NationStates Jolt Archive

K, so this thread was sorta inspired by the sexuality poll but also by something that happened to me at school a few days ago, which involved a friend turning out to be not so much of one, or something like that.
The background to it is basically that I go to an all-girls school, and we are all generally used to being called lesbians by the local chav-types, and ironically enough, some of us have actually turned out to be. Now I was sitting with a friend of mine who is thus inclined and with a few other decidedly straight friends a few days ago, and we were talking about her and a 'crush' her and her gf (who also goes to our school) have on our gym teacher and we were just generally joking around about the idea of fancying girls because I am bisexual/bicurious myself, and it ended up being the general opinion of everyone that me and my friend fancy various teachers. And basically a laugh was had by all.
My dilemma is that ever since that day my straight friends who were sitting by me have been acting rather odd around me, and have made it quite obvious that it is because of this conversation, although they already knew I was at least interested in other girls. These aren't particularly close friends and so far all I've done about it is laugh at their up-tightness but it's got me thinking a lot about how bothered these girls are by this, girls who I thought were as realxed about such things as me, and I really don't know how to deal with it. Was I in the wrong for talking like this if it make them uncomfortable? Is sexuality not a good topic to be joked about? Is it bad that I'm curious?! Any advice lol?!?! :headbang:

Some people just need to lighten up, that's all.

Hello sweetheart. Please never feel that the problem lies with you. It lies with those who judge you on something as insignificant as your sexuality. Be proud to be individual and understand this - these people a still young, they are afraid of what they do not understand.

There are two types of people who never question their sexuality - those who are unaware of an alternative sexuality, and those to afraid to seek it. :fluffle:

I hope I've helped - if I sound patronising though, please let me know, I live and learn.

Just remember that the ones who matter don't mind and the ones who mind don't matter.

If they value a friendship with you, they'll get over themselves and at least talk to you. But if it were me, I'd confront them directly about their actions/reactions and ask them to tell me directly what they're thinking.

K, so this thread was sorta inspired by the sexuality poll but also by something that happened to me at school a few days ago, which involved a friend turning out to be not so much of one, or something like that.
The background to it is basically that I go to an all-girls school, and we are all generally used to being called lesbians by the local chav-types, and ironically enough, some of us have actually turned out to be. Now I was sitting with a friend of mine who is thus inclined and with a few other decidedly straight friends a few days ago, and we were talking about her and a 'crush' her and her gf (who also goes to our school) have on our gym teacher and we were just generally joking around about the idea of fancying girls because I am bisexual/bicurious myself, and it ended up being the general opinion of everyone that me and my friend fancy various teachers. And basically a laugh was had by all.
My dilemma is that ever since that day my straight friends who were sitting by me have been acting rather odd around me, and have made it quite obvious that it is because of this conversation, although they already knew I was at least interested in other girls. These aren't particularly close friends and so far all I've done about it is laugh at their up-tightness but it's got me thinking a lot about how bothered these girls are by this, girls who I thought were as realxed about such things as me, and I really don't know how to deal with it. Was I in the wrong for talking like this if it make them uncomfortable? Is sexuality not a good topic to be joked about? Is it bad that I'm curious?! Any advice lol?!?! :headbang:

Most likely, you have made them confront issues of their own attractions... and that has made them uncomfortable.

Those who react most strongly against perceived homosexual/bisexual activity, are often hiding something about themselves.

I wouldn't let it worry you, if I were you. If they were true friends, they'll be back once the shock wears off... If they were not, you lost nothing.

I hope I've helped - if I sound patronising though, please let me know, I live and learn.

No, you haven't at all. Thank you for the advice. It's just me and my more close friends and even my school have never had any problem with anything like sexuality. I mean my lesbian friend (lol tis funny to call her that) is one of the most popular girls in school, and I know that would definitely not happen many other places simply because of her sexuality. Come to think of it everyone's all very liberal about stuff like that :)
But I always thought these particalar friends were too. They're all very open-minded and generally cool most of the time, and I just thought they would be with this too. But I s'pose I can't really complain, I know a lot of people have it far worse when coming to terms with their sexuality.
Now I just have to tell my mother :p ....

There are two types of people who never question their sexuality - those who are unaware of an alternative sexuality, and those to afraid to seek it. :fluffle:
Um... you forgot those of us who just have no interest in the alternative.

But, hey, since I prefer women I must therefore be afraid to seek out homosexual relationships. :rolleyes:

No, you haven't at all. Thank you for the advice. It's just me and my more close friends and even my school have never had any problem with anything like sexuality. I mean my lesbian friend (lol tis funny to call her that) is one of the most popular girls in school, and I know that would definitely not happen many other places simply because of her sexuality. Come to think of it everyone's all very liberal about stuff like that :)
But I always thought these particalar friends were too. They're all very open-minded and generally cool most of the time, and I just thought they would be with this too. But I s'pose I can't really complain, I know a lot of people have it far worse when coming to terms with their sexuality.
Now I just have to tell my mother :p ....

If you are still just 'curious', you really don't have any need to tell your mother yet, unless you feel you want to.

Just don't get caught kissing girls, if you haven't told her... that'll let her know for sure. :)

My children already know that I don't care one way or the other what their sexuality may be - the oldest is 12 - but we've had the discussion because they ask about what they see in real life.

I've told them that I'd rather they felt I was someone they could trust.

I have also told my daughter (she's 12) that regardless, she shouldn't worry about being in any sort of serious relationship until she gets older. Not that I believe she won't experiment without my knowledge, but I want her to stay focused on having fun, finishing her education, and getting out into the real world before attaching herself to a human boat anchor (male or female).

Yeah, on this issue just go with whatever you feel like and screw anyone who tells you different. For what its worth, I'm backing you all the way.

BTW, Angelica, those that shun you because of your sexuality are not your friends. I suggest you shun them and find friends who will accept you for who you are.

I have a few homosexual and bisexual friends. They're great people. I don't agree with their lifestyles, but that's doesn't keep me from being friends with them.

Was I in the wrong for talking like this if it make them uncomfortable?

Is sexuality not a good topic to be joked about?

Is it bad that I'm curious?
No, you weren't wrong, it's their problem.

Nothing wrong with joking about sexuality.

It is great that's you're curious. ;)

I don't agree with their lifestyles, but that's doesn't keep me from being friends with them.
It always amuses em when people refer to sexuality as a "lifestyle". Care to explain?

It always amuses em when people refer to sexuality as a "lifestyle". Care to explain?
It means they look down on homosexuals, but are beating around the bush.

It's also possible that they feel threatened by you now, because they are afraid that you'll be atracted to them. You go to an all girl's school, so most of the girls probably arn't used to dealing with sexual advances, and they might be afraid of this sexual tension that really isn't there.

It always amuses em when people refer to sexuality as a "lifestyle". Care to explain?
It means that I believe it's a choice. I've yet to see any conclusive, concrete proof that homosexuality is genetic, so I believe it's a choice...a "lifestyle".

That does NOT mean I look down on them. It just means that we live different lifestyles. Their lifestyle doesn't directly affect me, so why should I judge them or shun them? They're my friends.

Are you saying I should stop being friends with them because they're homosexual? :confused:

What about someone who doesn't actually act on their homosexual inclinations. Is their homosexuality a "lifestyle" too? Most people don't choose to have homosexual desires.

