The Old Homosexuality/Bisexuality as Choice chestnut.. [Archive]

Darkside2009

Dec 7, 2011, 6:40 PM

The fallacy of the, mostly religious based. Choice argument is that it fails to account for the natural occurrence of homosexuality in other species. Unfortunately the argument will always be around until it's advocates realize that man created God in their own image, not the other way around.

The Choice argument fails in all sorts of other areas. I may have an unbelievable attraction to having a Corvette, the fact that I might buy a minivan doesn't negate the attraction.

A very long time ago, I tried monogamous heterosexuality. That was a choice. Letting myself be me and doing what comes naturally, I am a happy, non-monogamous bisexual.

It's amazing that the three best studies on the subject that oppose the Choice argument are called biased because they were done by non-heterosexuals, but the one's that support it are not called biased or flawed because they were done by Christian heterosexuals.

I would suggest reading "God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality" by Jay Michaelson, an Observant Jew. In it, he cites the Hebrew word toevah, commonly translated from Leviticus 18:22 as â€œabominationâ€ in reference to gay sex. According to him, it does not mean that at all. It refers to certain sexual practices in the context of idolatry, and not to stable, loving, same-sex relationships.

Hell, homosexuality and gay marriage was commonplace in the Roman Empire. Emperor Nero was gay and married to a man. Ultimately, same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. I guess "God" was OK with his creation up to that point. I wonder what made her change her mind. LOL

Pappy

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

Sigh! I suppose I should be getting used to this, but I expected better from an ex-lawyer.

Your first sentence finds you guilty of the prejudice you ascribe to religious people.

Again, just because Nero did something, is that really any excuse for doing likewise? The burning of Rome was attributed to Nero, should we all become arsonists?

The Aztecs practised human sacrifice, that is hardly a reason for us to follow their example.

Various societies throughout history practised cannibalism, did you want ketchup on yours?

Leviticus Chapter 18 contains a whole list of strictures on sexual behaviour, the Hebrew word to'ebah, is correctly translated as an abomination or detestable, indicating strong disapproval and disgust and does not have the whimsical meaning attributed by the author you quoted.

Those who believe the strictures contained in Leviticus will follow them, others like yourself who don't believe in them will not. Others who are homosexual will pick and choose which they follow. Remember I did say read the full list, I think there are perhaps a few even you could accept.

Darkside2009

Dec 7, 2011, 7:15 PM

Well, to quote Lady Gaga, baby I was born this way, and my choice is not to choose, if we like each other, it is not wrong..

The folks who want to box us, be they straight, gay, religious or Martian are the wrong ones...

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

Hardly a very convincing argument, if a rapist likes raping women that hardly makes him right, does it.

You might like beating your wife, that does not make it right.

We might like all manner of things that ultimately aren't good for us, smoking, gluttony, driving too fast without due care and attention...

What I have noticed on these threads, on quite a few occasions is Members, in talking of their first bisexual experiences detailing that they were led into it by an older person. That it was that older person who initiated the intimacy and created the situation/condition in which that intimacy could take place.

We are all aware that grooming takes place, and that young people in particular are vulnerable to the influence of an older person or to peer pressure.

We are aware that there are adults who purposely seek out such young, vulnerable people purely for their own sexual gratification. In the process, often abusing the trust that has been placed with them.

How many of these young people's views and subsequent choices in regard to their sexual life have been altered by these early encounters? Would their choices have been different?

Some of the accounts that I have read of these early sexual encounters have affected their subsequent adult sexual life. Even those who openly refer to themselves now as homosexual/bisexual adults have suffered through years of recrimination and remorse, with symptoms of depression. On occasion some have even attempted suicide.

If being homosexual/bisexual is a natural condition, then there are many such that don't seem that happy with it. Gay is rather a misnomer.

mikey3000

Dec 7, 2011, 10:01 PM

http://www.queerbychoice.com/

Ã¦onpax

Dec 8, 2011, 12:49 AM

`
There is no consensus among scientists, philosophers and psychologists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no empirical findings have emerged that permit any definitive conclusion that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. For now, itâ€™s all theory and complex at that.

There are different facets to this issue. The political and religious right, in the US at least, claim homosexuality is a Choice. Just for the sake of argument, letâ€™s pretend this is true â€“ homosexuality is a choice. People choose to be homosexuals and to share their bed and affection with someone of the same sex.

As was mentioned already here in this thread, if homosexuality is a choice than it logically follows that so is heterosexuality. In this context, one sees that the religious right doesnâ€™t really have a leg to stand on because society legally protects their Choice to have sex with the opposite sex and therefore, the Choice of another individual to have sex with someone of the same sex should be protected as well.

As the religious or biblical argument of homosexuality being immoral or unnatural, has little if any merit in secular laws, any such law limiting the protection of Choice based on a biased notion of religious belief, is flawed. The US Constitution seeks to expand and protect the Liberty of choice, as opposed to restricting it.
`

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2011, 7:00 AM

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

Hardly a very convincing argument, if a rapist likes raping women that hardly makes him right, does it.

You might like beating your wife, that does not make it right.

We might like all manner of things that ultimately aren't good for us, smoking, gluttony, driving too fast without due care and attention...

What I have noticed on these threads, on quite a few occasions is Members, in talking of their first bisexual experiences detailing that they were led into it by an older person. That it was that older person who initiated the intimacy and created the situation/condition in which that intimacy could take place.

We are all aware that grooming takes place, and that young people in particular are vulnerable to the influence of an older person or to peer pressure.

We are aware that there are adults who purposely seek out such young, vulnerable people purely for their own sexual gratification. In the process, often abusing the trust that has been placed with them.

How many of these young people's views and subsequent choices in regard to their sexual life have been altered by these early encounters? Would their choices have been different?

Some of the accounts that I have read of these early sexual encounters have affected their subsequent adult sexual life. Even those who openly refer to themselves now as homosexual/bisexual adults have suffered through years of recrimination and remorse, with symptoms of depression. On occasion some have even attempted suicide.

If being homosexual/bisexual is a natural condition, then there are many such that don't seem that happy with it. Gay is rather a misnomer.

I am not sure it is a flaw in your argument but it is certainly a question against it.. millions of young girls around the world are groomed and/or preyed upon by adult males.. was this responsible for them choosing their sexuality? Most turn out to be heterosexual with problems and anguish of one kind or another, some grow to be bisexual and some lesbian.. many also attempt and even succeed in suicide.. so it is not just boys, and remember most boys who are sexually preyed upon turn out to be what we would consider heterosexual.. many it can be argued, suppresing their true sexuality because of the experiences at the hands of the adult predator..

I have never been keen on this choice argument.. I know that people probably do choose their sexuality.. I never did, and my partner never did.. few of the lesbian, gay and bisexual friends I know ever did, male or female.. for me I was always attracted to my own gender as a child and had most to do with girls.. boys were pains but that is no different from millions of other girls who grow up to be quite heterosexual. Most, not all, of the gay lesbian and bisexual people I know were never groomed, or preyed upon as children by adults.. I think personally that we often make too much of this predator argument..

Growing into adolescence and being sexually precocious I gravitated to experimented with and enjoyed both genders (guys mostly but thats the way the world was then).. and had a ball... some (a few guys) of these were adults and being young never felt abused or robbed in any way of my innocence.. but that was me.. my experience has no bearing on those of anyone else.. but as for abused boys, it is quite likely that some girls opt for what would otherwise not be their sexuality because of those adolescent experiences.. some grown women adopt lesbian lifestyles because of rape so it is probably more likely that some young girls will do so also.. I know of at least one friend who insists her sexuality is what it is through choice because of rape and several who although they would not say so directly appear to have opted for a lesbian life because of the abuses they suffered at the hands of adult males when they were young.. whether they would have grown to be lesbian had these events occured we cannot say, but in the case of the woman who was raped I am quite sure she would never have been lesbian, if indeed we can consider her such even if she does live the life..

But while some of us may choose our sexuality, I still dont think that choice is the case for most of us.. we will never really know until the world is 100% tolerant and accepting and where prejudice, abuse and preying adults no longer exist.. most of us are what we are I think is because it is how we are wired or in large part because of what the pervading demands of society and its attitudes to human sexuality are.. there is some evidence that we are what we are.. but not enough to say for certain.. my own life tells me I am what I was born to be and so I question this choice thing in respect of most of us, gay, bisexual or heterosexual.. I may have chosen to accept my lesbianism after years of considering myself bisexual, but that isnt quite the same as choosing that lesbianism.

My bisexuality was never chosen it just always was.. until at some indeterminate date lesbianism overwhelmed it.. why? I have no idea.. it was people on this site noticed it long before I ever did.. I didnt choose it.. many who were chatters a few years ago will remember my fight against accepting it and the denials I made which must have both given them a great laugh and a lot of eye rolling.....it just appeared and bit me on the arse and in the end, I did not choose my sexuality... I did however choose finally in the weight of all the evidence to bow down before it and accept it... and for that thank you very much .com......

Long Duck Dong

Dec 8, 2011, 7:16 AM

I do know from many years of doing counselling work, that some people do choose their sexuality... and yes I have seen many arguments about how that is or is not possible.......

the key to understanding this, is that some people *disconnect * from themselves, and are able to live a heterosexual / bisexual / homosexual lifestyle without issues....... the argument is often used that they should stop being in denial of who they really are, but some people have no idea of who they really are, so it poses a serious question of can sexuality be imposed upon a person ? are they truly the sexuality they see themselves as....

even in this forum, we can, at times, see * pressure * on people to explore their sexuality, have intimate relationships with others.... and we are assuming that because it worked for us, it works for others..... and the reverse applies to people that *disconnect *..... its not a denial of sexuality as we may think, as to deny something, you have to be aware of it.......

as I posted earlier in the thread, if homosexuality is a choice, then so most be heterosexuality...... but any label is a choice..... the truth of who we truly are, can only be known by ourselves and even then, do we truly know our own sexuality and embrace it, or do we too, deny aspects of our sexuality in order to * conform * to others expectations and in doing so, choose our own sexuality......

Ã¦onpax

Dec 8, 2011, 9:26 AM

I have yet to see a strong logical or factual argument stating that one chooses their sexual orientation. However nice opinions and experience are, itâ€™s anecdotal when faced with the reality that the issue of sexual orientation, is still not academically or clinically determined, regardless of how deep ones personal convictions run.

According to the American Psychiatric Association,

"to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse." ~ http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx ~

Right wing sites such as â€œConservapediaâ€ http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_choice tout their own research, which they fund to arrive at a conclusion that agrees with their political and religious ideology. However, such research is not considered to be reliable and unbiased, at least by academic and professional standards.

On the other hand, we have research that has been done, such as this paper called; A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior ~ http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1965-critical-evaluation.html ~ which not only concurs with the APAâ€™s findings but also suggests that sexual orientation is a personâ€™s biological â€œpredispositionâ€ similar to being left-handed, for example. This notion of predisposition is also reinforced in this short paper ~ http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Homosexuality/Biology_Sexual_Activity_Part_II.pdf

Philosophically, even Thomas Aquinas, whose dissertations on â€œNatural Lawâ€ are part of the ecclesiastical beliefs of the catholic church, acknowledges that homosexuality is a biological predilection, apart from the morality that any sex done without the intent of procreation, is a sin. ~ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ ~

As it stands right now, the only groups pushing that homosexuality is a choice, is the conservative and religious right. One needs look no further than the news in fact to see that this has become an conservative agenda item. Pronouncements from US presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, whom are all religiously evangelical, all state emphatically that homosexuality is a choice, albeit without any evidence.

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2011, 10:30 AM

I have yet to see a strong logical or factual argument stating that one chooses their sexual orientation. However nice opinions and experience are, itâ€™s anecdotal when faced with the reality that the issue of sexual orientation, is still not academically or clinically determined, regardless of how deep ones personal convictions run.

According to the American Psychiatric Association,

Right wing sites such as â€œConservapediaâ€ http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_choice tout their own research, which they fund to arrive at a conclusion that agrees with their political and religious ideology. However, such research is not considered to be reliable and unbiased, at least by academic and professional standards.

On the other hand, we have research that has been done, such as this paper called; A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior ~ http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1965-critical-evaluation.html ~ which not only concurs with the APAâ€™s findings but also suggests that sexual orientation is a personâ€™s biological â€œpredispositionâ€ similar to being left-handed, for example. This notion of predisposition is also reinforced in this short paper ~ http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Homosexuality/Biology_Sexual_Activity_Part_II.pdf

Philosophically, even Thomas Aquinas, whose dissertations on â€œNatural Lawâ€ are part of the ecclesiastical beliefs of the catholic church, acknowledges that homosexuality is a biological predilection, apart from the morality that any sex done without the intent of procreation, is a sin. ~ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ ~

As it stands right now, the only groups pushing that homosexuality is a choice, is the conservative and religious right. One needs look no further than the news in fact to see that this has become an conservative agenda item. Pronouncements from US presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, whom are all religiously evangelical, all state emphatically that homosexuality is a choice, albeit without any evidence.

Am pretty sure u are right mostly, Ã¦on babes.. but do not think that we can entirely dismiss the fact that some people, remarkably few I reckon, but more than I like to think, do choose a lifestyle which is not quite what their biological predisposition happens to be. They may call themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual and even heterosexual, but because they live the life does that, because of their history make them so? I think the jury is out on that one but do have me own personal view which is that they are not what they live... however much they may believe it..

I do think however that heterosexuality has dimension which cannot be attributed to the other sexualities, because heterosexuality is the societal "norm".. many live the life, even believe themselves heterosexual, but many find their true calling as they age and this creates many of the problems we hear from many gay and bisexuals on and off site.. religion is especially insidious in that regard and it is the influence of religion, especially Christianity upon western societies which makes things so difficult for so many.. few if any choose to be gay or bisexual but some choose to live as such, but many, many more choose to live as heterosexuals.. because that is what is expected of them

want2havefun

Dec 8, 2011, 10:53 AM

I do know from many years of doing counselling work, that some people do choose their sexuality...

In my opinion there are facts that cloud this whole issue making difficult for people on all sides.

Fact 1 - Many people are clearly born with one specific sexual orientation which they adhere to for life.

Fact 2 - Some clearly chose/switch their lifestyle/sexual preference at some point. Such is the complex fluid nature of human sexuality.

Fact 3 - The political agenda of special interest groups (LGBT etc) do not allow for ANY choice as it is seen as defeating to the cause/agenda. Any mere suggestion of choice is attacked. Strict labeling is enforced. Followers of the 'party line' reflect this view as well.

Fact 4 - Religious wackadoos and 'morality' special interest groups think EVERYONE is born str8 and anyone not str8 chooses otherwise, while agenda groups push the notion that NO ONE ever invokes any choice. Followers of the religious wackadoo 'party line' reflect this 'all born str8' view as well.

Fact 5 - Individuals who adhere to a 'born that way' philosophy are rarely tolerant of those where some choice was involved. This is true from all sides of human sexuality.

Fact 6 - Sexuality in humans at its most elementary level is not political. Political/special interest groups attempt to enforce labels and grouping. Labels and grouping do not encompass the scope of human sexuality.

Bottom line...if you were born the way you are...good for you.
If you were not born the way you are but invoked some choice...good for you.

We all should be more understanding and tolerant of others, realizing that human nature is not a cookie cutter thing, and neither is human sexuality.
Many things can affect human sexuality, chemistry, environment, situation, life experiences (bad, good, or otherwise) fantasy, experimentation, etc etc etc and on and on. There is no factory stamping out gays, str8s, & bi's each with a precise label.

12voltman59

Dec 8, 2011, 11:31 AM

I h
As it stands right now, the only groups pushing that homosexuality is a choice, is the conservative and religious right. One needs look no further than the news in fact to see that this has become an conservative agenda item. Pronouncements from US presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, whom are all religiously evangelical, all state emphatically that homosexuality is a choice, albeit without any evidence.

In this process of discovery this part of myself--that I am something other than a purely "straight" male---I really do think that when it comes to sex---the "NATURAL STATE" of human beings (to put it in a less than an academic way) is that "we want to screw other human beings and it doesn't matter what their plumbing is!"

I really have come to the conclusion that if the barriers that society has traditionally put upon sexual activity other than heterosexual sex would somehow go away----a very large majority of people would at least like to try some form of sexual activity other than heterosexual sex to know if the reality of engaging in such sex is as appealing as their fantasies of it is.

It has long stuck in the crawl of "the defenders of faith" that with things like contraceptives--that humans could engage in sex just for fun and that sex is no longer reserved for procreation purposes only!! That is the real reason that the "pro-life" crowd are against abortion---because if you dig deeper---they say that they want to see limits placed on the availability and the legality of contraceptives as well since they also equate even "family planning" before any sex even takes place with abortion. They consider contraceptives to be basically "baby killers" too.

Look at their sustained attacks upon organizations like Planned Parenthood. In spite of laws like the Hyde Amendment enacted 20 or so years back now that prohibited any federal funds from being used to perform abortions---the anti-abortion forces are ramping up their attacks on PP to basically de fund it entirely even to the point that they want to restrict or even prohibit private insurance from being used to pay for the procedures and services they offer. Of course---PP has not provided abortions in years but they do provide other vital health services relating to human reproductive capacities, particularly those of women and the anti-crowd wants to gut the ability of women to have control over their wombs.

The attacks the supposedly "pro-life" types make in outlawing abortion is really only step one in the process they seek---they really want as much as anything to do away with the legality and availability of contraceptives both in drug and "mechanical" form like IUDs and even probably condoms as well.

While I may have had the propensity to engage in non-hetero sexual activities--that I have come to do so has more to do with the fact that I made a very conscious decision to finally act upon some innate desires to try having sex with other guys----I went for decades without acting upon those desires and even once I came to understand, accept, etc that I wanted to do it---I didn't immediately jump in.

It was a long and drawn out process--done in a series of steps that were in large part calculated and decided upon.

It was a matter of mind acting over biological imperative because if I had simply allowed those "desires" to rule what I did that way---long ago I would have gone to a gay bar, bathhouse or whatever and got with the first guy who wanted to do something with me.

Forgetting the arguments that homosexuality is or is not "the way someone is made"---I argue that to chose to engage in such sexual activity is a totally legitimate thing and it doesn't matter one way or the other if doing so is a choice or simply comes as a result "that its the way I am."

I base my arguments on engaging in homosexual activity to be OK if it is a choice one decides to engage in harking back to the writings of the great philosophers of western thought like John Stuart Mill, John Locke and others---it was from them that our Founding Fathers came up with "the great experiment in democracy that is America."

To the crowd like Bachmann, et al who like to say that they are such great lovers of freedom and are protectors of freedom and all of that nonsense they spew---if they really held such freedoms in the high esteem they so claim they do---then by rights they would have to hold to their supposed libertarian leanings that "government should get off the backs of the people" and all of that---then they would have to hold that CONSENTING ADULTS who CHOSE to engage in non-heterosexual, non-procreation sex with one another have every right to do so---but--in spite of their hypocritical proclamations to the contrary that they want government to leave the individual alone---they would rely upon "the heavy hand of government" to impose their view of things since in reality they pay a higher degree of fidelity to a competing belief system--that of the traditional religions that holds that sex is only legitimate for procreation purposes in the context of a god sanctioned marriage between one man and one woman.

While I think it is perfectly fine that someone believes in the teachings of traditional religions and orders their individual lives around such beliefs, teachings, etc.----that we actually allow such beliefs to seep into governance is wrong since even though we take it "on faith" that an all powerful God exists--the hard cold fact is----if one were to consider the claims of the existence of such a being and "His" supposed dictates from the standards of reasoned and objective (as much as humanly possible) consideration---it is highly probable that our notions of god, heaven, hell etc, are nothing more than pure fictions.

It would therefore hold that we should not base government policies upon something that is in all probability is fictional and those policies that try to restrict homosexuality derived from religion is fictional too.

Going back to our laws----if as a society we truly held to the fidelity of the concepts that everyone is free to engage in "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" then we would not restrict the rights of people who either by nature or purely by choice alone engage in sex that is non-heterosexual in nature---they are not going to be denied their full slate of rights as citizens of this nation----they surely are not going to be thrown in jail or put in a mental institution for engaging in such activity or even worse---be executed for being "gay" as some do seriously propose.

The bottom line is--it doesn't matter one way or the other if someone is "naturally gay" or not----or if they chose to be so---it should be their right to engage in such activity if they want and the government has no right to interfere with such activity as long as all parties engaging in such activities are CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!!

It for these reasons alone that I could NEVER---come to vote or support political candidates for high office who hold these sorts of views--and instead of following that old adage that a man who when he is young has no heart if he is not liberal and no mind at an older age if he is not a conservative---well--that the conservatives have so "gone of the rails" and into "Bat Shit Crazy" territory and massive hypocrisy when it comes to fundamental freedoms---I am more "liberal" at this point of my life than ever--and idiots like those are to blame for that!!! If they had stuck to merely being "fiscal conservatives" and actually were more libertarian--I might have gone that way---but not now---the modern conservative movement has gone totally crazy and as far as I am concerned--their prescriptions for curing what ails us are not going to cure the patient--but make the patient die a long slow painful death!!!

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2011, 3:31 PM

Bottom line...if you were born the way you are...good for you.
If you were not born the way you are but invoked some choice...good for you.

Assumin' we r talkin sexuality.. yep.. can go 'long wiv that quite easily..:)

Ã¦onpax

Dec 8, 2011, 3:42 PM

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2011, 3:52 PM

My bottom line: The US has never been nor ever will be, a Christian Theocracy.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Always a tadge unwise to say something will not ever be, however unlikely...;)

Ã¦onpax

Dec 8, 2011, 4:08 PM

Am pretty sure u are right mostly, Ã¦on babes.. but do not think that we can entirely dismiss the fact that some people, remarkably few I reckon, but more than I like to think, do choose a lifestyle which is not quite what their biological predisposition happens to be. <snipped for brevity>

There are always exceptions to any rule. These is no such thing as an absolute. I'm a pragmatist. There are people of good faith whom see in themselves, an attraction for the same sex, as being a sinful thing and will spend the rest of their life fighting that urge. There are also people of good faith who feel compelled to preach their gospel that homosexuality is an evil. I can actually live with this and other facets of homosexual discrimination. My objection is not with people of "good faith", it is with people of "extremist faith" especially in light of their utter hypocrisy.

Give me a Christian who is concerned about my spiritual well-being by praying for me, over those who hide their hate behind religion and politics.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 8, 2011, 5:53 PM

I have yet to see a strong logical or factual argument stating that one chooses their sexual orientation. However nice opinions and experience are, it’s anecdotal when faced with the reality that the issue of sexual orientation, is still not academically or clinically determined, regardless of how deep ones personal convictions run.

