Preserved Topic: is sexual orientation a choice?

this subject was brought up in the "If you move to the US from Africa you're African American right? " thread and so my first post is a continuation of what was said there.

Lunatic:

Is it my opinion that Simon LeVay documented differences in the hypothalamus of homosexual males vs. that of hetrosexual males?

Are the findings of Laura Allen and Roger Gorski regarding the differences they found in the Anterior commissure of the brain my opinion?

Reading studies that refute these findings would go a lot further towards convincing me that homosexuality is a choice than merely using capital letters to emphasise your point of view.

So how about posting a link or two to studies that support your position?

If you need a database of summaries for scientific studies, here is one to get you started:

[Bad URL replaced with good ...] http://tinyurl.com/yth6v

[edit2: Nope no good - try the URL above but UBB adds a space in for no good reason so remove it - vBulletin does the same though. Its here:

12617494,2918374,1 2710825,12597070

so it is fixable]

I'm also curious as to why you would ask if I actually know any anyone with the same sex preference. I do happen to know some people with a same sex preference, but generally speaking I know very little about the sexual preferences of the people around me. Since the sex lives of most of the folks around me don't actually involve me, I figure their preferences are not any of my business.....

I propose that we all choose whether to have sex at all, and with whom we do. But the real question is - Do we choose who we are attracted to, or is that decided by physiological factors?


[This message has been edited by norm (edited 02-08-2004).]

/*Can anyone figure out why the UBB code for my link is messed up? It works when I coppy and paste the URL into a browser....*/

[Emp edit: Fiddling with UBB]

[This message has been edited by norm (edited 02-08-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Emperor (edited 02-08-2004).]

[This message has been edited by InI (edited 02-08-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wes (edited 02-08-2004).]

Of course sexual orientation is not a choice. You can't help who you fall in love with.

Jestah

i think the term "choice" makes it seem like its entirely up to the individual which i don't believe, tho i don't think that homosexuality is completely genetically predetermined either. from people i've heard speak, things i've read, etc., there's usually some sort of childhood factor like an abusive or emotionally distant parent, repressed emotions in some family situation, etc., and when that's combined with an individual who might have effeminate qualities and they end up discovering that they're gay.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I think the answer is "yes and no".

InI puts it very well,

quote:

---

So, who you are is not completely a choice: your were born with mental predispositions,
and the ability to make choices and evolve.

---

I believe we are born with physical traits which includes predisposition to certain behavior. But at the same time, we're the only species we know of that can override our biological urges. I could learn to love men just as another man could learn to love women *if* we *decided* to do so.

Our sexuality is alterable. The fact that some choose to feed the predilections they were born with and never bother to change them does not mean they cannot. It just means they don't see any need to do so.

. . : slicePuzzle

I prefer to stay well away from this particular topic, but I've just gotta give this link a burl
http://tinyurl.com/yth6v

Edit by krets: Added tinyurl.

[This message has been edited by Skaarjj (edited 02-08-2004).]

[This message has been edited by kretsminky (edited 02-09-2004).]

The URL: http://tinyurl.com/yth6v

(use tinyURL. It's good in cases like this.)

"I believe we are born with physical traits which includes predisposition to certain behavior. But at the same time, we're the only species we know of that can override our biological urges. I could learn to love men just as another man could learn to love women *if* we *decided* to do so."

Could you, even with a female, just say to yourself "I'm going to fall in love with that woman", and then you do?

All the gay people I've spoken with all say the same, it's not a choice. It's like liking spinach; you simply do, or you don't. If you don't like eating cauliflower you still can eat it, but you can't learn to *like* eating it.

What you say is a nifty theory, but it's a theory alltogether. Don't you think that gay people have tried to become straight, that they prayed to become so? That they did everything they could, to become "normal"?

I'd like to see you trying to fall in love with a guy. Or, failing that, try *loving* a kind of food you now hate. Try haggis.

And for an article about trying to reform gay people: try this one. http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/20011128/features_index.shtml
If you don't have time to read it all, just read the part under "Ex-gay controversies".

Sadly, I coudn't find any success rate figures for "ex-gay" treatments. They themselves claim to have a 30% to 40% success rate.

This is not scientific, just anecdotal... The gay men I have known seem to be split. Some say they were born that way and nothing could have made them prefer women. They knew they were gay from the time they were children. Others say it was a conscious choice, like my cousin. I can remember him liking females when he was a younger teenager but after the age of 18 or so, he called himself gay and only had male partners from then on. Personally, I think there are varying degrees of homosexuality and bisexuality and this is perhaps where the choice factor comes into play.

I have read about homosexuality having a hormonal cause (in the mother's womb) and I believe this is an area of current study.


edit to fix very silly mistake

[This message has been edited by Amerasu (edited 02-09-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I think everyone should use a hard return ¬
¬
¬
The broken UBB at the top makes this thread ¬
Bleahhh!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

InI: I didn't mean it against you... I suppose I responded a bit overzealously to bugimus.

Hope no one minds my replacing the original link with the tiny one. Hated the horizontal scrolling.

Thanks for fixing the messed up link. There was nothing in the Asylum FAQ about TinyURL, and I have never encountered this problem before.

I've just never heard "Norm this won't work. Your...Link...is too long."

Back to the original subject. I agree that we can alter our sexuality. After all left-handed people can be
conditioned to do things right handed. But it is not their natural behavoir.

I have yet to visit mahjqa's link on reforming gay people, but the first thing that springs
to mind is 'Why should we?' I would really be much more interested in reforming people who
listen to Polka or who voted for Bush....