I think "orientation" is a more accurate term.

What about someone who doesn't actually act on their homosexual inclinations. Is their homosexuality a "lifestyle" too? Most people don't choose to have homosexual desires.

I think "orientation" is a more accurate term.
OKAY OKAY... semantics. *ugh*

But you understand my position.

The fact that you like one sex or another is your orientation
The fact that you go out with them/marry them/have sex with them/avoid them/whatever is your lifestyle.
can anyone agree on these definitions?

Um... you forgot those of us who just have no interest in the alternative.

But, hey, since I prefer women I must therefore be afraid to seek out homosexual relationships. :rolleyes:

It was said that there are two types of people who don't QUESTION their sexuality. Not seek out homosexual relationships.
Can you honestly say you've never been in a conversation like this one and thought "do I like people of my own gender?"
Even for a moment...then dismissed it with "nah."
That's the norm.

It means that I believe it's a choice. I've yet to see any conclusive, concrete proof that homosexuality is genetic, so I believe it's a choice...a "lifestyle".

Actually, there was recently a study of pheremones...pheromones...however you spell that, I'm lazy and tired...that revealed pretty conclusive evidence. There is a substance in men's sweat that causes a reaction in the brain of women and gay men. There was no reaction whatsoever in the brain activity of straight men.

Really interesting article, too...wonder where that link went? Hmm...

Never let anyone tell you that you are wrong for feeling the way that you do. As someone who has lived through this experience, I can say that you will come out of it much stronger than you went in, whether you decide to label yourself as "gay", "bi", or straight. Knowing WHO you are is the greatest lesson you will ever learn and it should be cherished regardless of what anyone says.

and screw anyone who tells you different.

I think that's what they're worried about :p ;)

On topic - Your reaction was perfect. Don't stress about this, they'll come around if they're good friends, and if they weren't, well, you didn't lose any good friends.

What about someone who doesn't actually act on their homosexual inclinations.
That's called celibacy.

PS. Thanks for clarifying Texaspundistan

Meh, it's no big deal. Nobody can help, nor should they even care about, who they are attracted to. On the subject of whether homosexuality is natural... there are gay animals, and gay people. People will not be identical, especially in something as gray as physical attraction. The only way that'd happen is if we rolled off the production line.

Myself, I find myself attracted to a few guys, and I'm about 75% lesbian. But I'm asexual enough to just not be attracted to intercourse of pretty much any form. I like "close" contact, but just not that. It doesn't bother me either way. Like practically everyone else has said... it's not anything to be concerned about.

Most likely, you have made them confront issues of their own attractions... and that has made them uncomfortable.

Those who react most strongly against perceived homosexual/bisexual activity, are often hiding something about themselves.

I wouldn't let it worry you, if I were you. If they were true friends, they'll be back once the shock wears off... If they were not, you lost nothing.

I agree. Possibly some latent issues of their own. I can see no reason for discomfort otherwise. People don't "turn" gay. It's biological... the brain is different. This has been proven in studies. I'm not saying the environment doesn't play a part, but it's a very small part.

I didn't wake up one morning and say "Yep, I think I'll be straight." I don't believe anyone wakes up one day and says "Yep, I'm going to be gay." It's something you are or aren't and I wish people would quit making such a fuss over it. Although, I find extremely flaming gay men humorous. The stereotypical types.

Although, I find extremely flaming gay men humorous. The stereotypical types.

Haha, like my friend...let's call him "Doug."
Putting on the stereotype is all part of a day's work for him...it's insane, because he's an incredibly intelligent and likeable person, but when he's in "flamer" mode, he goes beserk and annoys the bejeebers out of anyone within a 5 mile radius of him.
'Though I do love him to death...I would love him more if he would just be himself.

heya, im bisexual too, and its not easy to get on with gay women, they dont like bi girls because they are scared that if we get in a relationship we will turn 'straight' really does my head in, its jus because theya re insecure themselves , grrrr!!!!!!!!! if people cant except you for who and what you are then as far as im concerned, that aint mates! gay, straight bi, black or white.

screw anyone who tells you different.

There is nothing wrong with telling someone that they are different. Obviously, sinse Gay/bi people make up around 10% of the population, they are "different" than the rest of the population in that respect. Does that meen that they are inferior, or don't deserve to be treated like human beings? Of coarse not. Perhaps "screw anyone who scorns you because you are different" would work better.

**Sorry, but this already seemed to be becomming a PCness war, so I thought that I would put my proverbial two cents in.**

It means that I believe it's a choice. I've yet to see any conclusive, concrete proof that homosexuality is genetic, so I believe it's a choice...a "lifestyle".

That does NOT mean I look down on them. It just means that we live different lifestyles. Their lifestyle doesn't directly affect me, so why should I judge them or shun them? They're my friends.

Are you saying I should stop being friends with them because they're homosexual? :confused:It *really* angers me when I hear people use "lifestyle" to describe homosexuality. My "gay lifestyle" is getting up every morning before 6 a.m., getting showered, dressed, going to work, putting in my eight hours, and getting home and getting on the computer before I go to bed. What kind of "lifestyle" is that? :rolleyes:

The only "choice" that's involved is the "choice" to either deny your true self or admit to yourself whom you love and whether or not it's worth the ridicule or the risk that you could get fired from your job, or even killed to admit it to someone else.

I agree. Possibly some latent issues of their own. I can see no reason for discomfort otherwise. People don't "turn" gay. It's biological... the brain is different. This has been proven in studies. I'm not saying the environment doesn't play a part, but it's a very small part.

I didn't wake up one morning and say "Yep, I think I'll be straight." I don't believe anyone wakes up one day and says "Yep, I'm going to be gay." It's something you are or aren't and I wish people would quit making such a fuss over it. Although, I find extremely flaming gay men humorous. The stereotypical types.

While I am tempted towards the direction that some people are genetically more 'gay' or 'straight' than others... I think everyone has the potential to experience both 'gay' and 'straight' attractions.

I also believe that anyone who says they have NEVER experienced (at least once) both forms of attraction, must be very non-self-aware... or just in denial. That's not to say you ever act on it, but I think everyone occasionally has perceptive moments.

But, I agree - I certainly don't believe anyone ever wakes up and looks at the clock... stretches, yawns... and says "Tuesday, already? Guess I'm gay today"...

But, I agree - I certainly don't believe anyone ever wakes up and looks at the clock... stretches, yawns... and says "Tuesday, already? Guess I'm gay today"...


Lol, I actually have a friend who has a running joke just like that. He actually has his weeks planned. Mon-straight, Tue-Gay, Wed-Gay, Thr-Bi. . .you get the idea. Every monday when I would see him in the morning on Monday, he would say "Don't worry, you're safe today. It's monday, I straight today." It's preaty funny. And to be honest, I'm not sure what his orientation actually is, and I really don't care.
You see, the only time that I get involved in the lifestyles of others, is when that lifestyle (which they have controll over) gets them sick or injured and I end up paying for it either through tax dollars or medical costs. And I don't care if your gay or straight, if you get AIDS or the like from sleeping around, I don't like paying for it. The main problem with homosexuals I have is not with the individuals, but with the community in general. The fact is, no matter how much they try to deny it, the gay population has the highest AIDS and other STD ratings than any other group. All I want is for them to police their own behavior. (Again, I say the same thing to promiscuous people of all orientations)

I agree. Possibly some latent issues of their own. I can see no reason for discomfort otherwise. People don't "turn" gay. It's biological... the brain is different. This has been proven in studies. I'm not saying the environment doesn't play a part, but it's a very small part.