According to the American Psychiatric Association,

Right wing sites such as “Conservapedia” http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_choice tout their own research, which they fund to arrive at a conclusion that agrees with their political and religious ideology. However, such research is not considered to be reliable and unbiased, at least by academic and professional standards.

On the other hand, we have research that has been done, such as this paper called; A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior ~ http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1965-critical-evaluation.html ~ which not only concurs with the APA’s findings but also suggests that sexual orientation is a person’s biological “predisposition” similar to being left-handed, for example. This notion of predisposition is also reinforced in this short paper ~ http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Homosexuality/Biology_Sexual_Activity_Part_II.pdf

Philosophically, even Thomas Aquinas, whose dissertations on “Natural Law” are part of the ecclesiastical beliefs of the catholic church, acknowledges that homosexuality is a biological predilection, apart from the morality that any sex done without the intent of procreation, is a sin. ~ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ ~

As it stands right now, the only groups pushing that homosexuality is a choice, is the conservative and religious right. One needs look no further than the news in fact to see that this has become an conservative agenda item. Pronouncements from US presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, whom are all religiously evangelical, all state emphatically that homosexuality is a choice, albeit without any evidence.

I look at it from the simple point of view, that our own decisions define our own sexually, it falls within a range of behievour that can match how we feel....... but there is no true way to define sexuality......

even the sexually fluid nature of people defies the ability of psych and medical science to * put people in boxes *

hence there is no logical or factual studies as it would require proving something that is very hard to prove.... sexuality can be a choice.......

it is like the *god * argument, it is a personal belief based around personal understanding and convictions..... and the existence of god can not be proved or disproved to any true standards.....

if sexuality can not be chosen, then people like fran are wrong, they should refer to themselves as bisexual, not lesbian, as they have enjoyed the company of males or females....

if sexuality can be chosen, then people like fran are correct, they identified as bisexual now as lesbian, they choose to embrace their fluid sexuality and refer to themselves by a label that best defines them as a person........

its only when we try to be rigid with sexuality ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge the fluid nature of sexuality and the fact that some people may be a sexuality other than what they are, as defined by us.

fluid sexuality in in itself, refers to a choice.... to accept and embrace, or refuse and deny aspects of our own nature that may or may not be present in us..... latent feelings that may never surface to the extent that we question our sexuality..... and if we choose to continue living in a manner that bests supports our * dominant sexual tendencies * we can in fact, choose our sexuality

the studies that you have shared, tend to work on the principal that we are all cut from cookie cutter molds and that would allow for *profiling *... and with any study that is like that, you can believe it or not....... but they work on the idea of * most likely or most unlikely *.....and it is personal conviction that makes them fact, in some peoples eyes

Darkside2009

Dec 8, 2011, 7:24 PM

In my opinion there are facts that cloud this whole issue making difficult for people on all sides.

Fact 1 - Many people are clearly born with one specific sexual orientation which they adhere to for life.

Fact 2 - Some clearly chose/switch their lifestyle/sexual preference at some point. Such is the complex fluid nature of human sexuality.

Fact 3 - The political agenda of special interest groups (LGBT etc) do not allow for ANY choice as it is seen as defeating to the cause/agenda. Any mere suggestion of choice is attacked. Strict labeling is enforced. Followers of the 'party line' reflect this view as well.

Fact 4 - Religious wackadoos and 'morality' special interest groups think EVERYONE is born str8 and anyone not str8 chooses otherwise, while agenda groups push the notion that NO ONE ever invokes any choice. Followers of the religious wackadoo 'party line' reflect this 'all born str8' view as well.

Fact 5 - Individuals who adhere to a 'born that way' philosophy are rarely tolerant of those where some choice was involved. This is true from all sides of human sexuality.

Fact 6 - Sexuality in humans at its most elementary level is not political. Political/special interest groups attempt to enforce labels and grouping. Labels and grouping do not encompass the scope of human sexuality.

Bottom line...if you were born the way you are...good for you.
If you were not born the way you are but invoked some choice...good for you.

We all should be more understanding and tolerant of others, realizing that human nature is not a cookie cutter thing, and neither is human sexuality.
Many things can affect human sexuality, chemistry, environment, situation, life experiences (bad, good, or otherwise) fantasy, experimentation, etc etc etc and on and on. There is no factory stamping out gays, str8s, & bi's each with a precise label.

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

As babies don't have a sex life, I'm curious as to how you determine most are clearly born with a sexual orientation that they adhere to for life. Most children do not start exploring their own sexual organs until a few years old, and do not start exploring other children's sexual organs until they reach puberty. How then can you make a fact of your opinion?

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2011, 7:34 PM

I look at it from the simple point of view, that our own decisions define our own sexually, it falls within a range of behievour that can match how we feel....... but there is no true way to define sexuality......

even the sexually fluid nature of people defies the ability of psych and medical science to * put people in boxes *

hence there is no logical or factual studies as it would require proving something that is very hard to prove.... sexuality can be a choice.......

it is like the *god * argument, it is a personal belief based around personal understanding and convictions..... and the existence of god can not be proved or disproved to any true standards.....

if sexuality can not be chosen, then people like fran are wrong, they should refer to themselves as bisexual, not lesbian, as they have enjoyed the company of males or females....

if sexuality can be chosen, then people like fran are correct, they identified as bisexual now as lesbian, they choose to embrace their fluid sexuality and refer to themselves by a label that best defines them as a person........

its only when we try to be rigid with sexuality ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge the fluid nature of sexuality and the fact that some people may be a sexuality other than what they are, as defined by us.

fluid sexuality in in itself, refers to a choice.... to accept and embrace, or refuse and deny aspects of our own nature that may or may not be present in us..... latent feelings that may never surface to the extent that we question our sexuality..... and if we choose to continue living in a manner that bests supports our * dominant sexual tendencies * we can in fact, choose our sexuality

the studies that you have shared, tend to work on the principal that we are all cut from cookie cutter molds and that would allow for *profiling *... and with any study that is like that, you can believe it or not....... but they work on the idea of * most likely or most unlikely *.....and it is personal conviction that makes them fact, in some peoples eyes

Where I find myself in difficulty with your argument is in that word choice.. whether we are choosing to be something or accepting what we are...I never chose to be bisexual or lesbian.. at different stages of my life I was such and accepted it.. I never chose to be... I was and that I chose to accept..

So what you say is a misrepresentation of what I said.. I am not convinced that sexuality can be chosen.. we may choose to live a lifestyle for a reason, but that does not mean we are in Ã¦on's words biologially predisposed to the sexuality of that lifestyle.. we may come to enjoy it and even glory in it but human beings are adaptable and can learn many things and learn to enjoy those things but they are not necessarily biologically born or predisposed to them. Whether choosing that lifestyle makes one truly a particular sexuality is I think open to question.. but make no mistake I would accept such people to be whatever they believe themselves to be.. I am not such an expert on sexuality that I would have the arrogance to deny them that which they believe.. I did once accept myself as a bisexual person and believe myself to have been bisexual. I never chose to be such, it was always just there.. and I accepted it gratefully as part of the human being I am.

As my life moved on I found that my interest and want of half of that sexuality had been left behind and in time I accepted myself not as a bisexual woman but as a lesbian. Sexually once, I enjoyed the company of men and women.. I still enjoy the company of both now but my interests sexually are in but one gender.. because once I was bisexual does not mean that I was going to be forever and a day.. the logic of what you say is that a person who once enjoyed sexually the company of only the opposite gender and indentified as heterosexual remains heterosexual even if that fluidity of sexuality moves them on to be what we consider as bisexual or even lesbian which is patent nonsense.

I repeat.. I never chose my sexuality.. it was there.. I chose twice in my life to accept different sexualities as my life moved on its merry way and embraced them.. choosing to recognise and embrace is not the same as choosing to be...

Long Duck Dong

Dec 8, 2011, 7:54 PM

the difficulty fran, is how could your sexuality be that of a lesbian, a lady that had a desire and love for another lady, when at times, your sexuality was that of a bisexual, a lady that desired and loved, both ladies and men......

I am happy to accept your statement about your sexuality, but if you were a male, you may well find in this forum that others may argue that you do not know your own sexuality cos it doesn't fit with their opinion

the point I am making, is that can your understanding of who you are and what you accept, be proven right or wrong to any real degree ? as we have seen in the site in the past, arguments over how males that are intimate with other males can be bisexuals in denial of their sexuality..... and by reason, the same can be applied to a lady as well

I am not that stupid that I would tell you that you are a bisexual in denial of your bisexuality.... or a lesbian that fooled herself into thinking that she was bisexual cos it was more socially acceptable......cos the simple truth, is that you are fran and you know your sexuality better than me.... and that is what matters......

the issue is simply one that we can not prove or disprove the ability to choose sexuality, we can only accept that some people can, many can not..... and that like the god argument, it all comes down to personal understanding and knowledge of ones own sexuality....... and the simple fact that our sexuality is impossible to define and put into a * box *

Darkside2009

Dec 8, 2011, 8:09 PM

In this process of discovery this part of myself--that I am something other than a purely "straight" male---I really do think that when it comes to sex---the "NATURAL STATE" of human beings (to put it in a less than an academic way) is that "we want to screw other human beings and it doesn't matter what their plumbing is!"

I really have come to the conclusion that if the barriers that society has traditionally put upon sexual activity other than heterosexual sex would somehow go away----a very large majority of people would at least like to try some form of sexual activity other than heterosexual sex to know if the reality of engaging in such sex is as appealing as their fantasies of it is.

It has long stuck in the crawl of "the defenders of faith" that with things like contraceptives--that humans could engage in sex just for fun and that sex is no longer reserved for procreation purposes only!! That is the real reason that the "pro-life" crowd are against abortion---because if you dig deeper---they say that they want to see limits placed on the availability and the legality of contraceptives as well since they also equate even "family planning" before any sex even takes place with abortion. They consider contraceptives to be basically "baby killers" too.

Look at their sustained attacks upon organizations like Planned Parenthood. In spite of laws like the Hyde Amendment enacted 20 or so years back now that prohibited any federal funds from being used to perform abortions---the anti-abortion forces are ramping up their attacks on PP to basically de fund it entirely even to the point that they want to restrict or even prohibit private insurance from being used to pay for the procedures and services they offer. Of course---PP has not provided abortions in years but they do provide other vital health services relating to human reproductive capacities, particularly those of women and the anti-crowd wants to gut the ability of women to have control over their wombs.

The attacks the supposedly "pro-life" types make in outlawing abortion is really only step one in the process they seek---they really want as much as anything to do away with the legality and availability of contraceptives both in drug and "mechanical" form like IUDs and even probably condoms as well.

While I may have had the propensity to engage in non-hetero sexual activities--that I have come to do so has more to do with the fact that I made a very conscious decision to finally act upon some innate desires to try having sex with other guys----I went for decades without acting upon those desires and even once I came to understand, accept, etc that I wanted to do it---I didn't immediately jump in.

It was a long and drawn out process--done in a series of steps that were in large part calculated and decided upon.

It was a matter of mind acting over biological imperative because if I had simply allowed those "desires" to rule what I did that way---long ago I would have gone to a gay bar, bathhouse or whatever and got with the first guy who wanted to do something with me.

Forgetting the arguments that homosexuality is or is not "the way someone is made"---I argue that to chose to engage in such sexual activity is a totally legitimate thing and it doesn't matter one way or the other if doing so is a choice or simply comes as a result "that its the way I am."

I base my arguments on engaging in homosexual activity to be OK if it is a choice one decides to engage in harking back to the writings of the great philosophers of western thought like John Stuart Mill, John Locke and others---it was from them that our Founding Fathers came up with "the great experiment in democracy that is America."

To the crowd like Bachmann, et al who like to say that they are such great lovers of freedom and are protectors of freedom and all of that nonsense they spew---if they really held such freedoms in the high esteem they so claim they do---then by rights they would have to hold to their supposed libertarian leanings that "government should get off the backs of the people" and all of that---then they would have to hold that CONSENTING ADULTS who CHOSE to engage in non-heterosexual, non-procreation sex with one another have every right to do so---but--in spite of their hypocritical proclamations to the contrary that they want government to leave the individual alone---they would rely upon "the heavy hand of government" to impose their view of things since in reality they pay a higher degree of fidelity to a competing belief system--that of the traditional religions that holds that sex is only legitimate for procreation purposes in the context of a god sanctioned marriage between one man and one woman.

While I think it is perfectly fine that someone believes in the teachings of traditional religions and orders their individual lives around such beliefs, teachings, etc.----that we actually allow such beliefs to seep into governance is wrong since even though we take it "on faith" that an all powerful God exists--the hard cold fact is----if one were to consider the claims of the existence of such a being and "His" supposed dictates from the standards of reasoned and objective (as much as humanly possible) consideration---it is highly probable that our notions of god, heaven, hell etc, are nothing more than pure fictions.

It would therefore hold that we should not base government policies upon something that is in all probability is fictional and those policies that try to restrict homosexuality derived from religion is fictional too.

Going back to our laws----if as a society we truly held to the fidelity of the concepts that everyone is free to engage in "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" then we would not restrict the rights of people who either by nature or purely by choice alone engage in sex that is non-heterosexual in nature---they are not going to be denied their full slate of rights as citizens of this nation----they surely are not going to be thrown in jail or put in a mental institution for engaging in such activity or even worse---be executed for being "gay" as some do seriously propose.

The bottom line is--it doesn't matter one way or the other if someone is "naturally gay" or not----or if they chose to be so---it should be their right to engage in such activity if they want and the government has no right to interfere with such activity as long as all parties engaging in such activities are CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!!

It for these reasons alone that I could NEVER---come to vote or support political candidates for high office who hold these sorts of views--and instead of following that old adage that a man who when he is young has no heart if he is not liberal and no mind at an older age if he is not a conservative---well--that the conservatives have so "gone of the rails" and into "Bat Shit Crazy" territory and massive hypocrisy when it comes to fundamental freedoms---I am more "liberal" at this point of my life than ever--and idiots like those are to blame for that!!! If they had stuck to merely being "fiscal conservatives" and actually were more libertarian--I might have gone that way---but not now---the modern conservative movement has gone totally crazy and as far as I am concerned--their prescriptions for curing what ails us are not going to cure the patient--but make the patient die a long slow painful death!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Heterosexuality appears to be far and away the mainstream of humanity and Homosexuality a minority, it rather contradicts your assertion that we as human beings want to have sex with other human beings, irrespective of their plumbing. A moments reflection would have convinced you of the error of your assertion.

I am religious as you are aware, I do not consider contraception or family planning to be tantamount to abortion, so I think you are a little exuberant with that brush you are trying to paint us all with.

In your sixth paragraph, you confirmed you made a choice regarding your own sexuality, in effect confirming the point of view of those you purport to disagree with.

Again, If I decide to go out and mug old ladies for their handbags, does that make it alright? In the USA you drive on the right side of the road, in the UK, we drive on the left side of the road. If I go on holiday to America, hire a car and decide to continue driving on the left side of the road in exercise of my choice, does that make it alright? Other road users and your law enforcement officers might not think so.

Mention before was made of the stricture against homosexuality in Leviticus Chapter 18, verse 22. I suggested people read the full chapter, you will find it contains other strictures against practices which I'm sure you could find agreement with, such as incest, sacrificing your children, bestiality...Do you not find these strictures reasonable? Not only that, but I think you might find they already form part of our laws. Including those of America, that great experiment in democracy, as you put it.

As to the pursuit of Life Liberty and Happiness, when does that start exactly? Surely the pursuit of the latter two depends on having the former. That life growing in the womb is not exactly able to defend itself, it relies on the choice made by the mother carrying it, and to other factors outside its control.

We set limits on how far into the term a mother may have an abortion, in order to assign some rights to the child, but physically there is not a lot we as a society can do if the mother decides to exercise her choice in inducing a miscarriage.

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2011, 8:20 PM

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

In the USA you drive on the right side of the road, in the UK, we drive on the left side of the road.

*sighs*.. how many times must me say it on .com.. we drive on the right side of the road...

.. ova ther they drive on the wrong side of the road...;)

k? Rite.. sorted...:bigrin:

Darkside2009

Dec 8, 2011, 8:53 PM

have no seen the video yet..... but if homosexuality is a choice.... then heterosexuality must be one too

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

Must it? One might not believe in God, but if one simply believes in evolution, then procreation would cease, if Nature did not provide that biological urge to reproduce. It is Nature's imperative to ensure as many as possible are heterosexual, if it were not so, homosexuals would not be in a very small minority.

If homosexuality has not died out as might be expected, if acting contrary to Nature's imperative, then some other factor must be at work. Might that factor not be choice? A learned, behaviour pattern that becomes so ingrained it makes it difficult to relinquish.

As I understand it, that is the basis for those suggesting it is choice. A learned pattern of behaviour, like alcoholism or smoking, can be unlearned, but only by those that wish to relinquish their habit.

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2011, 9:04 PM

Me last word on the issue before I tootle off to me bed.. whether it is choice as some claim, or whether it is in born in us what does it matter? Whichever it is, or even if it is a mix of the two, it is a matter of freedom to us all.. the freedom to choose what we are, or the freedom to be what we are born.. and freedom from persecution for our choice or for our genes..

Long Duck Dong

Dec 8, 2011, 11:04 PM

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

Must it? One might not believe in God, but if one simply believes in evolution, then procreation would cease, if Nature did not provide that biological urge to reproduce. It is Nature's imperative to ensure as many as possible are heterosexual, if it were not so, homosexuals would not be in a very small minority.

If homosexuality has not died out as might be expected, if acting contrary to Nature's imperative, then some other factor must be at work. Might that factor not be choice? A learned, behaviour pattern that becomes so ingrained it makes it difficult to relinquish.

As I understand it, that is the basis for those suggesting it is choice. A learned pattern of behaviour, like alcoholism or smoking, can be unlearned, but only by those that wish to relinquish their habit.

the need to reproduce is not a heterosexual domain, its a aspect of us all, whom we mate with, decides the chances of reproduction .. so yes I agree that reproduction is the leading aspect of nature, not heterosexuality.... thats a human term.....

there have been many reports of bisexual natured interaction amongst species ( they call it homosexual sexual contact, but thats misleading, cos if a male animal fucks another male animal then impregnated a female, is showing sexual behievour that is more in line with bisexual sexual behievour )

I will not go as far as to say the animals are bisexually attracted to other animals as there is no way to really communicate with them about their level of attraction.......so we can only go on the same gender interaction....

the key to nature is that there is balance, enuf survive to ensure the continuation of the species..... its mankind that have the imbalance as we have created ways to live longer, hence the world population is growing and currently over 7 billion people.......and god knows how many of them are actually hetero, bi, gay etc.... as we can only rely on what they say about their sexuality.....

I would not go as far as saying that bi / homosexual / lesbian sexualities can be unlearned...as that sounds like you can reverse the sexuality in a person to a more perferred sexuality.... I perfer to say that a persons sexuality can evolve to a new and different form of sexuality and if left to evolve naturally, they can * choose * settings and surroundings that can influence the change....... but the moment we step up and tell people that we can change their sexuality to one that we find more suitable and perferrable, we are not allowing a choice, but applying pressure to conform......

part of my thinking comes from my time behind bars, the urge and desire for contact * died * as there was no real social interaction to fuel a need and desire so like a pot simmering on a element, it was *turned down below the temp required for simmering * where as if I had been in a private swingers club, the temp may have been * turned up * to boiling point......

its a personal understanding based around many various levels of interaction with social groups and people in a personal and professional level.........

unfortunately, we have seen the reaction in this forum to members such as slipnslide who expressed a self determined understanding that they have become more involved in the bisexual scene and found it was not part of who they were.... so they elected to * evolve * to their heterosexual nature..... and got told they were wrong, they needed to accept their bisexuality, embrace it and stop trying to become what they were not..... instead of his statement being accepted as a personal statement about what he was.......

it almost reads as some people do not want to accept that others can choose.... and that makes a mockery of peoples ability to choose new labels as their sexuality evolves.....

Ã¦onpax

Dec 8, 2011, 11:29 PM

I look at it from the simple point of view, that our own decisions define our own sexually, it falls within a range of behievour that can match how we feel....... but there is no true way to define sexuality......<snipped for brevity>

This would be your own opinion on this topic. I personally find it totally unconvincing but I'll respect it, and leave it at that.

12voltman59

Dec 8, 2011, 11:34 PM

Frannie-when it comes to the issue of abortion---I am fully in favor of unrestricted abortions because of two basic reasons:

1.) That even in times when abortion was illegal----if a woman wanted to have one--she would find some way to get one--with the results of that often being disastrous for mother and baby both. As we have seen from many things we have to ban like alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc, if someone is intent upon doing so---they will find a way to get an abortion or get a drink of booze, smoke a joint, play the numbers or what have you no matter how many laws that are enacted against that thing. The only thing that basically killed illegal gambling was when states started running lotteries and made it safe and legal to buy lotto tickets at the local mini-mart instead of going to see your local mob connected bookie.

2.) In deciding one is for or against abortion--you are making a value judgment about whether the "rights" of the mother or the baby are paramount--well I go down on the side to favor the rights of the pregnant female who has to deal with the situation. I say that if you tell women that they do not have the right to have total control of their reproductive capacity---then any other discussion of rights they might or might not have are really effectively moot. When you also tell "the little women" that they cannot have control over whether to have a child or not--and puts the value fetuses as being greater than that of women----then you are saying that women are nothing more than so much breeding stock and their only real value as females is to bring babies into the world.

Here are the words of one "prolife" advocate on why they are looking at also trying to restrict access to contraceptives as well: “By outlawing contraception, you’re closer to outlawing surgical abortion. So if, as the pro-life community, you’re trying to outlaw surgical abortion but the court has told us its legal basis is founded on the necessity of abortion, shouldn’t the pro-life community begin to take a look at contraception? We’re trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the court is pointing us over here.” — Matt Sande, Director of Legislative Affairs, Pro-Life Wisconsin (Davidoff, Judith. (2005, August 1). “Abortion foes take aim at contraceptives”. The Capital Times

The point of my post above was not to agree or disagree with the origin of people why people have non-hetero sex--it was about making the point that it doesn't really matter whether one is "born that way" or comes to decide to engage in such activity--the post was to point out that a person should have to right to live that way no matter what and not lose their rights because they either chose to be a GLBT person or one was born that way.