Fig:
if you do a liitle more reading on the subject, I think you will find that the majority of people
with a same sex preference did not have any events or enviromental factors out of the
ordinary in their formative years. I also have to mention that most of the gay men
I have known have not been effeminate. Perhaps we just tend to notice the ones who are because
they stand out as different.

[This message has been edited by norm (edited 02-08-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I just sum it up with 2 words: Mental Illness.

I have known quite a few gay people, and something many of them have in common is substance abuse, specifically cocaine. Many also have disfunctional backgrounds as well. Now, in todays Liberal thinking world, Mental illness is treated as "Alternate Lifestyle."

On another note: Why do many gay men talk more like women than most women? This aspect of homosexuality always seemed very shallow to me. It is an act all the way, and I have no use for people who need to act their way through life.

mahjqa, I didn't think your reply was overzealous. You said,

quote:

---

Could you, even with a female, just say to yourself "I'm going to fall in love with that woman", and then you do?

---

That depends. In some cases, there is no doubt that I could. But the idea of "falling in love" is a very misleading one. Some people wait for the "magic" or the chemistry to kick in and then call that love. But when you follow that method, you can fall in and out of love and never have any control over it. A lot of people do that and I am sorry they do.

There are also a lot of people in this world who don't choose their spouse but have the family do it for them. Quite many of them love each other just fine and don't have the slightest problem with the arrangement. That is because they don't believe love is something that comes and goes like the wind. They believe love is a choice; a choice to commit to another individual and to put their interests above their own.

What I'm saying is that *IF* we want to behave differently than our feelings dictate, we can. I believe many people don't see any reason to change their behavior and so they don't. Simple. But if they ever wanted to do so, only their will would stand in their way.

quote:

---

What you say is a nifty theory, but it's a theory alltogether.

---

With all due respect, so is saying you are born gay. We just don't have enough data to make that call yet.

quote:

---

I'd like to see you trying to fall in love with a guy. Or, failing that, try *loving* a kind of food you now hate. Try haggis.

---

Well, my wife may have other plans on that first challenge and I would hate to have to explain that to my little daughter who seems to enjoy having her mommy and daddy there for her BUT I have made a major change in what I eat and *like* to eat.

5 years ago, I completely gave up eating meat. That includes fish and chicken. I have rarely craved eating meat since that time and, in fact, the smell and taste of meat has become repulsive to me. How is this possible? What biological imperative was engaged in my person to bring about this change? Well, I don't think it was. I have long thought that it was wrong to eat animals if there were plenty of other sources of food available. My conscience spoke, and I decided to follow.

So I really believe our sexuality is on a very similar level as our tastes for food. Given enough reason and will, we can be anything we choose.

. . : slicePuzzle

This is a great time to get opinions about Ellen DeGeneres & Anne Heche. What was that all about? How does that fit into your view of homosexuality and heterosexuality?

. . : slicePuzzle

quote: On another note: Why do many gay men talk more like women than most women? This aspect of homosexuality always seemed very shallow to me. It is an act all the way, and I have no use for people who need to act their way through life.

Isnt this playing towards stereotypes?
You cant help the way you talk- and even if you could, no one is free of acts. There is very nearly always (I cannot speak for everyone) some sort of front people put on, when they interact with other people. Would you want to shower in front of someone? Burp? Its similar- we all are conscious of others' opinions of ourselves.

About whether it is a choice or not- doesnt it depend on the situation? You can't help who you love, but you can state I AM GAY or I AM STRAIGHT and make exceptions, correct? Just because you fall in love with someone who is blonde and athletic doesnt mean it'll happen again.
It seems like a volatile situation. But can you pass judgement on anothers situation without being them? Or deny them civil rights?

But how do you really know that it is an act? I happen to know some very naturally effeminite guys. Some who are gay, and some who aren't (and some who aren't too sure). They happen to act and talk like women, and it isn't an act. It's just them being themselves.

That's the kind of thing that really gets my goat. That there are people in this world who can't just accept that people are who they are, and there's really nothing you cna do about it, so...y'know...build a bridge...get the fuck over it.

If I believe something to be wrong, I don't have to accept it chief. I know some people think it'd be nice if everyone thought the same in this predominently liberal world, but where's the fun in that? Without the few conservatives who frequent this board with their opposing views, I think you'd all be preaching to the choir. I am about as far right as they come, and you should be thankful I am here to give my views and piss you off.

About the speech lisp, show me that it's not an act rather than telling me how unaccepting I am. Isn't that the point here? Maybe I will, as you say, "get the fuck over it," when I am shown that I am wrong. As I see it, there is no way in hell that a man can be more feminine than a female, unless it is an ACT.

And there really is nothing to get the fuck over anyways, it is not like I lose sleep over it or anything, we are having a discussion and I expressed my views. Is that a problem? If it is, then you yourself are not very accepting.

To me homosexuality is a mental illness, unnnatural and disgusting, and I will never accept people of the same sex getting it on. I will accept them as individuals, but I do not have to accept what goes on in their bedrooms. But hey, as long as I ain't there, I don't have to.

One last thing, what civil rights have gays been denied? The right to marry? WTF? Maybe I am missing something here. I really wish I was a minority or "repressed" person, so every time something didn't go my way I could throw a tantrum too.

Jestah:

There is a science to "love" and love can be controlled. Love is a choice as far as the ideological concept of "free will" is concerned.

WebMD: What's So Great About Kissing?