I didn't wake up one morning and say "Yep, I think I'll be straight." I don't believe anyone wakes up one day and says "Yep, I'm going to be gay." It's something you are or aren't and I wish people would quit making such a fuss over it. Although, I find extremely flaming gay men humorous. The stereotypical types.

I have to respectfully disagree. And I will argue my point on a purely scientific basis. Any gene that would make someone's brain "different" in the sense that they are inavertantly homosexual, or even have homosexual tendancies, would not have survived if one followed the laws of natural selection and heredity. In the stone age, humans who did not have sex with the opposite gender could not have passed their genes. Therefore, the "gay" gene would not have been passed on either. Therefore, by now, it would not exist. And if it did, it would be so rare that I highly doubt that it would be effecting as many people as are gay. (maybe 5% at most) This leaves the sexual orientation as a personal choice and a choice only. And as individuals, they should not be afraid to stand up for the choice that they made and stop trying to "pass the blame" to something that they cannot controll. That is the act of a coward.


So, all of this said, do you think that I am homophobic?

I have to respectfully disagree. And I will argue my point on a purely scientific basis. Any gene that would make someone's brain "different" in the sense that they are inavertantly homosexual, or even have homosexual tendancies, would not have survived if one followed the laws of natural selection and heredity. In the stone age, humans who did not have sex with the opposite gender could not have passed their genes one. Therefore, the "gay" gene would not have been passed on either. Therefore, by now, it would not exist. And if it did, it would be so rare that I highly doubt that it would be effecting as many people as are gay. (maybe 5% at most) This leaves the sexual orientation as a personal choice and a choice only. And as individuals, they should not be afraid to stand up for the choice that they made and stop trying to "pass the blame" to something that they cannot controll. That is the act of a coward.




Then answer me this? There are gay animals. By your logic, they cannot exist. But they do. I'd love to put it into flowery speech... but it's only a question.

Lol, I actually have a friend who has a running joke just like that. He actually has his weeks planned. Mon-straight, Tue-Gay, Wed-Gay, Thr-Bi. . .you get the idea. Every monday when I would see him in the morning on Monday, he would say "Don't worry, you're safe today. It's monday, I straight today." It's preaty funny. And to be honest, I'm not sure what his orientation actually is, and I really don't care.
You see, the only time that I get involved in the lifestyles of others, is when that lifestyle (which they have controll over) gets them sick or injured and I end up paying for it either through tax dollars or medical costs. And I don't care if your gay or straight, if you get AIDS or the like from sleeping around, I don't like paying for it. The main problem with homosexuals I have is not with the individuals, but with the community in general. The fact is, no matter how much they try to deny it, the gay population has the highest AIDS and other STD ratings than any other group. All I want is for them to police their own behavior. (Again, I say the same thing to promiscuous people of all orientations)



I have to respectfully disagree. And I will argue my point on a purely scientific basis. Any gene that would make someone's brain "different" in the sense that they are inavertantly homosexual, or even have homosexual tendancies, would not have survived if one followed the laws of natural selection and heredity. In the stone age, humans who did not have sex with the opposite gender could not have passed their genes. Therefore, the "gay" gene would not have been passed on either. Therefore, by now, it would not exist. And if it did, it would be so rare that I highly doubt that it would be effecting as many people as are gay. (maybe 5% at most) This leaves the sexual orientation as a personal choice and a choice only. And as individuals, they should not be afraid to stand up for the choice that they made and stop trying to "pass the blame" to something that they cannot controll. That is the act of a coward.


So, all of this said, do you think that I am homophobic?

No but your making definates in situations you can't prove it. You sound so very sure...but no one else in the whole world of billions of people can prove it. And I stand by the fact I never decided to be gay.

The main problem with homosexuals I have is not with the individuals, but with the community in general. The fact is, no matter how much they try to deny it, the gay population has the highest AIDS and other STD ratings than any other group.

I need to see a site to back this up... all the evidence currently implies that you are very very wrong.

And logic, of course...

Lesbians, not having 'ejaculatory, penetrative sex', are very unlikely vectors for many diseases.

I have to respectfully disagree. And I will argue my point on a purely scientific basis. Any gene that would make someone's brain "different" in the sense that they are inavertantly homosexual, or even have homosexual tendancies, would not have survived if one followed the laws of natural selection and heredity. In the stone age, humans who did not have sex with the opposite gender could not have passed their genes. Therefore, the "gay" gene would not have been passed on either. Therefore, by now, it would not exist. And if it did, it would be so rare that I highly doubt that it would be effecting as many people as are gay. (maybe 5% at most) This leaves the sexual orientation as a personal choice and a choice only. And as individuals, they should not be afraid to stand up for the choice that they made and stop trying to "pass the blame" to something that they cannot controll. That is the act of a coward.


So, all of this said, do you think that I am homophobic?

No, not homophobic, but...consider this.
As I've already stated, there was a study published just a few weeks (a month?) ago that indicates that there is a very small portion of the brain that controls attraction. The study was over pheremones released from sweating...and it found that, in straight women and gay men, pheremones caused a very strong reaction...not one we can detect, physically, but it does cause us to be somewhat more atuned to this person, for possible "attractions" or whatnot.
This reaction did not occur in lesbians, nor in straight men.
I believe it to be genetic, but...I guess that was obvious from the get-go? =)

'Though I do love him to death...I would love him more if he would just be himself.
Argh! I have a friend like that! He's really very bookish and adorable, but when he first came out, he acquired his pretentious flaming "gay" persona, and it annoyed the sh** out of me. It was especially ironic that he used "keep it real, darling" as his personal catchphrase. I understand that at that time of his life, he had a lot of identity stuff to work through, and a whole new gay world to explore when he moved to the city, but pretension makes my blood boil. We used to argue about it all the time, but now he's integrated his sexuality into his identity, and is confident in the support of his friends and family, it's nice to have my old friend back. Especially when he takes a "sickie" to go shoe shopping with me.

Then answer me this? There are gay animals. By your logic, they cannot exist. But they do. I'd love to put it into flowery speech... but it's only a question.

Which particular species are you talking about so that I may be on the same page. (especially seeing as how most animals do not engage in sexual intercoarse for pleasure, only to reproduce) Anyways, gays obviously exist, but they are no different than straights other than the choices they make. Even if there were minorly potent "gay traits" present, they are still only what they choose to be. Under the logic of the "gay gene" one could also say that rapists, theves, etc, are only that way because of their genes. Does that sound as absurd to you as it does to me? Again, as many of you immediately like to come after me even though I am not speaking against gays but because I am not going along with the fad theory, I will say that I have nothing against homosexuals. I just wish they would admit that they are choosing to be gay. (Because, no matter what your genes are, you always have a choice)

Grave_n_idle: as for the STD question, it's preaty much common knowledge. The web site for the CDCP might have something, but probobly not considering the amount of PCness. I will try to find either the first site that I saw it on, or another reputable source. (Site pending as soon as I find it)
As for the Lesbian comment, I suppose you are right. When i said "gays" I meant gay males, I guess I need to be more specific. Lol. Lesbians are a notable exeption to that rule for the reason you stated. (being a guy, I am a little partial to lesbians anyways. ;) )

Found it. It's a very good site with a wealth of information. The section with the info in question is the third one down. (after The History) It is only about HIV and AIDS, as I figured that was the big one that needed to be found first.

http://www.avert.org/aids-america.htm

Here is another one that agrees with the first one on the AIDS issue and also has information on other STDs.

http://www.homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

Almost forgot, the latter site also contains a part that adresses the other part of our descussion. (Whether homosexuality is biological) I will quote the first few paragraphs. Hopefully, you choose to read through the whole thing as I have. (It has very clearly sited sources)


Born or Bred?

