NationStates Jolt Archive

• CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll finds attitudes evolving
• For first time, majority think homosexuality is unchangeable
• In 1977, 13 percent of poll respondents said gays were born that way
• 39 percent in latest poll say people are born gay

Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.

Full Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html?eref=edition)

Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.

Full Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html?eref=edition)

Since when was biology decided by democracy?

popular opinion does not facts make.

while I believe that I don't really know anything about it......most people have an opinion and telling them "well, most people think this" really isn't going to settle any debates.

Never. But when has that mattered?

Anybody--gay, straight, whatever--can choose how they act upon their sexual feelings and desires. A gay person can choose to have heterosexual sex, just like a straight person can choose to have gay sex. The outward manefestations of our desires can, to a very large extent, be consciously controlled.

But our sexual desires themselves aren't something we can change at will.

Seriously, picture somebody who you find really really really unappealing, sexually-speaking. Now, try to consciously force yourself to find them attractive.

Yeah. So. Quit telling gay people "it's a choice."

The only people who have the most sexual choice are bisexuals. *Nods* they can be straight on Monday and gay on Tuesday.

Never. But when has that mattered?

So what is the point of this thread again?

Quit telling gay people "it's a choice."

Quit pretending that it matters whether it's a choice or not.

Anybody--gay, straight, whatever--can choose how they act upon their sexual feelings and desires. A gay person can choose to have heterosexual sex, just like a straight person can choose to have gay sex. The outward manefestations of our desires can, to a very large extent, be consciously controlled.

But our sexual desires themselves aren't something we can change at will.

Seriously, picture somebody who you find really really really unappealing, sexually-speaking. Now, try to consciously force yourself to find them attractive.

Yeah. So. Quit telling gay people "it's a choice."

Well said. The people claiming it's some kind of lifestyle choice are fools who want people to deny their feelings and their rights.

Think about it this way: Someone claiming that being black was a choice would be screamed at and called a racist and generally thrown out of the public arena. So why the FUCK are these homophobic bastards taken seriously in public discourse?

gay people have no NEED to change their orientation.

Quit pretending that it matters whether it's a choice or not.

yeah. You are not disabled by your sexuality. Even if you weren't "born that way"* what difference does it make? consenting adults are able to consent to stuff, and it's really not anyone else's business.

*I would like to point out that I am completely undecided on the nature vs. nurture debate on sexuality.

The only people who have the most sexual choice are bisexuals. *Nods* they can be straight on Monday and gay on Tuesday.

Saturdays are reserved for transsexuals. It's called "Crossover night". It's like batman and superman working together, except slightly different. Only slightly.

*Nods*

So what is the point of this thread again?

I just find it interesting that the majority has changed its opinion.

yeah. You are not disabled by your sexuality. Even if you weren't "born that way"* what difference does it make? consenting adults are able to consent to stuff, and it's really not anyone else's business.

*I would like to point out that I am completely undecided on the nature vs. nurture debate on sexuality.

Flip a coin. With that opinion, it doesn't really matter the underlying reason.

Flip a coin. With that opinion, it doesn't really matter the underlying reason.

it doesn't matter really, their reasons are none of my business. I can't even begin to imagine how freaking annoying it would be for strangers to comment on my sexual practices like it affected them in any way whatsoever.

yeah. You are not disabled by your sexuality. Even if you weren't "born that way"* what difference does it make? consenting adults are able to consent to stuff, and it's really not anyone else's business.

*I would like to point out that I am completely undecided on the nature vs. nurture debate on sexuality.

im with you.

it doesnt matter if its choice or if its genetic or if its a combination. there is nothing wrong with it.

the only thing i DONT want is for people to be forced by society to pretend to be something they are not. that way lies heartbreak.

I agree that the debate is far from over, regardless of what the majority believe


and that again, just because the majority believe a certain particular doesn't make it a fact


HOWEVER, i do know for a fact that for the most part, your sexual orientation is not a choice.


But I do think there are people out there who act a certain way to get attention, whether they act gay or straight


personally, i don't see why a person's sexual orientation should matter at all, it should be like the race issue is these days. It just shouldn't matter period.

Quit pretending that it matters whether it's a choice or not.
...

It does.

I don't LIKE the fact that it matters, but it does. Such is the world we live in.

It doesn't matter to me, personally, and I would love to live in a world where it doesn't matter to anybody. Just like I'd love to live in a world where my gender didn't matter. But I don't get my way nearly often enough.

yeah. You are not disabled by your sexuality. Even if you weren't "born that way"* what difference does it make? consenting adults are able to consent to stuff, and it's really not anyone else's business.

*I would like to point out that I am completely undecided on the nature vs. nurture debate on sexuality.

One thing I am truly sick and tired of is heterosexuals trying to "figure out" my sexuality and look for its "cause" - mind your* own fucking business and find the cause of your own sexuality before you pathologise mine and treat it as an oddity. Whether I choose to like sucking cock or just like it because "I was born that way" makes no fucking difference in the end whatsoever to my right to suck more cock than a Vietnamese whore.

* Not directed at you specifically, Smunkee. You know what I mean.

I can't even begin to imagine how freaking annoying it would be for strangers to comment on my sexual practices like it affected them in any way whatsoever.

We're all just too polite to say anything about you creating more mouths to be fed. Was 6,600,000,000+ people not enough for you?

Obviously, whether it is a choice or not doesn't matter to those of us who accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. But it does matter to hardcore conservatives in power in the U.S. who wish to restrict the rights of homosexuals. Though public opinion does not create the rules for biology/sexuality, it is certainly good news that a majority of US Americans are accepting that it isn't a choice. This could very well mean that politicians pushing against majority opinion will no longer be politicians. Heres to hoping!

We're all just too polite to say anything about you creating more mouths to be fed. Was 6,600,000,000+ people not enough for you?

If it was, they'd put a lid on the whole being fruitful thing...

One thing I am truly sick and tired of is heterosexuals trying to "figure out" my sexuality and look for its "cause" - mind your* own fucking business and find the cause of your own sexuality before you pathologise mine and treat it as an oddity. Whether I choose to like sucking cock or just like it because "I was born that way" makes no fucking difference in the end whatsoever to my right to suck more cock than a Vietnamese whore.

* Not directed at you specifically, Smunkee. You know what I mean.
I know why I like to suck cock, I don't understand why other people don't like it......maybe I will look into that. ;)
We're all just too polite to say anything about you creating more mouths to be fed. Was 6,600,000,000+ people not enough for you?
I created 2 more, that's all. I feed them.

it doesn't matter really, their reasons are none of my business. I can't even begin to imagine how freaking annoying it would be for strangers to comment on my sexual practices like it affected them in any way whatsoever.

Oh! That's a great idea! From now on, whenever someone tries to give me a pamphlet or something about why gays are t3h ebil I'm going to ask them some obscenely personal question about their sex life.

I know why I like to suck cock, I don't understand why other people don't like it......maybe I will look into that. ;)


I think it's the Soviet Union and Islamofascist's fault.

Oh! That's a great idea! From now on, whenever someone tries to give me a pamphlet or something about why gays are t3h ebil I'm going to ask them some obscenely personal question about their sex life.

it's so fun. You know what's even more fun? telling them something disturbing about your own bedroom behavior (it need not be true)

for example

"I hear Bobby down the road is one of those homosexuals now"
"I like to dress up like Bea Arthur and be tied up and spit on!"

they look at you like this :eek: and then they say "I really don't need to know that" and then you get to say "why? because it's not any of your business?"

it works especially well on those old church ladies with the big hats. ;)

...

It does.

I don't LIKE the fact that it matters, but it does. Such is the world we live in.

It doesn't matter to me, personally, and I would love to live in a world where it doesn't matter to anybody. Just like I'd love to live in a world where my gender didn't matter. But I don't get my way nearly often enough.

It doesn't matter to anyone, because homophobic bigots don't really care as they will justify their idiocy just as easily either or ("if it's a choice, we'll make them regret it and beat or kill it out of them" or "if it's not a choice, then we'll 'cure' or kill them"), and it most certainly doesn't matter to anyone who is gay since it is of no consequence.

I know why I like to suck cock, I don't understand why other people don't like it...


That is the most siggable thing I've ever seen on NSG

it's so fun. You know what's even more fun? telling them something disturbing about your own bedroom behavior (it need not be true)

for example

"I hear Bobby down the road is one of those homosexuals now"
"I like to be tied up and spit on!"
Smunkee, you are one of life's winners.

It doesn't matter to anyone, because homophobic bigots don't really care as they will justify their idiocy just as easily either or ("if it's a choice, we'll make them regret it and beat or kill it out of them" or "if it's not a choice, then we'll 'cure' or kill them"), and it most certainly doesn't matter to anyone who is gay since it is of no consequence.
Meh.

The argument over the origins of human sexuality, and the "nature versus nurture" debate, have been and will continue to be important in various public realms, not the least of which is the legal realm. I consider the laws of my country to "matter," even when I don't agree with them.

That is the most siggable thing I've ever seen on NSG

if you sig that, you must link it. I already have someone sigged with something out of context somewhere.......about a breastfeeding 8 year old and I said something about "at some point you have to grow up and quit sucking on your mom"

Smunkee, you are one of life's winners.

*adds to her sig*

Meh.

The argument over the origins of human sexuality, and the "nature versus nurture" debate, have been and will continue to be important in various public realms, not the least of which is the legal realm. I consider the laws of my country to "matter," even when I don't agree with them.

You are most naïve if you think any "answer" reached will matter. Homosexuality does not need an explanation or an excuse. That's what needs to be ascertained, not any stupid "cause".

if you sig that, you must link it. I already have someone sigged with something out of context somewhere.......about a breastfeeding 8 year old and I said something about "at some point you have to grow up and quit sucking on your mom"

But out of context is so much more fun. I was hoping it would be one of those things that become a sig fad.

This thread makes Jack Chick cry.




Yay!

But out of context is so much more fun. I was hoping it would be one of those things that become a sig fad.

you can sig it.

I will not deny my love of penis, I cannot.

you can sig it.

I will not deny my love of penis, I cannot.

:D

Neither can I

opinions are like armpits. everybody has them and they usually stink.

Quit pretending that it matters whether it's a choice or not.

One thing I am truly sick and tired of is heterosexuals trying to "figure out" my sexuality and look for its "cause" - mind your* own fucking business and find the cause of your own sexuality before you pathologise mine and treat it as an oddity. Whether I choose to like sucking cock or just like it because "I was born that way" makes no fucking difference in the end whatsoever to my right to suck more cock than a Vietnamese whore.

* Not directed at you specifically, Smunkee. You know what I mean.
I was going to say this but it's a natch that Fass beat me to it.

I was talking about this last night when there was someone who had written a book about it on The Daily Show, where it was sort of a 'that settles that' and I started saying, 'not that it mattered.' It is this pointless side road that we should never have been on.
Obviously, whether it is a choice or not doesn't matter to those of us who accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. But it does matter to hardcore conservatives in power in the U.S. who wish to restrict the rights of homosexuals. Though public opinion does not create the rules for biology/sexuality, it is certainly good news that a majority of US Americans are accepting that it isn't a choice. This could very well mean that politicians pushing against majority opinion will no longer be politicians. Heres to hoping!

It doesn't matter to anyone, because homophobic bigots don't really care as they will justify their idiocy just as easily either or ("if it's a choice, we'll make them regret it and beat or kill it out of them" or "if it's not a choice, then we'll 'cure' or kill them"), and it most certainly doesn't matter to anyone who is gay since it is of no consequence.
That's the thing. We should never have entered into the argument at all because it shouldn't have mattered, and that was more important than whether or not it was a choice. We've validated a non-sensical part of their argument that they'll win on either way when it should just be, "Well, homosexuality is a choice." "Yeah, well, so was that shirt but no one's stringing you up for wearing paisley. Get over it." Whether it's a choice or not only matters to behavioral biologists (does such a thing exist? you know what I'm getting at) but not to the 'debate' about homosexuality. The debate should be that there shouldn't be a debate. You don't like fucking other dudes (If you're a dude, chicks if you're a chick) then don't fucking do it. End of your participation.