Regarding homosexuality...

quote:

---

The taboo against homosexuality is especially interesting. There is no generally accepted biological explanation of homosexuality and superficially it does not appear to be adaptive. Nevertheless, evidence is accumulating that there is an inherited predisposition for homosexuality. Assuming this is the case, the taboos of the past would, paradoxically, have favoured the survival of these genes by forcing the people who carried them, against their wishes, to marry and have children.

This suggests an interesting prediction for the future. As horizontal transmission increases the taboo should lose its power and so can be expected to disappear, as indeed it is doing in many societies. Homosexuals are then free to have sex with other homosexuals, to have long-term relationships with their own sex, and not to have children at all. The short-term effect is much more overt homosexual behaviour and acceptance of that behaviour by everyone, but the long-term effect may be fewer genes for homosexuality.

-- Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine, p. 137

---

If you haven't studied memetics, this may or may not make immediate sense to you, but don't despair: buy the referenced book.

quote:

---

Fig:
if you do a liitle more reading on the subject, I think you will find that the majority of people
with a same sex preference did not have any events or enviromental factors out of the
ordinary in their formative years. I also have to mention that most of the gay men
I have known have not been effeminate. Perhaps we just tend to notice the ones who are because
they stand out as different.

---

i suppose there's different theories (and i'd say that's actually obvious from this discussion) but i've actually heard a number of stories who didn't realize the emotional things they'd been thru til later on. one guy, for example, who's father left him and his mother when he was about 10. he later realized that he never grieved or cared and just shut those emotions off completely. not necessarily a traumatic event, but definitely a formative one when it comes to emotions. and no, not all are effeminate, that is a stereotype, but at the same time the majority that i've met, been friends with, and worked with (working in retail and design often lends itself to an alternative mindset) the majority do seem to lean that way.

quote:

---

What you say is a nifty theory, but it's a theory alltogether. Don't you think that gay people have tried to become straight, that they prayed to become so? That they did everything they could, to become "normal"?

---

so do the people i know personally that HAVE changed not count? or were they not gay enough to start with? i do think it comes down to a faith issue and that God can change a person.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

i do think it comes down to a faith issue and that God can change a person.

---

Wow! The ignorance displayed by fig here is uncanny, rather very human. Homosexuality has little to do with religion, "God", and/or your version of morality that you want to ram down nontheistical throats. The same can be said of marriage. Marriage, while traditionally religious, is simply a legal union (read: contract) that provides certain rights and benefits to those in the agreement. Marriage is not required to be processed in a church.

A declaration such as Fig's is equivalent to this statement: "All nontheists are gay."

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-09-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I believe we've covered this issue once not so long ago in here


Oh, well... My reiterated view on things:

Homo/Bi/hetero-sexuality is not a choice. Since it's about attraction (basic need) it's far to low down on the Maslow hierarchy basic to be a chosen treat.

However, you can choose whether you act upon those feelings or not.
(but the gay people I know have told me that they did not feel very good while oppressing their true feelings)

Bugs:
I don't quite agree with your analogy to food.
One major difference is that in a relationship there's two parties involved.
Imagine being gay and trying to choose differently by dating women. I can imagine that one would try to date women that was as appealing as possible despite the preference to men.

Now, in order for a relationship to work out, it has to be a mutual engagement.
I can imagine not many gay men are willing to try to deceive a woman to believing that she is loved, just to see if it would work out. And if they do, they are arrogant bastards. Period.

In your example, imagine having to seduce a cabbage to try to kick the fish-eating habit

Ramasax:

quote:

---

To me homosexuality is a mental illness, unnnatural and disgusting..

---

Well... to me bigots with your attitude borders on the very same definition. All IMHO

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

On homosexual bisexuality and other stuff...

quote:

---

Interestingly, there are few, if any, taboos against female masturbation. Recent research shows that, though women masturbate less often than men, many masturbate once a week or more throughout most of their adult life (R. R. Baker 1996). The lack of a taboo makes sense because generally women cannot increase the number of their offspring by having more sex, so from this point of view it does not matter whether they masturbate or not.

The taboo against homosexuality follows the same logic. Most homosexuals are at least partly bisexual and can, with strongly wielded taboos, be persuaded to marry and have children, to whom they will pass on the taboo. Similarly, taboos against any kind of sexual practice that does not involve insemination can spread, including those against using birth control. Taboos against adultery work rather differently. Brodie (1996) suggests that it is in every man's genetic interest to persuade other men not[ to commit adultery while doing so themselves. Thus both the anti-adultery memes and hypocrisy spread together.

Finally, there are many religions that make use of sex to spread themselves. A religion that promotes large families will, assuming vertical memetic transmission, produce more babies to grow up in that religion than one that promotes small families. Religious memes therefore become an important manipulator of genetic success. Catholicism's taboo against birth control has been extremely effective in fillingt he world with millions of Catholics who bring up their children to believe that condoms and the pill are evil, and that God wants them to have as many children as possible.

-- Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine, p. 135

---

If you haven't studied memetics, this may or may not make immediate sense to you, but don't despair: buy the referenced book.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I'd like to make one thing clear, Bugimus: you said "so is saying you are born gay"

I am not gay. At least, the last time I checked I wasn't. The reason that I keep reiterating my point of view is a personal one.