Despite the clear medical evidence that homosexual behavior is at its very essence unhealthy, many advocates and activists insist that we cannot counsel these people to change their behavior, because it is an innate genetic trait.
These advocates make reference to several medical studies that claim to have established a biological link to homosexuality. However, fair evaluation of these studies proves that they are anything but conclusive.
One of the most often touted studies was conducted by Simon LeVay. His study, published in Science in 1991, noted a difference in a brain structure called the hypothalamus when evaluating homosexual and heterosexual men. LeVay found that in the specimens he studied, the hypothalamus was generally larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. Therefore he concluded that these findings "suggest that sexual orientation has a biologic substrate."86
While LeVay's study received top-notch billing in the media, it was anything but conclusive. An analysis of the study and its methodology reveals some notable weaknesses. The first problem, which LeVay himself readily admits, is the fact that all 19 of his homosexual subjects had died of complications associated with AIDS. Therefore the difference in the hypothalamus might well be attributed to the AIDS rather than homosexuality. LeVay attempted to compensate for the weakness by including a few heterosexuals who died of AIDS complications in the heterosexual sample. However, LeVay did not know for sure whether all subjects in his heterosexual sample were indeed heterosexual; all of these subjects were simply "presumed heterosexual."
Moreover, Dr. William Byne argued in Scientific American that "[LeVay's] inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments.... Thus it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH3 [hypothalamus] that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS."87
Finally another weakness of LeVay's study is the fact that even in his sample there were "exceptions" -- that is, there were some homosexuals who had larger hypothalamus structures than some of the heterosexuals examined. Even LeVay admits that these exceptions "hint at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 [hypothalamus] size."88

Which particular species are you talking about so that I may be on the same page. (especially seeing as how most animals do not engage in sexual intercoarse for pleasure, only to reproduce) Anyways, gays obviously exist, but they are no different than straights other than the choices they make. Even if there were minorly potent "gay traits" present, they are still only what they choose to be. Under the logic of the "gay gene" one could also say that rapists, theves, etc, are only that way because of their genes. Does that sound as absurd to you as it does to me? Again, as many of you immediately like to come after me even though I am not speaking against gays but because I am not going along with the fad theory, I will say that I have nothing against homosexuals. I just wish they would admit that they are choosing to be gay. (Because, no matter what your genes are, you always have a choice)




For the very last part of what you say. Then, you will admit, that straight people choose to be straight also? There's no difference.

As for animals.... Whales. Hedgehogs. Penguins. Sloths. Dolphins. Monkeys. Sheep. This is what I found from a quick google search.

Which particular species are you talking about so that I may be on the same page. (especially seeing as how most animals do not engage in sexual intercoarse for pleasure, only to reproduce) Anyways, gays obviously exist, but they are no different than straights other than the choices they make. Even if there were minorly potent "gay traits" present, they are still only what they choose to be. Under the logic of the "gay gene" one could also say that rapists, theves, etc, are only that way because of their genes. Does that sound as absurd to you as it does to me? Again, as many of you immediately like to come after me even though I am not speaking against gays but because I am not going along with the fad theory, I will say that I have nothing against homosexuals. I just wish they would admit that they are choosing to be gay. (Because, no matter what your genes are, you always have a choice)
(1)Here's a link (http://www.backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm), and here's a link (http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=greeneyedgrrl&static=405212), and here's another link. (http://www.web.apc.org/~jharnick/beesdoit.html)
Would you like some more? Simply Google the phrase "homosexuality in nature" and see what comes up.
(2) There are no difference between gays and straights other than "the choice they make"? Here's a link that says otherwise. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm)
Would you like a few more?
(3) Many studies show that mental illnesses which often result in crimes are sometimes genetic. Would you like a link for that?
(4) The "fad" is currently to discriminate against the GLBT community, and you seem to be doing that just fine.
(5) Homo- or bi-sexuality are not choices. They are the sexualities many people have had since birth, and noticed since four years of age or even younger. No one "chooses" any other sexuality than the norm. They simply choose not to lie to themselves/act as though they are heterosexual, and I, personally, applaud that. Do you need a link for that?

(4) The "fad" is currently to discriminate against the GLBT community, and you seem to be doing that just fine.


Actually, the "fad" is to not say ANYTHING negative about the homosexual community, and villify/ostracize those who do.

Actually, the "fad" is to not say ANYTHING negative about the homosexual community, and villify/ostracize those who do.
I think we can agree that what is a "fad" varies with the location and enviroment you are living in. I stand by my word; I'm from Alabama, by the way.

I'm from AL too :D

(1)Here's a link (http://www.backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm), and here's a link (http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=greeneyedgrrl&static=405212), and here's another link. (http://www.web.apc.org/~jharnick/beesdoit.html)
Would you like some more? Simply Google the phrase "homosexuality in nature" and see what comes up.
(2) There are no difference between gays and straights other than "the choice they make"? Here's a link that says otherwise. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm)
Would you like a few more?
(3) Many studies show that mental illnesses which often result in crimes are sometimes genetic. Would you like a link for that?
(4) The "fad" is currently to discriminate against the GLBT community, and you seem to be doing that just fine.
(5) Homo- or bi-sexuality are not choices. They are the sexualities many people have had since birth, and noticed since four years of age or even younger. No one "chooses" any other sexuality than the norm. They simply choose not to lie to themselves/act as though they are heterosexual, and I, personally, applaud that. Do you need a link for that?

1.) Interesting, but hardly conclusive nor are they well sited. Seeing as how they are in few cases considering the overall number of animals, and it occured only in animals not living in their natural environments (captivity), I don't think it proves anything.

2.) Also inconclusive. The second link I provides adresses that claim quite effectively. (and has you beaten in the reputable and well sited department)

3.) Are you saying that gays and lesbians are mentally ill? And what about the rest of the criminals that are not mentally ill?

4.) If you feel that I am discriminating, then I am sorry. I don't really see how carrying on an inteligent debate by bringing up different viewpoints means I'm discriminating.

5.) If you have one that is, maybe, a little more conclusive than the others that you have provided, I would love to see it. Quality over quanity. (although my second link actually provides 96 other information sources, so it looks like I got both)


For the very last part of what you say. Then, you will admit, that straight people choose to be straight also? There's no difference.


Thank you for proving my point. There is no difference. Straight people choose to be straight just as gays choose to be gay. That is what I was just saying. Biology has little or nothing to do with it.