*I would like to point out that I am completely undecided on the nature vs. nurture debate on sexuality.

In this context it doesn't really matter does it? Genetics, the environment and people a person is brought up in/around are all out of their control.

opinions are like armpits. everybody has them and they usually stink.

Platitudes are like poison to the intellect - dispensed by the already stupid to inflict their stupid.

if you sig that, you must link it. I already have someone sigged with something out of context somewhere.......about a breastfeeding 8 year old and I said something about "at some point you have to grow up and quit sucking on your mom"

Now thats funny.

In this context it doesn't really matter does it? Genetics, the environment and people a person is brought up in/around are all out of their control.

it doesn't matter, I am just interested in the nature vs. nurture question about many things, sexuality being one of them, and not just the gay/straight debate, other aspects of sexuality too. (and not just sexuality, but intelligence, and quirkiness, and mental illness, and such)

*adds to her sig*

Hey! I've been sigged and I didn't even realize it!

Cool.

Platitudes are like poison to the intellect - dispensed by the already stupid to inflict their stupid.

I like how the fact that a post accusing of someone of being stupid has a rather basic grammar error in it.

Hey! I've been sigged and I didn't even realize it!

Cool.

the funny thing is all of those were just this week.

everyone loves me this week.

which sadly means you will all hate me next week.

I was going to say this but it's a natch that Fass beat me to it.

I was talking about this last night when there was someone who had written a book about it on The Daily Show, where it was sort of a 'that settles that' and I started saying, 'not that it mattered.' It is this pointless side road that we should never have been on.



That's the thing. We should never have entered into the argument at all because it shouldn't have mattered, and that was more important than whether or not it was a choice. We've validated a non-sensical part of their argument that they'll win on either way when it should just be, "Well, homosexuality is a choice." "Yeah, well, so was that shirt but no one's stringing you up for wearing paisley. Get over it." Whether it's a choice or not only matters to behavioral biologists (does such a thing exist? you know what I'm getting at) but not to the 'debate' about homosexuality. The debate should be that there shouldn't be a debate. You don't like fucking other dudes (If you're a dude, chicks if you're a chick) then don't fucking do it. End of your participation.


It's not a matter of continuing an argument, I don't think. It's a matter of defense. The homosexual, or pro-homosexual crowd aren't the ones bringing it up. It's the conservatives who wish to limit freedoms. Should we remain silent in the face of oppression? More often than not the response to such an assertion is "That's a stupid argument that makes no sense. Do who choose who you are attracted to?".

I like how the fact that a post accusing of someone of being stupid has a rather basic grammar error in it.

It's an idiom, Dickens.

the funny thing is all of those were just this week.

everyone loves me this week.

which sadly means you will all hate me next week.

*Marks schedule*

It's not a matter of continuing an argument, I don't think. It's a matter of defense. The homosexual, or pro-homosexual crowd aren't the ones bringing it up. It's the conservatives who wish to limit freedoms. Should we remain silent in the face of oppression? More often than not the response to such an assertion is "That's a stupid argument that makes no sense. Do who choose who you are attracted to?".

The response should be, "What difference does it make?"

I can admit it's a curiosity to those who study behavior and biology, but its relevance otherwise is pointless. It should no more matter than whether I date blonds or brunettes.

I like how the fact that a post accusing of someone of being stupid has a rather basic grammar error in it.

Yo, Zarakon, how's your Swedish?

which sadly means you will all hate me next week.


NEVER!

It's not a matter of continuing an argument, I don't think. It's a matter of defense. The homosexual, or pro-homosexual crowd aren't the ones bringing it up. It's the conservatives who wish to limit freedoms. Should we remain silent in the face of oppression? More often than not the response to such an assertion is "That's a stupid argument that makes no sense. Do who choose who you are attracted to?".

It's not a matter of defence, it's a matter of being stupid enough to yield ground to idiots. Choice or not - in a modern, democratic society it should not and does not matter to the rights I enjoy, and that must never be yielded.

That's the thing. We should never have entered into the argument at all because it shouldn't have mattered, and that was more important than whether or not it was a choice. We've validated a non-sensical part of their argument that they'll win on either way when it should just be, "Well, homosexuality is a choice." "Yeah, well, so was that shirt but no one's stringing you up for wearing paisley. Get over it." Whether it's a choice or not only matters to behavioral biologists (does such a thing exist? you know what I'm getting at) but not to the 'debate' about homosexuality. The debate should be that there shouldn't be a debate. You don't like fucking other dudes (If you're a dude, chicks if you're a chick) then don't fucking do it. End of your participation.

while i agree that it isnt anyone else's business and that the "cause" of homosexuality is irrelevant, i think it was an important point in the evolution of public opinion when the psychologists stopped saying that it was pathological.

even if it might not be TRUE that its genetic, its better to think of it as "something they cant help" than that gays are perverts.

it has allowed people to accept what seemed disgusting to them. once you can accept that other people's sexual behavior is natural and none of your business, then maybe you can come to accept that it doesnt matter why someone else is gay.


i think of it as a stage in our developing a mature attitude toward sexuality.

Yo, Zarakon, how's your Swedish?

Fass claimed it was intentional.

Yo, Zarakon, how's your Swedish?

Oh, for fuck's sake! It's an idiomatic expression - the "error" is thus intentional, and not an error at all.

The response should be, "What difference does it make?"

I can admit it's a curiosity to those who study behavior and biology, but its relevance otherwise is pointless. It should no more matter than whether I date blonds or brunettes.

I'm sure that somewhere somebody studied what causes someone to prefer blondes over brunettes or redheads or blondes or something.

Oh, for fuck's sake! It's an idiomatic expression - the "error" is thus intentional, and not an error at all.

I would like to jump in and say that Fass is not in error and it's funny that you guys think he is......considering the idiom he referenced.

The response should be, "What difference does it make?"

I can admit it's a curiosity to those who study behavior and biology, but its relevance otherwise is pointless. It should no more matter than whether I date blonds or brunettes.


Of course that should be the argument that ends the discussion, but if those in power were using their stupid argument to take away or limit your rights, you would not just sit back and say "What difference does it make?" You would be trying to show them how it makes no difference to shut them up. At least I would hope that you would.

Although, we should keep those brunette lovers from getting married because it's immoral and not natural. No objections, just a "meh"? Okay then, lets move forward with the legislation.

even if it might not be TRUE that its genetic, its better to think of it as "something they cant help"

I don't need nor do I want anyone's squalid pity, so speak for yourself - I disagree profusely with your claim that it would somehow "be better" that my sexuality be seen as an affliction, an aberration to be commiserated with. Fuck that shit!

It's not a matter of defence, it's a matter of being stupid enough to yield ground to idiots. Choice or not - in a modern, democratic society it should not and does not matter to the rights I enjoy, and that must never be yielded.

As much as you rant about how backwards the U.S. is, you should know better than to think that things work as they should here.

while i agree that it isnt anyone else's business and that the "cause" of homosexuality is irrelevant, i think it was an important point in the evolution of public opinion when the psychologists stopped saying that it was pathological.

even if it might not be TRUE that its genetic, its better to think of it as "something they cant help" than that gays are perverts.

it has allowed people to accept what seemed disgusting to them. once you can accept that other people's sexual behavior is natural and none of your business, then maybe you can come to accept that it doesnt matter why someone else is gay.


i think of it as a stage in our developing a mature attitude toward sexuality.
I don't like that because it sets a fucked up precedent. It tacitly implies that it wouldn't have been 'okay' if it was a choice, that if it was a choice then there might have been a case for discriminating what can done between consenting adults, that choices between consenting adults are anyone elses business. Suddenly there is a pattern established that I can be discriminated because I like to do it in my girlfriends ass because thats a choice. (just an example at random, not sharing too much)

the funny thing is all of those were just this week.

everyone loves me this week.

which sadly means you will all hate me next week.

Nah, you're always t3h win!

I like how were having an argument about idioms in the middle of a thread about gays.
ADD anyone?

I like how were having an argument about idioms in the middle of a thread about gays.
ADD anyone?

that be NSG noob. Read around and lurk a while, we went from pre-martial sex to a marzipan covered movie star earlier today and then moved on a few posts later into talking about legalized prostitution.

Of course that should be the argument that ends the discussion, but if those in power were using their stupid argument to take away or limit your rights, you would not just sit back and say "What difference does it make?" You would be trying to show them how it makes no difference to shut them up. At least I would hope that you would.

Although, we should keep those brunette lovers from getting married because it's immoral and not natural. No objections, just a "meh"? Okay then, lets move forward with the legislation.

But proving it's not 'a choice' doesn't show them that it makes no difference, if validates their claim that it does. It's not 'meh,' it's placing the responsibility on them to prove why they get to restrict that choice.

Of course that should be the argument that ends the discussion, but if those in power were using their stupid argument to take away or limit your rights, you would not just sit back and say "What difference does it make?"

Those in power that would take away and limit this right do not care one bit of the cause, as they would take it away regardless. For you to then hinge your argument on it mattering when they don't give a fuck is an exercise in torpid futility. The counter to "I want to take your rights away" is "Fuck off!" not "Sure, massa, let's talk about it".

I don't need nor do I want anyone's squalid pity, so speak for yourself - I disagree profusely with your claim that it would somehow "be better" that my sexuality be seen as an affliction, an aberration to be commiserated with. Fuck that shit!

yeah its so much better to be considered a vile pervert.

I don't like that because it sets a fucked up precedent. It tacitly implies that it wouldn't have been 'okay' if it was a choice, that if it was a choice then there might have been a case for discriminating what can done between consenting adults, that choices between consenting adults are anyone elses business. Suddenly there is a pattern established that I can be discriminated because I like to do it in my girlfriends ass because thats a choice. (just an example at random, not sharing too much)

Ah I am getting the picture now. Yes, the argument should be shifted to "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality" and not ignored completely.

Those in power that would take away and limit this right do not care one bit of the cause, as they would take it away regardless. For you to then hinge your argument on it mattering when they don't give a fuck is an exercise in torpid futility. The counter to "I want to take your rights away" is "Fuck off!" not "Sure, massa, let's talk about it".

Who else is feeling preemptively sorry for the first homophobic person to post in this thread?

I like how were having an argument about idioms in the middle of a thread about gays.
ADD anyone?

Welcome to general. Please to be leaving the gun smilies at the door.

"Gays' orientation can't change"

Why should it?

Who else is feeling preemptively sorry for the first homophobic person to post in this thread?

Nah, it might be the first time I'd think someone deserve a FassAttack.

As much as you rant about how backwards the U.S. is, you should know better than to think that things work as they should here.

I don't give a fuck about how things work "there". Things should not work as they work "there" and you shouldn't be allowing or facilitating them to by letting the morons divert you from the actual issue - the right to a sexuality full stop, not "the right to a sexuality as long as its cause is sufficiently pitiable or popular or condoned".

Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.

Full Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html?eref=edition)

I know of people who have always been attracted to men, but fell in love with a woman in later life. And vice versa. Sexuality seems to be a fluid thing, but forcing it either way is generally a stressful, unnecessary thing that does more harm then good.

Nah, it might be the first time I'd think someone deserve a FassAttack.

Yes, but this is starting to sound like it's an Omega Fass Attack. The poor guy's computer will probably melt from the sheer amount of causticity in Fass's post.

I don't give a fuck about how things work "there". Things should not work as they work "there" and you shouldn't be allowing or facilitating them to by letting the morons divert you from the actual issue - the right to a sexuality full stop, not "the right to a sexuality as long as its cause is sufficiently pitiable or popular or condoned".

I was not seeing what you or CTOAN were saying clearly. Probably because your charm was blinding me, but I get the picture now. Thanks.

yeah its so much better to be considered a vile pervert.

Much rather that - a fucking, stinking faggot, a subject whose actions are his domain and his prerogative - than some impotent, indigent, pitiable object.