I was trying to make my argument along the lines of how those philosophers like Locke and Mill might have approached an issue of this sort--it has been years since I took those classes in college and really read closely the writings of those great minds. I guess I am a bit rusty at recalling their way of framing arguments and their words on such issues of "essential liberties" and the other matters they were concerned with. I was trying to frame my arguments in the ways that they did. I really do need to go back and refresh myself with their writings--time to dig those books out of storage.- or get new copies. I think it would be good if everyone would get a grounding in the writings, musings, thoughts and teaches of those "dead white men." They did serve to have helped to create the intellectual under pinnings of modern western culture.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 8, 2011, 11:43 PM

Always a tadge unwise to say something will not ever be, however unlikely...;)

Perhaps you are right. Please note the headline of a news event happening now:

Rick Perry Says Human Rights for Gays â€˜Not in Americaâ€™s Interestsâ€™
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/rick-perry-says-human-rights-for-gays-not-in-americas-interests/

also,

In GOP race, candidates woo evangelicals
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/12/08/in_gop_race_candidates_woo_evangelicals/

If any one of these people get elected, they will force their religiously tainted idea of gay Choice on the American public, rest assured, you will see a right wing backlash that will set back the clock against all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.

12voltman59

Dec 9, 2011, 12:33 AM

I almost always watch this show each Sunday morning--but didn't this past Sunday but found this when I went to their website to see what had been on----they had a story about a growing schism going on in the Catholic Church--this one over officials at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix that in order to save the life of a pregnant woman they had to abort the baby she carried---the segment goes into that matter and includes a wider discussion of other things going on in the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57336316/the-catholic-church-a-house-divided/?tag=contentBody;cbsCarousel

Based with the decision before the doctors regarding the case of this woman I would have elected to do the same thing because had they not done the abortion--the woman and the baby would have both died--which to me is just a totally senseless thing to have allowed to take place!!!

Ã¦onpax

Dec 9, 2011, 1:49 AM

Where I find myself in difficulty with your argument is in that word choice.. whether we are choosing to be something or accepting what we are...I never chose to be bisexual or lesbian.. at different stages of my life I was such and accepted it.. I never chose to be... I was and that I chose to accept.. <snipped for brevity>

The reasons I disallow these lines of reasoning is varied;

1) The words are being parsed as to avoid the core argument; more attention is being paid to the varied nuances of meaning, thus bypassing the preponderance of scientific and philosophical evidence which states that Choice in sexual orientation just cannot be proven to exist, at this time.

2) I find the deliberate use of the word "lifestyle" troubling especially when it is used by the "right" in lieu of the accepted and more accurate, "orientation". As someone who has been reading, for years, what the political and religious right have to say about homosexuality, their use of sexual "choice" goes hand in hand with what they see as "lifestyle".

lifestyle - the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.

sexual orientation - one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

3) When I refer to anecdotal evidence I am referring to ones personal beliefs and experiences. However true and factual it may be for the person citing them, because it's such a very small sample, it is unreliable and extremely subjective as such things can be cherry-picked or otherwise shown to be unrepresentative of typical cases, in the larger sense.

The maxim here is that parts cannot be greater than it's sum total. As the issue of the sexual orientation of LGBT's is world wide, anecdotal evidence, while good enough to sustain ones own opinion, just doesn't cut it when faced with the entire scope of this issue.

darkeyes

Dec 9, 2011, 4:12 AM

The reasons I disallow these lines of reasoning is varied;

1) The words are being parsed as to avoid the core argument; more attention is being paid to the varied nuances of meaning, thus bypassing the preponderance of scientific and philosophical evidence which states that Choice in sexual orientation just cannot be proven to exist, at this time.

2) I find the deliberate use of the word "lifestyle" troubling especially when it is used by the "right" in lieu of the accepted and more accurate, "orientation". As someone who has been reading, for years, what the political and religious right have to say about homosexuality, their use of sexual "choice" goes hand in hand with what they see as "lifestyle".

lifestyle - the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.

sexual orientation - one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

3) When I refer to anecdotal evidence I am referring to ones personal beliefs and experiences. However true and factual it may be for the person citing them, because it's such a very small sample, it is unreliable and extremely subjective as such things can be cherry-picked or otherwise shown to be unrepresentative of typical cases, in the larger sense.

The maxim here is that parts cannot be greater than it's sum total. As the issue of the sexual orientation of LGBT's is world wide, anecdotal evidence, while good enough to sustain ones own opinion, just doesn't cut it when faced with the entire scope of this issue.

..Ã¦on, u can disallow whatever u like in my book.. but I did not choose my sexuality for myself it was there.. but did take the concious decision to accept it and not hide away and deny it.. that isnt the same as choosing my sexuality.. it was already there..my words dont avoid the core of the argument in the least.. rather they acknowledge a reality most gay and bisexual people face at some time..

I do not remember as such choosing to acknowledge my bisexuality.. but do very well the day the penny dropped and I finally accepted my lesbianism..

..other than that I can accept the rest of your post without much hesitation..

darkeyes

Dec 9, 2011, 4:15 AM

Frannie-when it comes to the issue of abortion---I am fully in favor of unrestricted abortions because of two basic reasons:

1.) That even in times when abortion was illegal----if a woman wanted to have one--she would find some way to get one--with the results of that often being disastrous for mother and baby both. As we have seen from many things we have to ban like alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc, if someone is intent upon doing so---they will find a way to get an abortion or get a drink of booze, smoke a joint, play the numbers or what have you no matter how many laws that are enacted against that thing. The only thing that basically killed illegal gambling was when states started running lotteries and made it safe and legal to buy lotto tickets at the local mini-mart instead of going to see your local mob connected bookie.

2.) In deciding one is for or against abortion--you are making a value judgment about whether the "rights" of the mother or the baby are paramount--well I go down on the side to favor the rights of the pregnant female who has to deal with the situation. I say that if you tell women that they do not have the right to have total control of their reproductive capacity---then any other discussion of rights they might or might not have are really effectively moot. When you also tell "the little women" that they cannot have control over whether to have a child or not--and puts the value fetuses as being greater than that of women----then you are saying that women are nothing more than so much breeding stock and their only real value as females is to bring babies into the world.

Here are the words of one "prolife" advocate on why they are looking at also trying to restrict access to contraceptives as well: â€œBy outlawing contraception, youâ€™re closer to outlawing surgical abortion. So if, as the pro-life community, youâ€™re trying to outlaw surgical abortion but the court has told us its legal basis is founded on the necessity of abortion, shouldnâ€™t the pro-life community begin to take a look at contraception? Weâ€™re trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the court is pointing us over here.â€ â€” Matt Sande, Director of Legislative Affairs, Pro-Life Wisconsin (Davidoff, Judith. (2005, August 1). â€œAbortion foes take aim at contraceptivesâ€. The Capital Times

The point of my post above was not to agree or disagree with the origin of people why people have non-hetero sex--it was about making the point that it doesn't really matter whether one is "born that way" or comes to decide to engage in such activity--the post was to point out that a person should have to right to live that way no matter what and not lose their rights because they either chose to be a GLBT person or one was born that way.

I was trying to make my argument along the lines of how those philosophers like Locke and Mill might have approached an issue of this sort--it has been years since I took those classes in college and really read closely the writings of those great minds. I guess I am a bit rusty at recalling their way of framing arguments and their words on such issues of "essential liberties" and the other matters they were concerned with. I was trying to frame my arguments in the ways that they did. I really do need to go back and refresh myself with their writings--time to dig those books out of storage.- or get new copies. I think it would be good if everyone would get a grounding in the writings, musings, thoughts and teaches of those "dead white men." They did serve to have helped to create the intellectual under pinnings of modern western culture.

I'll have to get back to u on this one, Voltie *laffs*.. I dont remember saying a word about abortion in the thread , but I dont demur from what u say.. when I have a minute, if I do have summat say..I will babes..;)

12voltman59

Dec 9, 2011, 12:02 PM

I'll have to get back to u on this one, Voltie *laffs*.. I dont remember saying a word about abortion in the thread , but I dont demur from what u say.. when I have a minute, if I do have summat say..I will babes..;)

I thought I read something in your post about abortion Frannie--maybe I slipped into an alternate universe or something and the Darkeyes over there said something about it!!! Or maybe I was having a flashback from my heavy partying days--or-maybe I am going totally batshit crazy myself!!! :bigrin:

Oh well--it was a pretty good tangential rant--I guess !!!! :bounce:

BiDaveDtown

Dec 9, 2011, 2:04 PM

Ã¦onpax

Dec 9, 2011, 2:38 PM

..Ã¦on, u can disallow whatever u like in my book.. but I did not choose my sexuality for myself it was there.. but did take the concious decision to accept it and not hide away and deny it.. that isnt the same as choosing my sexuality.. it was already there..my words dont avoid the core of the argument in the least.. rather they acknowledge a reality most gay and bisexual people face at some time..

I do not remember as such choosing to acknowledge my bisexuality.. but do very well the day the penny dropped and I finally accepted my lesbianism..

..other than that I can accept the rest of your post without much hesitation..

Please read through my replies CAREFULLY...I am saying Sexual Orientation is NOT a choice....nor, as I have also stated quite plainly, is there any scientific evidence to even suggest that it is. There is research that implies (but not proven) that we are born with a sexual predisposition (in my case, bisexuality), however, religion and social taboo's many times subterfuge those inclinations in a person.

want2havefun

Dec 9, 2011, 3:43 PM

Someone can decide to act or not act on their sexuality but that itself does not mean that sexuality is somehow a choice.

You better inform all the glbt agenda groups of this.
Their position generally is that if a str8 person acts upon their sexuality in ANY manner that involves a person of the same gender they are not str8 but 'closted' gay or at least bi.....which is absolute rubbish. I have seen gays attacked for the same reason when they experiemnted with a fetish interest that involved the opposite gender....which agenda driven individuals vehemently declared made them bi, and not gay. Also rubbish. Human sexuality has a fluid nature, more so in some individuals perhaps than others, but many things are possible when choice is invoked.

Sexual inclination begins in the womb, when we are formed. It is a process, not a singular event. As I stated earlier, some people never vary from the inclination they were born with, others invoke some choice one way or another...influenced by all manner of factors. Choices are always part of a persons sexuality, even within the bounds of just being str8, or gay etc The variations of human sexuality are as numerous human faces. Our labels are a huge failure in encompassing that.

If you somehow could decide or chose your own sexuality most people would decide or somehow chose to be heterosexual or straight.

In fact most people are hetro. But, the 'law' of nature demands such.
Without hetro sex none of us would be here. ;)

LoveBothWorlds

Dec 9, 2011, 9:08 PM

I think we can all agree that human beings are sexual beings that are sexually attracted to other human beings. I have noticed there is a tendency among humans to attempt to classify and label people using dichotomous constructs. Such as heterosexual or not heterosexual. Human beings also have the capability of who they choose to have sex with. This may be different than who they are sexually "attracted" to or it may be the same. But, it doesn't matter as all humans are sexual beings. Indeed, human beings also possess the capacity to reproduce and do so with regularity and energetic frequency - ask any teenager.

It is the psychological and societal gender roles we are inculcated to that typically bring judgement, miscommunication, fear, and lack of understanding. Now, that being said, times are changing but as we all know, change is a slow and many times human beings are resistant to change despite the fact that change is actually a constant phenomenon. Everyone constantly changes as we all age minute by minute. Therefore, no one remains the same.

Someone had posted earlier that we don't "know" - but, this brings up another philosophical question which is, "What is knowledge or what is it to know?"

Thanks for an interesting discussion my gorgeous human beings. Please know that you are loved and it is okay to be who you are. After all, who else can you be?

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 12:34 AM

Anyone who thinks or claims that human sexuality is somehow a choice is sadly mistaken and full of BS.

I am fine with being bisexual but I did not choose my sexuality any more than I somehow made the "choice" to be white with dark hair and dark eyes.

Someone can decide to act or not act on their sexuality but that itself does not mean that sexuality is somehow a choice.

If you somehow could decide or chose your own sexuality most people would decide or somehow chose to be heterosexual or straight.

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

I think everyone is agreed that one can decide to act or not act on one's sexuality. That goes without saying really.

What interests me in this discussion, is the factors at work in making a person attracted to the same gender.

If a person who is homosexual comes from a long line of people who were heterosexual, it would seem to indicate the cause is not a genetic one. Similarly one member on this site, who professes to be lesbian has I believe two heterosexual daughters. That to me would seem to enforce the idea that the cause is not genetic.

So if the genetic cause is ruled out, it must be some other factor, such as a chemical balance within the brain, the way in which one was raised, the environment in which one was raised, or a personal decision.

As Nature creates the urge to procreate to ensure the survival of the species, homosexuality is an anomaly. It does not perform any function in perpetuating the species, and yet homosexuality has not died out, as a genetic dead-end, as one might expect it to.

Similarly, it is not every species on Earth in which homosexual behaviour can be found or exhibited. If it had a genetic cause, one would expect it to be much more widespread among different species, and more prevalent within species. It isn't.

Within Humanity, it can be found in different societies and countries around the World. This would seem to indicate that diet is not a factor.

There have been Human societies throughout history where it was more acceptable and some where it was deemed less acceptable, so that would appear to be one factor. Yet, as we have seen within those societies, the sexuality of the children does not reflect the sexuality of the parent, in much the same way as we might not agree with our parents, political or religious views.

So if we eliminate all other factors, whatever remains, however implausible it might seem, must be the truth.

I would think it must be a fascinating field of research to work in, and as we have seen, there are minds pre-disposed to one view or outcome rather than another.

We have all seen in this forum, Members who came to a realisation about their sexuality in later life. Might this have been due to circumstance? That because of age, looks and vigor they might no longer be as attractive to the opposite sex. That because of this, they are exploring whatever avenues they feel are left open to them, when they didn't act on those urges before.

If it is a learned behaviour, and I say if, then it does lend some substance to the view that it can be un-learned. We have seen that avid smokers and alcoholics cannot be forced to quit, but they can be helped to quit, if they themselves wish to do so.

If it is a choice, and again I say if, then it follows that the person can make a different choice, if they so wish.

I personally, have found this topic one of the more interesting ones we have discussed on here. I have no doubt there are others who think differently on this matter than I do, or have arrived at a different conclusion, based on the same evidence. Their arguments have helped in forming my own perspective by shedding light from a different angle.

I have no illusion that the question has been resolved here, or could be, but it has been interesting.

BiDaveDtown

Dec 10, 2011, 1:32 AM

I have seen gays attacked for the same reason when they experiemnted with a fetish interest that involved the opposite gender....

What would an example of this be? The gay men I've met and who I'm friends with have never wanted to have sex with a woman, and never have.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 10, 2011, 4:27 AM

<snipped for brevity>
1 - "You better inform all the glbt agenda groups of this. Their position generally is that if a str8 person acts upon their sexuality in ANY manner that involves a person of the same gender they are not str8 but 'closted' gay or at least bi.....which is absolute rubbish"
2 - "Sexual inclination begins in the womb, when we are formed."

1a - Do you have a source for that? Iâ€™ve been a member of an LGBT group for about eight years now and at no time have I ever heard, seen or read of any American LGBT group (local or national) make any proclamation like that. That same question is being addressed in this very forum as there is no consensus, by the homosexual community or academia, as to what acts cross the threshold from hetero to homosexuality.

1b - Also in your reply, you refer to this â€œglbt agendaâ€, could you please be more specific. The group I belong to is political and social and have a "Mission Statement" which outlines our goals;

a) address and respond as activists in civil and human rights violations being perpetrated on the Gay community,
b) advocate laws expanding the rights and civil liberties of homosexuals, such as in marriage,
c) act as a resource for homosexual health issues and
d) act as a cultural, educational and social support function.

I guess if this is the agenda you refer to, then Iâ€™ve answered my own question.

2 - As there is no scientific proof or evidence that people consciously choose their sexual orientation, so too, there is no scientific proof as to the exact cause of how a sexual inclination, orientation or trigger mechanism develops in a human by which we become aware of our sexual proclivitiesâ€¦.hetero or homosexual. There are theories such as in a person being born with a homosexual â€œpredispositionâ€ but it is just a theory, which I agree with, but it is not a scientific fact.

darkeyes

Dec 10, 2011, 5:26 AM

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

If a person who is homosexual comes from a long line of people who were heterosexual, it would seem to indicate the cause is not a genetic one. Similarly one member on this site, who professes to be lesbian has I believe two heterosexual daughters. That to me would seem to enforce the idea that the cause is not genetic.

Do u mean me or Ã¦on, Dark babes? Assume u mean me since I am the lesbian, but maybe u havent read my posts as carefully as u thought u had.. it is some time since I mentioned it, but if u care to search it is there somewhere, but my sister is a bisexual woman and have one 2cd cousin on my mother's side who is openly homosexual and another female cousin who is openly bisexual. I dont know my family history in depth, and dont know my parents sexual history in sufficient detail to comment.. these incidences of non straightness are not sufficient in my opinion to say for certain that homo or bisexuality are genetic, but they are a hint that it may be so.

In respect of our children it is true that the older is apparently turning out to be heterosexual but she is not yet 14 and by the time she reaches womanhood, that may yet change. She is also my adopted daughter, the younger being a lot younger, so lets wait and see. In respect of their natural mother, Kate, my partner, she has one cousin on her fathers side who is also bisexual. I have no knowledge of the natural fathers' family sexual histories..

In respect of Ã¦on, I think her children probably too young to say what their sexualities will be and do not recall her mentioning it nor do I recall her mentioning her own family history. In any case, she, my partner and I are all in age within a few years of each other, and if our parents generation were the vanguard of sexual liberalisation, our grandparents generation was not.. and it is more than possible that at least some of that generation within our families had sexualities which were not straight, but even more so than many even now, were deeply suppressed and hidden from the world.. those family sexual histories of two and more generations back will be far more deeply buried than our own generation's is likely to be..

In the case our own children, if both turn out to be heterosexual, that is not evidence that their natural mother and her cousin's sexualities are not genetic in any case.. since traits do not affect every person in a family with everyone being different and they even skip generations.. in two generations that is not enough evidence to state categorically that homosexual tendency is inborn, any more than the fact that both my sister my self and a couple of cousins (of different generatons) are not heterosexual is.. they are hints that it may be.. no more than that.. certainly bigger hints than it is not..

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 5:46 AM

No Fran, I was not referring to either you or Aeon.

darkeyes

Dec 10, 2011, 5:49 AM

No Fran, I was not referring to either you or Aeon.

ok... but me comments still have pertinence.. an me always has impertinence ya daft ole coot..:tong:..

Rhevan

Dec 10, 2011, 5:58 AM

I don't know how much of anyone's sexuality is a choice, it is something we feel deep inside and how we choose to act on it is where the choice plays out. I have known gay males that married straight females and had children and were happy even though they denied their true selves to assuage their families concerns over how to live their life.

I have recently been strongly attracted to a straight female, it is not sexual in any means, it is something that is friendship or kinship. It doesn't make her any less straight if she returns that interest it merely means she is open minded.

I am hoping that my return to living will continue and I thank the few who reached out to help me recover from so many losses.

Rhevan

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 6:25 AM

What would an example of this be? The gay men I've met and who I'm friends with have never wanted to have sex with a woman, and never have.

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

Have you ever heard of Oscar Wilde? Famous writer, wit, homosexual, served two years in Reading Prison for being homosexual. He died in Paris, where he had gone to live on his release from prison. He died in poverty.

He also happened to be married and the father of a son. His gravestone has recently had to be encased in glass, as pilgrims to his grave had been kissing the gravestone, the oils and chemicals in the lipstick had been eroding the gravestone.

darkeyes

Dec 10, 2011, 6:45 AM

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

Have you ever heard of Oscar Wilde? Famous writer, wit, homosexual, served two years in Reading Prison for being homosexual. He died in Paris, where he had gone to live on his release from prison. He died in poverty.

He also happened to be married and the father of a son. His gravestone has recently had to be encased in glass, as pilgrims to his grave had been kissing the gravestone, the oils and chemicals in the lipstick had been eroding the gravestone.

That he was homosexual is much less argued in this day and age babes.. that his penchant was guys there is no doubt but I know several bisexual girls who prefer their own gender sexually.. doesn't make them any the less bisexual.. just one kind.. he loved his wife till the day he died.. that he loved men is unquestioned.. nowadays most accept he was bisexual not homosexual. He may have been prosecuted and imprisoned for sodomy and gross indecency but sodomy and gross indecency is not unknown among the bisexual male fraternity even today..

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 6:54 AM

ok... but me comments still have pertinence.. an me always has impertinence ya daft ole coot..:tong:..

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

There is a lot of pertness around at the moment, I blame it on the cold weather. :rolleyes:

darkeyes

Dec 10, 2011, 7:12 AM

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

There is a lot of pertness around at the moment, I blame it on the cold weather. :rolleyes:

.. certainly wos a bit pert at haff 5 this mornin... u hav no idea...:eek:

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 7:26 AM

I thought I read something in your post about abortion Frannie--maybe I slipped into an alternate universe or something and the Darkeyes over there said something about it!!! Or maybe I was having a flashback from my heavy partying days--or-maybe I am going totally batshit crazy myself!!! :bigrin:

Oh well--it was a pretty good tangential rant--I guess !!!! :bounce:

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

I think it is the batshit-crazy option myself, or perhaps you are just confusing people in the Celtic twilight. It was I, not Fran, who mentioned abortion in the thread.

We are easy to differentiate. She is the opinionated little short-arse, with the colour-challenged, dipsy blonde for a friend. I am the tall, dark and handsome one with reasoned, logical opinions.

She is a Socialist, I am to the right of Atilla the Hun.

She is female, I am male.

She writes in News Squeak, and I write in the Queen's English.

See how easy it is? Now go and have a lie down in a darkened room, you'll be fine. You can count your marbles later. :bigrin:

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 7:32 AM

.. certainly wos a bit pert at haff 5 this mornin... u hav no idea...:eek:

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

You didn't get back home from the club until 5.30a.m.? :eek: Dirty little stop-out. I hope that Sammie one remembered to wear her vest. :rolleyes:

Long Duck Dong

Dec 10, 2011, 7:34 AM

That he was homosexual is much less argued in this day and age babes.. that his penchant was guys there is no doubt but I know several bisexual girls who prefer their own gender sexually.. doesn't make them any the less bisexual.. just one kind.. he loved his wife till the day he died.. that he loved men is unquestioned.. nowadays most accept he was bisexual not homosexual. He may have been prosecuted and imprisoned for sodomy and gross indecency but sodomy and gross indecency is not unknown among the bisexual male fraternity even today..

one of the most interesting debates I have had about oscar wilde, is who is the father of his child......

some people will say hes bisexual, some will say he was homosexual.... many will just say, fight, ya bastards cos the only person that truly knows, is dead......

darkeyes

Dec 10, 2011, 8:01 AM

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

You didn't get back home from the club until 5.30a.m.? :eek: Dirty little stop-out. I hope that Sammie one remembered to wear her vest. :rolleyes:

Sam wear a vest? God forbid.. but a nice thick cushion on 'er arse wudda been a triff idea...:bigrin:

darkeyes

Dec 10, 2011, 8:02 AM

one of the most interesting debates I have had about oscar wilde, is who is the father of his child......

some people will say hes bisexual, some will say he was homosexual.... many will just say, fight, ya bastards cos the only person that truly knows, is dead......

