Are people born Gay?

[Green Gaia]

Uh oh, what did I just get myself into.



From my understanding bisexuals are attracted to both male and female. I take it that some bisexuals have a preference and probably lean more toward one side. Nevertheless one thing is for certain, they have a choice in the matter, just like a homosexual who can refuse to have sex. I'm not sure if I'm not being clear enough or if people are just getting emotional (which is understandable) and refuse to admit that a bisexual or a homosexual can say no at any point in their life.

~Victor

But the person is still bisexual even if they have chosen a person of the opposite sex. Just like the homosexual who has chosen to remain celebate, they are still homosexual.

 

[Quiddity]

But the person is still bisexual even if they have chosen a person of the opposite sex. Just like the homosexual who has chosen to remain celebate, they are still homosexual.

I didn't say they weren't Maize. I'm only saying that they have a choice. Just like the celibate priests. They can do it, and so can everybody else.

~Victor

 

[Green Gaia]

I didn't say they weren't Maize. I'm only saying that they have a choice. Just like the celibate priests. They can do it, and so can everybody else.

~Victor

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying earlier then, I apologize.

I'd take that, "They can do it, and so can everybody else" further but we are woefully off topic.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Then you agree Victor that they are born gay, but advocate that they have the option of remaining celibate or have a choice on whether to follow through with their homosexual feelings.

In that case I completely agree with you. Obviously everyone has a choice about whether to have sex, and if so, with whom. What they do not have a choice about, is whether they are attracted to same sex partners or not.

B.

 

[Quiddity]

Then you agree Victor that they are born gay, but advocate that they have the option of remaining celibate or have a choice on whether to follow through with their homosexual feelings.

In that case I completely agree with you. Obviously everyone has a choice about whether to have sex, and if so, with whom. What they do not have a choice about, is whether they are attracted to same sex partners or not.

B.

That's what I was trying to say all along..

~Victor

 

[Ardhanariswar]

i think the world "practicing" should come into use here.

 

[Fluffy]

From my understanding bisexuals are attracted to both male and female. I take it that some bisexuals have a preference and probably lean more toward one side. Nevertheless one thing is for certain, they have a choice in the matter, just like a homosexual who can refuse to have sex. I'm not sure if I'm not being clear enough or if people are just getting emotional (which is understandable) and refuse to admit that a bisexual or a homosexual can say no at any point in their life.

No I fully agree with on that. However, in previous posts, you made it seem like a homosexual could stop being homosexual which I don't believe to be true. A homosexual cannot control what goes on in their head just like any other person. They can control their actions and stop having homosexual sex but this does not stop them from being homosexual.

I, as a bisexual, do this already. I choose not to engage in any sort of relationship with another man because if my relationships with women are plagued with troubles as they seem to be, I have even less of a chance of having a successful gay relationship when society views such relationships the way it does.

 

[Bennettresearch]

So you know the minds of everyone else on this forum? That's quite impressive.


All claim and no argument, as usual, Brennet?



Ah, so you justify the police bursting into people's apartments to arrest them based on the claim that some homosexuals are decidedly open about their orientation?

You're the one who needs to do the proving. Even if you did manage to prove that our economy, language, and system of writing depend upon heterosexual parentage, it remains that the existence of homosexual unions will not interfere in any way with the existence of heterosexual ones.


Oh, I'd like to see you prove this. Prove, then, that no condition of the womb, no developmental oddity, and no genetic happenstance plays a part in determining one's sexual orientation. The reason you need to do this is that you quite clearly wrote "purely" in your claim, which means that you deny any other influences. However, I don't think that you could even partially prove your claim. Homosexuals are as emotionally diverse, in my limited experience, as the heterosexual population.

Many homosexuals, apparently, seem to be unable to alter whom they are attracted to. For whatever reason, they seem to have fixed sexual orientations.

Well Flapp, the old shotgun approach with no substance

I had to cut some out here because you just og on and on without providing any proof of your contentions. Just because you have a support group of other gays doesn't mean that you really have anything to say other than a vitrolic litany of statements you can't back up. I don't recall ever hearing anyhting from you than a blast of challenges, don't say you defended me. I don't need your defense anyway.