I'm from AL too :D
Well, still, I would disagree. People do not hesitate to use the word "gay" in a derrogatory way, say that X, Y, or Z celebrities are "demoralizing America" simply because they are not heterosexual, and just generally spew their hatred publicly.

I believe the shoe is on the other foot, what with the homosexual community demonizing anyone who suggests that homosexuality is immoral.

1.) Interesting, but hardly conclusive nor are they well sited. Seeing as how they are in few cases considering the overall number of animals, and it occured only in animals not living in their natural environments (captivity), I don't think it proves anything.

2.) Also inconclusive. The second link I provides adresses that claim quite effectively. (and has you beaten in the reputable and well sited department)

]3.) Are you saying that gays and lesbians are mentally ill? And what about the rest of the criminals that are not mentally ill?

4.) If you feel that I am discriminating, then I am sorry. I don't really see how carrying on an inteligent debate by bringing up different viewpoints means I'm discriminating.

5.) If you have one that is, maybe, a little more conclusive than the others that you have provided, I would love to see it. Quality over quanity. (although my second link actually provides 96 other information sources, so it looks like I got both)



Thank you for proving my point. There is no difference. Straight people choose to be straight just as gays choose to be gay. That is what I was just saying. Biology has little or nothing to do with it.
(1, 2, and 5) If you choose to ignore the scientific evidence proving that homosexuality and bisexuality are not only not a choice, but also a natural occurance, then that is your problem.
(3) No, but you said,
Under the logic of the "gay gene" one could also say that rapists, theves, etc, are only that way because of their genes. Does that sound as absurd to you as it does to me?
Obviously, genetics do factor into criminal behavior. So no, it does not sound absurd to me. Are you saying that there is something criminal about homosexuality? Perhaps to your religious/spiritual/"moral"/personal view, but legally, there is not.
(4) Yes, I do feel you are discriminating.

I believe the shoe is on the other foot, what with the homosexual community demonizing anyone who suggests that homosexuality is immoral.
Well, have you ever heard a homosexual claiming that heterosexuality is immoral? I haven't.

Thank you for proving my point. There is no difference. Straight people choose to be straight just as gays choose to be gay. That is what I was just saying. Biology has little or nothing to do with it.

But then.... when did you choose to be straight, if you are, or gay, if you are? At what point did you consciously say to yourself, I prefer women/men because I WANT TO, and stop finding members of the other sex attractive? This does imply, after all, that before you understood about relationships, etc, you were completely bisexual.

I don't know about anywhere else, but around here people constantly mock homosexuality as a joke. In fact, if your not cool, it's because your 'gay'. Whether you rather are homosexual or not, your still gay if your not in the 'in crowd'. Ah yes, good times.

I don't know about anywhere else, but around here people constantly mock homosexuality as a joke. In fact, if your not cool, it's because your 'gay'. Whether you rather are homosexual or not, your still gay if your not in the 'in crowd'. Ah yes, good times.
Thank you. :fluffle:

Well, have you ever heard a homosexual claiming that heterosexuality is immoral? I haven't.

I was referring to them claiming that believing homosexuality is wrong makes you a "religious zealot nutjob." And (yes, I begin sentences with and!), believe it or not, I actually HAVE seen someone say that XD

I was referring to them claiming that believing homosexuality is wrong makes you a "religious zealot nutjob." And (yes, I begin sentences with and!), believe it or not, I actually HAVE seen someone say that XD
(1) Well, first, what other reason would anyone have than religion or religion-related hang-ups to believe that homosexuality is "wrong" or "immoral"?
(2) Were they saying so in an attempt at humor?

(1, 2, and 5) If you choose to ignore the scientific evidence proving that homosexuality and bisexuality are not only not a choice, but also a natural occurance, then that is your problem.


Have you even returned the favor and read through the articles I posted links to? You would find that most of your supposed "scientific evidence" is well accounted for in these articles and I could not even come close to expressing it as well as they did. (and I don't want to simply copy the whole thing, so you will need to read it) Having taken classes on both researching/research paper writing and identifying credible sources, I can make the informed observation that both articles I posted contain very reliable information.


(3) No, but you said,

Obviously, genetics do factor into criminal behavior. So no, it does not sound absurd to me. Are you saying that there is something criminal about homosexuality? Perhaps to your religious/spiritual/"moral"/personal view, but legally, there is not.


You seem to be playing with my words and/or putting words in my proverbial mouth. I never said that there is something criminal about homosexuality. You are mearly attempting to demonize me simply because I am offering differing views, and I do not appreciate it. In fact, I have said countless times that I don't have problems with individual homosexuals. It's their choice to decide who they have sex with, and I respect that. Are you saying that a person with a certain gene has no choice but to murder someone? Or that a rapist only raped someone because they have the "rapist gene?" Are you saying that, as humans, as individuals, we can't choose how to live our lives? ...that it is all predetirmined based upon our heredity? That is what I believe is absurd.


(4) Yes, I do feel you are discriminating.

Well, then you would be wrong. If we are following the definition of discriminate, than I have yet to do so. At most, I might have generalized. (not always intentional)



But then.... when did you choose to be straight, if you are, or gay, if you are? At what point did you consciously say to yourself, I prefer women/men because I WANT TO, and stop finding members of the other sex attractive? This does imply, after all, that before you understood about relationships, etc, you were completely bisexual.


What is it with you people (yes, I am generalizing again) and "sex" this and "sexual/sexuality" that. Obviously, before you understood about relationships, etc, you did not have a sexual orientation. At such an age, you were likely not to be significantly 'sexually' attracted to either gender, as puberty had not begun yet. And yes, I am heterosexual because I WANT TO be. Who knows, I might enjoy being homosexual more should I ever try it. But I must say, I definately like women and believe homosexual behavior to be unhealthy, and it has nothing to do with religion. If an individual decides that he wants to be gay, that is his choice, and I respect it. I believe that orientation is psycological, not biological. IOW: it is more effected by outside stimulus to the brain, rather than internal genetic stimulus.

I was referring to them claiming that believing homosexuality is wrong makes you a "religious zealot nutjob." And (yes, I begin sentences with and!), believe it or not, I actually HAVE seen someone say that XD

There is no parallel there...

They are objecting to your opinion, which is, you must admit, based largely on your choice of faith.

You are objecting to part of what makes up that person... not an opinion, not something caused by their religion or politics.

They object to your shouting them down, you just object to them.

What is it with you people (yes, I am generalizing again) and "sex" this and "sexual/sexuality" that. Obviously, before you understood about relationships, etc, you did not have a sexual orientation. At such an age, you were likely not to be significantly 'sexually' attracted to either gender, as puberty had not begun yet. And yes, I am heterosexual because I WANT TO be. Who knows, I might enjoy being homosexual more should I ever try it. But I must say, I definately like women and believe homosexual behavior to be unhealthy, and it has nothing to do with religion. If an individual decides that he wants to be gay, that is his choice, and I respect it. I believe that orientation is psycological, not biological. IOW: it is more effected by outside stimulus to the brain, rather than internal genetic stimulus.


yup. if by "you people" you mean people who aren't interested in sex of any sort. And I never chose that. There has never been a point in my life when I said to myself "I want to never be involved in a sexual relationship". So I don't know where you think it is a choice. And I don't see why a man* would say "I feel like being attracted to men, because I just LOVE being discriminated against"

The whole choice argument to me doesn't seem to hold any water. Unless you mean that a man could be attracted to women and force himself to date men, or be attracted to men but force themselves to date women. Anyone can do that, it doesn't prove a thing. Again... I feel that people overestimate nature. Development in the womb is a VERY complex process. And for nature to repeat it the thousands of billions of times it has to identically each time is a statistical impossibility. There are thousands, millions of different types of people. Why this difference can't extend to who different people find attractive I have no idea. The only way people will ever be the same is if we're made on a production line.

