood heterosexuality or homosexuality. Call me a dirty ho, but I don't care whether the person who's got my penis in their mouth has a penis of their own.

EDIT: and this, by the way, is my choice. And I get annoyed by people telling me I'm "not really bi" because I feel I've chosen to be so, and that people who have sex mostly or exclusively with members of their own sex, and do so because they like it, and feel they could have sex with members of the opposite sex if they wanted, "aren't really gay". Since when was it up to you to decide the criteria for "being really gay"?
Elitism. If someone will accept either sex, they must be desperate, right? As if bisexuals couldn't possibly be picky, they simply have twice as many options in a lot of cases (everybody has an ass, for instance). Only someone with a fat fetisch would bonk really fat people, no matter what sexual orientation you have. Political homos and heteros are simply jealous that some people care more about having fun than identification and kissing a leader's ass.

[QUOTE=Armandian Cheese] I find sex repulsive, love wasteful and pointless, etc.

I pity you, you are missing out on some of the best things about being alive, you must lead a miserable life. Get help now !!

This whole thing is rather asinine.

Whether or not sexual orientation and sexuality are "choices" is primarily important only to the Puritan Misery Squad who wish them to be choices so that they may be condemned. Some small part of their brains recognizes that things that are not a choice cannot be called "immoral." For example, it would be silly to say breathing is immoral. Sorry, can't help it.

(Whether or not sexual orientation and sexuality are choices are of some importance to the opponents of the Puritan Misery Squad as a reason why homosexuality is not immoral. Also, some wish to avoid the folly of reorientation attempts. Perfectly understandable.)

The best scientific information we have indicates that sexual orientation is generally not a choice. Our answers are not definitive and we have a lot more to learn, but the evidence is mounting.

Homosexuality and bisexuality are not defects, diseases, or disorders. No major psychiatric, psychological, or medical organization so classifies them. That is, at best, playground psychology or Darwinism.

Consensual adult sexual conduct -- heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual -- is not immoral. So the question of whether it can be repressed is rather moot.

Grow up and quit exposing your ignorance and psuedo-science and trying to bash people with your morality wand.

Well, I think it's premature to claim homosexuality is caused by genetics. It could be, but I like George W. Bush's humble, honest admittance of the fact that we don't know. Human science hasn't gotten to the bottom of everything.

Yes, because George W. Bush is such an expert on science, or, well, anything. We have just as much evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality as we do for many common conditions that good ole' George (as well as most people) would have no problem saying we *know* are caused by genetics. But people think anything other than their own sexuality is "icky", therefore it can't possibly have a genetic component. After all, that might mean they're part gay! *Gasp!*

Sure, everything human beings do is a choice made. Some people choose to murder, some choose to rape or steal. Some people actually choose to do no harm to others at all.

WHo said anything about what people do? We are talking about who they are attracted to. Do you consciously decide who you are attracted to?

Firstly adressing the posts which suggests that sexuality is a choice and support this with evidence suggesting that people may 'become' gay later in life or experiemnt in their teens: sexuality is not something which you can measure as a quantity to be chosen, sexuality is fluid; who knows where heterosexual/homosexual drives come from, who knows why people may be attracted to the same sex at one point in their life and the opposite sex at another time- our sexuality changes and develops just as we change and develop. Our tastes change just as we do... sometimes our tastes and sexuality remain the same evn as we are changing. The bottom line being this:

1. Sexuality is not something we choose, it is not something which defines us.
2. Even if people could change their sexuality, why should they have to- for the pleasure of other people in society?
3. I don't think that sexuality is something which should be imposed upon others. If you do not like the idea of homosexuality- fine, don't partake in homosexual activity; but please, don't allow your own personal morals to affect consenting adults' sex lives- this is beyhond an imposition.

I would also like to add that asexuality is (just as homo/hetro-sexuality) not something which you choose- as an earlier post has stated... however, celebacy is. If you (I think your name is armanian cheese-apologies if i spelt that incorrectly) are happy being celebate, this is fine, many people of many different sexualitis abstain from sex, I would, however, ask you to consider that suggesting to someone that they are able to 'change' their sexuality is likened to somebody telling you to got out an have sex with as many people as possible.

Clearly you find the idea of sex offputting, this is fine, and your own decision, someone homosexual may find the idea of hetrosexual sex offputting, so to suggest that they can 'change this like you have' is not only categorically wrong (as you haven't changed your sexuality, you merely decline sex), but is insulting to people who have had to endure abuse due to their sexuality.