I don't like that because it sets a fucked up precedent. It tacitly implies that it wouldn't have been 'okay' if it was a choice, that if it was a choice then there might have been a case for discriminating what can done between consenting adults, that choices between consenting adults are anyone elses business. Suddenly there is a pattern established that I can be discriminated because I like to do it in my girlfriends ass because thats a choice. (just an example at random, not sharing too much)

today its stupid

in the past it was considered to be a perversion or a pathology. it was considered not just right but NECESSARY to treat gays as mentally ill or criminals.

its a long road for society to get to the point where what people do in private is none of society's business. if one stop on that road is accepting that gays are born that way, then at least its ON that road.

the next step is to understand that it doesnt matter why someone is gay. there is nothing wrong with it and besides what people do in private is no one else's business.

how would YOU suggest going from a society that jailed people for sodomy to one where sexuality is a purely private matter?

Have to say, reading this thread was a breath of fresh air. It's very nice not having opinions rammed down your throat like, well, I'm sure people here already know what else.

Anyway, I myself may be straight, but I'm all for gays having their say. Heck, if they got married, I wouldn't care (next logical step to acceptance to homosexuality). Frankly, like someone I've heard speaking for it... it doesn't affect my marriage. It's no less special with gay marriages around. I would even bet heteros even have something to learn from homosexuals, since homosexuals at least know what they want in a partner.

Plus, as said by another person, "homosexuals have full right to be as miserable as the rest of us married folk."* Paraphrased, of course.

* I myself am not a miserably married man. I'm rather actually very happy with whom I married. 'Course, I was very picky about my "mate" too.

I have always wondered how people who are so morbidly obsessed with what total strangers put in their assholes and what they do with their dicks can possibly call anyone else a 'pervert.'

today its stupid

in the past it was considered to be a perversion or a pathology. it was considered not just right but NECESSARY to treat gays as mentally ill or criminals.

its a long road for society to get to the point where what people do in private is none of society's business. if one stop on that road is accepting that gays are born that way, then at least its ON that road.

the next step is to understand that it doesnt matter why someone is gay. there is nothing wrong with it and besides what people do in private is no one else's business.

how would YOU suggest going from a society that jailed people for sodomy to one where sexuality is a purely private matter?


Haven't you been paying attention? The only way to debate someone whose opinion you think has no merit is to say "fuck off!" :p

the funny thing is all of those were just this week.

everyone loves me this week.

which sadly means you will all hate me next week.

No, not true. I always hate you, just like I hate everyone else. I believe in hating and discriminating against everyone equally. *nods* Yes, indeed. It's easier to just hate everyone, that way, everyone always an asshole. That way you never have to explain yourself or remember whether you have to like someone one week. :):)

I have always wondered how people who are so morbidly obsessed with what total strangers put in their assholes and what they do with their dicks can possibly call anyone else a 'pervert.'
I haven't heard anything more vile that the things the Phelp's say. Not on a pr0n, not in a song, nowhere. I actually had to turn a documentary off because I'd reached my ":/" limit.

today its stupid

in the past it was considered to be a perversion or a pathology. it was considered not just right but NECESSARY to treat gays as mentally ill or criminals.

its a long road for society to get to the point where what people do in private is none of society's business. if one stop on that road is accepting that gays are born that way, then at least its ON that road.

the next step is to understand that it doesnt matter why someone is gay. there is nothing wrong with it and besides what people do in private is no one else's business.

how would YOU suggest going from a society that jailed people for sodomy to one where sexuality is a purely private matter?I would argue that by putting so much energy into defending a position that has no merit ('gays are born gay and stay that way forever') the mainstream gay rights movement has hurt the queer liberation cause immensely. Not only does this position deny the bisexual experience, but it unnecessarily hitches the queer liberation wagon to a dubious idea that has nothing to do with the cause.

the funny thing is all of those were just this week.

everyone loves me this week.

which sadly means you will all hate me next week.

I won't. Unless you do something to piss me off. :)

I would argue that by putting so much energy into defending a position that has no merit ('gays are born gay and stay that way forever') the mainstream gay rights movement has hurt the queer liberation cause immensely. Not only does this position deny the bisexual experience, but it unnecessarily hitches the queer liberation wagon to a dubious idea that has nothing to do with the cause.

given that it doesnt help bisexuals at all...

how would YOU go from a time when someone like oscar wilde could be completely destroyed for falling in love with a man (not that much more than 100 years ago) to one where no one cares how you run your sex life?

Haven't you been paying attention? The only way to debate someone whose opinion you think has no merit is to say "fuck off!" :p

thats what i get for posting while playing online poker!

given that it doesnt help bisexuals at all...

how would YOU go from a time when someone like oscar wilde could be completely destroyed for falling in love with a man (not that much more than 100 years ago) to one where no one cares how you run your sex life?A hundred years of struggle. And then a handful of moneyed morons threaten to squander the gains of this long struggle by trying to stuff this BULLSHIT down everyone's throats as if it was the gospel truth. Tying a liberation struggle to a lie does that struggle no good. That's not what Stonewall was about. The truth is far more liberating. Sexuality is fluid. There is unlimited sexual potential in all of us but forcing it is very damaging.

A hundred years of struggle. And then a handful of moneyed morons threaten to squander the gains of this long struggle by trying to stuff this BULLSHIT down everyone's throats as if it was the gospel truth. Tying a liberation struggle to a lie does that struggle no good. The truth is far more liberating. Sexuality is fluid. There is unlimited sexual potential in all of us but forcing it is very damaging.

what handful of moneyed morons are you talking about? do you think we were on the verge of accepting all sexual preferences when suddenly someone came up with a "homosexuality is genetic" idea? (after all, homosexuality may well have a genetic component)

I know that I didn't choose to not be attracted to people of either gender, but I'm still not attracted to anyone. I don't really know what other people feel when they're sexually attracted to people, so I can't know for sure if they have a choice that I don't, but I don't think it really matters, even though it is interesting. I lack the attraction that other people have towards others, but it's not a problem and so the reason really shouldn't matter to other people. So I don't think it should matter why a person's sexual attraction is directed in whatever way it is directed, either.

I know that I didn't choose to not be attracted to people of either gender, but I'm still not attracted to anyone. I don't really know what other people feel when they're sexually attracted to people, so I can't know for sure if they have a choice that I don't, but I don't think it really matters, even though it is interesting. I lack the attraction that other people have towards others, but it's not a problem and so the reason really shouldn't matter to other people. So I don't think it should matter why a person's sexual attraction is directed in whatever way it is directed, either.

Oh, don't worry, Chandelier. We get as much say in the matter as you do, no more, no less.

I know that I didn't choose to not be attracted to people of either gender, but I'm still not attracted to anyone. I don't really know what other people feel when they're sexually attracted to people, so I can't know for sure if they have a choice that I don't, but I don't think it really matters, even though it is interesting. I lack the attraction that other people have towards others, but it's not a problem and so the reason really shouldn't matter to other people. So I don't think it should matter why a person's sexual attraction is directed in whatever way it is directed, either.

I bet you're sick and tired of hearing "you just haven't met the right person yet" or "don't worry, you'll find someone."

Oh, don't worry, Chandelier. We get as much say in the matter as you do, no more, no less.

That's what I thought.:)

Oh, don't worry, Chandelier. We get as much say in the matter as you do, no more, no less.

Yes but the weightings and nature of whether it's internally or externally problematic is completely different for all three and also varies from person to person.

Asexuals certainly have the most irritating end of the stick. There's still people out there that don't think it's a real orientation. That's got to suck.

I bet you're sick and tired of hearing "you just haven't met the right person yet" or "don't worry, you'll find someone."

Yes.:)

That's what I thought.:)

I'm sorry I couldn't help with the other part of your question, though... :(

the funny thing is all of those were just this week.

everyone loves me this week.

which sadly means you will all hate me next week.

I won't. I think it's my turn next month, though. KIDDING!!!

Asexuals certainly have the most irritating end of the stick. There's still people out there that don't think it's a real orientation. That's got to suck.

Indeed. :(

Yes.:)

I can imagine all too well what that's like.

Indeed. :(

It's unfortunate that our society deems anything not fitting into the standard as wrong, bad, or nonexistent.

It's unfortunate that our society deems anything not fitting into the standard as wrong, bad, or nonexistent.

yes it is.

I'm sorry I couldn't help with the other part of your question, though... :(

That's ok. :)

Asexuals certainly have the most irritating end of the stick. There's still people out there that don't think it's a real orientation. That's got to suck.

Yeah, and some people haven't heard of it yet. Some of my friends who were accepting of it once I told them what it was hadn't heard about it before I mentioned it.

Homosexuals have exactly the same ability to change their sexual orientation as heterosexuals, which is pretty much zilch. We don't have control over who we are attracted to any more than we have control over what colors appeal to us.

I absolutely believe a person can change their sexual orientation. For example, I used to be, like, sooo into Regency furniture but now I'm really more into Danish modern.

Yeah, and some people haven't heard of it yet. Some of my friends who were accepting of it once I told them what it was hadn't heard about it before I mentioned it.

Isn't it odd that american society says sex before marriage is evil, but then when you don't want sex at all it's also evil?

Isn't it odd that american society says sex before marriage is evil, but then when you don't want sex at all it's also evil?

I noticed that too... some have said because it means we're "denying god's gifts".

That's ok. :)



Yeah, and some people haven't heard of it yet. Some of my friends who were accepting of it once I told them what it was hadn't heard about it before I mentioned it.

I hadn't heard about it either, till you mentioned it here. But as I understand it, it's very very rare.

I noticed that too... some have said because it means we're "denying god's gifts".

I thought that- But then how?-

Damn hypocrites. So confusing...

I noticed that too... some have said because it means we're "denying god's gifts".

So we're not meant to enjoy "god's gift" until we're married, and if we don't get married then not at all. Got it. :)


:rolleyes:

I noticed that too... some have said because it means we're "denying god's gifts".

Trying to change who you are would also be denying the will of God though wouldn't it? I don't try anyway, I accept the parts I don't like as part of who I am, acknowledge that they've benefited me in the past (although the bad outweighs the good) and hold on to them as strongly as everything else.

So we're not meant to enjoy "god's gift" until we're married in/by the Church to ONE member of the opposite gender, and if we don't get married or do it in a way the Church does not approve then not at all or you burn in Hell . Got it. :)


:rolleyes:

Fixed.

Fixed.

Not quite, you forgot to mention that ignorance is not a tolerable excuse.

Fixed.

Ah. thanks. :) :fluffle: :p

Isn't it odd that american society says sex before marriage is evil, but then when you don't want sex at all it's also evil?

Sex before marriage is evil, but not getting married and having a family is also evil.

Can't have Family Values(TM) without a family.

Originally Posted by Darknovae View Post
So we're not meant to enjoy "god's gift" until we're married in/by the Church to ONE member of the opposite gender, and if we don't get married or do it in a way the Church does not approve then not at all or you burn in Hell . Got it.


Fixed.



Christianity is based around forgiveness. One sin does not damn you to hell!
I really hate it when people saying things without thinking them through.

Ah. thanks. :) :fluffle: :p

No Problem.

Originally Posted by Darknovae View Post
So we're not meant to enjoy "god's gift" until we're married in/by the Church to ONE member of the opposite gender, and if we don't get married or do it in a way the Church does not approve then not at all or you burn in Hell . Got it.


Fixed.



Christianity is based around forgiveness. One sin does not damn you to hell!
I really hate it when people saying things without thinking them through.

That's not what some of the more vocal ones say.

Christianity is based around forgiveness. One sin does not damn you to hell!
I really hate it when people saying things without thinking them through.

uh......yeah, it kinda does. (bold added by me)

Originally Posted by Darknovae View Post
So we're not meant to enjoy "god's gift" until we're married in/by the Church to ONE member of the opposite gender, and if we don't get married or do it in a way the Church does not approve then not at all or you burn in Hell . Got it.


Fixed.



Christianity is based around forgiveness. One sin does not damn you to hell!
I really hate it when people saying things without thinking them through.

We weren't making fun of Christianity-- well, I wasn't, anyway. I wasn't making fun of it, I was making fun of the uber-conservatives and extremists.

Yes, I said no. :)

Sexuality can be daunting enough when you aren't born with a road map. Having all this societal pressure to be this, that, or the other just compounds matters.