More than two years ago, I met a girl. We became the best of friends, and after some time she told me she was a lesbian. I didn't have any problems with that. Over time, we got closer, and after some time she confided that she had fallen in love with me. Sounds confusing, doesn't it? Imagine how she must have felt. I loved her, I still do, even. We share the same interests, We can talk about anything together, our opinions differ on some things, but we respect eachother, maybe even because of that.
We also got closer, physically. That's where she found out that the male body was something she just didn't want to have or do anything with. Just like you, certified heterosexual, would be repulsed by doing anything remotely sexual with a male (not even mentioning your wife and daughter), she was repulsed by doing anything sexual with a guy.
And this would be the girl I'd see myself marrying with. And I would be the guy she'd take a bullet for.

We tried, she tried, and she couldn't be "changed" in any way.

To say that this sucks would be the understatement of the century. We're still together, but 'only' as friends.

This is my main cause for believing that homosexuality, whatever the cause may be, is unchangeable.

I've talked to other gay people, who have similiar stories. I understand that you can just claim this is 'hearsay', just like your stories about about gay people whe were changed.

The article I linked had some pretty awful descriptions how people were "changed" into heterosexuals. Alex's change into a good person in "A Clockwork Orange" comes to mind.

Edit: blah. Synax was right, the issue *was* already covered in the thread he linked. My post's even almost the same there.

[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 02-09-2004).]

mahjqa, I knew you were not gay, I was speaking generally in that statement.

I meant that gays being born gay has not been proven, it is still theoretical. It has not been disproven either. We simply don't know the answer to that question yet.

I don't think you should base the answer to this question on one case you exprienced first hand. I know that many gay people say they were always gay and that may well be the case. But there are those who have become gay, there are those who have become straight, and there are those who continue to go both ways.

I am sorry things didn't work out with you and your dear one.

. . : slicePuzzle

Well, the point I'm trying to get across here is that the people who are gay know more about it than those who aren't.

I disagree. This is about sexuality, not being gay. We are all sexual creatures.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Well... to me bigots with your attitude borders on the very same definition. All IMHO

---

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So, because I think homosexual sex is unnatural I am a bigot? I said I don't agree with the lifestyle, I never said I did not tolerate it. You guys are unbelieveable. You only hear what you want to hear.

quote:

---

I disagree. This is about sexuality, not being gay. We are all sexual creatures.

---

I disagree with your disagreement. We're all humans, but you don't know how it feels to menstruate. Or how it feels to be a schizophrenic. Or to be a genius. Or to be a hinduist.

[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 02-09-2004).]

quote:

---

There is a science to "love" and love can be controlled. Love is a choice as far as the ideological concept of "free will" is concerned.

---

There certainly is a science to kissing or any other stimulation of the body, however love is very different then just stroking a favorite body part.

Jestah

quote:

---

Wow! The ignorance displayed by fig here is uncanny, rather very human. Homosexuality has little to do with religion, "God", and/or your version of morality that you want to ram down nontheistical throats. The same can be said of marriage. Marriage, while traditionally religious, is simply a legal union (read: contract) that provides certain rights and benefits to those in the agreement. Marriage is not required to be processed in a church.

A declaration such as Fig's is equivalent to this statement: "All nontheists are gay."

---

so because i believe that a person's sexuality is linked to faith i'm ignorant? that's interesting. a person's choices with regards to sexuality are most certainly linked to their religious beliefs, it influences quite a bit whether they have sex before marriage, with mulitple partners, or engage in a variety of other activities depending on what they believe is wrong or not. seems like a logical conclusion that a person's faith, no matter what it would be, would have a definite bearing on their sexuality in some respects. we've all see examples of where having faith in something, anything actually, can bring amazing results.

whatever the case, the fact that i believe homosexuality to be in some respects a faith issue is pretty irrelevant. i stated a fact, that i know personally individuals who's sexual preference has been changed, a change their attribute to God. knowing how some religious groups are i don't doubt that there have been "forced" conversions as some mentioned and i'm sure those were rather unsuccessful. i don't have firsthand knowledge of people's preferences changing outside of that belief systen (tho i'd imagine there are examples). how they've changed doesn't seem to really matter, the fact that they have at all would simply seem to refute pieces of the "you're born that way and can't change anything" theory.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I'm curious Fig, are you able to tell what religious preferences a person has by knowing they had pre-marital sex?

Jestah

quote:

---

There certainly is a science to kissing or any other stimulation of the body, however love is very different then just stroking a favorite body part.

---

Not necessarily. All emotions are linked to chemical reactions in the body and in the brain. I'm reasonably confident that the future contains the equation for "love."

Oh, InI, I don't like your bitching and whining. Would you please stop? Are you going to do so? Doubtful.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-09-2004).]

Fig:
I agree that religious memes do influence society, however, your previous claim that "it all comes down to faith and 'God'" is explicitly devoid of all reason. Like I said, your previous claim was like stating, "All nontheists are gay; likewise, all homosexuals are godless." If you didn't mean that, I apologize for bringing attention to your display of ignorance, but it was justified.

Ramasax:

Ok, we might have different dictionaries. The definition of Bigot (Bigott in my language) I've got says nothing about the level of tolerance, but rather means a narrowminded person.

On the other hand, tolerance is a span as well. But you did write:

quote:

---

I will never accept people of the same sex getting it on.

---

which did lead me to the conclusion that you're not totally tolerant towards them...

bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own (WordNet)

I wouldn't say Ramasax is behaving prejudicially or intolerantly regarding homosexuality. He is merely unsupportive of such acts and will probably do all he can to separate himself from homosexuals in his immediate territory.

Also note that labeling someone a bigot is an act of bigotry too.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-09-2004).]

Thank you very much for that last sentence, meta.

. . : slicePuzzle

*sigh*

What did you miss in my post, meta?