As far as i can see it there are two theories governing the masses. Evolution, and Creation. If the Creation Theory is the winner, homosexuality is forbidden by every major religion, Christianity, (Look at the bible for proof, sodom... fire... need i say more?) Islam, Hindu, Judiasm. Now, if they are all wrong then Evolution is the winner. But if you think about it, Darwin said that only the genotypes that would promote the species should suceed. He said to imagine all of the species with one specific genotype and see if it would promote the species. Homosexuality does not! IF we were all gay, no babies would come! Homosexuality is not natural, it is a choice we all make. Granted, some have more tendencies then the other, but i have had tendencies to kill someone, but i haven't done it now have I? ... well at least that you know about.. muhaaahaaaahaaa... btw.. I follow the prior theory, god is alive and cries at the perverse morals that the world has taken on. But we don't have to hurt the gays, just send them all to a island and they will all die off.... no babies... :) BUSH ROCKS!

(a) In the original scriptures, neither Christianity nor Judaism prohibit homosexuality. Only certain people's versions of them today do. Don't generalize so much.

(b) You have very little understanding of either evolution or biology. First off, a trait may increase reproductive efficiency in some and not in others (for instance, a gene contributing to increased fertility in women may contribute to homosexuality in men). On top of that, your brothers and sisters share half of their DNA with you, as do your parents and children. If a homosexual creature helps take care of siblings, nephews, and nieces, that creature is *increasing* the reproductive potential of his relatives, and thus increasing the chance that the genes in his lineage will be passed on.

And no, I don't need "help." My choice is simply a choice of sexuality. Is being gay a mental disorder? No. And neither is asexuality.

No, your choice is one of action, not sexuality.

All I will say to this thread is that anyone who "chooses" not to have sex either:

a) doesn't know what they are missing
b) was doing it wrong in the first place
c) is a big fat liar; it's not a choice, they just weren't getting any

Man on pumpkin sex is an unalienable right.

If a homosexual creature helps take care of siblings, nephews, and nieces, that creature is *increasing* the reproductive potential of his relatives, and thus increasing the chance that the genes in his lineage will be passed on.
You're right. We'll have to squash the problem at the source. Killing them freaks isn't enough, we gotta make sure the entire family and all close relatives are exterminated so the normal people can feel safe and are fully free to slowly die out from inbreeding. What a worthy way that would be of terminating a species.

Well, that establishes that homosexuality occurs in nature, which isn't really a surprise. That doesn't establish in any way whatsoever that one's sexuality is immutable.

I did a little looking around since you didn't provide sources, and found this (http://www.sensualism.com/gay/). Anyway, if these are the gay penguins you're talking about, then the fact that they were raised in captivity and relative isolation seems like an argument in favor of sexuality being changeable. Since the penguins spent all their time together, they were each others most natural choice of mates. We have no way of knowing what their 'innate' sexual preference may have been, but they chose homosexuality when no other option was available.

Of course, there are probably gay penguins in the wild, but that doesn't mean it's neccesarily innate either - different penguins will have experienced slightly diffferent childhoods etc.

Having said all this, I believe that there probably is an innate component to sexuality, but I think people way overemphasize it. I think choice is a much bigger factor than a lot of people seem to think.


I generally don't like appeals to authority or to emotion or to personal experience. But are you gay or heterosexual? Have you considered changing your sexuality? And have you done it?

While I do not argue it may not be possible for some people to change their sexuality (though I believe it equally as likely that they were really bisexual the whole time), I am, in fact, a gay well-read, intelligent, very introspective man and I know its not a choice--at least nto for me or for those that I've had very long conversations on in the matter. I don't need science to tell me what personal experience can better.

a gay male friend of mine refuses to believe bisexuality exists, and says its just gay people who dont want to admit theyre gay...

I think a lot of that has to do with the progression that many gay men go through. Many who feel little or know attraction towards women will originally come out of the closet as bisexual, because it seems to them that people will accept them more if they still say they might like girls. I remember a friend of mine telling me when he first started to come out that he was bisexual because he wanted to have kids one day - which makes no sense.

Eventually, these guys realize that they aren't really bisexual, at least not to any large degree, and thus think that those who truly are attracted to both sexes must be faking it as well.

You're right. We'll have to squash the problem at the source. Killing them freaks isn't enough, we gotta make sure the entire family and all close relatives are exterminated so the normal people can feel safe and are fully free to slowly die out from inbreeding. What a worthy way that would be of terminating a species.

agre @ 200% :sniper:

(a) In the original scriptures, neither Christianity nor Judaism prohibit homosexuality. Only certain people's versions of them today do. Don't generalize so much.