What is it with you people (yes, I am generalizing again) and "sex" this and "sexual/sexuality" that. Obviously, before you understood about relationships, etc, you did not have a sexual orientation. At such an age, you were likely not to be significantly 'sexually' attracted to either gender, as puberty had not begun yet. And yes, I am heterosexual because I WANT TO be. Who knows, I might enjoy being homosexual more should I ever try it. But I must say, I definately like women and believe homosexual behavior to be unhealthy, and it has nothing to do with religion. If an individual decides that he wants to be gay, that is his choice, and I respect it. I believe that orientation is psycological, not biological. IOW: it is more effected by outside stimulus to the brain, rather than internal genetic stimulus.
So, before one is educated in sex, they have no sexual urges? That would be called "asexuality".

yup. if by "you people" you mean people who aren't interested in sex of any sort. And I never chose that. There has never been a point in my life when I said to myself "I want to never be involved in a sexual relationship". So I don't know where you think it is a choice. And I don't see why a man* would say "I feel like being attracted to men, because I just LOVE being discriminated against"

The whole choice argument to me doesn't seem to hold any water. Unless you mean that a man could be attracted to women and force himself to date men, or be attracted to men but force themselves to date women. Anyone can do that, it doesn't prove a thing. Again... I feel that people overestimate nature. Development in the womb is a VERY complex process. And for nature to repeat it the thousands of billions of times it has to identically each time is a statistical impossibility. There are thousands, millions of different types of people. Why this difference can't extend to who different people find attractive I have no idea. The only way people will ever be the same is if we're made on a production line.

I think that you are misunderstanding me. Of coarse people are different. Maybe some people might have certain chemicles or what-not that make them more likely to be attracted to the same sex. But it is still their choice. And it is never a "wake up one day" choice. It is a lifelong choice. It is because of the length of time it takes to make this choice that it doesn't really seem like a choice, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. Attraction is a very complicated thing. It is much more complex than either of us has really been using it as in our arguments.
But to conclude, you lead a platonic life because you want to. If you didn't want to, you wouldn't be doing it. (or would be doing it, I should say. lol) The same goes for everything in life. And keep in mind that when I say there is no "gay gene," I mean that there is no biological factor that automatically results in a particular orientation. Behavior, social interraction, psycology, etc, are all factors in an individual's decision. If someone believes that they are inadvertantly attracted to the same gender, it is likely all in their head. You can make youself believe whatever you want.

Found it. It's a very good site with a wealth of information. The section with the info in question is the third one down. (after The History) It is only about HIV and AIDS, as I figured that was the big one that needed to be found first.

http://www.avert.org/aids-america.htm




Okay - let's look at what you said before "The fact is, no matter how much they try to deny it, the gay population has the highest AIDS and other STD ratings than any other group.

Now - I don't see evidence supporting that assertion... sorry.

Looking at that first source, let's see what it says:

"the majority of people currently living with HIV in America are still men who have sex with men". That's HIV, which is different to AIDS... and it doesn't say homosexuals... it doesn't EVEN say bisexuals.

Many 'heterosexuals' have had one (or more) 'gay' experiences.

Note further... that would only be referring to MEN that had had same-sex contact.

Lesbians are still (obviously) pretty much as LOW RISK as possible.

So - homosexuals OVERALL... there is absolutely no evidence to back your ridiculous claim.


In fact, it continues: "in 2003, heterosexual transmission accounted for 31% of all newly-diagnosed AIDS cases - up from 3% in 1985"

So - in 18 years, AIDS, caused by heterosexual 'transmission' of HIV, increased by 28%, to almost ONE THIRD of the population.

Thus, in terms of 'AIDS ratings' (your term, with no implicit meaning... I assume you mean 'risk')... the heterosexual 'market' is the fastest growing 'market'...

And, just look at those figures... 30 years ago most of the AIDS cases were caused by homosexual sex of some kind.... now, EVEN allowing for the difference in time between HIV infection and AIDS manifestation,
AND, EVEN allowing for the fact that the already HIV/AIDS popluation are STILL being counted in the incidence... WHAT is the actual proportion of new HIV infection? To increase to 1/3 of the AIDS population, the heterosexual 'market' must FAR outway the homosexual, in terms of new HIV infection.


You are, of course, also ignoring the fact that almost 20% of all new HIV incidence may well be totally non-sexual in contraction.... in terms of drug-users: "In 2003, 19% of women and 14% of men who were diagnosed HIV+ were injecting drug users who were assumed to have been infected as a result of their drug abuse".


Sorry, my friend - but there is NO WAY in which this evidence backs any of your claims.

So, before one is educated in sex, they have no sexual urges? That would be called "asexuality".

It is a combination of that and the age in which you have not hit puberty yet. During that time, yes, you could be considered asexual. And assuming the education system has done its job, the education should come around the same time as the development.

(Note: there are other important points on this included in my previous post, and being lazy, I'm not going to repeat them)

I think that you are misunderstanding me. Of coarse people are different. Maybe some people might have certain chemicles or what-not that make them more likely to be attracted to the same sex. But it is still their choice. And it is never a "wake up one day" choice. It is a lifelong choice. It is because of the length of time it takes to make this choice that it doesn't really seem like a choice, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. Attraction is a very complicated thing. It is much more complex than either of us has really been using it as in our arguments.
But to conclude, you lead a platonic life because you want to. If you didn't want to, you wouldn't be doing it. (or would be doing it, I should say. lol) The same goes for everything in life. And keep in mind that when I say there is no "gay gene," I mean that there is no biological factor that automatically results in a particular orientation. Behavior, social interraction, psycology, etc, are all factors in an individual's decision. If someone believes that they are inadvertantly attracted to the same gender, it is likely all in their head. You can make youself believe whatever you want.


Hmmmm... I doubt that we are going to see eye to eye on this. I lack the sources to disprove you, and I only have my own experience as evidence. Anticipating your statement, I was, however. So I prepared a little rebuttal. don't want to be asexual. I really don't. I want to know what I'm missing out on. I'd love to be in a relationship and I hate that I am so distanced from most of the human race in my incapability to form true bonds with them. There's only one person in the world I could truly say that I love, and they know who they are. And that's it. So if this is my choice and I'm free to change it, why can't I for all my effort? Why, after years of trying, have I only had one success, and even then, when they are gone I'm hard pressed to actually notice their absence?

It is a combination of that and the age in which you have not hit puberty yet. During that time, yes, you could be considered asexual. And assuming the education system has done its job, the education should come around the same time as the development.

(Note: there are other important points on this included in my previous post, and being lazy, I'm not going to repeat them)
I feel the need to re-quote you:
Obviously, before you understood about relationships, etc, you did not have a sexual orientation.
One does not have to "understand" their urges in order to have them, nor does one have to be "educated" about sex and relationships in order to have either of the two.