The part where I said "..in my language.." or the "rather means a narrowminded person"?
I thought that might have explained that english isn't my first language and that I might have interpretered the word differently than Ramasax?

However, a neutral third-party that describes someone as a bigot is not dogmatic for the definition of bigot is objective in that sense.

This isn't to say bigotry is wrong or right. After all, what is right or wrong is dependent on who's edition of morality to which you subscribe. For example, all religions are inherently dogmatic.

"The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction." -- Bertrand Russell.

Advance notice: I don't care if you don't like my quotes.

Nimraw:

I didn't miss anything in your post. I was and am helping you and Ramasax out.

narrow-minded: lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view (WordNet)

quote:

---

I wouldn't say Ramasax is behaving prejudicially or intolerantly regarding homosexuality. He is merely unsupportive of such acts and will probably do all he can to separate himself from homosexuals in his immediate territory.

---

Thanks Meta, although this is not entirely true. I have no problem with homosexuals in my immediate territory. They don't make me uncomfortable at all. I will however do anything possible to separate myself from exposure to their version of sex, which to me, is just plain wrong.

I am not prejudicial toward anyone personally, but I am allowed to disagree with something. And if disagreeing with something makes me narrowminded, then I guess I am a bigot in your language Nimraw.

In any case, I don't want anyone here to think I am a bigot (the classic definitition re: Archie Bunker). I am not against homosexuals as individuals, just the act, as any heterosexual should be. If I said something that lead you to believe otherwise, I am sorry, I am a person with strong opinions and that tends to come out wrong sometimes in moments of emotion. Hey, nobody's perfect.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-10-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-10-2004).]

Tao runs in and jumps out of the closet yelling
"I'm a male lesbian"
Now I don't have to keep that dammed secret anymore.

:::tao:::

Lesbian in a man's body?

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

Bitching and whining by InI:

Metatard, your spamming is not welcome: want to make sense, do so, make a point of yours,
don't quote passages from some book.. assuming you got what it takes to do so.

I am not whinning, nor bitching at you: I am urging you to try and make less a fool of yourself,
by not quoting extensively something that sounds like the bible of some sect.

You don't want my hand on this one, and well, I don't want your bullshit quotes, but no bitching there,
just a matter of stating my point of view.

---

Merely a matter of stating your point of view? Sure, you've established your suggestive opinion quite negatively with inflammatory remarks, unsupported assertions, logical fallacies, nescience, bigotry, and I suppose, even foolishness.

Works for me.
::tao::

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

meta, the word "all" was inserted by you, not used by me. i in no way share the opinion you stated of homosexuality with regards to theists and nontheists, my apologies if that's how it came off. i do, however, because of my belief in God, see the world as much more black and white than most people do (where it consists of varying shades of gray). imo homosexuality is wrong (and no, i don't go around condemning gays and yes, i do have gay acquaintances and have had gay friends in the past) and goes against God's will so i will always consider it a faith issue in certain respects.

and jestah, you certainly can't tell anything with regards to a person's beliefs and their celibacy, but more often than not an individual's reasons for lack of premarital sex are strongly influenced by their religious preferences.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Ignoring InI as Kevin suggested...

Fig:
Your exact quote...

quote:

---

i do think it comes down to a faith issue and that God can change a person.

---

Even without "all", you still refer that lack of faith in your "God" is the primary reason for homosexuality. For example, if I said, "InI's obnoxiousness comes down to his adolescence," what would you have been led to think? That I think InI is obnoxious because he is just a kid? Or that InI is obnoxious and him being a kid is one of many reasons? In any case, I agree with you aside from the references to "God" and "His wishes." Homosexuality is not a new, modern age, condition. I won't go as far as to say it is wrong for I feel that homosexuality could be useful as a rational objector to overpopulation despite the incredibly atomlike minority that it affects. It's also strange that such a condition, as small as it is, attracts such a large panel of critics. Or perhaps it's not that strange at all...

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-10-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I think that it is not a choice of who you are attracted to, but a choice of whether or not you want to act on it. I know some people who are homosexuals. Some of them wish they weren't and some are perfectly fine with their sexual orientation.
It is not like someone is going to wake up one day and say "Hey I think I will be gay today." And by you saying do they choose to do this, just makes it sound all the more wrong. I personally dont care what sexual preference anyone has. And I dont really see what the big deal is about homosexuals, like why heterosexuals have such problems with them. But it is just my opinion, and if someone took offense to this, well I apologizes.

BiGCaC

My main problem is with the marriage thing. They want to have all the benefits of a married couple when it comes to taxes and other legal crap, give it to them, but call it something else. The word marriage has for thousands of years described a union between a man & woman, and it should stay that way. Can't we keep some things sacred and meaningful? Probably not, regardless of the fact that the majority of people oppose it.

This world is going to hell in a handbasket.

You have a point there about the marriage idea. And most countries and some states do have another name for it. It is called "Civil Union" I do believe.

BiGCaC

Call it a civil union, that's fine with me. I just think the idea of what marriage is, something that has existed for thousands of years and has deep meaning to many people, should be protected.

It may just be a word, but you just can't go redefining traditions and values to make a small minority happy. I guarantee if you took a vote on the issue, the majority will oppose such a move, at least that is what all the polls I have seen, from both the left and right, indicate.

I have a great respect for words, and tend to use quite a lot of them. But let's not make them more important than people, OK?

I agree with that statement a great deal Norm.

I think it applies equally well to both sides.

I think it is just as absurd for gay couples to push so hard for the silly title of "marriage" as it is for hardcore conservatives to rail flatulently against the idea.