(b) You have very little understanding of either evolution or biology. First off, a trait may increase reproductive efficiency in some and not in others (for instance, a gene contributing to increased fertility in women may contribute to homosexuality in men). On top of that, your brothers and sisters share half of their DNA with you, as do your parents and children. If a homosexual creature helps take care of siblings, nephews, and nieces, that creature is *increasing* the reproductive potential of his relatives, and thus increasing the chance that the genes in his lineage will be passed on.


Word up, I wish I could've said that as well as you!

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

YOu say that you are a sexulal, then you sir are the freak, only 1% of the population are asexual, it is far higher then that for homosexuals and even higher for heteros, the simple fact is that it is not a choice or people would not kill them selves over the shame that they feel for having sexual feelings they have towards their own sex. (granted this is uncommon now but in the late part of the 19th centuary it aparently accounted for about a quarter of all suisides, and the number is still high in LEDC's such as many muslim countries)

some study showed that homos and straights have different types of brains lets not get into detail but another recent study showed that the brain can change from say straight to gay or gay to straight to hetero and so on depending on actions. what you feed your mind and your body determines who you are sexually or not

I disagree with this statement. I am sure you are referring to a few articles which suggest enlarged ventricles to be correlated with homosexuality. There are just as many studies which refute this, so in the end we still don’t know. Also, if this were true, no amount of cognitive restructuring/eating healthy foods/etc. would ever change the amount of CSF in a ventricle and thus change our sexuality.

Armandian Cheese, if you are asexual i would have thought you'd have the free unclouded brain power to work out the flaws in what you're saying.

Many people have probably said this before but i'll say it again anyway.

Sexuality is not a matter of who you have sex with, i was gay before i had sex (though i didn't know it i was only 12 at the time).

Heterosexual people are heterosexual even if they dont have sex, some never do at that doesnt stop them ebing heterosexual.

Who you have sex with is a choice, not who you want to have sex with.

You COMPLETELY misinterpreted me. I have heterosexual urges. Why? Because I'm a teenager! I have no control over my hormones. However, I can control my mind, and I have made the choice to disavow sex, and romantic behavior. I became anti-sexual because of a logical, rational choice. My point is that people shouldn't allow their natural leanings to determine their fate. We all have original leanings, but we can mold and steer our minds.

I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. Sexuality and Sex are very different. What you are referring to is your choice not to have sex, however you still have a sexuality as evidenced by your normal heterosexual urges. The GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) population have a difference in their sexuality. They can suppress their urges (as you have done) but that would not make them asexual (as it does not make you asexual, just celibate). If you are stating that anyone can uphold a celibate lifestyle, I tend to agree with you (except in some rare cases where mental disorder are in place). However, if you are stating others can change sexuality, I must say that you are most likely wrong…

Oh my, i would certainly like to get to know you and your rational better Cheese.

All right I've come to a masterful conclusion using my non-existant deductive skill:
-If you don't have sex than you are an asexual!
My source is the very first post and in using that post my idea is infallable. I also deduce:
-The person who started this thread has no concept over sexality having none himself.
Wow, there's just no stopping me. And I don't even need proof to back up my logic:
-People who don't have sex have a strong will even if they want to have sex, have no sex drive or would rather be doing it with someone else.
Once again I use the irrifutable evidence of the first post. And just to top it all off:
-This has all been sarcasm up to this point. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex but with the fact you are attracted to a certain gender. This is the first and last time I will express my view because I know I'm not going to change any minds. No matter how hard you try you can not change your sexual orientation just by sleeping with the sex you are not attracted to.

Now for the unpreety aftermath:
-That was sarcasm, no way.
-You mean that wasn't sarcasm.
-You mean you didn't know.
-That was sarcasm too.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.


I choose not to have sex. I know lots of alcoholics who choose not to drink alcohol. It doesn't make them "not alcoholics". Sex is more or less biologically programmed, to continue the life of the species, as eating and sleeping are biologically programmed to continue life of the individual. some preferences may also be programmed, as are certain food preferences. Certain abhorances may also be programmed, once again, as are food abhorances. Think of the food you dislike the most... what could induce you to eat it? There are foods that trigger an automatic gag reflex for me, and if you force me to eat them, I will vomit. I suppose, under torture/brain washing, you could train me to eat it....that wouldn't mean that I had learned to like it. Again, there are foods that are not programmed, and that one can learn to eat, and prefer.

My mother, who has been celibate for decades, still thinks bearded men are attractive. She still thinks really skinny men are ugly. Her male friends are hefty and bearded. She has a preference, even though she choses not to have sex, even, no longer desires it.