Homosexuals have exactly the same ability to change their sexual orientation as heterosexuals, which is pretty much zilch. We don't have control over who we are attracted to any more than we have control over what colors appeal to us.

I am beginning to think I might not be as straight as I thought I was.....because this idea that straight people are repulsed by the thought of having sex with the same gender.....I don't get it. I mean I don't have any desire to, but it doesn't disgust me.

Sexuality can be daunting enough when you aren't born with a road map. Having all this societal pressure to be this, that, or the other just compounds matters.

I don't care. I can take one look at the pile of people that don't like me. Another look at myself and say "Hmm, that's not gonna work. Maybe another time.". Stupid world.

what handful of moneyed morons are you talking about? do you think we were on the verge of accepting all sexual preferences when suddenly someone came up with a "homosexuality is genetic" idea? (after all, homosexuality may well have a genetic component)Read my posts please. Quite the opposite actually. I think that a small movement hierarchy elite that claims to speak for all queer folk is so attached to this nonsense that they will end up hurting the cause of equality by tying it to an ultimately false- and unrelated- idea. Our path to human rights is the product of a century of struggle and this 'you're born with one of two sexualities, and you'll stay that way so shut up' nonsense is threatening to undermine it.

Read my posts please. Quite the opposite actually. I think that a small movement hierarchy elite that claims to speak for all queer folk is so attached to this nonsense that they will end up hurting the cause of equality by tying it to an ultimately false- and unrelated- idea. Our path to human rights is the product of a century of struggle and this 'you're born with one of two sexualities, and you'll stay that way so shut up' nonsense is threatening to undermine it.

*shrug*

it seems to me to have been a splendid success so far. i suppose its because im not bi but i dont see that bisexuals are treated worse than gays (in general). sure y'all catch shit from both sides but thats on a personal level not so much a societal level.

and as we move on to the "do what works best for you" attitude toward sexuality, surely bis gain as much from that as anyone else.

I am beginning to think I might not be as straight as I thought I was.....because this idea that straight people are repulsed by the thought of having sex with the same gender.....I don't get it. I mean I don't have any desire to, but it doesn't disgust me.

Well straight people aren't a homogeneous group. Not thinking gay sex is teh icky doesn't make you less straight, if anything it makes you more straight.

*vaguely remembers something about studies showing homophobes to be more likely to be aroused by gay pr0n*

No, not really.

*vaguely remembers something about studies showing homophobes to be more likely to be aroused by gay pr0n*

Wait, what? :eek:

I am beginning to think I might not be as straight as I thought I was.....because this idea that straight people are repulsed by the thought of having sex with the same gender.....I don't get it. I mean I don't have any desire to, but it doesn't disgust me.

Do you find yourself sexually attracted to women? If never, you are about as straight as they get. If rarely, you'd probably still be best described as straight. If sometimes, you're bisexual. If all the time (nearly or completely to the exclusion of being attracted to men), you're a lesbian.

Of course, most of the discussion around this tends to be male-centric. Many straight men are repulsed by the though of sex with other men. It seems to be less common for straight women to be repulsed by sex with women.

That, and there's what Ifreann said:


Well straight people aren't a homogeneous group. Not thinking gay sex is teh icky doesn't make you less straight, if anything it makes you more straight.

*vaguely remembers something about studies showing homophobes to be more likely to be aroused by gay pr0n*

For those people who say "people choose their sexual orientation", when exactly did they wake up one morning and decide they were straight? Saying gay people make any kind of decision about being gay is as ridiculous as saying straight people chose to be straight. You just are. There is no choice or decision involved.

If you don't like gay marriages or "the gay lifestyle", whatever you think that means, then don't be in one. Not that hard, except for sexually insecure homophobes who are probably gay themselves. What other reason is there to care so much about what gender someone else who has nothing to do with you is attracted to?

And there is no reason why gay marriage should be up to voters. If I want to marry my boyfriend, that is our decision, not the decision of a bunch of other people it has zilch to do with.

Wait, what? :eek:

I think so. I tihnk it came up in another "lol, gays" thread at some point. Some people were given a quiz that determined whether they were homophobic or not. A group of homophobes were shown straight porn and gay porn, as were non-homophobes(all straight), and measured how aroused they were. IMS homophobic men were the most likely to be aroused by gay porn, leading to the conclusion that most homophobes are overcompensating for their homosexuality.

I thought there was a pill that could make a gay person straight, so I'm going to assume gay people can change their orientation.

I thought there was a pill that could make a gay person straight, so I'm going to assume gay people can change their orientation.

Arsenic? Rigor Mortis? And no I'm not advocating anything. No such pill exists, if it did I'm sure some people would've been able to make their lives easier.

Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.

Full Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html?eref=edition)

Wait. Those numbers don't add up. More people think that gays can't change their orientation than think that people are born gay. Therefore- you can become gay, but you can't become straight? Mmmm-hmmm.

I think so. I tihnk it came up in another "lol, gays" thread at some point. Some people were given a quiz that determined whether they were homophobic or not. A group of homophobes were shown straight porn and gay porn, as were non-homophobes(all straight), and measured how aroused they were. IMS homophobic men were the most likely to be aroused by gay porn, leading to the conclusion that most homophobes are overcompensating for their homosexuality.

:D Oh... Fred Phelps should have been part of this study!

A group of homophobes were shown straight porn and gay porn, as were non-homophobes(all straight), and measured how aroused they were. IMS homophobic men were the most likely to be aroused by gay porn, leading to the conclusion that most homophobes are overcompensating for their homosexuality.


Very interesting indeed. Could you provide a link to this? I'd like to see what sort of study this is, who performed this "scientific" study, etc. I am reasonably sure that I would not be aroused by gay porn. Repulsed, perhaps, but not aroused. And I have been called homophobic in the past (by Fass at least anyway, but he thinks almost everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% on everything is homophobic), so here at least is one man who would not be interested.

Source, please.

Wait. Those numbers don't add up. More people think that gays can't change their orientation than think that people are born gay. Therefore- you can become gay, but you can't become straight? Mmmm-hmmm.

There are reactants that can react with different things to form different products, but causing a backward or sideways transition between those products is almost (if not) impossible. Same thing really.

Very interesting indeed. Could you provide a link to this? I'd like to see what sort of study this is, who performed this "scientific" study, etc. I am reasonably sure that I would not be aroused by gay porn. Repulsed, perhaps, but not aroused. And I have been called homophobic in the past (by Fass at least anyway, but he thinks almost everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% on everything is homophobic), so here at least is one man who would not be interested.

Source, please.

I looked up that study after Ifreann mentioned it and found it here (http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OuUWXezMbF8J:www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf+) in html format, with a pdf link at the top of the page.

Do you find yourself sexually attracted to women? If never, you are about as straight as they get. If rarely, you'd probably still be best described as straight. If sometimes, you're bisexual. If all the time (nearly or completely to the exclusion of being attracted to men), you're a lesbian.

Of course, most of the discussion around this tends to be male-centric. Many straight men are repulsed by the though of sex with other men. It seems to be less common for straight women to be repulsed by sex with women.
hmm......I guess the thought of having intimate relations with anyone but hubby kinda grosses me out on a practical level, but if I had to choose I would be with another woman more than another man......

I dated a girl once, went much better than dating guys for the most part (hubby excluded)

Wait. Those numbers don't add up. More people think that gays can't change their orientation than think that people are born gay. Therefore- you can become gay, but you can't become straight? Mmmm-hmmm.

You don't have to be born gay (or straight/bi/etc.) to be unable to change it. You're setting up a false dichotomy here. I wasn't born 5'10", but that doesn't mean I sit down and use my own force of will to change my height.

There is always the gay bomb the CIA was trying to invent. I'm curious how they figured that would work if homosexuality wasn't biological.

hmm......I guess the thought of having intimate relations with anyone but hubby kinda grosses me out on a practical level, but if I had to choose I would be with another woman more than another man......

Interesting. My husband, I think, would rather me be with another woman than another man (assuming I was staying with him and just had to choose for some strange reason). Of course, he also says, "Whoever was forcing you to make that choice would be dead."

I dated a girl once, went much better than dating guys for the most part (hubby excluded)

I never really dated a girl, so I can't compare. I have kissed a girl or two, and I would say that girl kisses tend to be rather different than those you get from guys - softer somehow. That's about all I have by way of comparison, though. =)

There is always the gay bomb the CIA was trying to invent. I'm curious how they figured that would work if homosexuality wasn't biological.

Same logic as in prisons isn't it? Make them really really desperate and they'll do anything.

You don't have to be born gay (or straight/bi/etc.)

Isn't just about everyone born asexual then become whatever they'll become later on?

*shrug*

it seems to me to have been a splendid success so far. i suppose its because im not bi but i dont see that bisexuals are treated worse than gays (in general). sure y'all catch shit from both sides but thats on a personal level not so much a societal level.

and as we move on to the "do what works best for you" attitude toward sexuality, surely bis gain as much from that as anyone else....and tying the struggle to achieve this to a lie hurts the effort. 'hurting bi's' is beside the point. Everyone can potentiaslly exhibit any sexual tendencies throughout their lifetime. A monolithic view of sexuality hurts everyone and hitching the queer rights wagon to the dead horse of a false assertion does extra damage. We are all born with infinite (and at this point unknowable) sexual potential.

And if you think the struggle begins and ends with this nonsense then please check up on your history. The battle cry has always been 'sexuality is a personal prerogative' not 'you are born straight or gay, shut up'

Isn't just about everyone born asexual then become whatever they'll become later on?

Possibly. Still.

There are reactants that can react with different things to form different products, but causing a backward or sideways transition between those products is almost (if not) impossible. Same thing really.

Possibly. Still. Read my chemistry analogy.

I don't think that sexuality or the lack thereof is a choice, I'm just pointing out a technicality.

I don't think that sexuality or the lack thereof is a choice, I'm just pointing out a technicality.

I was just pointing out to Ivory Jaguar that just because two things can come from something, doesn't mean that they can come from each other or even revert back to what they were. I want to know if you agree.

Interesting. My husband, I think, would rather me be with another woman than another man (assuming I was staying with him and just had to choose for some strange reason). Of course, he also says, "Whoever was forcing you to make that choice would be dead."
my husband would rather me not be with anyone but him.....


I never really dated a girl, so I can't compare. I have kissed a girl or two, and I would say that girl kisses tend to be rather different than those you get from guys - softer somehow. That's about all I have by way of comparison, though. =)
yeah, it was a pretty good relationship, only we ended up with PMS at the same time and got into bitch fights.....that never happens with my boy though ;)

given that it doesnt help bisexuals at all...

how would YOU go from a time when someone like oscar wilde could be completely destroyed for falling in love with a man (not that much more than 100 years ago) to one where no one cares how you run your sex life?

I think it's a side road that really doesn't accomplish what it could because it allows us to ask all the wrong questions instead of the real issue, that it's no ones business who fucks who consensually. I think it slows the road down with distraction than it does speed things up.

...and tying the struggle to achieve this to a lie hurts the effort. 'hurting bi's' is beside the point. Everyone can potentiaslly exhibit any sexual tendencies throughout their lifetime. A monolithic view of sexuality hurts everyone and hitching the queer rights wagon to the dead horse of a false assertion does extra damage. We are all born with infinite (and at this point unknowable) sexual potential.

If you thing the struggle begins and ends with this nonsense then please check up on your history.

i dont know that it IS a false assertion.

all i know is that it is today an increasingly irrelevant assertion.

and that it has helped many people accept homosexuality who otherwise would have been lost in the "its a sin" mode.

i do think that today it is better to emphasize sexual freedom. after all any of us might find ourselves attracted to someone we never thought we could be attracted to. its good to know that its (probably) OK.

I was just pointing out to Ivory Jaguar that just because two things can come from something, doesn't mean that they can come from each other or even revert back to what they were. I want to know if you agree.

Um... Let me try to do this graphically because it's late at night.

A->B+C

B->C->B NOT ALWAYS

B+C->A NOT ALWAYS

Yes, I agree with the statement.

But our sexual desires themselves aren't something we can change at will.