If you are in love, and you are comitted to each other, then what does the title matter? Do you gain anything by having a legal document saying so...? Nope.

As far as tax benefits and the like - I think marriage should have nothing to do with it for hetero or homo sexuals. I think it should be a matter of children, and lave the adults (and their sexual preference) out of it.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-24-2004).]

Ok norm, then let's not let the wants of a select few outweight the beliefs of the majority. Ok? Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean they should get it or are entitled to it. That is just assinine, and it is that type of thinking that is taking this world even further into the shitter.

Have a little respect for the institution of marriage. A word is not more important than a group of people, the meaning behind the word I is though. Remember, there is a large religious background to this word, and they have rights too, at least for now. I am sure that will change in this post-modern liberal society where everybody thinks they are entitled to everything regardless of how it affects others.

I kind of agree with both Ram and norm here.

I can understand why it might be seen as offensive with same sex marriage from a religious standpoint.
I guess there aere different beliefs to that aspect as well, but it makes "sense" that there are people that find it offensive and against the teaching of their religion. I understand why there are churches that refuses to conduct such ceremonies.

However from a humanitarian standpoint I think it's a disgrace that the parties in a same sex "registred partnership" (as it's called up here) are unable to get the same legal/financial privileges as a traditional married couple.

I firmly believe that religion and state should be very far separated in this matter, and the nitty grittys of taxes, insurance and whatever should not be any different. That's not exclusive to homosexual couples but applies to unwed hetero couples as well.

BTW I read an article where they had interviewed quite a few same-sex couples, and one comment from one guy regarding the semantics really stuck in my mind:
"I don't care if they call it marriage or not, but could someone plese come up with a better official term than "registred partnership". That makes me feel lika an intern or a lab rat".

Ah seperate but equal rights ...hmm where have I heard that one before.






.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

...are unable to get the same legal/financial privileges as a traditional married couple.

---

Which is one of the reasons I feel those privileges should be applied to families rather than "married couples". I don't see any reason to treat a couple special just because they've made their relationship a matter of legal record.

Give benefits to people who are raising children, and leave it at that.

I have to agree 100% with DL on this. The state should only intervene in our personal lives when it has a legitimate reason to do so. Raising the next generation of its citizens concerns the state. Who wants to sleep with whom and under what kind of agreements or any such like not related to the rearing of children does not concern the state and it should leave that up to the individuals to choose.

[edit]

quote:

---

Ah seperate but equal rights ...hmm where have I heard that one before.

---

Unfortunately, bit, these days we hear that more and more from the "new racists". The concept of integration and racial harmony has fallen out of favor by many of the organizations that I looked up to from the 60s and the civil rights movement. Now we hear things like "black babies belong with black mothers" and "children need people of their own color as role models". I abhor this type of thinking when it comes from "traditional racists" like the KKK as much as I do the "new racists".

. . : slicePuzzle
:FAQ:
[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-24-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-13-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-13-2004).]

haha bitdamaged, you make a point, although I think you are using a bad analogy. I never heard of any signs that said straights only or no gays. No straight bars, although there are gay bars...they separate themselves.

The church, who is against their way of life, will not turn them away, or should not. The only thing they will not do is marry them, as they have a right to deny, because it is against their beliefs. I am sure some of the more easygoing denominations will take it upon themselves to modify God's word to their liking, but that doesn't make it right.

Private organizations such as the boy scouts also have this right.

<ramble>
I wonder, what will the world be like when there are no longer any boundaries to right and wrong? If you think about it, total separation of church and state is preposterous considering many of the laws we have are based in some way on religion. Maybe we should scrap them all and start over. No God, no right and wrong, no repercussions for ones actions, yadda yadda. I know you are probably thinking I am full of shit, but all you need to do is take an honest look at the world we are living in. The downward spiral of human immorality increases exponentially with every passing decade, yet so many are blinded to it. Of course, I am always a pessimist when it comes to humanity. We are truly a disgusting race when viewed as a whole.
</ramble>

quote:

---

The downward spiral of human immorality increases exponentially with every passing decade, yet so many are blinded to it.

---

As I have pointed out time and time again, that is complete and total bullshit.

If that is honestly what you think, you need to do some *serious* brushing up on your world history - from ancient to modern. If anything, the world is at one of the "moral high points" in human history.

That is a totally subjective opinion, as is mine DL. Unless you can point me toward some un-biased resources that would prove me wrong and maybe change this opinion.

All I know is that as a whole our race has done some pretty atrocious things in recent years(ie the last century) which make the problems of old look like small potatoes. We have not always had the capabilities of total global annihlation. We have not always sucked out the brains of babies under the guise of human rights. We are, as a whole, morally defunct.

sorry, but i've gotta get this offa my chest....

i'm about sick of hearing people rally for the 'sacitity' and 'institution' of marriage. maybe if the people preaching this actually practiced it, the divorce rate in this country wouldn't be as high as it is. the majority of these people proclaiming how we need to 'respect' marriage are the same ones who are bonin' the babysitter, sectretary, alter boy or whore on the corner!

legally and financially, i think gay couples should have the same rights as hetero married couples.

quote:

---

Give benefits to people who are raising children, and leave it at that.

---

so, people who are smart enough to not breed should get no benefits?

quote:

---

They want to have all the benefits of a married couple when it comes to taxes and other legal crap, give it to them, but call it something else

---

... seperate yet equal.

heck what are you going to do give homosexual couples all the rights of marriage and then force them to call it something else? Run around and say "hey you're not reeeeaallly married" because you didn't get married in a church. Um just like all the other folks who aren't Christian or Catholic.