This thread reminds me, I still have to come out. Thats not going to be pretty either.

Joking about sexuality is a good way to deal with it.

Okay - let's look at what you said before

Now - I don't see evidence supporting that assertion... sorry.

Looking at that first source, let's see what it says:

"the majority of people currently living with HIV in America are still men who have sex with men". That's HIV, which is different to AIDS... and it doesn't say homosexuals... it doesn't EVEN say bisexuals.

Many 'heterosexuals' have had one (or more) 'gay' experiences.

Note further... that would only be referring to MEN that had had same-sex contact.

Lesbians are still (obviously) pretty much as LOW RISK as possible.

So - homosexuals OVERALL... there is absolutely no evidence to back your ridiculous claim.


In fact, it continues: "in 2003, heterosexual transmission accounted for 31% of all newly-diagnosed AIDS cases - up from 3% in 1985"

So - in 18 years, AIDS, caused by heterosexual 'transmission' of HIV, increased by 28%, to almost ONE THIRD of the population.

Thus, in terms of 'AIDS ratings' (your term, with no implicit meaning... I assume you mean 'risk')... the heterosexual 'market' is the fastest growing 'market'...


That is fastest growing as far as overall HIV/AIDS precentages, not actuall cases. And considering Heterosexuals make up a much larger precentage of the population...I think you can figure it out. (And HIV and AIDS are simply differing stages of the same illness, I state them together as AIDS sometimes for simplicity)


And, just look at those figures... 30 years ago most of the AIDS cases were caused by homosexual sex of some kind.... now, EVEN allowing for the difference in time between HIV infection and AIDS manifestation,
AND, EVEN allowing for the fact that the already HIV/AIDS popluation are STILL being counted in the incidence... WHAT is the actual proportion of new HIV infection? To increase to 1/3 of the AIDS population, the heterosexual 'market' must FAR outway the homosexual, in terms of new HIV infection.


You are, of course, also ignoring the fact that almost 20% of all new HIV incidence may well be totally non-sexual in contraction.... in terms of drug-users: "In 2003, 19% of women and 14% of men who were diagnosed HIV+ were injecting drug users who were assumed to have been infected as a result of their drug abuse".


Sorry, my friend - but there is NO WAY in which this evidence backs any of your claims.


*sigh* I will now be making my first (and last) rude and possibly truly offensive comment of the descusion. You appear to be unable to pick out information. You only do what I have seen countless times, you tear apart wording to get it to say what you want. You even do that to me. You lack maturity. You only seek to make it seem like you are right to those reading, whether you are or not, at the expense of your integrity. Throughout our entire descussion, I only tried to carry on an inteligent debate (which you seem incapable of doing). You (and your not alone), on the other hand seem to only be trying to demonize me at every turn, accusing me of being discrimitatory or insensitive. I have been respecting the oppinions of everyone else, I only wish you would have returned the favor. I was afraid that this would happen when I jumped into this descussion. Therefore, I will do you all a favor and am going to stop posting in this descussion, as it would seem the "open minded" amoung us are in fact the most closed. I don't blame you, I blame your college professors and the media. I don't intend on reading this thread further, so feel free to go back to talking about how the poor gays are being abused and how healthy it is to be homosexual. I don't care. So congradulations, you are now in a "opposing view free zone." Savor your ingorance. *My apologies to those who capable of, and have been, actually carrying a respectfull debate.

I'm sorry for offending you...well actually, no I'm not this time.

This thread reminds me, I still have to come out. Thats not going to be pretty either.

Joking about sexuality is a good way to deal with it.

Hrm.... assuming, though it be a dangerous assumption to make, that you have a family that does love you a lot, and good friends, then it shouldn't be a problem. it's the thing. What means more to them? some homophobic thought, or their son/daughter? I'll wager it's you. If my family can take me having a sex change (and so becoming a lesbian), including my dad who's definitely misplaced from the fifties *he is/was? a homophobe and a racist*, then you don't have as much to worry about as you think you do. My advice though, don't do it as a group. Find whoever is the most tolerant. Break it to them first. Then the other.

I'll have to agree with Gronde on most of the topics being discussed. I mentioned before in a previous thread that it is most likely that most people have a sexual attraction at one point in their life to the same sex. While it was probably not predominant, and shrugged off almost instantaneously, it was there.

But. There is a difference between lust (sexual/physical attraction) and love (caring for an individual). Lust is caused by pharamones and hormones, whereas love is completely choice.

To me, homosexual lust is not a bad thing. (Acting upon it is different, although I'd like to believe that I'm tolerant, as I have a few gay friends.) We don't have a choice in what arouses (or doesn't arouse) us. We do have a choice in acting upon that lust, as we have a choice in who we decide to love.

I can't explain my beliefs any better than how Gronde has already. (Thats a Kudos to ya. :))

I'm not phobic of any particular group, I'm just scared of humans in general.
And, for that matter, the humans in General. (although those roleplayers are pretty terrifying too...)

Back to the original topic, I'd say to go with the way you feel. Being true to yourself is more important than being popular or meeting some standard produced by peer pressure. If you find out you truly are bisexual, then I would think it would hurt more to hide under a facade of deceit than it would to lose those friends who truly care enough about their dislike of those of other sexual orientations that they would lose a friend over it. But, I will interject here that I have found that many people that at first glance seem to dislike homo/bisexuals actually are just confused, surprised, or startled by the fact that someone they know is actually gay or bi, and aren't truly hateful of them. It seems to me that misinterpretations often happen here.

Hrm.... assuming, though it be a dangerous assumption to make, that you have a family that does love you a lot, and good friends, then it shouldn't be a problem. it's the thing. What means more to them? some homophobic thought, or their son/daughter? I'll wager it's you. If my family can take me having a sex change (and so becoming a lesbian), including my dad who's definitely misplaced from the fifties *he is/was? a homophobe and a racist*, then you don't have as much to worry about as you think you do. My advice though, don't do it as a group. Find whoever is the most tolerant. Break it to them first. Then the other.
My mother's side of the family will understand. My father's side will be less tolerant. I will take your advice and tell one relative first. I told my friends who accepted it. I hope it will work. Thanks.

I'll have to agree with Gronde on most of the topics being discussed. I mentioned before in a previous thread that it is most likely that most people have a sexual attraction at one point in their life to the same sex. While it was probably not predominant, and shrugged off almost instantaneously, it was there.

But. There is a difference between lust (sexual/physical attraction) and love (caring for an individual). Lust is caused by pharamones and hormones, whereas love is completely choice.

To me, homosexual lust is not a bad thing. (Acting upon it is different, although I'd like to believe that I'm tolerant, as I have a few gay friends.) We don't have a choice in what arouses (or doesn't arouse) us. We do have a choice in acting upon that lust, as we have a choice in who we decide to love.

I can't explain my beliefs any better than how Gronde has already. (Thats a Kudos to ya. :))
Well, to determine if "love" is a choice, and I seriously doubt it is, I would have to hear your definition of the word "love".

Well, to determine if "love" is a choice, which I sincerely believe it is, I would have to hear your definition of the word "love".

Hmm.. a very hard word to define, if you understand. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to.