1. Anyone who proposes major societal changes to accomodate their own personal activity needs to do the proving.

2. I am polite and am not presenting a bunch of reasons that being gay is a bad thing. But you yourself have just indicated that it is some kind of anomaly and not just a normal thing of nature. Maybe you should think before you fly off the handle.

3. I was not claiming to know the minds of people in this forum. Only you could make a ridiculous insult like that. I am speaking of what people I have talked to about this have said and think on the subject. Maybe you should drive a cab and learn something about the world.

4. Police bursting into someone's room? Do you ever listen? You are up front and in your face about your gay thing, this is dragging your bedroom around with you. I personally don't even want to know what you do in there.

5. Your emotional scatology does nothing to prove your case and if your were the spokesman for the gay community they would get nothing.


To make the point clear, you represent that you have the right to be in everyone's face about this and present a very irrational example of what it means to be gay. You attack and try to pound on anyone that you deem to not be in your camp on this. Your emotional vendetta does nothing but make you look bad. Try and be rational and address a point or to in a debating manner and maybe I'll try to examine just what the heck you are trying to say.

 

[cardero]

Are people born Gay?
Sexual orientation begins with attraction but I do not consider someone homosexual or heterosexual until they are involved in the act of having sex. The “hetero” or “homo” prefixes must justify the sexual aspect, which is why I do not subscribe to the “gay at birth” theory. A man who finds other men attractive is not homosexual just as a man who desires to have sex with another man but never does, is not homosexual either. It is the [sexual] part of the title that people misunderstand the most.

 

[Bennettresearch]

I won't call you "fool" Bennett, you seem too inteligent for that. But out of your ignorance and, seeming phobia, you make foolish statements.

Ah Gee Pah, name calling again.

If I am such a "fool" lay some scientific facts on me to show me the light here. That is where the gay supporters fall apart. I mean it is OK to sympathize with being gay, but to call someone who doesn't see tha validity of what is put forth defending it as a "phobe" is to say the it is we heterosexuals who have the mental problem. Huh? I don't think you will ever see the day when you can see things as clearly as I do PAh so go ahead and try to reverse it all you want.

 

[Pah]

Well Flapp, the old shotgun approach with no substance

I had to cut some out here because you just og on and on without providing any proof of your contentions. Just because you have a support group of other gays doesn't mean that you really have anything to say other than a vitrolic litany of statements you can't back up. I don't recall ever hearing anyhting from you than a blast of challenges, don't say you defended me. I don't need your defense anyway.

1. Anyone who proposes major societal changes to accomodate their own personal activity needs to do the proving.

2. I am polite and am not presenting a bunch of reasons that being gay is a bad thing. But you yourself have just indicated that it is some kind of anomaly and not just a normal thing of nature. Maybe you should think before you fly off the handle.

3. I was not claiming to know the minds of people in this forum. Only you could make a ridiculous insult like that. I am speaking of what people I have talked to about this have said and think on the subject. Maybe you should drive a cab and learn something about the world.

4. Police bursting into someone's room? Do you ever listen? You are up front and in your face about your gay thing, this is dragging your bedroom around with you. I personally don't even want to know what you do in there.

5. Your emotional scatology does nothing to prove your case and if your were the spokesman for the gay community they would get nothing.


To make the point clear, you represent that you have the right to be in everyone's face about this and present a very irrational example of what it means to be gay. You attack and try to pound on anyone that you deem to not be in your camp on this. Your emotional vendetta does nothing but make you look bad. Try and be rational and address a point or to in a debating manner and maybe I'll try to examine just what the heck you are trying to say.

I, on the other hand, have seen no substance in the argument opposing homosexualaity or homosexual marriage. I see, primarily, an opposition based on biblical verse and very weak, very biased social studies. I see emotion in argument from homosexual opponents without even a trace of evidence. What's your point?

But to your numbered points.

1. The onus is on those that oppose recognition of equal rights for all to prove their case. The reactionary stance is applauling. Homosexuals only want what some have seemed to think is exclusive to them.

2. In the sense of being a low percentage of the population, homoseuality is not normal but that is a statistical normalicy and not indicative of what accurs almost universaly throught the animal kingdom.

3. I would question the credentials of those you have spoken to in your cab. It could well a propagation of an ill-formed bias. Without credentials, your speakers are not authorities and are only giving hearsay evidence.