If this, this, and this represents the downfall of humanity then so be it.

Lacuna I think Bugs' is only referring to the rights we give the parents of children because they have children, not all rights.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.


[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 02-25-2004).]

quote:

---

i'm about sick of hearing people rally for the 'sacitity' and 'institution' of marriage. maybe if the people preaching this actually practiced it, the divorce rate in this country wouldn't be as high as it is. the majority of these people proclaiming how we need to 'respect' marriage are the same ones who are bonin' the babysitter, sectretary, alter boy or whore on the corner!

---

A bit judgemental doncha think? I notice how that statement is only directed at men as well, lovely. Today's 'enlightened' woman isn't exactly all peaches & cream.

You fail to take into account the drastic changes in society over the past 60 years.

Not every marriage falls apart because of the evil evil man, some people just drift apart because they never have time together, and when they do, realize they don't have a lot in common anymore.

Marriage IS an institution, but in this day and age where religion is being systematically removed from everything, including that institution, we are seeing higher divorce rates. This is logic to me, probably bs to you, and that is fine. There is no accountability anymore. Please also take into account the new strains that modern society puts on marriages that weren't there for most of history.

In the past 60 years, women have gained independence that they never had before This was a good thing, but this quick changeover, in my eyes has also drastically changed marriage. Today's society demands more of us, as couples, and as individuals. The stay at home mom is a thing of the past, and many couples must both work to keep their families afloat. Not only do many couples drift apart, but this also in turn leads to children having less guidance and getting their noses in where they otherwise not go. This leads to what we have today, a generation of youth raised by TV, video games, and the internet. Their main idols are cocky sports figures or swearing rappers. Nice up-bringing, and it will show in the next 20 years. Families are weakening, and without family to guide the youth who is going to do it? The schools, government? I think not. They have already proven their incompetence I believe.

Where does this lead us? Maybe homosexual couples can help remedy all the disfunctional families out there. They want the title of marriage regardless of the impact on society and not to mention those children they will be adopting. And don't tell me teenagers won't be given a damn hard time (both mental and physical abuse for a good part of their childhood) when they introduce Dad & Dad to their friends. If you ask me homosexuals are being selfish.

Also, if a straight child is raised by homosexuals, they will, regardless of their genetic makeup, be steered toward homosexuality themselves. Whether or not you believe homosexutality is a choice or not now, for a large part of the future population, it will be just that.

A few generations of that, and where does that lead us? Sex becomes nothing but sex, no creation involved. We all come from test tubes. That is bullshit. Whether you believe in God or science, they are both very specific about the purposes of men and women. You try and put 2 male plugs together, you get nothing. Plug it into the hole in the wall, and you get light. ame basic concept. Nature itself shows us that male and female are counterparts that need to be together, and human technology should never uinterfere with such a vital natural law.

To a lot of people, a large part of marriage is religious. This does not cover everyone in this Godless world though. Remove God from everything, and the sanctity of marriage disappears. Then what is it but a legal document that means pretty much NOTHING AT ALL!

Although I disagree with it beause I am disgraceful bigot , I know gay couples will have the right eventually, so let's see how they do at it before we judge the heteros. Actually I will be quite anxious to see those stats.

I don't know, I guess my way of thinking is a thing of the past. Oh well. I'd rather stick to my guns and believe in what I think is right than change my views & beliefs every time society demands it of me.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

quote:

---

The church, who is against their way of life, will not turn them away, or should not.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

The only thing they will not do is marry them, as they have a right to deny, because it is against their beliefs.

---

Agreed, but that´s beside the point. I think no homosexual couple is expecting the church to "marry" them (or whatever they call it).

quote:

---

I am sure some of the more easygoing denominations will take it upon themselves to modify God's word to their liking, but that doesn't make it right.

---

Whose modification, or even translation of God´s word IS right? Have you ever translated an ancient Latin or greek text? Then you know there is much freedom for the translator to give a potentially ambivlent statement a rigorous meaning. Whose translation/modification is right?

quote:

---

I wonder, what will the world be like when there are no longer any boundaries to right and wrong?

---

Yeah, it would be all like the poor starving and freezing to death in the streets while the rich are having orgies and politicians are lying to the people ... oh wait, that´s what we have right now, don´t we?

quote:

---

If you think about it, total separation of church and state is preposterous considering many of the laws we have are based in some way on religion.

---

I think the basic laws, upon which all the other are built, such as "don´t kill", "don´t steal" can be traced back to the perfectly reasonable necessity of a functioning society without any need for a higher power.

quote:

---

Maybe we should scrap them all and start over. No God, no right and wrong, no repercussions for ones actions, yadda yadda.

---

Once again, it seems that the basic rules of christian religion (the ten commandments) coincide with the rules that any intelligent being would accept as necessary for a functioning society. So, whoever is willing to accept a functioning society as necessary, should be able to follow these commandments, out of reason, without believing in any god whatsoever. Of course in times or regions when you couldn´t/can´t expect people to follow that reasoning, telling them they´ll go to hell if they don´t obey is an efficient way of creating a functioning society.

quote:

---

I know you are probably thinking I am full of shit

---

No comment.

quote:

---

but all you need to do is take an honest look at the world we are living in. The downward spiral of human immorality increases exponentially with every passing decade, yet so many are blinded to it.