.. if indeed he knew himself...;)

Long Duck Dong

Dec 10, 2011, 8:31 AM

.. if indeed he knew himself...;)

do any of us truly know ourselves..... ? :tong:

what we are today, we may not be, tomorrow and we are never the same as yesturday....... sexuality is like a meandering stream thru the mountains and gullies of our lives.... sometimes a flood, sometimes a trickle..... but forever changing.......

darkeyes

Dec 10, 2011, 8:59 AM

Please read through my replies CAREFULLY...I am saying Sexual Orientation is NOT a choice....nor, as I have also stated quite plainly, is there any scientific evidence to even suggest that it is. There is research that implies (but not proven) that we are born with a sexual predisposition (in my case, bisexuality), however, religion and social taboo's many times subterfuge those inclinations in a person.

Oi Noughty Knickers.. chill.. I did read ur posts carefully as I always do.. and for the most part agree with u.. I do have a slightly different perspective based on my own experiences and those of friends and aquaintances. I am not sure we can apply hard and fast rules to just what makes people live a certain way. I accept your claims of what the right, Christian and otherwise tell us, but while I hold to the view that we are born to be, I do not entirely dismiss that for a few, more than we like to think but less than the opposition claim, live as and to all intents and purposes are gay or bisexual people. Yes it is anecdotal, and yes we still need to learn more, but in the end it is not what made us so which is important, it is what we believe ourselves to be.. and having the right to live as what we know or believe ourselves to be without fear or hindrance.. there is far too much still in learned for us to make definitive statements one way or other..

Darkside with his claim that it is learned behaviour and can be unlearned is blatant Irish blarney.. it cannot be unlearned.. it can be suppressed but what is learned remains within us whether or not we are born or choose to be.. we can control but it remains learned.. we may even forget but it remains learned and is still there within us somewhere however deeply buried... this also goes for those of us who are born gay or bisexual in some ways... we cannot unlearn what we were born to be or anything we have learned by being so.. but we can have it hammered out of us in the sense that aversion therapy or some other sinister awful oppression can make us suppress our natural predelictions.. but we cannot unlearn what we already know. We can have our perception of that knowledge and our attitudes changed but unlearning is something of which we not capable..

sammie19

Dec 10, 2011, 9:12 AM

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

I think it is the batshit-crazy option myself, or perhaps you are just confusing people in the Celtic twilight. It was I, not Fran, who mentioned abortion in the thread.

We are easy to differentiate. She is the opinionated little short-arse, with the colour-challenged, dipsy blonde for a friend. I am the tall, dark and handsome one with reasoned, logical opinions.

She is a Socialist, I am to the right of Atilla the Hun.

She is female, I am male.

She writes in News Squeak, and I write in the Queen's English.

See how easy it is? Now go and have a lie down in a darkened room, you'll be fine. You can count your marbles later. :bigrin:

Because I chose to wear autumn colours for one one day does not make me colour challenged and I may be a little dispy sometimes, but at your age is shrinking, greying and wrinkly not more appropriate?:rolleyes:

Katja

Dec 10, 2011, 10:44 AM

I have followed this thread with interest because I have never known whether my own sexuality is learned or genetic. It may even be a combination of both.

When at school I was groomed by a 6th form girl who had herself been groomed several years before in quite the same way. We did not think or refer to it as grooming but that is precisely what it was. A number of girls discovered their sexuality in this way, but a few, never groomed or seduced were precociously lesbian at a much younger age than my own entry into the world of same gender sex.

What I am unclear about is whether the grooming was responsible for my acceptance of my fate and as such the primary influence upon my sexuality, or whether as that grooming took place my own natural sexual attraction to my own gender was helped along and brought out by that older girl.

Certainly my own seducer claimed that she saw traits in me which pointed at the very least, to bisexuality, which was why she was interested in me, and other older girls said much the same about myself and their own interests. How much is true, and how much is a form of self justification for the grooming of younger girls I am unable to say. Just know that when it was my turn to groom I said the same thing and believed it too. I still believe it to be true.

Whether environmental, circumstantial or other factors make us what we are, or whether those factors bring out what is already within us I do not know and do not believe anyone knows with certainty, but such was the ease with which I was seduced into the world of same gender relationships, I suspect that for myself, even allowing for the fact that I was groomed, there is sufficient for me to conclude that there is a genetic factor which cannot be ignored and which influenced the way I acted and responded to that grooming.

Most people I know who are gay, lesbian or bisexual believe themselves to have been made as they are, not by circumstance or environment but by accident of conception. This is the case even for those who were in some way introduced, like myself, to their sexuality by circumstance and environment. The question I ask has no certain answer as yet, but does circumstance and environment make us what we are, or is it responsible for bringing out in us what is already there?

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 11:56 AM

Because I chose to wear autumn colours for one one day does not make me colour challenged and I may be a little dispy sometimes, but at your age is shrinking, greying and wrinkly not more appropriate?:rolleyes:

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

What do you call a Scottish Dinosaur with an injured bum?

A Megasaurass. ;)

dafydd

Dec 10, 2011, 12:24 PM

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 1:05 PM

Oi Noughty Knickers.. chill.. I did read ur posts carefully as I always do.. and for the most part agree with u.. I do have a slightly different perspective based on my own experiences and those of friends and aquaintances. I am not sure we can apply hard and fast rules to just what makes people live a certain way. I accept your claims of what the right, Christian and otherwise tell us, but while I hold to the view that we are born to be, I do not entirely dismiss that for a few, more than we like to think but less than the opposition claim, live as and to all intents and purposes are gay or bisexual people. Yes it is anecdotal, and yes we still need to learn more, but in the end it is not what made us so which is important, it is what we believe ourselves to be.. and having the right to live as what we know or believe ourselves to be without fear or hindrance.. there is far too much still in learned for us to make definitive statements one way or other..

Darkside with his claim that it is learned behaviour and can be unlearned is blatant Irish blarney.. it cannot be unlearned.. it can be suppressed but what is learned remains within us whether or not we are born or choose to be.. we can control but it remains learned.. we may even forget but it remains learned and is still there within us somewhere however deeply buried... this also goes for those of us who are born gay or bisexual in some ways... we cannot unlearn what we were born to be or anything we have learned by being so.. but we can have it hammered out of us in the sense that aversion therapy or some other sinister awful oppression can make us suppress our natural predelictions.. but we cannot unlearn what we already know. We can have our perception of that knowledge and our attitudes changed but unlearning is something of which we not capable..

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

Irish Blarney indeed, the cheek of it.

I stand by what I said, anything a person can learn as a habit, they can unlearn by weening themselves off it. Or simply by forgetting. I learned how to do quadratic equations at school. Never needed them since, didn't need them then, truth be known, but the schoolteacher at the time was insistent that I learned them. I couldn't solve a quadratic equation now if my life depended on it, the same applies to my French and German.

So you could search my brain and would not find it lodged there in some long forgotten recess. The brain has a wonderful ability to blot out unpleasant memories, and I'm afraid my days in the maths classroom were just that.

I would agree with the character of Sherlock Holmes, that the brain is like an attic for storing the essential information that we might need at any given moment. (Like walking upright on ice, without falling over), the rest can safely be left on books or files were we can access them when needed. The brain only has a capacity for so much information before it starts deleting the old information to make way for the new.( Despite scientists telling us we use less than 10% of our brains).

The quadratic equations tried to claim squatter's rights, but it was to no avail, out they had to go.

In the context of this thread, I was not suggesting that we suppress behaviour by force. I think that was understood by everyone. I was suggesting if homosexuality was a behaviour of choice, then the individual concerned, if they so wished, could desist from that behaviour.

We have all known people who have weened themselves off cigarettes by means of their own will power. It did not need some kind of sinister, aversion therapy, applying electrodes to their gentials,( though that might work in LDD's case).

Smoking cigarettes is not something we are born knowing, it is a habit that can be learned, and a habit that can be broken. The same applies to alcoholism, bullying, or any other trait we may have picked up since birth.

If homosexuality was another behaviour that we had learned since birth, then it seems feasible that we could unlearn the habit, if we so wished, using similar techniques.

Can a smoker that gave up smoking ten years ago, still be classified as a smoker? Despite our fondness for labelling people, it would seem to me incongruous if we still applied that label to them.

Similarly, if a homosexual no longer engaged in homosexual behaviour or no longer had homosexual thoughts or urges towards the same gender, would it be rational to still refer to them as homosexuals?

You yourself, evolved over a period of time from bisexual to lesbian, might it not be possible to evolve over time in the opposite direction? Our sexual desires and needs are not fixed in aspic, they ebb and flow as our life progresses.

I seem to recall a few months back some American or Canadian man that had been an avowed homosexual, ( I can't remember his name), but he now works for some group involved in this 'therapy' for homosexuals to ween them off their homosexuality. Needless to say, his activities and new stance came in for a lot of vilification.

tenni

Dec 10, 2011, 1:12 PM

Well stated comments Katja and daffyd

I've always considered most of these questions/issues as irrelevant to my life unless aspects of it are used to discriminate against minorities.

In Katja's situation, I wonder if she feels "cheated" by this grooming concept? She was young and being encouraged to explore her sexuality. Lots of bi people mention some sexual exploration at a young age regardless if they initiated it or another person. Many remain living a hetero choice (yes they chose) until later in life. How many have some sexual exploration and never become active as bi I don't know. Does anyone know of a study on this?

The genetic argument becomes a bit confusing to me when I read about people who have no recall about being sexually attracted to the same gender until after 40 or so. The argument that they have been suppressing their attraction seems questionable by those who want to promote a genetic factor. Yet, no one has seduced them to become sexually attracted either? For some late bloomer bisexuals it may be experience with opposite gender that leads them to explore same gender sex(I know many who state this after 40). It may be chemical changes in their body. Who knows. Live and let live.

As I wrote, I agree with daffyd that any choice is irrelevant. We may chose to act on our desires/needs but that doesn't change those desires/needs. They exist and they are real.

tenni

Dec 10, 2011, 1:25 PM

Darkside
You may forget (not unlearn) an idea or concept.

It is more likely that you will not unlearn a desire or need or a sexual behaviour. You may learn a modification of your behaviour if there is strong enough will/desire. It will not alter your need/desire for that behaviour though. Its simple behaviour modification that will work as long as the reward is worthwhile to you. If your desire/need is stronger, that sexual behaviour will surface again.

dafydd

Dec 10, 2011, 1:26 PM

It's coincidence for me that this topic was posted here because I responded to a video posted on Facebook the other day about the same thing.

Here's the link to the video:
"When did you choose to be straight?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHYoY&feature=youtu.be

Of course it received riotous non-thinking applause, and when I responded "what's wrong choosing to be gay?" I had let myself in for a fight.

I have come to loathe this video and all it (seemingly) represents!

Anyway here is a reply i posted which describes how i ultimately felt about that video and the 'choice debate':

"This isn't a debate about free will or free choice. And there is nothing pedantic in what i posted. To use the word 'nurture ' instead of 'choice' is perhaps less problematic here.The nature/nurture debate is not about the conscious choice to be gay but rather an attempt to explain why there is such a range in human sexual attraction. Is it your genes, or the influence of society and upbringing that affect future desires? In both cases, 'nature' and 'nurture', there is actually no conscious choice. I think its better to view the video's question "did u choose to be straight?' as a fascinating look at how people can form ridiculous and illogical/harmful opinions about a group of people (in this case gays and lesbians) with no need to understand that opinion. These all seem like regular personable men and women who have reached a definitive opinion without ever questioning the loophole the interviewer exposes. Rather than being evidence of the 'nature' side of sexuality to me the video exposes how pervasive nurture and society really are in defining adult behaviour (here seen as blind acceptance of the popular belief)"

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 1:27 PM

Its a misconception that the nature vs nuture debate is about 'choice'. It's not about choice. It's about what factors contribute to the diversity of human sexual attraction. Is it genetic (nature), or is it environmenal/social influences as you mature (nuture)? In this case it is a subconcious level of influence.

At no point is choice involved. The choice angle, is a just a simplified junket, which actually does more harm than good because homophobes use it to justify the whimisical nature of being gay/bi, and gay/bi people react by saying that same-sex desire is so awful that it must be genetic, that they have no control over it .

Either way, the argument over 'choice' paints a negative picture of gay/bi lifestyles. Better to use 'nature vs nuture'.

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

I don't really have a problem with the term nurture as covering environmental/social influences, I just think it does not adequately cover all the factors involved.

To give an example, in the recent riots in England. Many of the rioters came from areas of poverty and deprivation,( the environmental influence), many followed the peer pressure of their friends and rioted, (the social influence).

Then again, many from similar backgrounds did not riot. They exercised another option, that of personal choice, not to join in. So I would argue that personal choice is a valid factor to consider.

No one puts a gun to the head of a paedophile and forces them to molest children, they exercised a personal choice.

Similarly, you might wonder what it is like to smoke cigarettes, you try one, decide you like it and proceed to smoke more.

Or you might try one, decide they are horrible, you don't like it and never smoke again. All the while your friends are happily smoking all around you.

Personal choice will always be a factor in anything we do, even if we are faced with death, or illness, we have a choice in the manner in which we face that death or illness.

dafydd

Dec 10, 2011, 1:41 PM

Choice affects how you live you life...what you 'do'.

Sexuality is about how you 'feel'.

You might choose not to suck cock. But you can't choose whether or not to want to suck cock. Again it boils do to different understandings of labels.

Are you only gay if you *act* on your desires, or the desires alone?

I don't agree with the example you gave of a paedophile.

No one puts a gun to the head of a paedophile and forces them to molest children, they exercised a personal choice.

A paedophile cant choose to find children sexually attractive or not...... they absolutely NEED to choose not to act on it.

Otherwise what are we saying...that everybody has a desire for having sex with children and that the only difference between a paedophile and everyone else is that non-paedophile chooses not to act on the desire. ridiculous.

Moving away from that now and returning to homosexuality. In a similar logic as above, its confusing to talk about choice in terms of the catalyst for same-sex desire. To talk about choice presupposes that gay and bisexual people shouldn't choose to act on their desires. Even if you're pro-gay any argument with the rhetoric of choice ultimately plays into the hands of the homophobes,
I don't actually believe same-sex attraction is 100% nature, and think societal influences are strong.

d

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

I don't really have a problem with the term nurture as covering environmental/social influences, I just think it does not adequately cover all the factors involved.

To give an example, in the recent riots in England. Many of the rioters came from areas of poverty and deprivation,( the environmental influence), many followed the peer pressure of their friends and rioted, (the social influence).

Then again, many from similar backgrounds did not riot. They exercised another option, that of personal choice, not to join in. So I would argue that personal choice is a valid factor to consider.

No one puts a gun to the head of a paedophile and forces them to molest children, they exercised a personal choice.

Similarly, you might wonder what it is like to smoke cigarettes, you try one, decide you like it and proceed to smoke more.

Or you might try one, decide they are horrible, you don't like it and never smoke again. All the while your friends are happily smoking all around you.

Personal choice will always be a factor in anything we do, even if we are faced with death, or illness, we have a choice in the manner in which we face that death or illness.

tenni

Dec 10, 2011, 1:47 PM

Darkside
With regard to rioting and other group think sociological actions, yes I would agree with you.

However, with regard to sex, I think that the largest factor is that sex is a basic physiolgical need along with food, breathing, excreting, sleep and homeostatis according to Maslow's hierachy of needs. The sociological needs as in rioting come later. If someone needs to breath (tear gas) they will stop rioting. Physiological needs over social needs of affiliation. Also saftey needs would kick in as well which is one up from physiological needs aka sex.

Katja

Dec 10, 2011, 1:48 PM

In Katja's situation, I wonder if she feels "cheated" by this grooming concept? She was young and being encouraged to explore her sexuality.

If I may answer that question, I have never felt cheated of anything by having been groomed. I was 15 and like most 15 year olds was in the process of trying to discover who I am and that included some sexual exploration and experimentation. .

A thought came to me after I read your question, for I had never thought of myself as having been groomed in the same way for my first heterosexual adventure. Yet for some weeks before I lost my virginity, I was courted by a boy who had exactly that in mind. I did not feel myself robbed of innocence or cheated for I wanted it as much as he by the time it finally happened. It was to me normal if somewhat naughty teenage behaviour.

What happened with the older girl thinking back on it now, was little different. I did not consider her my girl friend in the way I considered the boy my boy friend, but did consider her as a girl friend which increasingly took on romantic overtones.

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 4:04 PM

Choice affects how you live you life...what you 'do'.

Sexuality is about how you 'feel'.

You might choose not to suck cock. But you can't choose whether or not to want to suck cock. Again it boils do to different understandings of labels.

Are you only gay if you *act* on your desires, or the desires alone?

I don't agree with the example you gave of a paedophile.

A paedophile cant choose to find children sexually attractive or not...... they absolutely NEED to choose not to act on it.

Otherwise what are we saying...that everybody has a desire for having sex with children and that the only difference between a paedophile and everyone else is that non-paedophile chooses not to act on the desire. ridiculous.

Moving away from that now and returning to homosexuality. In a similar logic as above, its confusing to talk about choice in terms of the catalyst for same-sex desire. To talk about choice presupposes that gay and bisexual people shouldn't choose to act on their desires. Even if you're pro-gay any argument with the rhetoric of choice ultimately plays into the hands of the homophobes,
I don't actually believe same-sex attraction is 100% nature, and think societal influences are strong.

d

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

By saying that no one can choose whether they want to suck cock, you are merely expressing an opinion. If a person was raised from birth on a desert island without trees, the subject of trees would not be in their consciousness for them to have an opinion either way.

As to paedophiles, we do know that they often excuse their behaviour by claiming their victims wanted it. Few if any seem capable of not acting on their urges, which is what makes them dangerous in any community.

Because I discuss or debate a topic, does not mean I agree with any of the opinions expressed. There are those who will attempt to distort the words of others for their own ends. I see enough of that, even from people on this forum, stating Christians are this, that or the other, yet they have never read a Bible in their lives.

To me taking part in any of these threads is no different to a lawyer arguing his client's case in front of the judge in court. Or a lecturer standing in front of a class of students.

It is only by reading and listening to ideas and discussing them that we begin to understand if they hold any merit. The Nazis burned books and attacked ideas that they didn't agree with, the Soviets sent dissenters to the Gulags. Even in our own country, people were burned at the stake for their religious beliefs.

If people went to such lengths in the past to protect freedom of speech and thought, it would be churlish of me to avoid discussing a topic on the chance that someone might twist them to their own ends.

You have arrived at a different conclusion to me on this topic, and no doubt will on other topics, but at least we have listened to diverse opinions that either reflect our own or will serve to moderate or change our stance.

If we had not discussed the topic, this might never have happened, so discussion forms a major tool in the lives of all of us.

Darkside2009

Dec 10, 2011, 4:34 PM

If I may answer that question, I have never felt cheated of anything by having been groomed. I was 15 and like most 15 year olds was in the process of trying to discover who I am and that included some sexual exploration and experimentation. .

A thought came to me after I read your question, for I had never thought of myself as having been groomed in the same way for my first heterosexual adventure. Yet for some weeks before I lost my virginity, I was courted by a boy who had exactly that in mind. I did not feel myself robbed of innocence or cheated for I wanted it as much as he by the time it finally happened. It was to me normal if somewhat naughty teenage behaviour.

What happened with the older girl thinking back on it now, was little different. I did not consider her my girl friend in the way I considered the boy my boy friend, but did consider her as a girl friend which increasingly took on romantic overtones.

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

Perhaps it is my age, but I have never thought of grooming and courtship as the same thing.

To me grooming implies an inequality of bargaining power, a bending of one will to another, for the gratification of the more powerful.

Courtship on the other hand, I view as more a relationship of equals, getting to know each other, finding out if they are compatible with each other and willing and striving to please the other.

In earlier generations, and even in some modern societies a chaperone performed a moderating influence to ensure the relationship of equals didn't get mislaid in the flood of hormones.

I watched a programme about the Amish in America, and two of their young people, who were courting, stated they had never as much as held hands or kissed. Their intended wedding was in a few months.

The lives of those two and their families seemed one of gentle simplicity in which they seemed abundantly happy, in contrast to the visiting English teenagers, who seemed full of angst and insecurity.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 10, 2011, 5:45 PM

Oi Noughty Knickers.. chill.. I did read ur posts carefully as I always do.<snipped>

Ok. In this case, a mea culpa is in order as I was not commenting about your post or reply and should have made that clear, which I did not. (eek) In Real Time, I occasionally meet with parents, parental groups and adult groups to provide factual information (in the form of face to face discussions) in order to dispel some of the myths, misinformation and outright lies about homosexuality. A forum like this may not be the ideal location to get too serious about something.

Nonetheless, a few days ago, another child in the US committed suicide over being bullied about being gay. ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/gay-teen-bullied-to-death-christianity_b_1136419.html?ref=religion ~ Some may argue that the school, which knew about this, did not step in to stop it. That is just a smoke screen for the far larger problem of anti-gay hatred (this is no longer just a bias) being perpetrated by the spread of this so-called “lifestyle choice” rhetoric, by those who perceive that one’s inherent sexual preference can be turned on and off like a light switch.

I tend to be very careful in my use of words. To use words colloquially (informally) as people do in forums such as this, invites the deliberate misuse of such language by some (in this thread), who present information that is mere obtuse religious conjecture, as fact…when it is not.

This teen, Jacob Rogers (who was not “out” about his sexuality), was subject to this vicious taunting for years by other children whom were taught by their parents that being gay is a choice.

dafydd

Dec 10, 2011, 6:03 PM

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

By saying that no one can choose whether they want to suck cock, you are merely expressing an opinion. If a person was raised from birth on a desert island without trees, the subject of trees would not be in their consciousness for them to have an opinion either way.

As to paedophiles, we do know that they often excuse their behaviour by claiming their victims wanted it. Few if any seem capable of not acting on their urges, which is what makes them dangerous in any community.

I don't understand what you are trying to say darkeyes. All I was saying was that you can't choose how your brainworks. But you can choose how to act on it.
If you have a desire to sleep with a man, you can't choose not to have that desire. "Desire, go away!" You can't do that.
Why you have that desire is a different story.
I don't understand your analagy about the dessert island, or why you added further about paedophiles 'wanting it'. What has that go to do with what I was saying.
Do I think that people are 100% born with a sexual desire this way or that. No.
Do I think people can choose what sexual desires they have.
No.
Those two ideas aren't at odds with each other.
d

dafydd

Dec 10, 2011, 6:08 PM

Ok. In this case, a mea culpa is in order as I was not commenting about your post or reply and should have made that clear, which I did not. (eek) In Real Time, I occasionally meet with parents, parental groups and adult groups to provide factual information (in the form of face to face discussions) in order to dispel some of the myths, misinformation and outright lies about homosexuality. A forum like this may not be the ideal location to get too serious about something.