Sexuality for many is terrribly fluid. it does not come in a neat little box. Choosing to *call* yourself heterosexual or homeosexual is a choice. What you are naturally attracted to is not. What you learn to prefer depends upon many factors. I know a man who is only attracted to women. He wishes he were attracted to men, because men seem to be more attracted to him them women are. If he could choose, he would choose to date in both genders. But for him, nothing sexual can happen when he is with a man. If someone asks me if I am gay, I say no. and if someone asks me if I am straight, I say mostly. (Unless they are actually trying to pick me up, when i wish that I could convey that I dont want to be sexual with anyone, thank you, but no one ever believes that). I find human beings attractive, some more attractive than others. Very few of them do I find sexually attractive, and most of those are men.
Some people have a strong sexuality, and some have almost no sexual needs. I suspect it is hormone related. You and I may have low sexual needs, and we are perhaps more fortunate that we are not so driven by our biologies. We can choose. Others are more ruled by their hormones. Rather than condemn them, pity them. Tolerate them. Even better, get to know and learn to love them. Or not, as you choose.

Some people have a strong sexuality, and some have almost no sexual needs. I suspect it is hormone related. You and I may have low sexual needs, and we are perhaps more fortunate that we are not so driven by our biologies. We can choose. Others are more ruled by their hormones. Rather than condemn them, pity them. Tolerate them. Even better, get to know and learn to love them. Or not, as you choose.
Well said Tortuga! (although it's a bit off the original topic!) I guess as a girl I'm luckier than guys. I'd hate to be a guy and be constantly 'distracted'. Fortunately I can just get on with life and not have to think about sex every few seconds...

Well said Tortuga! (although it's a bit off the original topic!) I guess as a girl I'm luckier than guys. I'd hate to be a guy and be constantly 'distracted'. Fortunately I can just get on with life and not have to think about sex every few seconds...

That study that says men think about sex every 7 seconds is wrong. There is no possible way that a man could hang on a sexual thought every seven seconds; there would be no time for a real life.

As for me, I only think about sex once or twice a day. Usually.

That study that says men think about sex every 7 seconds is wrong. There is no possible way that a man could hang on a sexual thought every seven seconds; there would be no time for a real life.

As for me, I only think about sex once or twice a day. Usually.

You can have subconscious thoughts.

Yes, because George W. Bush is such an expert on science, or, well, anything. We have just as much evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality as we do for many common conditions that good ole' George (as well as most people) would have no problem saying we *know* are caused by genetics. But people think anything other than their own sexuality is "icky", therefore it can't possibly have a genetic component. After all, that might mean they're part gay! *Gasp!*
People, GW may not be an expert on science, but he knows enough to know that we don't know. If that makes any sense. It's foolish to come to conclusions before having all the facts.

People, GW may not be an expert on science, but he knows enough to know that we don't know. If that makes any sense. It's foolish to come to conclusions before having all the facts.

Judging from some of the tape recorded interviews of him just before he became president in 2000 (these being the tapes that also more or less confirmed that he at least did marijuana as a youth) I don't actually think Bush is a homophobe. It is likely the case that the only reason he championed this amendment to ban gay marriage was to please what was, at the time, an increasingly restless anti-gay constituency. Notice that he hardly stumps for it at all now that he's been reelected. By contrast, he's been pushing this Social Security bit like mad, and this one has as much a chance as that amendment at getting passed by this point.

People, GW may not be an expert on science, but he knows enough to know that we don't know. If that makes any sense. It's foolish to come to conclusions before having all the facts.
Says the man who started a thread titled: "Homosexuality IS a choice...As is Heterosexuality..."
:rolleyes:

Yeah you obviously gather all facts before spouting bullshit conclusions.

Says the man who started a thread titled: "Homosexuality IS a choice...As is Heterosexuality..."
:rolleyes:

Yeah you obviously gather all facts before spouting bullshit conclusions.
Ah, but you are mistaken. Obviously, you people haven't read anything, just skimmed and pullded out "BS conclusions." I have no idea what causes initial leanings---and I don't care. What I am saying is that it can be changed LATER ON. Ah, and I'm not just celibate---mentally, I am disgusted and loathe sex. What my body does I don't really care. Hormonal fluctuations should not determine one's fate. While it is obviously a long, exhaustive, and taxing process, I believed sexuality can be changed, just like tastebuds. The human mind is capable of adapting to anything.