4. The laws that were abolished as being unconstitutional ARE the "police in the bedroom".

I seem to have seen pictures of New Olearns festivals were exhibition of breasts occurred. Do you think this was only homosexual in nature? Were these women trolling for lesbian contact? They were in company of men and were appealing to men for flashy beads. Is this not "dragging around a bedroom"? On an other note, tt seems to be okay for heterosexual display of affection but not homosexual. Kissing and petting are not "bedroom activities"

5. You use big words to demean an argument and it is unwarrented. Demeaning an argument or the person making it does not go to prove your argument at all - it's called an ad hominem (and hopefully spelled that way).

 

[Bennettresearch]

The fact that science has discovered homosexuality in some 300 to 400 species, let alone humans, suggests to me that homosexuality is not something learned from ones culture. For if it were something learned from ones culture, then why would it appear in 300 to 400 different species of animal?

Hi Sun,

I bet you can't even show scientific proof of 3 or 4. SO, as I understand it, if dog's lick their butts, then it is OK for me to lick my Butt?

 

[Bennettresearch]

I, on the other hand, have seen no substance in the argument opposing homosexualaity or homosexual marriage. I see, primarily, an opposition based on biblical verse and very weak, very biased social studies. I see emotion in argument from homosexual opponents without even a trace of evidence. What's your point?

But to your numbered points.

1. The onus is on those that oppose recognition of equal rights for all to prove their case. The reactionary stance is applauling. Homosexuals only want what some have seemed to think is exclusive to them.

2. In the sense of being a low percentage of the population, homoseuality is not normal but that is a statistical normalicy and not indicative of what accurs almost universaly throught the animal kingdom.

3. I would question the credentials of those you have spoken to in your cab. It could well a propagation of an ill-formed bias. Without credentials, your speakers are not authorities and are only giving hearsay evidence.

4. The laws that were abolished as being unconstitutional ARE the "police in the bedroom".

I seem to have seen pictures of New Olearns festivals were exhibition of breasts occurred. Do you think this was only homosexual in nature? Were these women trolling for lesbian contact? They were in company of men and were appealing to men for flashy beads. Is this not "dragging around a bedroom"? On an other note, tt seems to be okay for heterosexual display of affection but not homosexual. Kissing and petting are not "bedroom activities"

5. You use big words to demean an argument and it is unwarrented. Demeaning an argument or the person making it does not go to prove your argument at all - it's called an ad hominem (and hopefully spelled that way).

Hi Pah,

Defend Flappy all you want but I could take the time to show all of the preconceived assumptions that he makes and the accusations that follow. On the contrary, the gay movement is claiming that any resistance to their movement is unwarranted and some resort to personal attacks and name calling. In our system, anyone who is proposing a major change must make their case and simply not just try to brand others as evil mental cases. That seems to be all that I am hearing. If you want to present some valid arguments and scientific data then I'll look it over.

By the Way, driving a cab was only a very small part of my overall interactions with people and hearing what they had to say on all manner of issues. SO don't assume that I represent a narrow viewpoint. I would even go so far as to say that I have interacted with a more diverse segment of the population at large than most people have had. I am not just someone who sits at home and dreams things up.

 

[Pah]

Hi Sun,

I bet you can't even show scientific proof of 3 or 4. SO, as I understand it, if dog's lick their butts, then it is OK for me to lick my Butt?

I can show detailed, referenced, scientific proof for for hundreds and the place is a book Biological Exurberance, by Bagemihl.

It's amazing to me that you would hold up to scorn and critize another animal besides humans that practises rectal hygene. Shame on you for critizing that only way a dog can clean itself. We, on the other hand , or some of us do, use hands to clean the rectum. I suppose if a dog had hands instead of non-grasping paws it would then be equivalent

 

[Pah]

...In our system, anyone who is proposing a major change ...

It is not a major change. It is recognition of innate rights for everyone instread of a chosen few.

...SO don't assume that I represent a narrow viewpoint.

If I assume anything it is that it is not narrow and it IS filled with ignorance.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Funny, Pah. I wasn't picking on dogs.

Ultimately, referring to the animal kingdom is irrelevant. If animals do things then they are animals and not human. It would be best if Gays didn't go there.