I wouldn't be so sure about that....It's not fast and it's not easy but then again our sexual desires do naturally *change* over time through the course of our lives: A guy or a gal at the age of 8, 15, 25, 50 and 80 is bound to have pretty different sexual desires.

I'd be inclined to say we can - to a degree - change our sexual desires, if not the underlying preference itself.

Infact...I'd say a level of bisexuality and 'sexual curiosity' is the most natural state for humans with cultural indoctrination and experiences defining the actual end result at any given age during our lifetime.

all i know is that it is today an increasingly irrelevant assertion.

and that it has helped many people accept homosexuality who otherwise would have been lost in the "its a sin" mode.
So what are these 'new converts' to accepting gays going to think when they read about all the folks whose sexual preferences have naturally shifted throughout their lifetimes? This phenomenon sort of gives the lie to the whole 'born gay/strait' thing.

I have a feeling that they are going to feel cheated and lied to. The reaction might be catastrophic. You might think that crossing your fingers and praying that the bumbling clueless media won't catch on is a great tactic for the movement, but it makes me worry.

I believe they can change their orientation. Not that it's likely, but I refuse to believe it couldn't be done. The human brain is simply too malleable and unpredictable, subject to all sorts of hormonal and chemical oddities.

all i know is that it is today an increasingly irrelevant assertion.

and that it has helped many people accept homosexuality who otherwise would have been lost in the "its a sin" mode.
So what are these 'new converts' to accepting gays going to think when they read about all the folks whose sexual preferences have naturally shifted throughout their lifetimes? This phenomenon sort of gives the lie to the whole 'born gay/strait' thing.

I have a feeling that they are going to feel cheated and lied to. The reaction might be catastrophic. You might think that crossing your fingers and praying that the bumbling clueless media won't catch on is a great tactic for the movement, but it makes me worry.

The relief that these folks feel about the 'fact' that their sons won't get tempted into 'a life of sin' if they don't exhibit any 'symptoms' by age eight (where do you think some of this new 'acceptance' comes from?) is going to turn into a murderous rage when they realize that 'the gayness' can strike anyone anytime. The 'born gay/strait' compromise is a hollow one.

I believe they can change their orientation. Not that it's likely, but I refuse to believe it couldn't be done. The human brain is simply too malleable and unpredictable, subject to all sorts of hormonal and chemical oddities.

I never said it couldn't be done. Just that it was hard and that you probably wouldn't want to. Brainwashing usually has side-effects.

Everyone can potentiaslly exhibit any sexual tendencies throughout their lifetime.

In a general sense, this may be true. However, it isn't really true in an individual sense.

A monolithic view of sexuality hurts everyone and hitching the queer rights wagon to the dead horse of a false assertion does extra damage. We are all born with infinite (and at this point unknowable) sexual potential.

On what basis do you make that claim? It would seem to me that everyone's sexuality is limited by who they are attracted to. None of us are sexually attracted to everyone.


my husband would rather me not be with anyone but him.....

Yes, but your hypothetical was if you had to choose. That pretty much cuts out the "no one" option. =)

yeah, it was a pretty good relationship, only we ended up with PMS at the same time and got into bitch fights.....that never happens with my boy though

Hehe. Women do have a tendency to get on the same cycle. It can be quite a pain, romantic relationship or not.


So what are these 'new converts' to accepting gays going to think when they read about all the folks whose sexual preferences have naturally shifted throughout their lifetimes? This phenomenon sort of gives the lie to the whole 'born gay/strait' thing.

This looks like another false dichotomy. It isn't "you're either born gay/straight/bi/etc. or you can change it at will." Much like any complex trait, sexuality can and does change over the course of a lifetime. Evidence would suggest that it is influenced by many different factors. This still doesn't mean that you choose it or that you can change it at will.

I believe they can change their orientation. Not that it's likely, but I refuse to believe it couldn't be done. The human brain is simply too malleable and unpredictable, subject to all sorts of hormonal and chemical oddities.

Do you have control over the "hormonal and chemical oddities" in your own brain?

Yes, but your hypothetical was if you had to choose. That pretty much cuts out the "no one" option. =)
If I had to choose I would choose a girl.

My only question is;
what is the relevance of this polling as the majority of response will undoubtedly be heterosexual?

This would actually be worth considering if only gays were polled.

It isn't "you're either born gay/straight/bi/etc. or you can change it at will." You are basically making my point. I never said 'at will.' I am saying that sexuality is fluid. it can 'change' regardless of 'will.' I do not claim to know all of the factors involved, but Jesus and willpower don't seem to do much on their own. On what basis do you make that claim? It would seem to me that everyone's sexuality is limited by who they are attracted to. None of us are sexually attracted to everyone. not sure what 'claim' you're responding to here. Maybe you've misunderstood me again. Perhaps the above clarification will help you here too.

You are basically making my point. I never said 'at will.' I am saying that sexuality is fluid. it can 'change' regardless of 'will.'

Being able to change does not mean that you can change it. Hence, you are agreeing with the statement that gay/straight/bi/etc. people cannot change their sexuality. The fact that it may change on its own is irrelevant.

not sure what 'claim' you're responding to here. Maybe you've misunderstood me again. Perhaps the above clarification will help you here too.

You claim that everyone is born with "infinite sexual potential." I see no reason to think this assertion is true. There is quite a bit of evidence that sexual orientation is, to some degree, controlled by genetic factors and hormone balance during development. This would suggest that, while there is fluidity in sexuality, the degree of change in any given individual will be restricted by their biology. The chances that a person who is only attracted to men at the outset of puberty will ever find themselves exclusively attracted to women is so miniscule as to be neligible. On the other hand, the chance that a person who is most often attracted to men will find themselves, over time, attracted to more women, is not. Individual sexuality can slide in either direction on the spectrum, but I've seen no reason to believe that every person has the potential to slide to any point on that spectrum.

Damn! FIERCE :)


One thing I am truly sick and tired of is heterosexuals trying to "figure out" my sexuality and look for its "cause" - mind your* own fucking business and find the cause of your own sexuality before you pathologise mine and treat it as an oddity. Whether I choose to like sucking cock or just like it because "I was born that way" makes no fucking difference in the end whatsoever to my right to suck more cock than a Vietnamese whore.

* Not directed at you specifically, Smunkee. You know what I mean.

I never said it couldn't be done. Just that it was hard and that you probably wouldn't want to. Brainwashing usually has side-effects.

That's probably true. I wouldn't advocate some nutty Clockwork Orange-esque program to beat the gay out of someone - that's not the idea. ;) I've seen old married couples suddenly split because one partner decides they're homosexual, without any history of it, so I know that orientation does change, and hormones certainly change over the years, so I expect it happens even more than we know. Whether it can be forced on someone, I'm not too sure, but chemicals that would do it might exist now or in the future.

Do you have control over the "hormonal and chemical oddities" in your own brain?

To some degree. I can add and subtract chemicals, add hormones if I wish (though those are harder to get and due to their cost tend to be purchased by the rich, e.g. HGH for their kids). Some of the chemicals I add on occasion make me pretty friendly, though never in *that* kind of way. :p Of course, there are probably a whole bunch that I can't control, but I don't doubt that sexuality can be changed over time by a number of things - circumstances, experiences, hormonal and chemical changes in the brain, etc. If the question is, "can I sit down in a chair and, by focusing really hard, make myself gay/straight in an afternoon," I would strongly doubt it. :p

Damn! FIERCE :)

Indeed, but necessary. I think the whole nature/nurture debate on homosexuality misses the point. Whether it's a choice or not is immaterial. Gays are humans and deserve equal treatment under the law. The only way you can really argue that we should discriminate against them is if you're willing to say they're not humans deserving of human rights.

I voted for SCIENCE!

how would YOU suggest going from a society that jailed people for sodomy to one where sexuality is a purely private matter?

Oh, that's easy. With fire. With arms. With blood. Like anything that is unjustly withheld through oppression, it has to be fought for and won. Kill the jailers. Kill those who would intrude. Burn the prisons as symbols of injustice. Overthrow every institution that enables-- and every individual who is complicit with-- the injustice. When someone says "we should treat/pity/oppress/jail/kill gay people," say to them "other people's sexuality is none of your business, and I call on you to recant your bigotry." If they don't, punch them in the face. Keep punching them in the face until your fists are covered in their brains.

Yes it's a very illiberal position to advocate (as well as unrealistic because people have mostly been 'civilised' out of taking such strong action, even in self-defense); it stinks of nastiness and violence and not 'respecting their opinion' and breaking with social order and blah, blah, blah. Don't care. If those who would oppress you are closed to reason-- if they will not listen, and they resort to violence-- then you, the would-be oppressed, have only two options: be passive-- which granted, is your right to choose-- and hope that some magical switch goes off and they realise they're wrong and do an about-face (good luck with that); or respond in kind, pay them in their own coin, and use reciprocal violence to repel their oppression. If you can't reason with them-- not through any failure on your part, but because they cannot be reasoned with then you must either submit to their ignorance and violence, or fight back until they are either a) too respectful (or afraid) of you to screw with you, or b) dead, and therefore incapable of screwing with you. And if they are in control of the systems that govern society, then those mechanisms are better overturned and destroyed than left in corrupt hands. We can always re-build them better after those who would abuse them have been dealt with. Temporary chaos in the cause of justice is preferable to perpetual order where injustice is institutionalised.

The kind of hate that oppresses is animalistic, so it can be presented in animal terms. Wolves will always kill sheep, without conscience or remorse-- they can't be reasoned with or persuaded or convinced not to. They don't respect sheep, don't regard them as equals, don't care about the sheep's 'feelings.' Given the power and the option to do so, the sheep would be entirely justified in using deadly force to kill the wolves back, in order to live, freely, as sheep.

And before someone cries the "but then you're as bad as them" argument-- no. Because 'they' started it. Someone forced to defend themselves from relentless, unprovoked, violent attack does not become "as bad" as the attacker if they use violence to defend themselves. Self-defense/self-preservation is a right, perhaps the most fundamental, egalitarian right in the universe. You have a right to be here. If someone attacks you for no good reason, they're saying "you have no such right/there is no such right," and if you take them out instead of the other way around then they have reaped what they've sown. It doesn't make you the wrong-doer, or the 'bad guy' or 'as bad' as them. If another person engages you in a particular 'language,' be it French, or Greek, or violence, and will not listen to or respect or even acknowledge any other language, learning to respond in kind, in French, or Greek, or violence, is in and of itself, a morally neutral act. The moral burden is on the one who launched the unprovoked attack, not the intended victim. Violence would never have been necessary were it not for the aggressor. To the attacker it is the preferred option, the moral choice, the end unto itself; to the attacked it is the undesired-but-necessary recourse, the morally neutral instrument, the means to an end.

I come from one of the most gay-friendly places in America and know many gays, and genuinely believe that sexual orientation is immutable. First of all, I learned about the genetic basis for homosexuality...science. Second, just hearing a lot of their stories of all these terrible things that they had to go through, and hearing about how hard it was to try to pretend to be straight when they weren't, I simply cannot believe that it's a "choice." I mean, it would be so much easier to be straight for some of them, but they just AREN'T. I mean, getting disowned, your life threatened, getting beat up...I just can't imagine this as being a matter of choice.

Indeed, but necessary. I think the whole nature/nurture debate on homosexuality misses the point. Whether it's a choice or not is immaterial. Gays are humans and deserve equal treatment under the law. The only way you can really argue that we should discriminate against them is if you're willing to say they're not humans deserving of human rights.

*bows*

thank you for seeing what others have not.

:fluffle:

-Rafe

Oh, that's easy. With fire. With arms. With blood...[et al.]

Please, G.S.M., please practice law in the U.S.! Your words are awe-inspiring; got me out of a stupor.

thank you!

*bows*

:fluffle:

-Rafe
OOC

Quote:
• CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll finds attitudes evolving
• For first time, majority think homosexuality is unchangeable
• In 1977, 13 percent of poll respondents said gays were born that way
• 39 percent in latest poll say people are born gay
Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.


This poll would have some trace of value if it was held between biologists and psychologists only. What does the average citizen know about biochemistry, evolutionary psychology etc? NOTHING. Consensus isn't facts.