Nonetheless, a few days ago, another child in the US committed suicide over being bullied about being gay. ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/gay-teen-bullied-to-death-christianity_b_1136419.html?ref=religion ~ Some may argue that the school, which knew about this, did not step in to stop it. That is just a smoke screen for the far larger problem of anti-gay hatred (this is no longer just a bias) being perpetrated by the spread of this so-called â€œlifestyle choiceâ€ rhetoric, by those who perceive that oneâ€™s inherent sexual preference can be turned on and off like a light switch.

Maybe the bullies watched a couple of progammes, or read a couple of blogs where gays and bisexuals were saying that you have 'no choice' over being gay, because its such a horrible thing, who could possinly want to. Maybe then they understood being gay as a horrible thing, and bullied this kid. Works both ways.

Of course schools have a massive responsibility to set the standards. Their inaction in this case shouldn't be overlooked or downplayed.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 10, 2011, 6:17 PM

I have followed this thread with interest because I have never known whether my <snipped for brevity>

While I don't see how a 6th grader (11 to 12 years old in the US) can "groom" another 6th grader, you bring up a valid point. I was "groomed" as a young child, by an religious adult, but he was heterosexual. I could sense what he was up to and had enough "presence of mind", where I could have removed myself from that environment, but chose not to.

My first same sex experience came as an older teen with an adult, but I do not feel I was seduced, groomed or otherwise manipulated. An awareness just suddenly notched up. Was it illegal and immoral (by conventional standards)? Yes. Was it something I regret or otherwise harbor guilt about? NO.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 10, 2011, 6:41 PM

Maybe the bullies watched a couple of progammes, or read a couple of blogs where gays and bisexuals were saying that you have 'no choice' over being gay, because its such a horrible thing, who could possinly want to. Maybe then they understood being gay as a horrible thing, and bullied this kid. Works both ways. Of course schools have a massive responsibility to set the standards. Their inaction in this case shouldn't be overlooked or downplayed.

True enough. None of the multiple articles I read about this incident gets into any detail. In this case I will freely admit I am prejudiced insofar that I've become jaded about things like this and will assume the worst case. There are many other logical and reasonable explanations as to why this teen committed suicide. Lacking more facts, I cannot discount that possibility.

However, the abuse homosexuals endure follows a familiar and documented pattern. Those whom bully, disrespect or otherwise dislike/hate homosexuals come from families or environments that have deeply religious prohibitions about homosexuality.

As for schools in this case, again, there are no details or facts as to their complicity or negligence. The tragedy is not the schools inaction, it's the parents responsibility...unless one want's the state or government to raise their child.

If I err, I err on the side of caution.

Katja

Dec 10, 2011, 7:06 PM

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

Perhaps it is my age, but I have never thought of grooming and courtship as the same thing.

To me grooming implies an inequality of bargaining power, a bending of one will to another, for the gratification of the more powerful.

Courtship on the other hand, I view as more a relationship of equals, getting to know each other, finding out if they are compatible with each other and willing and striving to please the other.

I must admit that until now it had never occurred to me that there was any similarity. I am not saying that courtship and grooming are exactly the same but it is easy to see that within peer groups at least that there is similarity and even to some extent outwith those peer groups.

For instance had the situations been reversed, and I had been pursued by a boy whom I did not consider my boy friend, is this courtship or grooming? Had I considered the girl my girl friend and during our romance she was as determined as the boy had been in real life and did what she could to persuade me to consent to sex, is that courtship or grooming?

To return to the actual case histories, can the girl, herself a little shy of 18 years of age be considered groom or prospective court? Can the boy, my boy friend who was not yet 17, so determined to bed me and did all he could in the nicest possible manner to get me to agree - can he not be considered as much groom as paying court?

In every relationship there is a certain inequality. That is the nature of relationships. Courtship, engagement or even marriage; equal in name but in reality one always has the more dominant hand and ends up more equal. In relationships where there is only a few years between a couple this is perhaps less evident and not quite so important. It is where there is a much greater age gap between the two, and where the disparity in maturity between adult and child/adolescent is much greater that brings the question of courtship versus grooming into much more sharp focus and brings any similarity between courtship and grooming into question. There remains a similarity,but that similarity can become much more sinister and dangerous than when two young people within peer groups are involved. Courtship itself can be predatory and grooming between the young can be a form of courtship which is no more predatory.

In the two cases which I illustrated, the relationship with the girl grew to be more close and much more romantic than than with the boy, We became better friends and expected less from each other. It was she who broke my heart when she left school, with the boy giving me little but heartache and grief so that when it ended I was glad. I rarely see either but believe myself still to be friends with both, but the warmer feelings are for the woman not the man.

Finally, within the last month, I pursued and attempted to pay court to a very attractive girl of just 17. I failed, but was this pursuit a failed grooming or failed courtship?

This dawning is such a revelation to me and is making me reappraise much. Forgive the clumsy and rudimentary nature of my thoughts, but articulating something which is as new as this to me has not been an easy thing to do.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 10, 2011, 7:08 PM

mikey3000

Dec 10, 2011, 7:56 PM

Katja

Dec 10, 2011, 8:05 PM

While I don't see how a 6th grader (11 to 12 years old in the US) can "groom" another 6th grader,

I agree with you, but my point is not about whether groom or not, but of the similarity which can exist between grooming and courtship.

At school a few 6th form girls "groomed" younger girls most of whom were 15 but occasionally were as young as 14. Grooming was frowned upon involving any girl younger than that. We called it grooming certainly, and was not intended to groom these younger girls into the joys of keeping pet rabbits or learning mathematics.

Successful groomings became invariably quite successful and rewarding romances in teenage terms but usually only lasted until the older girl left school, and occasionally for a little while beyond, although I do know of one such pairing who never parted and live quite happily in Canada.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 10, 2011, 8:41 PM

I agree with you, but my point is not about whether groom or not, but of the similarity which can exist between grooming and courtship.

At school a few 6th form girls "groomed" younger girls most of whom were 15 but occasionally were as young as 14. Grooming was frowned upon involving any girl younger than that. We called it grooming certainly, and was not intended to groom these younger girls into the joys of keeping pet rabbits or learning mathematics.

Successful groomings became invariably quite successful and rewarding romances in teenage terms but usually only lasted until the older girl left school, and occasionally for a little while beyond, although I do know of one such pairing who never parted and live quite happily in Canada.

Outside of "sexual grooming" as meaning to subtly manipulate and prepare a person, your mention of "courtship" seems to be old school when it comes dating, either gender. All of this begs the question, is bisexuality or homosexuality, first and foremost, a purely sexual attraction? If that is true, isn't heterosexuality?

Katja

Dec 10, 2011, 8:56 PM

Long Duck Dong

Dec 10, 2011, 10:21 PM

Outside of "sexual grooming" as meaning to subtly manipulate and prepare a person, your mention of "courtship" seems to be old school when it comes dating, either gender. All of this begs the question, is bisexuality or homosexuality, first and foremost, a purely sexual attraction? If that is true, isn't heterosexuality?

your question is correct, are all sexualities not equal in attraction? cos if homosexuality and bisexuality are only sexual in attraction, how the hell do we explain love and emotions between same gender partners ??? a homosexual that loves with a heterosexual love for the same gender partner ? :tong:

btw the posts about private school / single gender schools, emphases something I have been referring to..... ladies ( and guys ) that deal with desires and hormones in ways that is not really indicative of their sexuality.... and they are any sexuality, but they *choose* a alternative sexuality that works within the limits of their situation

don't worry about telling me I am wrong, cos its a standard understanding that I am wrong.... cos how dare I look at things from a different angle than is acceptable, I need to restrict myself to the acceptable points of view that do not challenge thinking and mindset....

Darkside2009

Dec 11, 2011, 12:50 AM

your question is correct, are all sexualities not equal in attraction? cos if homosexuality and bisexuality are only sexual in attraction, how the hell do we explain love and emotions between same gender partners ??? a homosexual that loves with a heterosexual love for the same gender partner ? :tong:

btw the posts about private school / single gender schools, emphases something I have been referring to..... ladies ( and guys ) that deal with desires and hormones in ways that is not really indicative of their sexuality.... and they are any sexuality, but they *choose* a alternative sexuality that works within the limits of their situation

don't worry about telling me I am wrong, cos its a standard understanding that I am wrong.... cos how dare I look at things from a different angle than is acceptable, I need to restrict myself to the acceptable points of view that do not challenge thinking and mindset....

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

Are all sexualities equal in attraction? I would have to say no, there are fewer homosexuals in the World than heterosexuals, fewer bisexuals, fewer paedophiles, fewer that find bestiality attractive.

If all sexualities were of equal attraction we might expect similar numbers for each. Homosexuals are in a minority, no point in pretending otherwise.

If what you are trying to ask is the emotional feeling a homosexual man might feel for another man, as strong as, the emotional feeling a heterosexual man might feel for a woman?

I don't think there is any real way of knowing, anecdotal evidence would suggest that homosexual men tend to have more partners. Would there be the same emotional investment in each partner? I personally wouldn't have thought so, any more than some Lothario notching up conquests of women he has slept with on his bed post.

People involved in polygamous relationships might disagree. Does a mother love all her children equally? I suspect she might be closer to one than another. Does a brother or sister love all their siblings equally? I suspect they might have favourites, although it would be unkind to admit to it.

Finally, in any debate or discussion, there will be people who disagree with your point of view LDD, try to get over it. People disagree with me frequently, I don't see it as a problem. They have their opinion, I have mine. If we seek to change each others opinions that is just the nature of debate.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 11, 2011, 2:04 AM

As to the questions you ask, what is sexuality of any kind? Far greater minds than any on this site have failed to explain that with complete success.

It would also appear that far lesser minds are trapped in their own definition of sexual orientation.

Ã¦onpax

Dec 11, 2011, 2:26 AM

Long Duck Dong

Dec 11, 2011, 2:28 AM

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

Are all sexualities equal in attraction? I would have to say no, there are fewer homosexuals in the World than heterosexuals, fewer bisexuals, fewer paedophiles, fewer that find bestiality attractive.

If all sexualities were of equal attraction we might expect similar numbers for each. Homosexuals are in a minority, no point in pretending otherwise.

If what you are trying to ask is the emotional feeling a homosexual man might feel for another man, as strong as, the emotional feeling a heterosexual man might feel for a woman?

I don't think there is any real way of knowing, anecdotal evidence would suggest that homosexual men tend to have more partners. Would there be the same emotional investment in each partner? I personally wouldn't have thought so, any more than some Lothario notching up conquests of women he has slept with on his bed post.

People involved in polygamous relationships might disagree. Does a mother love all her children equally? I suspect she might be closer to one than another. Does a brother or sister love all their siblings equally? I suspect they might have favourites, although it would be unkind to admit to it.

Finally, in any debate or discussion, there will be people who disagree with your point of view LDD, try to get over it. People disagree with me frequently, I don't see it as a problem. They have their opinion, I have mine. If we seek to change each others opinions that is just the nature of debate.

I was refering to each person and their sexuality attraction, being equal to the sexual attraction of each person beside them... not the number of people that share the same sexual attraction.......

others try to define the type of attraction and love a person can have... I don't.... your love for a partner is no more definable than the love that somebody like fran has for kate... your sexuality doesn't add or take away from the validity of either persons love for the ones they love..... trying to define it as lesbian love or homosexual love or bisexual love or heterosexual love is in a sense saying that you can not love another man as you can love another woman cos its only homosexual love not heterosexual love which is * superior *

thats in the same respect that I can see the difference between a person into bestiality ( sex with animals ) and a zoophiliac ( person that forms a intimate loving relationship with a animal that is shared equally as best as possible ) one is lust and possibly many other aspects such as fetish, paraphilia, sexual deviant behievour and the other is a genuine affinity with animals that the person may not find with people.......

a mother may love her children in different ways, and yes it can be said that some she struggles to love while others she can love easily.... thats no different to the way we love some people easily, others we do not.......the only difference is that one is a mother and it is often society that lay the expectations that mothers should love their children... and that can leave mothers feeling like they are failed parents for not loving their children......

the difficult thing, darkside, is too many debates are * fought * using *boxed * understanding and guidelines to prove points and * claim a victory * .... and we all know that we do not fit into boxes... we just try to put others in them......

as for people disagreeing with me, I do not mind that... what pisses me off, is the constantly getting told, I am wrong..... cos if people want to prove me wrong, they are more than welcome.... but I would perfer that people prove their selves right on their opinions and statements.... something that I have noticed that so many people can not do.... so they avoid doing it and sidestep that aspect....

most of what I say can not be proven by a medical / psych study etc... until somebody does one or 6 or 100 of them and conducts it in a way that still doesn't prove anything... but that way, it can be posted on the net as proof of....... something.... ( I am not sure what, I need to ask a link spammer )

either way a opinion is a opinion.... not fact, just the sum of understanding from many experiences in life and a open mind..... and like I said, people are welcome to say I am right.... but can they prove themselves right ???

Darkside2009

Dec 11, 2011, 2:57 AM

I don't understand what you are trying to say darkeyes.

All I was saying was that you can't choose how your brainworks. But you can choose how to act on it.
If you have a desire to sleep with a man, you can't choose not to have that desire. "Desire, go away!" You can't do that.
Why you have that desire is a different story.
I don't understand your analagy about the dessert island, or why you added further about paedophiles 'wanting it'. What has that go to do with what I was saying.
Do I think that people are 100% born with a sexual desire this way or that. No.
Do I think people can choose what sexual desires they have.
No.
Those two ideas aren't at odds with each other.
d

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

I can see I'm going to have to get a photograph of Darkeyes and I taken side by side so people can tell the difference. :rolleyes:

You are the second person in as many days that has mistaken her for me.

Ultimately, I think this topic is rather like debating which came first, the chicken or the egg.

In giving your example of not being able to control our thoughts or desires, you gave a paedophile as an example, stating something along the lines of the only difference between them and us was that they acted upon those desires, instead of suppressing them.

We cannot really know what a person is thinking until or unless they inform us, or they act upon those thoughts.

What starts off any train of thought in the mind is a trigger of some sort. For example, someone mentions the name of an old friend we haven't seen in a long time, it triggers a train of thought about them, bringing back memories good or bad. We can choose to expunge those thoughts by thinking of other things.

As I understand it, part of the reasoning of restricting paedophiles, with court orders, from approaching or associating with children is to restrict or expunge those trigger mechanisms working.

There is a high rate of recidivism amongst paedophiles, they choose to persist in their activities knowing the activity is immoral, illegal and dangerous to the mental health and well-being of the child.

My argument is, if paedophilia were just another, natural sexual option, among the other sexual options Nature created for us genetically, we would expect them to be present in society in far greater numbers.

To say that our society frowns upon this activity and makes it illegal does not account for the huge disparity in numbers.

At other times in history and with other societies paedophilia was acceptable, yet these numbers have not filtered through into modern societies. It would therefore appear that it is not a genetic phenomenon despite the constraints of Judaeo/Christian ethics on various societies.

If it is not a genetic phenomenon, then there must be another factor that causes it.

Time after time in these threads, there have been posters stating they liked oral sex with men, but they didn't wish for any other kind of sex with them, or even to have any kind of mental relationship with them.

This would indicate to me that they enjoyed the physically sensation, the stimulation of those particular nerve endings and nerve cells. Might this enjoyment of such stimulation become a habit, and to many an enjoyable habit? One that they are reluctant to relinquish.

We have a poster on another thread at the moment, stating he has returned to being heterosexual after a dalliance with bisexuality.

Is it a case that people build a fantasy in their mind of what sex might be like with a certain person, irrespective of whether that person is male or female? When they do finally consummate the act, they find it does not live up to their expectation. The ground does not move for them.

I would suspect, if people were to honestly recount the occasions when they lost their virginity, that it would not be the best sex they had ever had in their life, but quite the opposite.

Our thoughts and desires can lead us into strange imagined paths, simply because we lack experience to know those paths are not worth travelling.

So I would argue that we could choose our desires and what triggers them, we could choose our sexuality if only we knew that reality might not correspond with our imagination. We are not slaves to our imagination.

Just my thoughts on the matter, feel free to disagree. :)

darkeyes

Dec 11, 2011, 4:37 AM

I see Daffy an lil ole me r gonna havta hav words.... how he can confuse cute an gorge wiv big Irish lummox is a mystery 2 me:eek:... is not zif Darkside an me eva agree on ver much...:tong:

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 6:11 AM

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

I can see I'm going to have to get a photograph of Darkeyes and I taken side by side so people can tell the difference. :rolleyes:

In giving your example of not being able to control our thoughts or desires, you gave a paedophile as an example, stating something along the lines of the only difference between them and us was that they acted upon those desires, instead of suppressing them.

I'm really sorry about the username confusion, rest assured I had in mind Darkside when I wrote it.

Darkside, I DID NOT bring up the paedophile example. YOU DID. I was responding to that. I'd prefer to leave paedophiles out of it actually, but I really thought your reference was insane.

You have *totally* misread my posts: which is what often happens...please re-read again about what I said. trust me that is more annoying than misreading a username.

I DID NOT say that "only difference between them and us was that they acted upon those desires, instead of suppressing them." I was making the point to the contrary! *Total inversion of my argument*. 180 degrees. Please re-read my posts carefully. ...pay special attention to post # 69 which you utterly misquoted.
(oo-er...post 69! )

Let me know if they need further explanation: honestly (if I wasn't clear please just say so, Im not typing the whole post out again.) post 69 ;)
people on here know i really don't ever get cross or annoyed, and hardly ever use capitals, even for the start of a sentence
I can usually let things sail by without fuss, but Darkside, please.... post 69 <wink> of this thread. re-read it.

best wishes,
not hatin' just frustratin'
d.

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 6:14 AM

I see Daffy an lil ole me r gonna havta hav words.... how he can confuse cute an gorge wiv big Irish lummox is a mystery 2 me:eek:... is not zif Darkside an me eva agree on ver much...:tong:

I merely confused the name, not the person behind the name.
Besides not only does Darkside look like Darkeyes, they sound the same.
And it was late....and ..

...kiss me.

darkeyes

Dec 11, 2011, 6:28 AM

.

However, the abuse homosexuals endure follows a familiar and documented pattern. Those whom bully, disrespect or otherwise dislike/hate homosexuals come from families or environments that have deeply religious prohibitions about homosexuality.

As for schools in this case, again, there are no details or facts as to their complicity or negligence. The tragedy is not the schools inaction, it's the parents responsibility...unless one want's the state or government to raise their child.

If I err, I err on the side of caution.

The religious conviction of the bully in the US may be as you say, Ã¦on, but this is much less so in the UK where we do not have quite the religious polarisation or political involvement as in the United States. Most bullies may claim religion, but remarkably few in this country are deeply religious in comparison to your country.. there is a much greater reserve in matters religion and we do not have the aggressive Christian religious wierdo to the extent which exists on the western shores of the Atlantic.. most bullies in fact are generally thoughtless and a tadge on the brain dead side of humanity, from bigoted backgrounds which may or may not profess religious belief..

This is reflected in schools which struggle with combating all forms of bullying but such is the patchiness of dealing with bullying and the issues which cause bullying that there is real concern whether bullying is being tackled in any way shape or form in some places.. how often have I heard colleagues from other schools tell me that their school has no bullying problem? Some even tell me that there are no gays in their school and so no such problem exists. One colleague in my own school even argued with me that the only gay people in our school are myself and one other teacher in complete contradiction to the facts.. there may not be many, but they are there ok, but such is the need for confidentiality of pupils personal concerns that things I and several others know creates a head in the sand approach by many teachers because we cannot discuss them.. what they do not see does not exist right?

I cannot fault the school's approach in Religious and Moral Education lessons.. (yes I agree.. but the subject isnt quite as shitty as it sounds).. these lessons are conducted compassionately fairly and as objectively as possible, and their treatment of the issue of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism I am unable to fault.. religion is not taught in such a way that one religion is considered right or wrong but reasonably openly and quite objectively.. and dealing with the conflicts which arise from these issues is done compassionately and with some real understanding..

For the most part, how school deals with the issue of religion and sexuality is reasonably successful.. most kids are pretty decent about homosexuality, even those from what we would consider non gay friendly families.. but not all.. and this to some extent is countered by those from what we can consider gay friendly or at least not anti gay backgrounds who for one reason or other themselves have a certain resentment towards homosexuality. Some have religious backgrounds some dont.. right across the board.. whether pro or anti gay.. but most both religious and non religious have a remarkable amount of tolerance of we who are not straight.. a qualification is that as with the adult world, more are prepared to accept lesbianism than male homosexuality but even there I notice some breakdown in historical mistrust of gay males.. boys are increasingly likely to hug their m8s and are beginning to show some sensitivity to something which has been considered for centuries, a perversion..

Mine is but one school in one part of one country of this Union.. but there are signs elsewhere that progress is being made.. it is patchy and progress is far less swift in some of our much more deprived inner cities and even some of our rural areas.. schools have their part to play and some are doing that and very well.. some however evade their responsibilities and that has to be addressed..

.. where u are right is that parents have a massively important role and their attitudes do shape their children's very much, sometimes pretty badly too, but the signs are there that as parents themselves lose their mistrust of homosexuality, mostly their children will grow up much more compassionately about the issue than a generation or two ago.. we will still have cases such as you raise but no matter how compassionate a society, how tolerant and understanding, we will always have some abject failures from which we will have much to learn....

darkeyes

Dec 11, 2011, 6:32 AM

I merely confused the name, not the person behind the name.
Besides not only does Darkside look like Darkeyes, they sound the same.
And it was late....and ..

...kiss me.

Sound the same??? Christ, daffy wash out ya lug'oles an if that doesnt work go 2 quack an get 'em syringed.. that fails.. off 2 the deaf specialist... an look like? Take note.. lil d in darkeyes... big D in Darkside... time 2 get new specs an all.. :bigrin: Just call me Fran.. save yasel a gud ear bashin..;)

Have kissie ne way.. muaaaah

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 6:40 AM

lol sorry, I can not help but notice something ..... you, like many others... take the same gender attraction and same genitalia attraction and only use the same gender attraction when talking about the need to be with a person

LDD you're absolutely right, of course. But I was trying to work through another point (not about intersex representation, but about homosexual desire) and 'cock' was just an *example*.
I actually thought maybe someone is going to pick holes in that but figured "they know I'm usually inclusive stuff like that from past posts ",
Isn't this a bit pedantic, given you know I'm *not* one of those types of sexually myopic guys..?