As to the rights issue, Gays already have civil rights as humans. The assumption that is made is that a White Heterosexual Male has had no adversity in his life and has never been treated unfairly or had to overcome monstrous obstacles. This is life. Where people like me stand back and are skeptical is that sexual orientation has become a political issue. There has been this whole pressure on society to change for something that even gays can't quantify themselves. It is not as cut and dry as the gays make it out to be. I was never into persecuting gays, that is ridiculous. I didn't seek them out, but ended up interacting with a lot of gays through work and social environments. Most of them acted gay, and you cannot deny that there are all kinds of thing like sybilance etc. that are portrayed to others. I rarely would be in a situation where someone didn't indicate to me that they were gay. And so, this is represented now as a political movement based on someone's sexual orientation. You can't blame people that live in a certain social structure for scratching their chins and saying wait a minute.

 

[Bennettresearch]

One more thing,

This ignorance thing is boring, I already know more about gays than I would really like to know. Just because someone doesn't see it your way doesn't make them ignorant. Look at all of the people that come in here and challenge everything religious. If I disagree with someone does that make them ignorant? I wouldn't lower myself to that kind of arrogance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ultimately, referring to the animal kingdom is irrelevant.

This ignorance thing is boring, ...

As is dealing with it in the 21st century.

 

[Bennettresearch]

As is dealing with it in the 21st century.

Seyorni was right about you Jay.

I see, so if you disagree with me then I get to call you ignorant as well. That is a tall statement that you can't really back up because it is simply your opinion. If you consider the gay movement to be a righteous cause, fine. But it is presumptuous to assume that people who don't see it that way are ignorant. Really Jay, for someone who represents themselves as being above it all and swoops in to take pot shots, you don't make all that much sense sometimes.

 

[Pah]

Funny, Pah. I wasn't picking on dogs.

Yes you were - you held them up a poor example for the human animal to follow. Now, after shown the proper comparision, you want us to think you were not picking on dogs?

Ultimately, referring to the animal kingdom is irrelevant. If animals do things then they are animals and not human. It would be best if Gays didn't go there.

It would be best that you do not classify yourself as being apart from the animal kingdom. There is science for inclusion in spite of the presumptive dominence in biblical verse (dominion? - a bit of biblical bovine scatology).

As to the rights issue, Gays already have civil rights as humans.

I hope you are not trying to say homosexuals have all the rights of heterosexuals. And I can't beleive you are ignorant of the list that many have made showing the lack of rights and freedoms. So what is your real point?

The assumption that is made is that a White Heterosexual Male has had no adversity in his life and has never been treated unfairly or had to overcome monstrous obstacles

.Nope, at least not by me. What the white heterosexual male (caps are disengenious) has is privilage. And it takes law after bitter, prolonged battles to correct that superiorityy complex.

This is life. Where people like me stand back and are skeptical is that sexual orientation has become a political issue.

How else can a oppressed minority claim equal justice. Political action is used by a persuasively weak religious organizations ( on religious moral grounds) to continue the injustice. The "calling in" of chips for political payback has deafened lawmakers to the injustice. It is a secular game the sectarians play.

There has been this whole pressure on society to change for something that even gays can't quantify themselves.

I can quantify it and I'm not gay. Why do you think homosexuals are unable to do so?

It is not as cut and dry as the gays make it out to be.

Yes it is simple - recognize the humanity in homosexuals, recognize their rights that heterosexual humans have and grant their freedoms to act as any other human may.

I was never into persecuting gays, that is ridiculous.

You persecute homosexuals (don't you know "gay" is a term for male homosexauIs or are you being specifically mysoginist as well) every time you advocate suppression of rights and freedoms.

...Most of them acted gay, and you cannot deny that there are all kinds of thing like sybilance etc. that are portrayed to others.

My little, handy dictionary did not have "sybilance" but that is hardly the point. The point is a public display of affection (to use a mild term for groping and "soul" kissing) that heterosexuals do that has much less censure.

...And so, this is represented now as a political movement based on someone's sexual orientation. You can't blame people that live in a certain social structure for scratching their chins and saying wait a minute.

I can blame people for being ignorant of homosexuality in general and for the idea that heterosexuals should have exclusionary privilage.