Ah, but you are mistaken. Obviously, you people haven't read anything, just skimmed and pullded out "BS conclusions." I have no idea what causes initial leanings---and I don't care. What I am saying is that it can be changed LATER ON. Ah, and I'm not just celibate---mentally, I am disgusted and loathe sex. What my body does I don't really care. Hormonal fluctuations should not determine one's fate. While it is obviously a long, exhaustive, and taxing process, I believed sexuality can be changed, just like tastebuds. The human mind is capable of adapting to anything.
Thats still a bullshit conclusion according to the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association. Since they are scientists and do that kind of thing for a living I tend to trust their conclusions that sexuality can not and should not be changed. You on the other hand are a teenager on the internet trying to explain your (flawed) reasoning behind changing sexuality. Therefore you are still spouting bullshit conclusions.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
-APA (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html)

Therefore you are still spouting bullshit conclusions.

As are you. I don't see any letters after your name.

Has it ever ocurred to you that the contributors to the APA might have been put under pressure to make sure that all the entries were politically correct?

That they themselves might be biased in favor of a false theory of sexuality?

That a proofreader or editor may have changed what the doctor intended to write for the benefit of the publishing company wanted? Or even that the proofreader or editor may have inserted there own bias into the controversial entries?

In print != true.

As are you. I don't see any letters after your name.

Has it ever ocurred to you that the contributors to the APA might have been put under pressure to make sure that all the entries were politically correct?

That they themselves might be biased in favor of a false theory of sexuality?

That a proofreader or editor may have changed what the doctor intended to write for the benefit of the publishing company wanted? Or even that the proofreader or editor may have inserted there own bias into the controversial entries?

In print != true.
Problem with that is, I'm not spouting my own BS. I showed the information supplied by the most qualified organization in this matter. I don't need to be an PhD to quote one.

Also as for that other stuff, now you're just grasping at straws. They are a non biased highly respected scientific body composed of many people with many different politcal views.

Now as far as your stellar proof reader theory goes. :rolleyes: Yes because there is one proofreader for the APA and he has ultimate control over the content it releases. This information comes from peer reviewed scientific journals, not some highschool book report.

Now about the absolute accuracy of this information, its as reliable as any psychological theory. If new information comes to light to dispute these findings they will be changed, until then this is the best we have.

As are you. I don't see any letters after your name.

Which is why reference to authoritative sources -- such as organizations of individuals that do have letters after their name -- is better than pulling shit out of your ass.

Has it ever ocurred to you that the contributors to the APA might have been put under pressure to make sure that all the entries were politically correct?

That they themselves might be biased in favor of a false theory of sexuality?

That a proofreader or editor may have changed what the doctor intended to write for the benefit of the publishing company wanted? Or even that the proofreader or editor may have inserted there own bias into the controversial entries?

In print != true.

The American Psychiatric Association,American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers have all passed public resolutions -- which include detailed summaries of clinical evidence -- rejecting the idea that homosexuality is an illness, can be cured, or should be treated with "conversion" or "reparative" therapy.

Compared to their combined opinions, the rantings of a sexually repressed 16 year old are properly called bullshit.

And "[i]n print != true" is a truism. It is also easily abused by those who simply wish to dismiss facts and more authoritative resources.

I'm thinking this thread should have been more accurately titled:

Girls are icky and have cooties!

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

Just because a person is gay, does not mean that they are in the relationship for a sexual purpose. IF I was gay (I'm currently questioning my sexuality, without going into detail), I would be in the relationship out of LOVE, not desire. They tie in, yes, but they are still two completely different things. So, by saying the above, are you automatically assuming that gays are only in it for sex? I can certainly tell you, that if that is the case, you're completely wrong.

PS: I know this is 34 pages into the topic, sorry, I just had to voice my opinion.

Why does it matter if it's genetic or a choice? It doesn't hurt anybody else, so it's none of your business.

As are you. I don't see any letters after your name.

Has it ever ocurred to you that the contributors to the APA might have been put under pressure to make sure that all the entries were politically correct?

That they themselves might be biased in favor of a false theory of sexuality?

That a proofreader or editor may have changed what the doctor intended to write for the benefit of the publishing company wanted? Or even that the proofreader or editor may have inserted there own bias into the controversial entries?

In print != true.

What world of liberal conspiracies do you live in? You do realize that peer-reviewed journals aren't editted/proofread by one person--the most relaxed I know of require at least three independant reviewers, and most require more.

Further, scientific professional organizations tend to not be based on political idealogies (while individuals members might be) and instead base their views upon the best understanding we have. If you disagree with them, maybe you should see who is using bias . . . .

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

personally i think that arguement is bull

that is like saying that if your colour blind you are normal as long as you close your eyes