How come you're not on the "do u like cock or pussy" posts ranting about genital obsession? or the

"cream pie",
"dick size",
"cum eating"
"pussy this pussy that"
"foreskin on foreskin off"

ad nauseum posts?
(which actually I moan about all the time)
Why not complain about the over emphasis of genital imagery on the forum topics, it's pretty obviously there, you can't have missed it?
Why zone in on this one post, from a poster who you know isn't anywhere near the kind of sexually exclusive, genital orientated, chauvinistic, misogynistic, careless, cock obsessed, anti-intersex, gay beast, one might imagine would write the things that frustrate u so.

It's ok though. You know I can take it.
<attempt at humour albeit begrudgingly >

Fair enough, I'll try and make my comments LGBTQI inclusive in the future. Shall I be the only one?

And that's the 2nd time today I have ranted here. I never rant. I hate ranting. It's not clever Dafydd, it's not funny Dafydd, and nobody really gives tuppence about it.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 11, 2011, 6:54 AM

LDD you're absolutely right, of course. But I was trying to work through another point (not about intersex representation, but about homosexual desire) and 'cock' was just an *example*.
I actually thought maybe someone is going to pick holes in that but figured "they know I'm usually inclusive stuff like that from past posts ",
Isn't this a bit pedantic, given you know I'm *not* one of those types of sexually myopic guys..?

How come you're not on the "do u like cock or pussy" posts ranting about genital obsession? or the

"cream pie",
"dick size",
"cum eating"
"pussy this pussy that"
"foreskin on foreskin off"

ad nauseum posts?
(which actually I moan about all the time)
Why not complain about the over emphasis of genital imagery on the forum topics, it's pretty obviously there, you can't have missed it?
Why zone in on this one post, from a poster who you know isn't anywhere near the kind of sexually exclusive, genital orientated, chauvinistic, misogynistic, careless, cock obsessed, anti-intersex, gay beast, one might imagine would write the things that frustrate u so.

It's ok though. You know I can take it.
<attempt at humour albeit begrudgingly >

Fair enough, I'll try and make my comments LGBTQI inclusive in the future. Shall I be the only one?

And that's the 2nd time today I have ranted here. I never rant. I hate ranting. It's not clever Dafydd, it's not funny Dafydd, and nobody really gives tuppence about it.

lol........ no, speak as you always do, cos its refreshing to read posts by people that live life not as bisexuals but as people that are bisexual and so much more........

I love the fact that people make me think about life beyond the *cream pie * etc threads..... and how sexuality is as elusive in defining as is love.......

if it was not for people like you and a good number of others, people that are bisexual would not be seen as anything outside of sex obsessed people.... regardless of how much more we have to offer and share with the rest of the world........ and thats why part of me is proud to be bisexual... as I stand beside people like you...... then I see all the * cream pie * threads, and worry if I am walking in the bi pride or sex addicts r us parade:tong::tong:

pepperjack

Dec 11, 2011, 7:01 AM

LDD you're absolutely right, of course. But I was trying to work through another point (not about intersex representation, but about homosexual desire) and 'cock' was just an *example*.
I actually thought maybe someone is going to pick holes in that but figured "they know I'm usually inclusive stuff like that from past posts ",
Isn't this a bit pedantic, given you know I'm *not* one of those types of sexually myopic guys..?

How come you're not on the "do u like cock or pussy" posts ranting about genital obsession? or the

"cream pie",
"dick size",
"cum eating"
"pussy this pussy that"
"foreskin on foreskin off"

ad nauseum posts?
(which actually I moan about all the time)
Why not complain about the over emphasis of genital imagery on the forum topics, it's pretty obviously there, you can't have missed it?
Why zone in on this one post, from a poster who you know isn't anywhere near the kind of sexually exclusive, genital orientated, chauvinistic, misogynistic, careless, cock obsessed, anti-intersex, gay beast, one might imagine would write the things that frustrate u so.

It's ok though. You know I can take it.
<attempt at humour albeit begrudgingly >

Fair enough, I'll try and make my comments LGBTQI inclusive in the future. Shall I be the only one?

And that's the 2nd time today I have ranted here. I never rant. I hate ranting. It's not clever Dafydd, it's not funny Dafydd, and nobody really gives tuppence about it.

Re: Ranting. We all need to vent sometimes; this is a good , safe place to do that. Bet you feel better mentally & emotionally after that post.:cool:

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 7:18 AM

lol........ no, speak as you always do, cos its refreshing to read posts by people that live life not as bisexuals but as people that are bisexual and so much more........

Um...that's an amazingly beautiful thing to say. Thank you. Really.
:bibounce:

Re: Ranting. We all need to vent sometimes; this is a good , safe patlace to do that. Bet you feel better mentally & emotionally after that post.:cool:

Thanks Pepperjack: yes well, I sat there thinking, dafydd you're a hypocrite for getting 'irritated' and now people think ur a wanker. So I took a picture of myself, let the camera snap all that feeling away and I posted it on my profile here (the last pic), with a poem and it sort of felt better. I really love this place, and what it offers, and has done for me. I wish sometimes we were a bit more tolerant to each other, because I don't have the chance to always talk about these topics in such detail and I enjoy debate..more importantly you bunch of bisexuals are the only ones I have.
:flag2:

i'm easy to irritate right now.. needless to say I'm back in an empty double bed, and eating noodles, because I guess I couldn't win that argument. She left.

Gearbox

Dec 11, 2011, 7:39 AM

i'm easy to irritate right now.. needless to say I'm back in an empty double bed, and eating noodles, because I guess I couldn't win that argument. She left.
Sorry to hear that. Won't spout out any 'helpful advice' that might irritate you further, but there's still at least one lovely person in that bed. Get him back on his feet!!;)

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 8:06 AM

Why the heck shouldn't sexuality be a choice? Shouldn't I be able to choose any "lifestyle" I enjoy, as long as I break no laws and hurt no one? Otherwise my sexuality becomes a disability. 'Oh. It's not his fault, he was born that way. Poor soul.' No thanks! People choose lyfestyles everyday, some much worse than who they fuck. Guns. drugs, crime, hatered, they are all choices. So is love.

They call him Mikey Blue Eyes. They call him Mikey the Man. In my weirdest of worlds, he's saying these words out loud to me, head-on but sideways, his 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 oclock shadow nuzzled firmly within his sculptured hand, angled by an elbow that's pushing a fold into a part of my mattress that wasn't used to the force of 2 men. I wanted to become that mattress then. <sigh>xx

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 8:15 AM

Sorry to hear that. Won't spout out any 'helpful advice' that might irritate you further, but there's still at least one lovely person in that bed. Get him back on his feet!!;)

I realise that I have just metaphorically ejaculated all over this thread with the pain from a sad sack of a heart. Gearbox, I wish you could literally pick me up from this floor now, and moderate my releases, or at least help me to come and come back again.

Darkside2009

Dec 11, 2011, 10:08 AM

I'm really sorry about the username confusion, rest assured I had in mind Darkside when I wrote it.

Darkside, I DID NOT bring up the paedophile example. YOU DID. I was responding to that. I'd prefer to leave paedophiles out of it actually, but I really thought your reference was insane.

You have *totally* misread my posts: which is what often happens...please re-read again about what I said. trust me that is more annoying than misreading a username.

I DID NOT say that "only difference between them and us was that they acted upon those desires, instead of suppressing them." I was making the point to the contrary! *Total inversion of my argument*. 180 degrees. Please re-read my posts carefully. ...pay special attention to post # 69 which you utterly misquoted.
(oo-er...post 69! )

Let me know if they need further explanation: honestly (if I wasn't clear please just say so, Im not typing the whole post out again.) post 69 ;)
people on here know i really don't ever get cross or annoyed, and hardly ever use capitals, even for the start of a sentence
I can usually let things sail by without fuss, but Darkside, please.... post 69 <wink> of this thread. re-read it.

best wishes,
not hatin' just frustratin'
d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post 69.

A paedophile cant choose to find children sexually attractive or not...... they absolutely NEED to choose not to act on it.

Otherwise what are we saying...that everybody has a desire for having sex with children and that the only difference between a paedophile and everyone else is that non-paedophile chooses not to act on the desire. ridiculous.

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

Above is the gist of your argument at post 69. I understood this to mean you thought paedophiles, or anyone else for that matter, do not have any control of their thoughts and desires.

This is your opinion and not a fact. If it were as you say, then so-called aversion therapy would have no effect, so-called brain washing, would not have any effect in changing the way we think.

We both know these techniques have been used successfully in the past, by various regimes, and various societies. Our governments spend large sums of money in training our military in how to resist these techniques if captured.

Even simple hypnosis is used to train our minds to think in a different way, to enable people to overcome ingrained habits like smoking, or to control pain.

If you drive a car for any length of time, you will know that you can often drive from point A to point B almost on 'auto-pilot' without being conscious of all the gear changes, turns, braking that you did on the journey. The same applies to many other jobs, if one has been performing them for a long time.

So, to say as you do, that we have no control over our thoughts or desires, other than suppressing them after the event is not true, in my opinion. We can and do train our minds to think in certain ways rather than others, by continually thinking in the same trained way, our thoughts and actions become second nature to us.

I understood what you were trying to say, I simply disagreed with it. :)

void()

Dec 11, 2011, 10:10 AM

Aww (http://youtu.be/9V7zbWNznbs) shoot!

We do not tell willow trees their nature.

We never argue that a snake needs wings.

Things are as they are. Does it really matter the why or how for?
Why not merely leave off and accept, move along?

Bah, too easy to complain, to wonder.

Now, go away or be taunted yet again and again, you silly wondering people!

Darkside2009

Dec 11, 2011, 10:20 AM

Um...that's an amazingly beautiful thing to say. Thank you. Really.
:bibounce:

Thanks Pepperjack: yes well, I sat there thinking, dafydd you're a hypocrite for getting 'irritated' and now people think ur a wanker. So I took a picture of myself, let the camera snap all that feeling away and I posted it on my profile here (the last pic), with a poem and it sort of felt better. I really love this place, and what it offers, and has done for me. I wish sometimes we were a bit more tolerant to each other, because I don't have the chance to always talk about these topics in such detail and I enjoy debate..more importantly you bunch of bisexuals are the only ones I have.
:flag2:

i'm easy to irritate right now.. needless to say I'm back in an empty double bed, and eating noodles, because I guess I couldn't win that argument. She left.

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

Aye! you're a sad case no doubt, we'll have a whip-round for you in the pub at lunch time. It's Darkeye's round, they say that's why fifty pence coins have corners, so we can use a spanner to get them out of her purse. :rolleyes:

Darkside2009

Dec 11, 2011, 10:28 AM

Sound the same??? Christ, daffy wash out ya lug'oles an if that doesnt work go 2 quack an get 'em syringed.. that fails.. off 2 the deaf specialist... an look like? Take note.. lil d in darkeyes... big D in Darkside... time 2 get new specs an all.. :bigrin: Just call me Fran.. save yasel a gud ear bashin..;)

Have kissie ne way.. muaaaah

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

I haven't been described as having a big D in ages, really, I feel so special. :bigrin:

darkeyes

Dec 11, 2011, 10:59 AM

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

I haven't been described as having a big D in ages, really, I feel so special. :bigrin:

No no no Fran... dontcha dare... resist temptatation.. gag ya gob... no noo babes dont say it... bitchy...

daddy o forgive me for me knows zactly wot me is doin...

Lil cow blurts out...Not as havin me luffly.. more like as b....

*stops ersel just in time*...

tootles back 2 decoratin the tree wiv the kids..

Ã¦onpax

Dec 11, 2011, 12:26 PM

The religious conviction of the bully in the US may be as you say, Ã¦on, but this is much less so in the UK where we do not have quite the religious polarisation or political involvement as in the United States. Most bullies may claim religion, but remarkably few in this country are deeply religious in comparison to your country.. there is a much greater reserve in matters religion and we do not have the aggressive Christian religious wierdo to the extent which exists on the western shores of the Atlantic.. most bullies in fact are generally thoughtless and a tadge on the brain dead side of humanity, from bigoted backgrounds which may or may not profess religious belief..

This is reflected in schools which struggle with combating all forms of bullying but such is the patchiness of dealing with bullying and the issues which cause bullying that there is real concern whether bullying is being tackled in any way shape or form in some places.. how often have I heard colleagues from other schools tell me that their school has no bullying problem? Some even tell me that there are no gays in their school and so no such problem exists. One colleague in my own school even argued with me that the only gay people in our school are myself and one other teacher in complete contradiction to the facts.. there may not be many, but they are there ok, but such is the need for confidentiality of pupils personal concerns that things I and several others know creates a head in the sand approach by many teachers because we cannot discuss them.. what they do not see does not exist right?

I cannot fault the school's approach in Religious and Moral Education lessons.. (yes I agree.. but the subject isnt quite as shitty as it sounds).. these lessons are conducted compassionately fairly and as objectively as possible, and their treatment of the issue of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism I am unable to fault.. religion is not taught in such a way that one religion is considered right or wrong but reasonably openly and quite objectively.. and dealing with the conflicts which arise from these issues is done compassionately and with some real understanding..

For the most part, how school deals with the issue of religion and sexuality is reasonably successful.. most kids are pretty decent about homosexuality, even those from what we would consider non gay friendly families.. but not all.. and this to some extent is countered by those from what we can consider gay friendly or at least not anti gay backgrounds who for one reason or other themselves have a certain resentment towards homosexuality. Some have religious backgrounds some dont.. right across the board.. whether pro or anti gay.. but most both religious and non religious have a remarkable amount of tolerance of we who are not straight.. a qualification is that as with the adult world, more are prepared to accept lesbianism than male homosexuality but even there I notice some breakdown in historical mistrust of gay males.. boys are increasingly likely to hug their m8s and are beginning to show some sensitivity to something which has been considered for centuries, a perversion..

Mine is but one school in one part of one country of this Union.. but there are signs elsewhere that progress is being made.. it is patchy and progress is far less swift in some of our much more deprived inner cities and even some of our rural areas.. schools have their part to play and some are doing that and very well.. some however evade their responsibilities and that has to be addressed..

.. where u are right is that parents have a massively important role and their attitudes do shape their children's very much, sometimes pretty badly too, but the signs are there that as parents themselves lose their mistrust of homosexuality, mostly their children will grow up much more compassionately about the issue than a generation or two ago.. we will still have cases such as you raise but no matter how compassionate a society, how tolerant and understanding, we will always have some abject failures from which we will have much to learn....

Observations and comments;

1 - I've been to the UK twice, with my boss, on business. I did a 4 hour tourist thing once and managed to really annoy the guide by occasionally asking him "how many clowns there were in the Piccadilly Circus." It was raining and overcast both times. There was also a UK female I met online when we were both teenagers. She happen to come stateside a few years ago and paid moi a visit. She now lives in a clandestine Poly community, around Hampshire. Interesting place, the UK, but I will never claim to understand their cultural nuances. Someday I'd like to visit NZ so I can see the Hobbits.

2 - Given that I would desire to be civil and maintain decorum, I try to refrain from speaking my thoughts, specifically in regards to the US evangelical right, that has melded their so-called religious beliefs into politics. Calling them hypocrites, to me, is an act of supreme kindness and generosity.

Now, mind you, I enjoy butting heads with them and if this is not coincidence, it is surely serendipity, insofar that most of them over the years, thankfully, end up putting me on ignore. I wear that like a badge of honor.

3 - This kind of overt anti-gay activity, in both US primary and secondary schools (suburban especially) is on the rise and is predominantly, a male/male thing.

4 - I was a teen mom in high school and did not shy away from mentioning it, much to the chagrin of the religious elite students there, who judged me a person of loose morals...which I was, but that's not the point. I did good, even making it on the cheer leading squad, which got too much by my senior year, so I quit. Kids can be very, very cruel and vindictive, a point I learned first hand. There was a guy I personally knew in high school who committed suicide. He was constantly being picked on and harassed because he was over-weight.

Education used to think that student harassment of anyone who is "different", is something they need to learn how to deal with on their own. While I vehemently disagree with that, there is also a fine line to be crossed that would usurp parental responsibility.

5 - I can be very weird at times.....

http://i.imgur.com/CYlSK.jpg

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 1:05 PM

[QUOTE=Darkside2009;216721I understood what you were trying to say, I simply disagreed with it. :)[/QUOTE]

no my friend, you've yet again failed to grasp my point. send me a pvt msg so i can explain off post, and not take up any more space or anyone's time with this ridiculous exchange. Im happy to explain, but there gets to be a point where the only way I can help further is to meet you somewhere at an undisclosed location (don't bring anyone ya hear). I'll bring the sunkist if you pack some cheese straws, and I'll sketch some kind of a diagram, with stickman whose hands look like big balls with sticks coming out them. And I'll draw a sun with dour smile with a caption that says "LOVE" and you can colour it in.
If that doesn't suffice I think its better to knock this one on the head. I guess we'll have to agree that it was never meant to be.
Do please email me so I might again try and explain.
Thanks and love, much love.
D

dafydd

Dec 11, 2011, 1:12 PM

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

Aye! you're a sad case no doubt, we'll have a whip-round for you in the pub at lunch time. It's Darkeye's round, they say that's why fifty pence coins have corners, so we can use a spanner to get them out of her purse. :rolleyes:

you're an insufferable bore.

darkeyes

Dec 11, 2011, 1:51 PM

4 - Education used to think that student harassment of anyone who is "different", is something they need to learn how to deal with on their own. While I vehemently disagree with that, there is also a fine line to be crossed that would usurp parental responsibility.

5 - I can be very weird at times.....[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://i.imgur.com/CYlSK.jpg

Schools actually do usurp parental responsibility while kids are in school.. we call it assume but its the same thing.. and we undermine much parental teaching while we are at it.. and boy, how parents love that.. but it is unavoidable if we are to adhere to government policy the law, local authority guidelines, school policy, good teaching practice and prevent much chaos.. and believe me, some of the garbage parents teach or let their kids get away with, it is just as well..

..it wouldnt be the first time I have had to face down irate parents for stopping their kid from flattening some poor lil bugger cos they taught him to "stick up for himself".. sticking up is one thing.. picking on, bullying, robbing and kicking two tonnes of holy crap out of with half a dozen m8s is quite another matter... good teaching practice and bad parenting dont mix too well...

..and thers nowt wrong wiv bein a kook babes.. I thoroughly approve... have a certain kookiness mesel..:tong:

Darkside2009

Dec 11, 2011, 7:19 PM

you're an insufferable bore.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The item you responded to above, was meant as a little light-hearted banter to lift your mood. It obviously failed, have a pleasant evening.

mikey3000

Dec 11, 2011, 7:55 PM

They call him Mikey Blue Eyes. They call him Mikey the Man. In my weirdest of worlds, he's saying these words out loud to me, head-on but sideways, his 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 oclock shadow nuzzled firmly within his sculptured hand, angled by an elbow that's pushing a fold into a part of my mattress that wasn't used to the force of 2 men. I wanted to become that mattress then. <sigh>xx

Dude, I think I just creamed my shorts. ;) I'd gladly join Gearbox in comforting you. That would be a dream.

Gearbox

Dec 12, 2011, 10:49 AM

Dude, I think I just creamed my shorts. ;) I'd gladly join Gearbox in comforting you. That would be a dream.
Now I just KNOW that there's a great deal of 'comfort' to begot from us sharing that lonely double bed. Keeping the lovely Dafydd warm in the middle in his time of great need, is a great idea. One which gives me tingles of joy.:tongue:

ivanthemonkey

Dec 12, 2011, 1:01 PM

Homosexuality is a choice, however Bisexuality isn't.

There is a natural homoerotic attraction between 2 men or 2 women, to varying degrees. Which is why men tend to go do menly stuff with each other, comeradery, idolizing male athletes etc. and women admire the beauty of other women.

A good example is sports, where men enjoy physical contact with other men, or women enjoy sleepovers with hot pillow fights with each other.

This is a natural, physical attraction to the same sex. And the sexuality of this has always been understood. Sexual relations with the same sex is a natural extension of this physical attraction. It has also been shown that straight people will have sexual relations with same sex partners in the absense of the opposite gender or when the situation presents itself as acceptable.

Many cultures in the past not only accepted bisexual relationships, but often encouraged them, such as the greek's who encouraged those in the army to have homosexual relationships in order to foster strong bonds with each other.

Modern studies on what exactly men find attractive in mates by showing them silluetes of shapes (such as body shapes) and voices, etc. Show that men from all cultures and races are attracted to the hourglass figure of women, sloping shoulders etc. What was interesting in these studies is that the same tests were preformed on gay men, and they got the exact same results.

This means that most gay men are attracted to the same markers as straight men. This is further demonstrated by the higher tendency of feminent behavior among gay men. To make themselves attracted to other men.

Statements such as "I find the female body repulsive" is more confirmation bias then truth. Straight males who find the male body repulsive are similarly deluded. A healthy male also finds the male body to be a thing of beauty, as demonstrated in many works of art, such as the statue of David. Though they might not be arroused by such images, or other men, they certainly don't find them repulsive unless they are mentally unhealthy, so it is a poor arguement regardless of which way it is applied.

Why such a strong attraction to other men? Sex has multiple results beyond just the emmediate gratification, there is also a pair bonding mechanism in humans designed to keep potential mates together so they will look after their offspring. During sex pheremon signatures are released that are specific to the individual, in addition to this the body becomes highly sensitive, and acceptable to sensations. The biological mechanism records these sensations and pheremons and seeks them out again. ie sexual partners become literally addicted to each other.

Humans assoctiate sensations they feel during sex with sexual attraction, associating specific pleasures and sensations with this addiction. This leads to the development of specific sexual attractions and preferences and even fetishes.

In an exclusive relationship this means attraction to the particular features of one's mate. In a broader sense it means attraction to a particular type of partner ie burly macho men vs twinks or blue eyed blonds vs short brunettes.

So it's very possible for a person to develop a preference to the same sex, prefering the same sex over the opposite even exclusively.

Now add that a large number of gays report a sexual awareness at a notably earlier age then most. A strong arguement is made that early sexual awareness + natural homoerotic attraction + biological pair bonding results in being sexually confused or a natural preference for the same sex.

Here choice is used not to refer to a conscious desicion, but rather an involentary choice. An attraction and preference can be developed.

The young person with a hightened attraction or preference for the same sex who continues to have relationships with the same sex, or fantasizing about it, will strengthen that preference, either to a degree of bisexuality or homosexuality.

History suports this notion. Ancient Greece encouraged same sex relationships to build stronger bonds among their troops and this resulted in increased homosexuality and a lowered birthrate. Similarly Roman historians reported that the northern tribes in Europe would raise their young men away from the women at an early age, and also encouraged homosexuality to build better bonds between warriors. Historians at the time remarked that this was nearly devestating to their population as their males were loath to have relations with women and citing as the major cause in their ultimate defeat by the Romans, since it ultimately decreased the size of the armies they could recruit to oppose the Roman armies.