Also, I know (directly) a person that has been through various stages of her sexual tendencies - both straight and homosexual. So, she changed.

Quit pretending that it matters whether it's a choice or not.

Someone comes out on your side, and you still pillory the guy. Why? He doesn't have the correct supportive opinion?

One thing I am truly sick and tired of is heterosexuals trying to "figure out" my sexuality and look for its "cause" - mind your* own fucking business and find the cause of your own sexuality before you pathologise mine and treat it as an oddity. Whether I choose to like sucking cock or just like it because "I was born that way" makes no fucking difference in the end whatsoever to my right to suck more cock than a Vietnamese whore.

* Not directed at you specifically, Smunkee. You know what I mean.

And the nationality of the whore matters because...?

(Sorry, just using your own silliness on you. ;) )

This poll would have some trace of value if it was held between biologists and psychologists only. What does the average citizen know about biochemistry, evolutionary psychology etc? NOTHING. Consensus isn't facts.

Also, I know (directly) a person that has been through various stages of her sexual tendencies - both straight and homosexual. So, she changed.

Exactly. Only problem is - not having a concrete answer to the question makes it a bit difficult to cause controversy. :p

The kind of hate that oppresses is animalistic, so it can be presented in animal terms. Wolves will always kill sheep, without conscience or remorse-- they can't be reasoned with or persuaded or convinced not to. They don't respect sheep, don't regard them as equals, don't care about the sheep's 'feelings.' Given the power and the option to do so, the sheep would be entirely justified in using deadly force to kill the wolves back, in order to live, freely, as sheep.

State why it is animalistic. Looks like hate - expecially group hate - is a typical human behaviour, countless examples through history. Or are you just hiding that you're shouting "ANIMALS!" through an euphemism?
Also, wolves have been persuaded not to kill sheeps. It has been done since more than 10000 years. Now we call those wolves dogs.

About your sheeps living freely: so the sheep population would run out of control, the sheeps would eat all grass faster than grass can grow back, and ultimately all sheeps would die of starvation. Bad example.

Also, you're talking about different species (wolves and sheeps) who, of course, aren't equal. If you maintain (and by using that example, you do) that some humans are a different species from other humans because of different behaviour, you are being a racist.


And before someone cries the "but then you're as bad as them" argument-- no. Because 'they' started it. Someone forced to defend themselves from relentless, unprovoked, violent attack does not become "as bad" as the attacker if they use violence to defend themselves.


So, basically, you are saying that you'll have to wait being fired a shotgun in the chest before firing back a shotgun in the chest at your aggressor. Or are you calling for disproportionate response to attacks? You should define not just "use violence to defend oneself", but also "how much violence" and "to what point" and "in what case". Else, just to give an example, I could claim that your post was an "attack" on myself and target you with a 10 Mton warhead. Would that be an appropriate answer?

Then, define when 'it' starts. It is at the first gunshot? At the first punch? First menace? First insult? First angry look? First disapproval? First article on a newspaper?


Self-defense/self-preservation is a right, perhaps the most fundamental, egalitarian right in the universe. You have a right to be here. If someone attacks you for no good reason, they're saying "you have no such right/there is no such right," and if you take them out instead of the other way around then they have reaped what they've sown. It doesn't make you the wrong-doer, or the 'bad guy' or 'as bad' as them. If another person engages you in a particular 'language,' be it French, or Greek, or violence, and will not listen to or respect or even acknowledge any other language, learning to respond in kind, in French, or Greek, or violence, is in and of itself, a morally neutral act. The moral burden is on the one who launched the unprovoked attack, not the intended victim. Violence would never have been necessary were it not for the aggressor. To the attacker it is the preferred option, the moral choice, the end unto itself; to the attacked it is the undesired-but-necessary recourse, the morally neutral instrument, the means to an end.

(bold mine; MTAE...lol)

Now, explain why the attacker loses his "right to be there" with something more complex than "he's the bad guy":rolleyes:. Then, explain why you mix languages like german and french with behaviours like violence.

Violence isn't a language. Violence is the ultimate answer when language has failed. You aren't voluntary conveying a message through violence - you are just trying to down your target.

Your moral seems quite childish and oversimplified.

Exactly. Only problem is - not having a concrete answer to the question makes it a bit difficult to cause controversy. :p

Maybe, we are asking the wrong question.
I learnt from studying physics that asking the right question is more important than finding the correct answer.

I'll add: except from scholarly curiosity - and I am curious - , what do I care if our sexual tendencies are a product of our genetic heritage more than our education and experience? On the socio-political level, I couldn't care less.

*bows*
thank you for seeing what others have not.
:fluffle:
-Rafe
Man, it's The Nazz. You cannot expect nothing less from him.

Oh, that's easy. With fire. With arms. With blood. Like anything that is unjustly withheld through oppression, it has to be fought for and won. Kill the jailers. Kill those who would intrude. Burn the prisons as symbols of injustice...

You lost me riiiiight there.

I wonder what kind of flag a gay-rights marxist designs? I mean, besides the fact that it would look fabulous...?

Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.

Full Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html?eref=edition)

Why does it matter if it can or cannot be changed? There's not the least tiny little thing wrong with being gay...

It's a bit like proclaiming a huge victory because people now believe that lefthandedness is something you're born with...

Why does it matter if it can or cannot be changed? There's not the least tiny little thing wrong with being gay...

I know that, and you know that. But there's this really loud group of people that disagree.

I entirely disagree with the 'stop investigating my sexuality' line of thought. We do study why and how heterosexuals are attracted to each other and should do so for homosexuals as well, as part of an overall study into why and how we are all attracted to whoever we're attracted to - this includes children, farm animals, household implements or whatever it is you use to satisfy the sexual urge.

What we shouldn't do is make it a political issue and treat it simply as the biological issue it is.

Given that, my suspicion is that we're all on a bell curve of sexuality in that about 20% could be considered mostly to totally homosexual, 60% are essentially bisexual and the remaining 20% are mostly to totally heterosexual.

It's social mores that mean sex with one's own gender is seen as wrong, a deeply ingrained social more at that. I suspect that if it was all just seen as sex that most of us would screw whoever we wanted to just because we want to get it on.

I know that, and you know that. But there's this really loud group of people that disagree.

Oh, I'm well aware of them, unfortunately.
But I think they ought to be treated for what they are : childish bigots. Stooping to their level of reasoning (be that by proving that people are born gay, or by showing that the phenomenon is by no means limited to the human race) is equivalent to taking them seriously, and it's sending out the wrong message.

It's a bit like proving to a racist that some people are just born black... it's pointless.

Oh, I'm well aware of them, unfortunately.
But I think they ought to be treated for what they are : childish bigots. Stooping to their level of reasoning (be that by proving that people are born gay, or by showing that the phenomenon is by no means limited to the human race) is equivalent to taking them seriously, and it's sending out the wrong message.

It's a bit like proving to a racist that some people are just born black... it's pointless.

*looks around*. Well I'm still reading NSG. Pointlessness is to be expected. Somebody start a thread to debate which colour a zebra's stripes are.

Someone comes out on your side, and you still pillory the guy. Why? He doesn't have the correct supportive opinion?
Yup. Don't you know what "disagreeing" means? Just because Bottle is "on my side" (which she isn't, really, in this discussion) does not mean that she is right in what she says. So, take your school ground clique-mentality and play with it in the sandbox, because it's not suitable for adult discussions.

And the nationality of the whore matters because...?
Have you ever been with a Vietnamese whore? Or a whore at all? No? Then, have a cup of STFU and while you're doing that, learn to recognise references to popular culture.

We do study why and how heterosexuals are attracted to each other

But you don't look for "causes" to heterosexuality. No, no, the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals never question its causes, and would never dream of sustaining a debate where the eventual cause would be held as a reason not to allow them to be heterosexual.

Given that, my suspicion is that we're all on a bell curve of sexuality in that about 20% could be considered mostly to totally homosexual, 60% are essentially bisexual and the remaining 20% are mostly to totally heterosexual.

It's cute how you just pulled that out of your ass. I am impressed.

But you don't look for "causes" to heterosexuality. No, no, the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals never question its causes, and would never dream of sustaining a debate where the eventual cause would be held as a reason not to allow them to be heterosexual.

I'd like to know the cause.

I'd like to know the cause.

Would it make any difference to you?

I'd like to know the cause.

I always find it interesting, though I think it's more like 'causes,' rather than just one - birth order, conditions in the womb, things like that. Any good physicalist drools over that stuff. :p

Would it make any difference to you?

Just curiosity, I guess.

*looks around*. Well I'm still reading NSG. Pointlessness is to be expected. Somebody start a thread to debate which colour a zebra's stripes are.

Ohh easy every body knows, zebra's are black with white stripes!

Ohh easy every body knows, zebra's are black with white stripes!

Ah, but neither black nor white are colours!

Ah, but neither black nor white are colours!

Ahhh sure they are, white is all colours and black, well go ask a goth or emo kid what their fave colour is(don't actualy work if they say purple though)

But you don't look for "causes" to heterosexuality. No, no, the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals never question its causes, and would never dream of sustaining a debate where the eventual cause would be held as a reason not to allow them to be heterosexual.

Perhaps we should :)

It's cute how you just pulled that out of your ass. I am impressed.

The Barringtonia Grand Theory of Life is indeed spectacular and totally unsubstantiated - If I feel it's right then I assume it is, no need for science in my outlook on things.

It doesn't matter to anyone, because homophobic bigots don't really care as they will justify their idiocy just as easily either or ("if it's a choice, we'll make them regret it and beat or kill it out of them" or "if it's not a choice, then we'll 'cure' or kill them"), and it most certainly doesn't matter to anyone who is gay since it is of no consequence.

Well it could matter out interest

Like why people studied why the sky is blue ... its of no consequence but it may be of interest even to a gay person.

Well it could matter out interest

Like why people studied why the sky is blue ... its of no consequence but it may be of interest even to a gay person.
NO!!! IT IS OF NO MATTER!!!! NOBODY CAN POSSIBLY CARE ABOUT IT!!! RAAAWWWRRRR!!!!

Seriously, Fass, I'm on your side with this one. You are reading waaay too much in to what I'm saying. I'm not remotely arguing that it should matter, nor do I personally buy into any of the BS spouted by the folks who are trying to make some bizarre point about how sexuality is only okay as long as it's involuntary biological urges. I'm simply saying that it matters because people MAKE it matter. I have to deal with peoples' behavior. I have to deal with the consequences of other peoples' votes. So it matters what they think and what their thought process is, even if I think they're totally wrong.

Maybe I just have a more optimistic view of people, but I find that if you relate to people in terms they are prepared to understand you will usually have more success. I know that jaded, experienced folks like us may find it hard to believe, but there have been so many times that I've actually gotten through to somebody by saying, "What are you talking about with all this 'gays choose to be gay' crap? When did you choose to be straight?"

Empathy works, I'm telling you. If you can get across to people that gay sexuality is fundamentally no different from their own sexuality, then they can start to relate and empathize. And most people have a much harder time hating once they've really empathized.

Indeed, but necessary. I think the whole nature/nurture debate on homosexuality misses the point. Whether it's a choice or not is immaterial. Gays are humans and deserve equal treatment under the law. The only way you can really argue that we should discriminate against them is if you're willing to say they're not humans deserving of human rights.
When it comes to talking about things like gay marriage, I 100% agree.

But the question of nature/nuture when it comes to human sexuality is still important in many other ways. Please remember, legal equality for gays is not the end of the story by any stretch of the imagination. When we talk about sexuality and biology, we are touching on a topic that impacts a huge area of social thought.

Gender and sex roles. The concept of "compulsion" or "biological imperatives," and how it relates to our responsibilities in interacting with one another. Hell, our very definitions of what distinguishes the sexes can be called into question, and with them a whole chunk of the hierarchy that has been a part of Western civilization since the very beginning.

"Gay versus straight" can't be completely untangled from "masculine versus feminine." The two are so mushed up and muddled, at least in Western thought, that you can't deal with one without touching on the other.

You are most naïve if you think any "answer" reached will matter.