Love is a caring for another. It is a drop in the satisfying of the self in order to satisfy another (sexual love is a bit different, but that's another point). It is a bringing of joy--not necessarily happiness--but pure joy.

True or ultimate love is an extension of love, only more focused. It extends beyond physical attraction...and even if the partner is returning that love (although, relationships generally only work should it be an equal relationship).

Hmm.. a very hard word to define, if you understand. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to.

Love is a caring for another. It is a drop in the satisfying of the self in order to satisfy another (sexual love is a bit different, but that's another point). It is a bringing of joy--not necessarily happiness--but pure joy.

True or ultimate love is an extension of love, only more focused. It extends beyond physical attraction...and even if the partner is returning that love (although, relationships generally only work should it be an equal relationship).
And what makes you think you can choose who you love?

And what makes you think you can choose who you love?

It's a process of decisions made, be them near instantaneous or over an extended length of time. Do I want to be with this man/woman? Is it wise to sacrifice my own wants and desires to lift up this other? Is it worth sacrificing my wants?

While these questions, or others that I can't think of at the moment, may happen in a fraction of a second, or not be as well-thought out as that, they do come up. You decide.

It's a process of decisions made, be them near instantaneous or over an extended length of time. Do I want to be with this man/woman? Is it wise to sacrifice my own wants and desires to lift up this other? Is it worth sacrificing my wants?

While these questions, or others that I can't think of at the moment, may happen in a fraction of a second, or not be as well-thought out as that, they do come up. You decide.
Sure, you can choose to back out of a relationship that may lead to love, but do you really believe you can make a conscious decision on whom you love?

Sure, you can choose to back out of a relationship that may lead to love, but do you really believe you can make a conscious decision on whom you love?

I believe so. Again, it may take time, but it can also be very quick. Lust and love are different, as I said. They may interact often, but they are not one in the same.

It's a process of decisions made, be them near instantaneous or over an extended length of time. Do I want to be with this man/woman? Is it wise to sacrifice my own wants and desires to lift up this other? Is it worth sacrificing my wants?

While these questions, or others that I can't think of at the moment, may happen in a fraction of a second, or not be as well-thought out as that, they do come up. You decide.

You cannot apply logic to a discussion about love. Maybe you have to have loved to know.

You cannot apply logic to a discussion about love. Maybe you have to have loved to know.

Maybe so. As I said, it's very difficult to explain. More so because I'm in a relationship of about one and a half years. :P

Hot lesbians = So hott.

That's all.

:cool:

You cannot apply logic to a discussion about love. Maybe you have to have loved to know.
What a pity, love would make far more sense then. Its irrationality both irritates and attracts me.

That is fastest growing as far as overall HIV/AIDS precentages, not actuall cases.


Sorry, this still does not make sense. Homosexual males are still NOT the fastest growing group as far as overall HIV/AIDS. Your own sources clearly state that heterosexual sex is the most rapidly growing vector mechanism, both in terms of growth numbers, and in terms of growth by percentage.


And considering Heterosexuals make up a much larger precentage of the population...I think you can figure it out.


Yes - the previous skew towards homosexual transmission is being rapidly reversed... from the 3% heterosexual transmission 30 years ago, to 31% 2 years ago... the percentages are rapidly moving towards a more representative distribution.

(And HIV and AIDS are simply differing stages of the same illness, I state them together as AIDS sometimes for simplicity)


No. AIDS is a condition that CAN come from HIV. The virus does not necessarily lead to the immuno-deficiency.


*sigh* I will now be making my first (and last) rude and possibly truly offensive comment of the descusion. You appear to be unable to pick out information. You only do what I have seen countless times, you tear apart wording to get it to say what you want.


No - I tear apart your misinterpretation of the facts, to reveal the truth.

You even do that to me.


I don't understand? Why should I not reveal the less-than-truthful in your posts? Why should I favour you?

You lack maturity.


Baseless accusation, my friend. And, arguably incorrect.

You only seek to make it seem like you are right to those reading, whether you are or not, at the expense of your integrity.


On the contrary - I have set myself in opposition to others (example: the dark matter debate), BECAUSE of my integrity. In THIS debate, you have made false claims, that your own sources betray. I am not trying to make friends or influence people, only get to the truth.

Personally, I don't CARE if people think I am right... my integrity says that I must reveal the errors in your thinking.

Throughout our entire descussion, I only tried to carry on an inteligent debate (which you seem incapable of doing).


Okay. I'm not going to argue it. There seems little point.

You (and your not alone), on the other hand seem to only be trying to demonize me at every turn, accusing me of being discrimitatory or insensitive.


When you make a claim that is counter to the evidence, you are exhibiting a bias... otherwise, the evidence would shape what you say.

I have been respecting the oppinions of everyone else, I only wish you would have returned the favor. I was afraid that this would happen when I jumped into this descussion. Therefore, I will do you all a favor and am going to stop posting in this descussion, as it would seem the "open minded" amoung us are in fact the most closed.


I would not have wished for you to stop posting in the thread. I would have prefered for you to recant your previous assertion in the light of contradictory evidence. It is, however, your choice.

I don't blame you, I blame your college professors and the media.


So - the reason why I do not believe your (incorrect) assertions about something, is because I am blinded by the media?

Or is it because of my education? What is 'wrong', I wonder, with my education?

I don't intend on reading this thread further, so feel free to go back to talking about how the poor gays are being abused and how healthy it is to be homosexual.


Hit-and-run. Nice... a classic. Score yourself the last word, and get out. I notice here - by the way - that you reassert (albeit in ironic tones) your anti-homosexual prejudices. "poor gays", "how healthy it is to be homosexual".

A leopard can't change his spots... even if he tries to hide them for a while.

Gotta respect the drive-by.

I don't care. So congradulations, you are now in a "opposing view free zone." Savor your ingorance. *My apologies to those who capable of, and have been, actually carrying a respectfull debate.

I'm sorry for offending you...well actually, no I'm not this time.

I would have accepted your apology, because I am that kind of person. But, to finish on a pair of insults, and then offer a partial apology?

I'm disappointed, my friend.

Shalom.

Neither homosexualtiy nor heterosexuality are a choice or a lifestyle. Nor is bisexuality, for that matter.
It is a choice to be sexually active or not, but you cannot force yourself to be attracted to anybody.

As for having a phobia of people because of their sexual orientation, why would anybody come up with a phobia like that???

As for having a phobia of people because of their sexual orientation, why would anybody come up with a phobia like that???
I don't think it was "come up with". I think it simply existed, and a name was given.

I don't think it was "come up with". I think it simply existed, and a name was given.

So, just imagine the following situation: You've got a very good friend, you like him/her a lot, you've got a lot in common.
One day you find out he/she is gay/bisexual and suddenly you're scared? If you never found out you would have called the same person a good friend for the rest of your life?
That really doesn't make much sense to me, sorry...

So, just imagine the following situation: You've got a very good friend, you like him/her a lot, you've got a lot in common.
One day you find out he/she is gay/bisexual and suddenly you're scared? If you never found out you would have called the same person a good friend for the rest of your life?
That really doesn't make much sense to me, sorry...
The term "phobia" does not only mean "fear". It may also mean a hatred or extreme dislike of someone or something. Therefore, it is quite obvious that homophobia exists.