So history provides overwhelming proof with large populations that sexual preference can be developed via exposure.

The conclusion here is that varying degrees of Bisexuality in natural among all people, ranging from simple gender grouping (ie sport teams, girls night out, etc) to curiosity to attraction/fantasy, to bisexuality, to same gender preference with the homosexual (same gender exclusivity) simply being the far end of the natural bisexual spectrum.

dafydd

Dec 12, 2011, 1:19 PM

Originally Posted by mikey3000
"Dude, I think I just creamed my shorts. I'd gladly join Gearbox in comforting you. That would be a dream."

Now I just KNOW that there's a great deal of 'comfort' to begot from us sharing that lonely double bed. Keeping the lovely Dafydd warm in the middle in his time of great need, is a great idea. One which gives me tingles of joy.

Chaps, at first I thought that was just a sweet idea.

But damn....

right now I'm looking at cheap flights from the US to the UK to make it happen.

I haven't had a good old boys night in ages. We could get some beers in, watch a game, play co-op Call of Duty on my PS3, get out the cards, have a a late night poker session and eat pizza watching America's Next Top Model marathon or DownTown Abbey.

Given the fact though that we're not kids any more but grown men, I really don't think it's going to be possible for us to all sleep in the same bed together without constantly knocking heads all night. How would u feel about sleeping top and tail? Any preferences for which end?

We'll probably be up half the night laughing and gagging away. Coming together as mates, just as men should do dreaming sweet dreams the moment we hit the sack or bite the pillow.

That sounds like the kind of wholesome old fashioned slumber parties I had as a teenager.

OR,:
We could forget watching Top Model, get wasted instead, and order round some rough trade for an all night, no holes barred man orgy.

Mikey? Gearbox? I won't stop thinking about this now....

Do I sound like I've been missing something for the last year or so?

Ã¦onpax

Dec 12, 2011, 1:54 PM

Homosexuality is a choice, however Bisexuality isn't. <snipped for brevity>

While I disagree with your conclusion, you make a good, logical argument (however loquacious)....at least for a forum posting.

Gearbox

Dec 12, 2011, 4:27 PM

Do I sound like I've been missing something for the last year or so?
Ever so slightly.:rolleyes:
I like the sound of that little get together. No good at poker nor ps3's, but rough trade? That's the kind of home entertainment system I'm talking about!:bigrin: (I got the elastic n rope accessories for that).

darkeyes

Dec 12, 2011, 5:04 PM

Homosexuality is a choice, however Bisexuality isn't.

History suports this notion. Ancient Greece encouraged same sex relationships to build stronger bonds among their troops and this resulted in increased homosexuality and a lowered birthrate. Similarly Roman historians reported that the northern tribes in Europe would raise their young men away from the women at an early age, and also encouraged homosexuality to build better bonds between warriors. Historians at the time remarked that this was nearly devestating to their population as their males were loath to have relations with women and citing as the major cause in their ultimate defeat by the Romans, since it ultimately decreased the size of the armies they could recruit to oppose the Roman armies.

So history provides overwhelming proof with large populations that sexual preference can be developed via exposure.

I agree with Ã¦on.. a good argument but quite fallacious.. once I had a similar opinion in fact but times and opinions change..

We should be very careful when using history written by the victors to strengthen our arguments.. ultimately the Romans were vanquished by the barbarian who were not averse to some same sex hanky panky.. and the notion that the tribes of Europe were somehow diminshed by it is also fallacious.. it was in the Roman interest for instance, to make their victories appear either more glorious than they either were by making the tribes of Europe seems somehow more powerful and united than they in fact were.. or somehow as a result of the degeneracy of their foe.. history is full of such histories written by the victors..

So some history may seem to back up your argument, but there is sufficient alternative histries in existence to make it a nonsense.. the ancient Celts, Franks and Germans were not averse to a bit of same sex nookie.. male or female.. but not at the expense of the health and well being of the tribe... what won it for Rome at the height of their power was not the claimed degeneracy and relative weakness in numbers of the tribes of Europe, but vastly superior organisation, strategies and technology in the face of often huge odds .. the ancient equivalent of guns against spears.. what ultimately lost it for Rome was overstretch and corruption.. they too were quite fond of a little same sex encounter even when it was officially disapproved of.. but that had nothing to do with the fall of Rome..

In the case of ancient Greece there is no evidence that homosexuality adversely affected the birthrate. They, like the tribes in other parts of Europe were partial to same sex relationships for the very reasons you say.. Sparta and Macedonia especially at different times.. the health of City State was far more important than anything else and same sex relationships, while important to some states more than others, were subservent to the greater good.. which meant their main priority was to breed... and that they did quite profusely...

Drops in birthrates were more down to men being away to war, or invasion and destruction and the mass slaughter of men women and children than ever they were to homosexual activity...

...yes hun.. we should be very careful when we try to show that history proves our point because there is always an alternative...

darkeyes

Dec 12, 2011, 6:44 PM

She may or may not have been born to be gay but bet big bruv isnt feelin 2 gay bout things rite now... wonder if it came from 'is half??? Good onya girl...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/08/newt-gingrich-gay-sister-obama

mikey3000

Dec 12, 2011, 9:56 PM

Long Duck Dong

Dec 12, 2011, 10:09 PM

I totally agree with your very logical statement, from start to conclusion.

stands with ivan and mikey :three: ....

foot note, its not about what history says but about how we look at the way we interact with people and apply that to history...... as society and history change but the way we are attracted with and interact with people, has not changed that much.... unless we used to stick it in other peoples ears in times past......

Ã¦onpax

Dec 13, 2011, 12:22 AM

1) Homosexuality is a choice, however Bisexuality isn't.
2)There is a natural homoerotic attraction between 2 men or 2 women, to varying degrees. Which is why men tend to go do menly stuff with each other, comeradery, idolizing male athletes etc. and women admire the beauty of other women.
3) A good example is sports, where men enjoy physical contact with other men, or women enjoy sleepovers with hot pillow fights with each other.
4) This is a natural, physical attraction to the same sex.
And the sexuality of this has always been understood. Sexual relations with the same sex is a natural extension of this physical attraction. It has also been shown that straight people will have sexual relations with same sex partners in the absense of the opposite gender or when the situation presents itself as acceptable.
5) Many cultures in the past not only accepted bisexual relationships, but often encouraged them, such as the greek's who encouraged those in the army to have homosexual relationships in order to foster strong bonds with each other.<snip>

1) Your opinion.

2) Again, your opinion (not fact) and I might add, a great leap in logic.

3) Interesting...basing an opinion of homoerotic behavior on contact sports. I'm sure millions of athletes will disagree with that but, whatever.

4) Only in some people, not all....unless of course, you can prove your point scientifically, it is conjecture.

5) Wrong. I've seen people here say the same thing. Homo and bisexuality being advocated by the Greeks, is pure, unadulterated, myth....to wit;

The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece ~

I don't care to want to pick apart anymore of your line of reasoning, other than to say, to each, their own.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 13, 2011, 12:51 AM

1) Your opinion.

2) Again, your opinion (not fact) and I might add, a great leap in logic.

3) Interesting...basing an opinion of homoerotic behavior on contact sports. I'm sure millions of athletes will disagree with that but, whatever.

4) Only in some people, not all....unless of course, you can prove your point scientifically, it is conjecture.

5) Wrong. I've seen people here say the same thing. Homo and bisexuality being advocated by the Greeks, is pure, unadulterated, myth....to wit;

I don't care to want to pick apart anymore of your line of reasoning, other than to say, to each, their own.

since you are so vocal about how ivans opinion is wrong... maybe you would like to prove your opinion to be more credible by way of any supporting studies or surveys by credible experts......

wikipedia is a reference tool, its about as credible as a scientific tool as a female making statements about the nature of how males interact.......

Ã¦onpax

Dec 13, 2011, 3:12 AM

1) since you are so vocal about how ivans opinion is wrong... maybe you would like to prove your opinion to be more credible by way of any supporting studies or surveys by credible experts......

2) wikipedia is a reference tool, its about as credible as a scientific tool as a female making statements about the nature of how males interact.......

1) Bon soir mes ami...this, from a gentleman who has never cited any facts to back up his own opinions? But I digress. However, in the spirit of cooperation, civil discussion and the pursuit of knowledge, Iâ€™ll instead, aim you in the right direction and from there, you can pick and choose those things you agree with. ~ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homosexuality+greece ~

2) Wiki critics are an interesting lot, to say the least. Most, never read it and if they do, they gloss over the fact that at the bottom of each dissertation, is a list of academic references and notes, that are used as sources. Most critics of Wiki are so vague in their objection as to render such objections; useless.

I use Wiki because itâ€™s handy and written in a style that is easy for most people to digest. It's good enough for an online discussion.

Unfortunately, too many people mistake the nature of Greco/Roman art with being homoerotic. Not so. The Greeks and Romans were into , phallicism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phallicism) meaning they saw the penis as being symbolic to procreation and life, not necessarily sexuality. (a females womb was inconsequential in this process). They also mistake old phallic beliefs with the more modern and controversial phallic stage (http://psychology.about.com/od/pindex/g/def_phallicstg.htm) offered by Sigmund Freud. The two, are not the same.

If one wants to make a case for pederasty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pederasty) (colloquially called: pedophilia) then ancient Greek culture is where you go, but not for homosexuality, per se. If homoerotic art is what one is after, then look up Robert Mapplethorpe. (http://www.mapplethorpe.org/)

Long Duck Dong

Dec 13, 2011, 4:00 AM

1) Bon soir mes ami...this, from a gentleman who has never cited any facts to back up his own opinions? But I digress. However, in the spirit of cooperation, civil discussion and the pursuit of knowledge, I’ll instead, aim you in the right direction and from there, you can pick and choose those things you agree with. ~ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homosexuality+greece ~

2) Wiki critics are an interesting lot, to say the least. Most, never read it and if they do, they gloss over the fact that at the bottom of each dissertation, is a list of academic references and notes, that are used as sources. Most critics of Wiki are so vague in their objection as to render such objections; useless.

I use Wiki because it’s handy and written in a style that is easy for most people to digest. It's good enough for an online discussion.

Unfortunately, too many people mistake the nature of Greco/Roman art with being homoerotic. Not so. The Greeks and Romans were into , phallicism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phallicism) meaning they saw the penis as being symbolic to procreation and life, not necessarily sexuality. (a females womb was inconsequential in this process). They also mistake old phallic beliefs with the more modern and controversial phallic stage (http://psychology.about.com/od/pindex/g/def_phallicstg.htm) offered by Sigmund Freud. The two, are not the same.

If one wants to make a case for pederasty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pederasty) (colloquially called: pedophilia) then ancient Greek culture is where you go, but not for homosexuality, per se. If homoerotic art is what one is after, then look up Robert Mapplethorpe. (http://www.mapplethorpe.org/)

nods.... cool.... you rely on google as your source of info and wikipedia.......

I did check the list of references.... on your ancient greece wikipedia link.....
Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece)

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[5]

reference 5 ^ a b c d Oxford Classical Dictionary entry on homosexuality, pp.720–723; entry by David M. Halperin.

david m . halpern is a theorist, .. a person that forms a theory based around their interpretation of understanding the nature of homosexual / bisexual interaction....and one of his theories ( not proven fact, but opinion ) is that the ancient greeks were not supportive / accepting of homosexual / bisexual behievour cos they did not view pederasty as same sex * love *.....

so you have posted a link disputing ivans post, using a link that has references to a person that uses a unproven theory as credible proof of something

thats a bit like debating a opinion by offering a unproven and therefore opinion based reference as proof that ivan is wrong........

the reason why I do not use a lot of references or links... as I am not pushing a opinion with the intention of telling others they are wrong.... I share a opinion based around many years of counselling and therapy work, and seeing many same patterns emerge on a regular basis... yet much of what I have seen, has not been researched to a credible level.... therefore its impossible to use references that are beyond basic generic statements......

points to the fact that David M. Halperin is a theorist.... yet his opinion is being put forward as proven fact.......

btw pedophilia and pederasty are two different concepts..... pederasty is confined to intimacy between a post pubescent male and older male that are not blood / family related...... what is the defination of pedophilia again ????

Ã¦onpax

Dec 13, 2011, 4:32 AM

nods.... cool.... you rely on google as your source of info and wikipedia.......

Your reply, as it always is in your case, is just your opinion. As I said in my original reply, youâ€™d â€œpick and chooseâ€ those points you agree with, while discarding everything else.

As for your opinion on David A Halprin, http://www.nndb.com/people/643/000095358/ who you selectively chose out of nine different sources, Iâ€™ll give him the nod for being a lot more knowledgeable on this topic than you.

As for the rest of your rationalization, interesting but you have not addressed the issue here of homosexuality, being a choice. Please try to stay on topic.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 13, 2011, 5:25 AM

Your reply, as it always is in your case, is just your opinion. As I said in my original reply, you’d “pick and choose” those points you agree with, while discarding everything else.

As for your opinion on David A Halprin, http://www.nndb.com/people/643/000095358/ who you selectively chose out of nine different sources, I’ll give him the nod for being a lot more knowledgeable on this topic than you.

As for the rest of your rationalization, interesting but you have not addressed the issue here of homosexuality, being a choice. Please try to stay on topic.

I chose David M. Halperin as a number of the pertinent remarks on the page referred to reference 5.... did you not notice that on the page, you put forward......... david M halperin... not david A halprin......at least your link is correct even if you got his name wrong...... and it appears that you never checked your own *facts * before posting them as proof that ivan was wrong

ok back to the original topic

can bisexuality / homosexuality be a choice ? is a question that can only be answered by any person as a individual point of view according to their own understanding of themselves.... cos its only them that truly know their own sexuality and how they understand it...... and if they say they can choose their own sexuality, who am I to say they are wrong ?

in my own personal opinion, I have seen myriad situations where a sexuality can be changed by accidental or deliberate choices..... so my answer has to be yes, for some people it can be a choice...... but that requires a person to put themselves in the shoes of the other person and see the world thru their eyes.... so that is what I do........

its why I do not dismiss peoples opinions as fallacies.. or tell them people its only their opinion, so it means nothing..... instead, i learn about them and from them........

and that.... is not a opinion... thats a FACT...just one that you can not google or find a wiki page for......

interesting point btw on davids page.... the word homosexual never existed til the 1890's ... how can you say somebody is a homosexual in ancient greece, when the word did not exist for a couple of 1000 years..... so how did they define bisexual and homosexual people ??? and did they...... and if we are to believe that they did..... then most of the theories point towards the opinion that they didn't..... they saw them the same as everybody else......

I have made reference in this site a number of times over the years about how the verse about homosexuality being a abomination to god, only appeared in the bible in the 1890s.....

keefer201

Dec 13, 2011, 5:32 AM

She stirs up more shit than a god damn twister! It is my opinion, and I speak only for myself, that my sexual leanings are my "CHOICE" period. Now, go suck on that.

darkeyes

Dec 13, 2011, 6:01 AM

She stirs up more shit than a god damn twister! It is my opinion, and I speak only for myself, that my sexual leanings are my "CHOICE" period. Now, go suck on that.

Assumin' u talkin bout Ã¦on.. me knos.. int she luffly??? Go girl...:bigrin:

Ã¦onpax

Dec 13, 2011, 7:23 AM

I chose David M. Halperin as a number of the pertinent remarks on the page referred to reference 5.... did you not notice that on the page, you put forward......... david M halperin... not david A halprin......at least your link is correct even if you got his name wrong...... and it appears that you never checked your own *facts * before posting them as proof that ivan was wrong

ok back to the original topic

can bisexuality / homosexuality be a choice ? is a question that can only be answered by any person as a individual point of view according to their own understanding of themselves.... cos its only them that truly know their own sexuality and how they understand it...... and if they say they can choose their own sexuality, who am I to say they are wrong ?

in my own personal opinion, I have seen myriad situations where a sexuality can be changed by accidental or deliberate choices..... so my answer has to be yes, for some people it can be a choice...... but that requires a person to put themselves in the shoes of the other person and see the world thru their eyes.... so that is what I do........

its why I do not dismiss peoples opinions as fallacies.. or tell them people its only their opinion, so it means nothing..... instead, i learn about them and from them........

and that.... is not a opinion... thats a FACT...just one that you can not google or find a wiki page for......

interesting point btw on davids page.... the word homosexual never existed til the 1890's ... how can you say somebody is a homosexual in ancient greece, when the word did not exist for a couple of 1000 years..... so how did they define bisexual and homosexual people ??? and did they...... and if we are to believe that they did..... then most of the theories point towards the opinion that they didn't..... they saw them the same as everybody else......

I have made reference in this site a number of times over the years about how the verse about homosexuality being a abomination to god, only appeared in the bible in the 1890s.....

Wow, cool. Aside from going off on your wild tangents, this time belaboring some miniscule point about David Halpern, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic, you have no idea what a "theorist" is and even worse, cannot cite one single unbiased study to back your OPINION that homosexuality is a choice.

I will ask you one more time, prove that homosexuality is a choice. Use a source that can be verified such as an unbiased study or research. However entertaining your replies are, they just are not facts except to you alone....and of course, those whose ideology coincides with yours. I can accept your opinion as an opinion, but is isn't fact. Sorry.

DuckiesDarling

Dec 13, 2011, 7:30 AM

I've been reading this thread and have been greatly amused at some of the comments. This is why I hate labels, you always try to stick a square peg into a smaller round hole and it will never work unless you change the peg into a round dowel. The same applies for sexuality, as has been posted numerous times on here it can be fluid. There are some people who want to state that it is a choice so they can then belittle the choice a person makes as wrong. There are politicians who embrace the ideal that people can be cured of their "illness". It is natural it's just not natural to all people. It's normal, it's just not normal to all people. So why can't society dump the attempt to change anyone different into a round dowel and move on with their own lives? :2cents:

Ã¦onpax

Dec 13, 2011, 7:45 AM

She stirs up more shit than a god damn twister! It is my opinion, and I speak only for myself, that my sexual leanings are my "CHOICE" period. Now, go suck on that.

I can accept that. As there is no academic consensus on this subject, one is free to believe what they want, it makes no difference to me. However, when people start using religiously tainted ideology in lieu of empirical facts, then I will disagree.

As for me stirring things up, I can only quote to you a little axiom; "Progress is forged on the anvil of conflict." When two people with diametrically opposite views clash, you have conflict. Such conflict can be a great learning experience or in some cases, a waste of time, depends on how open minded a person is. I want to be proved wrong but the key word here is "proved." I respond to strong logical argument and unbiased facts. Opinions, however respected they should be, are just not facts and be readily dismissed.

Conflict scares people, becuase they don't know how to handle it...all's more the pity. A lot of problems can be understood better, if not solved, by open unabashed, communication.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 13, 2011, 7:51 AM

Wow, cool. Aside from going off on your wild tangents, this time belaboring some miniscule point about David Halpern, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic, you have no idea what a "theorist" is and even worse, cannot cite one single unbiased study to back your OPINION that homosexuality is a choice.

I will ask you one more time, prove that homosexuality is a choice. Use a source that can be verified such as an unbiased study or research. However entertaining your replies are, they just are not facts except to you alone....and of course, those whose ideology coincides with yours. I can accept your opinion as an opinion, but is isn't fact. Sorry.

lol..... sure... I choose not to be a lesbian..... and I could be if I wanted to become a M2F transgendered person who had a female partner..... but I do not choose to be transgendered either.....

my partner whom is a heterosexual female, chooses not to be a homosexual by becoming a F2M transgendered person.....

simple plain logic when you look at it..... and I did as you asked, I proved that homosexuality is a choice....

feel free to change the wording and define the question if you want, since you failed to think about what you were asking..... but in all honesty.... I have proved that homosexuality can be a choice for some people..... and that was the original question.... was homosexuality a choice.... not HOW it could be a choice....:tong::bigrin:

Ã¦onpax

Dec 13, 2011, 8:31 AM

lol..... sure... I choose not to be a lesbian..... and I could be if I wanted to become a M2F transgendered person who had a female partner..... but I do not choose to be transgendered either.....
my partner whom is a heterosexual female, chooses not to be a homosexual by becoming a F2M transgendered person.....
simple plain logic when you look at it..... and I did as you asked, I proved that homosexuality is a choice....
feel free to change the wording and define the question if you want, since you failed to think about what you were asking..... but in all honesty.... I have proved that homosexuality can be a choice for some people..... and that was the original question.... was homosexuality a choice.... not HOW it could be a choice....:tong::bigrin:

You are again, playing with semantics. A person's sexual acts are always within the realm of choice, but that does not explain the inherent orientation or disposition. Let me put it this way, Do people choose to be gay, is it biological, or is there some other explanation? Let's work past at least one myth, by identifying it..

Myth: Either homosexuality is a choice or else it is genetic. There is no middle ground. -

a) this myth ignores a third possibility -- that homosexual feelings may originate from factors in a persons development.
b) Secondly, it is important to recognize that this is not an "either/or" issue; multiple factors may be involved.

Every academic study I've seen on this subject says sexual orientation is an unknown, at this point. There are many theories but no smoking gun. The only people I've seen that publicly take a stand saying homosexuality is for sure, a choice, are your religious people and their belief is based on faith, not science.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 13, 2011, 9:00 AM

You are again, playing with semantics. A person's sexual acts are always within the realm of choice, but that does not explain the inherent orientation or disposition. Let me put it this way, Do people choose to be gay, is it biological, or is there some other explanation? Let's work past at least one myth, by identifying it..

Myth: Either homosexuality is a choice or else it is genetic. There is no middle ground. -

a) this myth ignores a third possibility -- that homosexual feelings may originate from factors in a persons development.
b) Secondly, it is important to recognize that this is not an "either/or" issue; multiple factors may be involved.

Every academic study I've seen on this subject says sexual orientation is an unknown, at this point. There are many theories but no smoking gun. The only people I've seen that publicly take a stand saying homosexuality is for sure, a choice, are your religious people and their belief is based on faith, not science.

its not playing with semantics, its showing a logical and valid aspect of sexuality that most people do not think about.......

instead of trying to restrict opinions to a singular aspect of people, I choose to look at all of the opinions that a person has........

do people choose to be gay, first we have to define choice and what is defined as choice....
1) are we referring to choice as in KFC or mcdonalds for dinner....
2) do I control my bad temper or not
3) do I have sex with a male or a female

choice is a multiple defination variable..... so we can not use a absolute choice option.....

is it biological / genetic / heredity / social / environmental / psychological....

again we can not rule them all out as options, as in order to do so, we have to assume that every gay person is gay for the same reason, in order to rule out any option.....

so the simple answer to the question is that homosexuality can be a choice for those people that have the ability to change their sexuality, in the same way that some gay people have become bisexual, some heterosexuals have become gay, some heterosexuals have become lesbians.....

however the first thing we need to do, is define homosexuality... and using the statement that it is a attraction to males, not to females, doesn't work... as there is too many variable of attraction.....