It already has. Addressing that question, and "answering" it for some people, has already impacted the views (and votes!) of people I know.


Homosexuality does not need an explanation or an excuse. That's what needs to be ascertained, not any stupid "cause".
I obviously don't disagree with you about this. I simply take a pragmatic approach.

It's going to take us a long time to get that message out, and to actually change the public consciousness in so significant a way. Personally, I'd rather that gay citizens enjoy equal rights while we go about trying to get the message across. So, to me, talking to people about this concept matters, because that's how I choose to go about impacting our government and our laws: through my fellow voters.

Just curiosity, I guess.

That's right :D

Would it make any difference to you?

No, but it doesn't have to. You don't make science justify itself do you?

Ohh easy every body knows, zebra's are black with white stripes!

Nuh uh!

Nuh uh!

Yu-uh!

You cannot consciously change your sexuality, and even if you appeared to others to have changed I suspect you would just be self-suppressing your feelings, which is obviously a bad idea. That said, I think sexuality is fluid and does change gradually over time subconsciously.

However, choice really doesn't matter. It does not invalidate homosexuality even if it was chosen.

Christianity is based around forgiveness.

Correction: Christianity is SUPPOSED to be based around forgiveness. In practice, it's more like an orgy of damnation.

I'm not saying all the members really seem to like damning people to hell. But certainly a significant portion of them.


I really hate it when people saying things without thinking them through.

You mean like, for example, claiming a perfectly accurate, although sarcastic, statement, is wrong?

I thought there was a pill that could make a gay person straight, so I'm going to assume gay people can change their orientation.

If such a thing exists, the creator is a homophobic asshole who deserves nothing but contempt.

And, judging from the responses to this bullshit, it doesn't. Thankfully.

Trying to change who you are would also be denying the will of God though wouldn't it? I don't try anyway, I accept the parts I don't like as part of who I am, acknowledge that they've benefited me in the past (although the bad outweighs the good) and hold on to them as strongly as everything else.

Yeah, that's what I think. I am the way I am, and there's no reason to act as though I feel things that I don't feel. That would make it much worse.

Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.

Full Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html?eref=edition)

The majority of gays who have propositioned me (I'm heterosexual) insist that I can change my orientation.

If that's true, then so can they.

The majority of gays who have propositioned me (I'm heterosexual) insist that I can change my orientation.

If that's true, then so can they.

They are probably suggesting it since some of the more religious heterosexuals have this knack for suggesting homosexuality is merely a choice and gays can with the snap of their fingers instantly be removed of their gay-itude and become perfectly straight.

"Gays' orientation can't change"

Why should it?
Well put, Kat *agrees wholeheartedly*

If anyone tries to change my orientation he can go f*ck himself. I am not interested.

They are probably suggesting it since some of the more religious heterosexuals have this knack for suggesting homosexuality is merely a choice and gays can with the snap of their fingers instantly be removed of their gay-itude and become perfectly straight.

IMHO, no one can "choose". I find it ironic that there are so many gays that I've met who insist that while they can't choose, I somehow have that ability.

I don't think they're being comical about it - they want to have sex with me.

IMHO, no one can "choose". I find it ironic that there are so many gays that I've met who insist that while they can't choose, I somehow have that ability.

I don't think they're being comical about it - they want to have sex with me.

How many gays have you actually met and you think they all can't wait to jump into the sack with you and have their dirty way with your ass? :rolleyes:

I doubt ALL are serious. I know a few gays myself and the ones that hit on me have been very forward about sex but I know they aren't serious because it's all in the tone. Listen to how they speak.

they want to have sex with me.If you're gonna say things like that, at least post some pics.

How many gays have you actually met and you think they all can't wait to jump into the sack with you and have their dirty way with your ass? :rolleyes:

I doubt ALL are serious. I know a few gays myself and the ones that hit on me have been very forward about sex but I know they aren't serious because it's all in the tone. Listen to how they speak.

Half the guys at the gym.

They are serious. You may see it as dirty, but I don't.

Whatever they want to do is fine with me, as long as I don't have to be there.

They aren't joking.

Half the guys at the gym.

They are serious. You may see it as dirty, but I don't.

Whatever they want to do is fine with me, as long as I don't have to be there.

They aren't joking.

Then obviously someone's going to the wrong gym. :p

Then obviously someone's going to the wrong gym. :p

Gold's Gym in Herndon.

If Gays don't change their sexual orientation then does that apply to heteros?
I don't think its a hard and fast rule. I know I will always be str8. So now does this apply to vegans and veggies, catholics and muslims?? etc etc
Or is it just the sex thing?
Hmmm

:confused:

Yeah, that's what I think. I am the way I am, and there's no reason to act as though I feel things that I don't feel. That would make it much worse.

That's right. And don't let anybody tell you different.

That's right. And don't let anybody tell you different.

:)

Huh. I guess that settles the age old debate for now. I wonder how the fundies are going to react to this latest poll--if they acknowledge it at all.

Full Story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html?eref=edition)

I really think that when a person is a homosexual I think that they are born that way. Although, you do have a few that may choose that route or that they have experimented with the same sex but truthfully, I think that it is something that people are born with.:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

I dont think you can change your homosexuality.

But you can choose the way you live. If you want to live as an heterosexual, you can, even if youre gay. There will be sacrifices, but you would have to know if its better for your job/family if you act as an homosexual only when people cant see you.

IMHO, no one can "choose". I find it ironic that there are so many gays that I've met who insist that while they can't choose, I somehow have that ability.

I don't think they're being comical about it - they want to have sex with me.
I never cease to be impressed by the number of Very Heterosexual Dudes who insist that it's positively raining gay men on them.

I dont think you can change your homosexuality.

But you can choose the way you live. If you want to live as an heterosexual, you can, even if youre gay. There will be sacrifices, but you would have to know if its better for your job/family if you act as an homosexual only when people cant see you.

Huh?

Huh?

I'll translate it for you. "If you lie about who you are people will like you more, if you cover up your being gay it lead to a greater chance of social advancement". I hate seeing that written in one of my posts :(

Huh?

Let me paraphrase:

"You can't change the fact that you're queer, but you don't have to act like it! Stop sucking cock in public!"


Ok, so probably not what he actually meant. He probably means that if you're in some horrifyingly assbackward place you can play it straight. Though some of us are better at that than others.

I dont think you can change your homosexuality.

But you can choose the way you live. If you want to live as an heterosexual, you can, even if youre gay. There will be sacrifices, but you would have to know if its better for your job/family if you act as an homosexual only when people cant see you.

If your job or family requires you to act strait in front of them they should be kicked in the balls before you quit/stop talking to them

If they can not accept you for you then they are not worth your time

I never cease to be impressed by the number of Very Heterosexual Dudes who insist that it's positively raining gay men on them.

Depends on where you go. If you go to some weightlifting places, it's a veritable rainstorm.

Depends on where you go. If you go to some weightlifting places, it's a veritable rainstorm.

Not around here and I even look for them (being bi)

Not around here and I even look for them (being bi)

You can come down here, and I'll introduce you. There's even the occasional session in the locker room.

That's probably true. I wouldn't advocate some nutty Clockwork Orange-esque program to beat the gay out of someone - that's not the idea. ;) I've seen old married couples suddenly split because one partner decides they're homosexual, without any history of it, so I know that orientation does change, and hormones certainly change over the years, so I expect it happens even more than we know. Whether it can be forced on someone, I'm not too sure, but chemicals that would do it might exist now or in the future.

Actually, when you see those "old married couples" split up, it usually isn't because of some huge shift in sexuality. It's usually because somebody was pushed into a marriage they didn't really want by a society that wouldn't have accepted them as homosexual.

To some degree. I can add and subtract chemicals, add hormones if I wish (though those are harder to get and due to their cost tend to be purchased by the rich, e.g. HGH for their kids).

You can add chemicals, but you cannot control how your brain reacts to them. You cannot suddenly start reacting to male pheromones instead of female ones simply because you want to. And the chance that any chemical additions is going to switch a person from being exclusively attracted to one gender to be exclusively attracted to the other is pretty much nil. At most, it would move them a little bit along the spectrum.

If the question is, "can I sit down in a chair and, by focusing really hard, make myself gay/straight in an afternoon," I would strongly doubt it. :p

Indeed.

I'll translate it for you. "If you lie about who you are people will like you more, if you cover up your being gay it lead to a greater chance of social advancement". I hate seeing that written in one of my posts :(

Yeah I get that, theh Huh? Was because I don't know if the post was sarcasm, or advice.

Yeah I get that, theh Huh? Was because I don't know if the post was sarcasm, or advice.

Hopefully sarcasm, realistically advice.

Yeah I get that, theh Huh? Was because I don't know if the post was sarcasm, or advice.
Probably not sarcastic.

There have always been people who helpfully suggest that minority groups shut up and fake it to make it.

"If only you wouldn't act so black, then you and your family would be better off!"

"If only you didn't act like a woman, then you'd be able to get ahead!"

"If only you didn't walk around being gay in public, as if it were your right or something, then you'd be happier!"

Personally, I don't think our kids will be better off living in a world where gay people are still expected to hide themselves away from public view lest somebody's tender bigoted feelings get hurt.

I think I'm much better off because my parents refuse to lie and conform for the sake of making bigots feel good about themselves. My parents are unusual and non-traditional in a lot of ways, and while they try to be polite and considerate folks they are still unwilling to pretend to be something they're not just so that conservatives will like them more.

Sometimes that gets you yelled at. Sometimes it might even get your kids yelled at. But the alternative, to me, is unacceptable. No, I will not help rear more children in a world where those who don't conform to some bullshit illusion of an ideal are blamed for the bad behavior of the bullies who harass them.

Indeed, but necessary. I think the whole nature/nurture debate on homosexuality misses the point.

Depends on what the purpose of the debate is.

Whether it's a choice or not is immaterial. Gays are humans and deserve equal treatment under the law. The only way you can really argue that we should discriminate against them is if you're willing to say they're not humans deserving of human rights.

Ah yes. In that debate, it is irrelevant.

But it won't stop us sciency-types from wondering how it all works.

Probably not sarcastic.

There have always been people who helpfully suggest that minority groups shut up and fake it to make it.

"If only you wouldn't act so black, then you and your family would be better off!"

"If only you didn't act like a woman, then you'd be able to get ahead!"

"If only you didn't walk around being gay in public, as if it were your right or something, then you'd be happier!"

Personally, I don't think our kids will be better off living in a world where gay people are still expected to hide themselves away from public view lest somebody's tender bigoted feelings get hurt.

I think I'm much better off because my parents refuse to lie and conform for the sake of making bigots feel good about themselves. My parents are unusual and non-traditional in a lot of ways, and while they try to be polite and considerate folks they are still unwilling to pretend to be something they're not just so that conservatives will like them more.

Sometimes that gets you yelled at. Sometimes it might even get your kids yelled at. But the alternative, to me, is unacceptable. No, I will not help rear more children in a world where those who don't conform to some bullshit illusion of an ideal are blamed for the bad behavior of the bullies who harass them.

Note that I'm not telling them to stop what they do, or hide it.

I am just noting that so many of the ones I meet will say, "I was born this way" and "but you could be gay if you wanted to".

Note that I'm not telling them to stop what they do, or hide it.

I am just noting that so many of the ones I meet will say, "I was born this way" and "but you could be gay if you wanted to".

Show one gay person on NSG who thinks that.

Given that, my suspicion is that we're all on a bell curve of sexuality in that about 20% could be considered mostly to totally homosexual, 60% are essentially bisexual and the remaining 20% are mostly to totally heterosexual.

From what I've seen, I'd guess that it's more of a binomial distribution, with the most people at either end of the spectrum (although probably not a lot on the absolute ends) and fewer people truly in the middle. It seems pretty rare to meet someone who is equally attracted to both men and women. Even most bisexuals seem to be towards one end of the spectrum or the other.

But you don't look for "causes" to heterosexuality.

Of course we do. In fact, the vast majority of study has focussed on heterosexuality because it was, for so long, seen as "normal biology". When we study the mechanisms that determine sexual attraction, we are studying the full range of sexuality.