I know some people that were heterosexual with female partners, that are now gay with male partners, and vice versa.... do we treat them the same as a homosexual that has a socio psychological adverse to sex with partners of the opposite gender.... or rule them out as people that have shown a bisexuality aspect by having partners of both genders, and use the homosexual with a clear psychological bent.....

the list goes on..... as to why it is so easy and also so hard to prove the nature of homosexuality as fixed and not fluid, but we can not do it without denying all the other homosexual people that have changed their sexuality naturally or by other means.......

which raises the question, the people that were * cured * of homosexuality by prayer... were they actually closet bisexuals instead, that could change their sexuality without any side effects.......

it simply comes down to the fact that science can not disprove or prove the ability to change sexuality by choice... only that people have done it..... and since sexuality is fluid and not fixed as a constant with the same parameters in each person, there is no way to give a definitive answer, only a theory and opinion based around findings that can be biased and / or inconclusive.....

you want me to prove that homosexuality can be a choice... set the example of proof with the science findings that it can not, like you have posted...... or do not expect me to do what you have not done...... and that is provide proof

Ã¦onpax

Dec 13, 2011, 11:55 AM

its not playing with semantics, its showing a logical and valid aspect of sexuality that most people do not think about.......
instead of trying to restrict opinions to a singular aspect of people, I choose to look at all of the opinions that a person has........
do people choose to be gay, first we have to define choice and what is defined as choice....
1) are we referring to choice as in KFC or mcdonalds for dinner....
2) do I control my bad temper or not
3) do I have sex with a male or a female
choice is a multiple defination variable..... so we can not use a absolute choice option.....
is it biological / genetic / heredity / social / environmental / psychological....
again we can not rule them all out as options, as in order to do so, we have to assume that every gay person is gay for the same reason, in order to rule out any option.....
so the simple answer to the question is that homosexuality can be a choice for those people that have the ability to change their sexuality, in the same way that some gay people have become bisexual, some heterosexuals have become gay, some heterosexuals have become lesbians.....
however the first thing we need to do, is define homosexuality... and using the statement that it is a attraction to males, not to females, doesn't work... as there is too many variable of attraction.....
I know some people that were heterosexual with female partners, that are now gay with male partners, and vice versa.... do we treat them the same as a homosexual that has a socio psychological adverse to sex with partners of the opposite gender.... or rule them out as people that have shown a bisexuality aspect by having partners of both genders, and use the homosexual with a clear psychological bent.....
the list goes on..... as to why it is so easy and also so hard to prove the nature of homosexuality as fixed and not fluid, but we can not do it without denying all the other homosexual people that have changed their sexuality naturally or by other means.......
which raises the question, the people that were * cured * of homosexuality by prayer... were they actually closet bisexuals instead, that could change their sexuality without any side effects.......
it simply comes down to the fact that science can not disprove or prove the ability to change sexuality by choice... only that people have done it..... and since sexuality is fluid and not fixed as a constant with the same parameters in each person, there is no way to give a definitive answer, only a theory and opinion based around findings that can be biased and / or inconclusive.....
you want me to prove that homosexuality can be a choice... set the example of proof with the science findings that it can not, like you have posted...... or do not expect me to do what you have not done...... and that is provide proof

I will agree on this point, science cannot explain everything. Even laws of science once considered absolute, are now under question such as quantum particles that can allegedly exceed the speed of light.

I will also say that us humans are so imperfect that even if an absolute truth did exist, we would either not recognize it or are incapable of seeing it.

Anyways, You have proved nothing, leastways, to me. The logic and analogies you are using are all over the place. I can't tell whether it's inductive or deductive reasoning you are attempting to use, which is why I'm harping for facts from you. Here's one of your statements;

⇒⇒"we have to assume that every gay person is gay for the same reason"⇐⇐

Even for the sake of argument, I don't and will not assume that kind of gestalt proposition. How may different ways can I tell you there is no known singular cause. There could and most likely is, a multiplicity of different causes and trigger mechanisms that can shape a persons orientation....some may even involve free will or choice but it would not be rational for me to assume a singular cause.

I'm going to take a different tact here.

Michele Bachmann's husband runs a clinic that will pray the gay out of a person, ( http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691 ) as if being gay is something bad. Ever wonder what kind of clients he gets? Correct me if I'm wrong but him, and perhaps millions of others, seem to believe that those whom are gay are under the control of evil spirits. Mr Bachmann, for a hefty fee, will invoke the name of God in such a manner as to cast out those evil spirits of gayness...until the next time they need his therapy.

I bring this up to show the ludicrous rational behind, certain Christian sects belief that being gay, is a choice. If such a thing called an evil spirit, motivates or possesses people, they are no longer acting under "free will" and they behave as the evil spirit moves them, so there is no choice there. But these same people claim, being gay is a "choice." Which is it?
`

want2havefun

Dec 13, 2011, 12:08 PM

Dont let religious wackadoos shape your view of 'choice'. Too often these discussions become one more of gay/bi agenda vs religious nutjob agenda instead of just examining some facts about ourselves. :)
The moral majority type crazy evil spirit notions etc aside.... human behavior, even sexual behavior CAN involve choice. For some it may mostly be instinctual, 'born with', or however you choose to describe it. Others clearly invoke choice to one degree or another. I would suggest that all humans invoke some aspect of choice to one degree or another. But, I would suggest also that only a minority invoke choice in terms of same gender sexual interaction. Nevertheless such folks DO exist. I know them!

dafydd

Dec 13, 2011, 12:26 PM

Again the word 'choice' and the word 'bisexuality' should NEVER be used in answering this debate.

Consider the differences between these two questions:

1) Do you have the choice to have sex with that man/woman? Yes

2) Do you have the choice to have the potential in your brain to get aroused and possibly consider wanting to have sex with that man/woman even if you don't do it? No

This debate is should really be speaking the language of Q2

Anybody has the choice to sleep with anyone he/she wants.
Nobody has the choice to have the desire to want to or not.

Otherwise that's like saying you have the choice to be allergic to peanuts or not...
you have the choice to eat them but you don't have the choice as to what your body will do once they're inside.

..however..

peanut allergies are involved purely the genetic/phyiscal. Desire is a mixture of genetics and social/environment factors. But you still do not have a choice over those factors and how they will influence you.
When you're 5 you don't have the choice whether or not the casual homophobia you hear around you will subconciously enter your brain and influence your understanding of gays and lesbians.

Re: the OPS question:
Choice is the wrong word. and 'Homosexuality/Bisexuality' needs a better context:

This debate shoule be retitled:
"What factors affect human sexuality AND its expression?!

Clearly a very detailed and complicated question, which of course noone has any hope of answering in one reply to a messsage board quote. Scientists and sociologists have spent whole careers trying to work it out and still no one is fully satisfied with the answers
d

want2havefun

Dec 13, 2011, 12:44 PM

2) Do you have the choice to have the potential in your brain to get aroused and possibly consider wanting to have sex with that man/woman even if you don't do it? No

I would have to say that is untrue...or at the least rather misleading.
Human sexuality isnt like cookie cutters. Its far more capable than that.

Humans are capable of doing sexual things they are not initially aroused by, with the same gender or opposite gender.
They are also capable of cultivating arousal, later becoming aroused by activities which originally were of no interest nor arousing to them.
To deny these facts is to deny human capability and a segment of society.

Diva667

Dec 13, 2011, 2:57 PM

lol..... sure... I choose not to be a lesbian..... and I could be if I wanted to become a M2F transgendered person who had a female partner..... but I do not choose to be transgendered either.....

my partner whom is a heterosexual female, chooses not to be a homosexual by becoming a F2M transgendered person.....

simple plain logic when you look at it..... and I did as you asked, I proved that homosexuality is a choice....

feel free to change the wording and define the question if you want, since you failed to think about what you were asking..... but in all honesty.... I have proved that homosexuality can be a choice for some people..... and that was the original question.... was homosexuality a choice.... not HOW it could be a choice....:tong::bigrin:

Your argument has many many holes.

Choosing not to put your eyes out does not make being blind a choice.

I don't think you properly grasp the experience of sexuality and gender for some people.

In my opinion one does not choose to be homosexual, straight or bisexual any more than you get to choose your natural hair color. You only get to choose how you express it.

Look at all the anti gay ministers who have been caught with rent boys "lifting their luggage." If being gay was a choice they could (and would have) have avoided this downfall.

BiDaveDtown

Dec 13, 2011, 3:45 PM

Homosexuality is a choice, however Bisexuality isn't...

...The conclusion here is that varying degrees of Bisexuality in natural among all people, ranging from simple gender grouping (ie sport teams, girls night out, etc) to curiosity to attraction/fantasy, to bisexuality, to same gender preference with the homosexual (same gender exclusivity) simply being the far end of the natural bisexual spectrum.

That's bullshit.

Men who are gay, or lesbian in the case of women are not bisexual at all and never have been, and they did not choose to be gay or lesbian.

Secondly not everyone is bisexual or born bisexual like we bisexuals are, and just because people will hang out with friends of the same gender that does not mean that they are bisexual or somehow sexually attracted to the same gender at all.

Someone's sexuality no matter what it is gay, bisexual, or straight is not a choice and they have no choice or decision in the matter.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 13, 2011, 6:36 PM

I will agree on this point, science cannot explain everything. Even laws of science once considered absolute, are now under question such as quantum particles that can allegedly exceed the speed of light.

I will also say that us humans are so imperfect that even if an absolute truth did exist, we would either not recognize it or are incapable of seeing it.

Anyways, You have proved nothing, leastways, to me. The logic and analogies you are using are all over the place. I can't tell whether it's inductive or deductive reasoning you are attempting to use, which is why I'm harping for facts from you. Here's one of your statements;

⇒⇒"we have to assume that every gay person is gay for the same reason"⇐⇐

Even for the sake of argument, I don't and will not assume that kind of gestalt proposition. How may different ways can I tell you there is no known singular cause. There could and most likely is, a multiplicity of different causes and trigger mechanisms that can shape a persons orientation....some may even involve free will or choice but it would not be rational for me to assume a singular cause.

I'm going to take a different tact here.

Michele Bachmann's husband runs a clinic that will pray the gay out of a person, ( http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691 ) as if being gay is something bad. Ever wonder what kind of clients he gets? Correct me if I'm wrong but him, and perhaps millions of others, seem to believe that those whom are gay are under the control of evil spirits. Mr Bachmann, for a hefty fee, will invoke the name of God in such a manner as to cast out those evil spirits of gayness...until the next time they need his therapy.

I bring this up to show the ludicrous rational behind, certain Christian sects belief that being gay, is a choice. If such a thing called an evil spirit, motivates or possesses people, they are no longer acting under "free will" and they behave as the evil spirit moves them, so there is no choice there. But these same people claim, being gay is a "choice." Which is it?
`

ok, I am not trying to prove anything to you.... I have nothing to prove to you, if you wanted proof that your understanding is right... you would have proved it to yourself first........

instead you use the argument that its other peoples roles to provide proof that homosexuality is a choice.... and that is a basis for debate that people use in order to justify their unproven opinion as correct and others opinions as merely opinions therefore incorrect.....

its more commonly referred to as the god debate or " prove to me that god exists as my opinion that he doesn't, is not proved wrong until proof that he exists, is shown to me...... and opinions as proof, do not count "

logical argument such as the one I used with the transgender aspect, does show that people will often say no thats not a acceptable statement as it falls OUTSIDE of the parameters of homosexuality that people will accept as homosexuality.

that comes back to the god debate which is " anything outside of what can be explained with any degree of certainty, by experts, IE miracle healings, is not allowed to be used as possible proof of the healing power of god "

in answer to your question about the evil spirit.... the logic in the answer is that people choose to allow the evil spirit to dwell with them, making homosexuality a choice, as they choose to allow themselves to * exist * in a state of deviant behievour..... I am a ex christian... and yes, I have done the * deliverance* prayer thing......

my mother ( christian ) has the understanding that homosexuality is a choice as it is proven by females and males that have become gay and lesbians later in life and thats proof that its a choice, they are not born gay or lesbian......

I will accept my mothers statement as correct on the aspect of not all gay / lesbian people are born gay / lesbian, but I accept it on the understanding that sexuality is fluid.... I will not accept that it was all by choice.... as that limits the reasoning why the sexuality changed.

in order to prove anything to you aeon, I would have to confine things to your level of understanding and belief... and sorry I can not be that narrow minded..... and I say that from the point of view, that I can not prove that homosexuality is not a choice either.... so I have to accept the fact, that on the issue of homosexuality as a choice or not... I am sitting on the fence as I have seen enuf personal proof both ways to form the opinion that for some it is, some it is not.... but there is no studies that can be done without limiting homosexuality to very narrowly defined limits.

or in simple terms, in order to prove anything to anybody, first I need to prove it to myself, beyond reasonable doubt, and simply, I can not.... hence my stance is a simple yes and no... depending on the person and the circumstances.......

dafydd

Dec 13, 2011, 8:05 PM

I would have to say that is untrue...or at the least rather misleading.
Human sexuality isnt like cookie cutters. Its far more capable than that.

Humans are capable of doing sexual things they are not initially aroused by, with the same gender or opposite gender.
They are also capable of cultivating arousal, later becoming aroused by activities which originally were of no interest nor arousing to them.
To deny these facts is to deny human capability and a segment of society.

But surely if somebody has same-sex desire that has been cultivated, they at some point allowed or were aware that it was being cultivated and so had that potential for the desire. There are some people who wouldn't want their sexuality cultivated. I do see where your coming from but I think that what I'm talking about is the natural willingless to at some point desire same-sex, whereas what you mentioned I think is more of an overview statement of the potential for sexuality in humans as a species, (which I don't disagree with or am debating). Of course everyone has the abiltiy to become aroused with someone of the same gender: it's not impossible neurologically speaking.

I think I would refine that question no2 that I posed now though.

Actually the idea of cookie cutter sexuality is interesting. Forgetting the human brain's ultimate capacity, looking at the here and now and relevant, it is interesting to think of sexuality as baking, affected by ingrediants (your genes) and the process itself (society/upbrining/environment - almost like the cookie cutter to the nth degree.) but I do feel that the cookie cutter shape has a perimeter, and boudaries that won't get crossed.
d

mikey3000

Dec 13, 2011, 10:00 PM

The only people I've seen that publicly take a stand saying homosexuality is for sure, a choice, are your religious people and their belief is based on faith, not science.

LOL!!! And what "type" of people take a stand and believe that sexuality is, for sure, genetic, hmmm?

Honey, you've got a lot to learn about the human psychology.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 13, 2011, 10:47 PM

Your argument has many many holes.

Choosing not to put your eyes out does not make being blind a choice.

I don't think you properly grasp the experience of sexuality and gender for some people.

In my opinion one does not choose to be homosexual, straight or bisexual any more than you get to choose your natural hair color. You only get to choose how you express it.

Look at all the anti gay ministers who have been caught with rent boys "lifting their luggage." If being gay was a choice they could (and would have) have avoided this downfall.

my body has plenty of holes too... and it still works fine......

you are dead right, I do not grasp the experience of sexuality and gender for some people..... thats why I do not make absolute statements about sexuality and gender, cos that would mean putting people in *boxes * ......

I am the first to admit that sexuality is a very diverse aspect of humanity and if I live to be 150, I may cover 55% of the possibilities of human sexuality....... but until I know 100% of the possibilities... then to make any absolute statement about sexuality being or not being a choice, is simply not something I will do........

I would rather be open minded and acknowledge I agree with both sides of the debate in varying issues, than claim to be open minded and take one side only.......

hence why I have lot of lube and splinter proof condoms, cos I spend so much time sitting on the fence, I may as well have fun while I watch other people make *absolute * standards based on something they can not prove or disprove... yet tell others they are wrong, based on that personal opinion

Ã¦onpax

Dec 14, 2011, 2:03 AM

1 - ok, I am not trying to prove anything to you.... I have nothing to prove to you, if you wanted proof that your understanding is right... you would have proved it to yourself first........

2 - instead you use the argument that its other peoples roles to provide proof that homosexuality is a choice.... and that is a basis for debate that people use in order to justify their unproven opinion as correct and others opinions as merely opinions therefore incorrect.....

3 - its more commonly referred to as the god debate or " prove to me that god exists as my opinion that he doesn't, is not proved wrong until proof that he exists, is shown to me...... and opinions as proof, do not count "

4 - logical argument such as the one I used with the transgender aspect, does show that people will often say no thats not a acceptable statement as it falls OUTSIDE of the parameters of homosexuality that people will accept as homosexuality. that comes back to the god debate which is " anything outside of what can be explained with any degree of certainty, by experts, IE miracle healings, is not allowed to be used as possible proof of the healing power of god "

5 - in answer to your question about the evil spirit.... the logic in the answer is that people choose to allow the evil spirit to dwell with them, making homosexuality a choice, as they choose to allow themselves to * exist * in a state of deviant behievour..... I am a ex christian... and yes, I have done the * deliverance* prayer thing...... <snip>

1 â€“ Classic doublespeak reply. You answer yet claim youâ€™re not then go on to defend your point because you say you have nothing to prove.

2 â€“ Now, you take what I said, completely out of context and try to use it as a point. Use a direct quote, donâ€™t paraphrase and mix my words around.

3 â€“ You might want to read this http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof before saying anymore about argumentative structure.

4 â€“ This statement makes absolutely no sense, at least no sense thatâ€™s of this world that I can discern.

5 â€“ Now we get to the crux of your sincere belief about homosexuality, a direct quote;

â€œthe logic in the answer is that people choose to allow the evil spirit to dwell with them, making homosexuality a choice, as they choose to allow themselves to * exist * in a state of deviant behievourâ€

Ok, what you are saying, please correct me if I am in error, but itâ€™s these â€œevil spiritsâ€ which cause homosexuality. That would directly imply that according to your beliefs, homosexuality is not only wrong or a sin, it is also something inherently evil.

IF this is your belief, then I have a few choices here;

a) I can ridicule or insult this archaic mindset, but I find no utility in that.
b) I can ridicule or insult people who believe in this but thatâ€™s not only impolite, is serves no purpose for me.
c) I can continue this so-called discussion but to what end? Youâ€™ve now told me what I needed to know. Itâ€™s been my experience that those with strong religious beliefs, also have their own set of rules for reality and logic. This would indicate we have no common ground on which to facilitate an academic discussion, ergo continuing this would only be an exercise in futility.

Our discussion ends here. I enjoy a good, heated argument, especially where I can learn somethingâ€¦but this is obviously not one of them.

This also explains the logic behind those who claim bisexuality is not a part of homosexuality, and is wholly on itâ€™s own. I might ask for a clearer explanation on this but if it involves evil spirits and religious voodoo, no thanksâ€¦Iâ€™ll pass. While human science and logic is imperfect, it is something tangible unlike the pseudo-science and logic religious zealots try to pass off.

Long Duck Dong

Dec 14, 2011, 3:50 AM

1 – Classic doublespeak reply. You answer yet claim you’re not then go on to defend your point because you say you have nothing to prove.

2 – Now, you take what I said, completely out of context and try to use it as a point. Use a direct quote, don’t paraphrase and mix my words around.

3 – You might want to read this http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof before saying anymore about argumentative structure.

4 – This statement makes absolutely no sense, at least no sense that’s of this world that I can discern.

5 – Now we get to the crux of your sincere belief about homosexuality, a direct quote;

Ok, what you are saying, please correct me if I am in error, but it’s these “evil spirits” which cause homosexuality. That would directly imply that according to your beliefs, homosexuality is not only wrong or a sin, it is also something inherently evil.

IF this is your belief, then I have a few choices here;

a) I can ridicule or insult this archaic mindset, but I find no utility in that.
b) I can ridicule or insult people who believe in this but that’s not only impolite, is serves no purpose for me.
c) I can continue this so-called discussion but to what end? You’ve now told me what I needed to know. It’s been my experience that those with strong religious beliefs, also have their own set of rules for reality and logic. This would indicate we have no common ground on which to facilitate an academic discussion, ergo continuing this would only be an exercise in futility.

Our discussion ends here. I enjoy a good, heated argument, especially where I can learn something…but this is obviously not one of them.

This also explains the logic behind those who claim bisexuality is not a part of homosexuality, and is wholly on it’s own. I might ask for a clearer explanation on this but if it involves evil spirits and religious voodoo, no thanks…I’ll pass. While human science and logic is imperfect, it is something tangible unlike the pseudo-science and logic religious zealots try to pass off.

burden of proof applies with statements of opinion or fact that are / can be *absolute * IE your statement that homosexual is not a choice..... still waiting for your proof, supporting your theory

I have already stated that there is not enuf substantiated proof to support a pro or con statement.. you have failed to even acknowledge a honest statement about a inability to find proof supporting EITHER side of the debate and counter with substantiated proof of your own stance.... instead.... you push on with more of your diatribe about peoples ideas and understandings....
so wonder fran likes you.... she sidesteps challenges to her statements on a regular basis too.....I would say its a female thing but thats a disservice to all the awesome ladies that do not need to belittle males

I am a ex christian, it means no longer and I have not been one for over 20 years now... it also means having a understanding of issues such as deliverance prayer...... as I went thru one... so my understanding is based around first hand knowledge......

the idea of deliverance prayer is NOT a a religious one, its more pentecostal, holy spirit, spiritual warfare..... most religious churches do not embrace the idea of the gifts and fruits of the holy spirit, but i guess you already know that...... well I am assuming you do....

so there is a chance for you to learn something right there...... I quess, I am walking into areas where you have no knowledge of some things, so I will refrain from showing you that I have a understanding of some things that extend beyond your understanding

as for double speak.... no, its simple speak.... I will not dumb myself down to your level and spam wikipedia links.....

the crux of my belief about homosexuality is not based around evil spirits at all.... the crux of my belief about homosexuality, is there is no way to prove or disprove the choice of homosexuality...

homosexuality, to me, is no different to MOST other forms of sexuality, as I am not the type of person that has a issue with the sexuality of anybody and I see it as a natural aspect of a person, not some supernatural aspect of their lives.....

now, if you want to learn how to read and and act like a mature, intelligent person and learn not to spam wikipedia links..... I will happily talk with you on a equal level.... but at this stage, I do not want to give you any more reason to troll the thread and spam the crap out of it like a drunken idiot with a new dictionary and a google fetish........

and if the other thread is anything to go by.... I guess that you are already aware that that others feel the same way.....