Of course we do. In fact, the vast majority of study has focussed on heterosexuality because it was, for so long, seen as "normal biology". When we study the mechanisms that determine sexual attraction, we are studying the full range of sexuality.

Shush! You're damaging Fass's persecution complex!

From what I've seen, I'd guess that it's more of a binomial distribution, with the most people at either end of the spectrum (although probably not a lot on the absolute ends) and fewer people truly in the middle. It seems pretty rare to meet someone who is equally attracted to both men and women. Even most bisexuals seem to be towards one end of the spectrum or the other.

One thing you can't forget, though, is how our society deals with gender and sex roles, and how that might impact the "leaning" of bisexuals.

For instance, I am equally PHYSICALLY attracted to males and females. But I am over-all attracted almost exclusively to males, because females in my culture are encouraged to display personality traits that I find deeply annoying. Females in my culture are discouraged from having the interests that I have. Females in my culture are encouraged to engage in a range of behaviors that I find tiresome, degrading, insulting, or otherwise bunk.

This means that females in my culture are less likely to be appealing to me as partners. It's got nothing to do with their actual femaleness, and everything to do with how "femininity" and "masculinity" are handled.

My culture CREATES a polarized, two-gender system. It creates definitions of "male" and "female," and then asks me to choose between them.

If left to myself, I simply wouldn't make such a distinction at all. I wouldn't be "bisexual," because that implies two "directions" or something. Personally, I don't see myself as being "oriented" in two different "directions." I'm oriented in one direction: toward attractive people!

Of course we do. In fact, the vast majority of study has focussed on heterosexuality because it was, for so long, seen as "normal biology". When we study the mechanisms that determine sexual attraction, we are studying the full range of sexuality.

No, you don't. You don't look for causes of heterosexuality - you study its effects and what heterosexuals find attractive in each other and perchance why... but looking for the "heterosexual gene" or "heterosexual choice" you don't do. Heterosexuality is accepted as the default state (that is what you really are talking about in that paragraph and why homosexuality was ignored other than as a pathology) and anything that diverges from it needs a cause, but heterosexuality itself is beyond questioning by most heterosexuals. It's never "why is John attracted to women? what did I do 'wrong' as a parent to make him so?" - it's more of the sort of "why is John attracted to blondes?".

Heterosexuality is accepted as the default state (that is what you really are talking about in that paragraph and why homosexuality was ignored other than as a pathology) and anything that diverges from it needs a cause, but heterosexuality itself is beyond questioning by most heterosexuals.

It happens with everything that's in the majority. Nobody's complaining that they're disease-free and in good mental health either.

Given that, my suspicion is that we're all on a bell curve of sexuality in that about 20% could be considered mostly to totally homosexual, 60% are essentially bisexual and the remaining 20% are mostly to totally heterosexual.

Hmmmm.

My guess would be that evolution has tended to favour those who are attracted to the opposite sex more than their own, producing more heterosexual offspring than homosexual. That is, only if it is genes that affect sexuality, and so this argument depends solely on the nature vs nurture thing. Also, my argument can fall down too if it is discovered that men can in fact give birth after having homosexual intercourse... but that is highly unlikely!

i am homophobic, but i really dont care about anybody's orientation UNLESS (and this happened to me once) they get all in your face about it and become "militant", so to speak, about their orientation. however, i do feal that people should be treated equally, and i think the only reason im homophobic is because that one guy really pissed me off, and i ended up breaking his nose. Oh, what a mess that caused...:headbang:

i am homophobic, but i really dont care about anybody's orientation UNLESS (and this happened to me once) they get all in your face about it and become "militant", so to speak, about their orientation. however, i do feal that people would be treated equally, and i think the only reason im homophobic is because that one guy really pissed me off, and i ended up breaking his nose. Oh, what a mess that caused...:headbang:

Wow you're so cool its scary :rolleyes:

No, you don't. You don't look for causes of heterosexuality - you study its effects and what heterosexuals find attractive in each other and perchance why... but looking for the "heterosexual gene" or "heterosexual choice" you don't do. Heterosexuality is accepted as the default state (that is what you really are talking about in that paragraph and why homosexuality was ignored other than as a pathology) and anything that diverges from it needs a cause, but heterosexuality itself is beyond questioning by most heterosexuals. It's never "why is John attracted to women? what did I do 'wrong' as a parent to make him so?" - it's more of the sort of "why is John attracted to blondes?".

though really, what causes heterosexuality is an interesting question, given that asexuality is the real default and organisms actually have a tendency to revert to it under a range of circumstances.

though really, what causes heterosexuality is an interesting question, given that asexuality is the real default and organisms actually have a tendency to revert to it under a range of circumstances.

"if everyone was asexual we'd probably die out" probably has something to do with it.

One thing you can't forget, though, is how our society deals with gender and sex roles, and how that might impact the "leaning" of bisexuals.

For instance, I am equally PHYSICALLY attracted to males and females. But I am over-all attracted almost exclusively to males, because females in my culture are encouraged to display personality traits that I find deeply annoying. Females in my culture are discouraged from having the interests that I have. Females in my culture are encouraged to engage in a range of behaviors that I find tiresome, degrading, insulting, or otherwise bunk.

This means that females in my culture are less likely to be appealing to me as partners. It's got nothing to do with their actual femaleness, and everything to do with how "femininity" and "masculinity" are handled.

My culture CREATES a polarized, two-gender system. It creates definitions of "male" and "female," and then asks me to choose between them.

If left to myself, I simply wouldn't make such a distinction at all. I wouldn't be "bisexual," because that implies two "directions" or something. Personally, I don't see myself as being "oriented" in two different "directions." I'm oriented in one direction: toward attractive people!

=)

I'm not forgetting these issues. I just don't have a frame of reference outside of them. It is certainly possible that there would be more people who were equally attracted to both men and women outside of our society, but I have no way to determine that at present.


No, you don't. You don't look for causes of heterosexuality - you study its effects and what heterosexuals find attractive in each other and perchance why...

"Why" would be the causes, my dear. When, for instance, studies using pheromones are done, it certainly is an interesting result that gay men and straight men respond different to pheromones. And what is the next step in such study? Let's find out the mechanisms by which each group responds to said pheromones!

but looking for the "heterosexual gene" or "heterosexual choice" you don't do.

We look for genes which control sexuality. Yes, a great deal of the current research is focussed on genetic control of homosexuality, largely because researchers thought they had a pretty good handle on genetic contributors to heterosexuality. However, the research that is being done seems to demonstrate how little we know about sexuality and what a complex trait it really is. And it is becoming increasingly clear that you cannot study sexuality in a vacuum that only includes one orientation. It has already been shown, for instance, that one possible genetic factor may have different effects in men and women - increasing the incidence of homosexuality in men while making straight women more likely to have multiple children.

Heterosexuality is accepted as the default state (that is what you really are talking about in that paragraph and why homosexuality was ignored other than as a pathology) and anything that diverges from it needs a cause, but heterosexuality itself is beyond questioning by most heterosexuals. It's never "why is John attracted to women? what did I do 'wrong' as a parent to make him so?" - it's more of the sort of "why is John attracted to blondes?".

There is a difference between "most heterosexuals" and those who actually study these things. Yes, most people feel that they need explanations when someone is different from them (or different from what they've been taught is "right"). Congratulations, you just figured out something that most people have known about other human beings for quite some time. You should hear some of the questions my husband gets because he is an atheist and that makes him "different" (in fact, maybe you have heard them). Hell, have you ever met someone who didn't like chocolate or ice cream? People immediately start clamoring to know why!

It happens with everything that's in the majority.

And the majority can fuck off until it starts problematising its own attributes, and should until then leave mine alone.

Nobody's complaining that they're disease-free and in good mental health either.

Being disease-free is for humans not a majority state, but not to question why someone is "healthy" is just indicative of the ignorance that is propagated by default states and the catastrophic effects such a position can have - in the case of illnesses, remaining ignorant of the factors that engender good health (which in many, many cases are much more important to sustaining health than trying to restore it from a pathology); in the case of sexuality, putting one above the others and then treating the rest as inferior "abnormalities" that demand explanations and discriminative treatment.

If you're going to problematise sexuality, what needs to be problematised is not homosexuality, but heterosexuality - however heterosexuals don't like to do that because they know that they wouldn't like to subject themselves to the treatment they dish out to other sexualities. They don't like to be put under the loupe. Guess what? Neither do I.

"if everyone was asexual we'd probably die out" probably has something to do with it.

no, i mean engaging in asexual reproduction. questions about the causes of heterosexuality are pretty wide ranging and important actually. what are the advantages of sexual over asexual reproduction? what are the advantages of having two specialized sexes over just one or more than two? what are the mechanisms that promote the attraction between the two sexes? etc.

though really, what causes heterosexuality is an interesting question, given that asexuality is the real default and organisms actually have a tendency to revert to it under a range of circumstances.

What causes sexuality in general is an interesting question. I think people who look at it as an either/or switch are going about it the wrong way. What are the mechanisms that control sexuality? What makes one person damn near exclusively attracted to men and another damn near exclusively attracted to women? Why are some people attracted to both to varying degrees? What mechanisms control those attractions? Which of these mechanisms are conserved in all people and which (if any) are specific to a certain orientation? Personally, these are the questions I find fascinating.


And the majority can fuck off until it starts problematising its own attributes, and should until then leave mine alone.

Why does study have to be "problematising"? When we look to see why some people have blue eyes and some people have brown, is that "problematising" any given eye color?

You seem to think that anyone who finds these questions interesting is out to get you, but that simply isn't the case.

"Why" would be the causes, my dear.

No, pumpkin. "Why" would be the causes to his attraction to a specific attribute of womanhood, not womanhood itself.

When, for instance, studies using pheromones are done, it certainly is an interesting result that gay men and straight men respond different to pheromones. And what is the next step in such study? Let's find out the mechanisms by which each group responds to said pheromones!

No, the next step is invariably to put the heterosexuals as the "normal" response and then define the "aberrant" response in gay men. The reason is hardly ever to understand heterosexuality - that is the norm that doesn't require questions or "fixing" - the reason is in the overwhelming cases to understand homosexuality and through that imply strategies to attack the "deviance".

We look for genes which control sexuality.

By problematising the aberration you've defined as "non-heterosexual".

Yes, a great deal of the current research is focussed on genetic control of homosexuality, largely because researchers thought they had a pretty good handle on genetic contributors to heterosexuality. However, the research that is being done seems to demonstrate how little we know about sexuality and what a complex trait it really is. And it is becoming increasingly clear that you cannot study sexuality in a vacuum that only includes one orientation. It has already been shown, for instance, that one possible genetic factor may have different effects in men and women - increasing the incidence of homosexuality in men while making straight women more likely to have multiple children.

And supplying a possible "answer" to homosexuality, while at the same time not even asking the question about heterosexuality, let alone giving an answer thereto.

There is a difference between "most heterosexuals" and those who actually study these things.

Hardly - if there is one thing queer theory has been good at, it is at deconstructing the scientific stance that has invariably defined the norm by delineating the deviation.

Yes, most people feel that they need explanations when someone is different from them (or different from what they've been taught is "right"). Congratulations, you just figured out something that most people have known about other human beings for quite some time. You should hear some of the questions my husband gets because he is an atheist and that makes him "different" (in fact, maybe you have heard them). Hell, have you ever met someone who didn't like chocolate or ice cream? People immediately start clamoring to know why!

And I am saying that I am sick and tired of it, and that the time has come not to stand for being the "other", be that "the other sex" (merci à vous, madame de Beauvoir!) or "the other sexuality".

i am homophobic, but i really dont care about anybody's orientation UNLESS (and this happened to me once) they get all in your face about it and become "militant", so to speak, about their orientation. however, i do feal that people should be treated equally, and i think the only reason im homophobic is because that one guy really pissed me off, and i ended up breaking his nose. Oh, what a mess that caused...:headbang:

I'll bet he was real militant. He probably wanted to be protected under hate crime laws or get married or serve openly in the military or something like that, didn't he? The bastard.

aw I love gays, they are well cute
most of them are really deep...damn them >.< I wish i was deep too