---

I´m not shure about that. I think humanity is as immoral as ever. The tools to inflict injustice, pain and suffering on one another have become more elaborate and efficient. And religion, just as love, hatred, patriotism or greed is just another motivation for people to do good as well as bad things.

quote:

---

Whose modification, or even translation of God´s word IS right? Have you ever translated an ancient Latin or greek text? Then you know there is much freedom for the translator to give a potentially ambivlent statement a rigorous meaning. Whose translation/modification is right?

---

It has nothing to do with translation but the way each denomination decided to interpret/ignore many passages. It is people, sinful people who are flawed, not the Word or God.

quote:

---

Yeah, it would be all like the poor starving and freezing to death in the streets while the rich are having orgies and politicians are lying to the people ... oh wait, that´s what we have right now, don´t we?

---

What, you think it isn't going to get worse?

quote:

---

Once again, it seems that the basic rules of christian religion (the ten commandments) coincide with the rules that any intelligent being would accept as necessary for a functioning society.

---

How do you know this? Yeah, I know what you're thinking, how do I know otherwise? I don't, you don't, no sense in really discussing it I guess.

quote:

---

No comment.

---

Now, I set myself up for that one didn't I, lol.

Ramasax

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

whoa there hoss! bit of a guilty conscience? i was not singling out men there, aside from the alter boy one. whores, secretaries and babysitters come in both genders last i looked (otherwise ya better tell DL he can't be a whore anymore).
i firmly believe that being a male in today's society is quite difficult. the male role in the family unit is not what it used to be, but you surely can't blame bra burning, equal rights and a shit economy for the divorce rate. there have always been strains on marriage....always will be, but how does the gay couple down the road getting married 'strain' your marriage?
all i'm trying to say, is fix your own house before you start telling people how to fix theirs. how is it that the majority of people in this country subscribe to one religion or another, yet society and the 'institution of marriage', according to you, is in serious decline? the bulk of the responsibility for that would fall on the majority would it not?
and please....taking religion out of "everything" doesn't keep you or anyone else from going to church or following the bible of your choosen God from the comforts of your own home!
ya know, you tout accountability, yet have loads of blame to lay on outside things for these failures. so tell me, where does this accountability start? with who?

Lucana:

Since it was decided earlier that words with countless generations of tradition behind them must be honored, in order to preserve the moral fabric of our society, I must protest your suggesting that men can be Whores.

While a man can earn a living as a Prostitute, he cannot, as unfair as it may seem, be a Whore. We are also excluded by gender from ever becoming Waitresses, Ballerinas, or even Den Mothers.....

Ok, just replied to you Lacuna, pressed submit and forgot to enter my user/pass and all was lost.

Quick summary.

First off, no guilty conscience. You didn't mention poolguys, the milkman, or the cable tv guy, so in listing professions filled with primariliy women I assumed you were speaking of men being the ones tempted into infidelity by women. As far as the altar boy, I thought you were talking about priests. That is a whole other issue, and I think we would all agree there, or at least I would hope so.

The gay couple down the road doesn't strain my marriage. It does however undermine the very fabric of family, long-standing beliefs, yada yadda blah blah. Not to mention that it goes against biology and nature.

I am not blaming bra burning for anything, I am just trying to show the changes that have, IMO, put even greater strains on marriage as it was for a very long time.

Accountability starts with the individual. Each individual holds themselves accountable to different authorities. If they hold no fear or reverence for that authority, be it God or man, there is one less factor in the accountability equation. Where do we get our consciences from? Is it the laws of man that make us think about right or wrong? It surely has nothing to do with instinct. "Why not?," will become a very common rationalization. I am not saying right away, just down the road.

Anyways, I know you all disagree with me for the most part, so I will simply agree to disagree here. I think we could all talk on this subject until we are blue in the face it would not matter.

edit: norm: I believe the correct term is manwhore. Or if you prefer: Casanova, chaser, debauchee, dissolute man, Don Juan, gigolo, lech, lecher, libertine, Lothario, make-out artist, philanderer, playboy, player, profligate, rascal, roué, seducer, sensualist, sport, swinger, tomcat, voluptuary, wolf, womanizer

And I am sure that if a man really wanted to, he could attain and hold the title of waitress, if hereally wanted to...



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

quote:

---

That is a totally subjective opinion, as is mine DL. Unless you can point me toward some un-biased resources that would prove me wrong and maybe change this opinion.

---

Visit your local library and spend a few weeks perusing the "history" section. . .

quote:

---

All I know is that as a whole our race has done some pretty atrocious things in recent years(ie the last century) which make the problems of old look like small potatoes.

---

Examples, please.

quote:

---

We have not always had the capabilities of total global annihlation.

---

No, we used to have to do it face to face with the blood and guts of your enemy dripping down your face as you hacked men women and children to peices in the name of Empirical expansion, moving into conquewrable territories and killing or enslaving everybody in sight (literally).

quote:

---

We have not always sucked out the brains of babies under the guise of human rights.

---

Ok. . .are you referring to abortion? I am unsure. I don't get your reference to human rights either.

Either way, no - we may not have sucked their brains out, but I can assure you that in most civilizations there have been long standing accepted rights of parents to kill their living child - up to various ages, for various reasons, under various circumstances. In Rome it was a father's right to kill his son any time up to the age of 12 years, for little or no reason. In colonial America (in fact, in the old blue laws of Connecticut, where I live) a child up to the age of 16 could be put to death for disobeying their parents. And the list goes on and on and on and on...

quote:

---

We are, as a whole, morally defunct.

---

Yup. And religion and "tradition" have often been the CAUSE of our immoral bevhaviour as opposed to the end of it.

But some of the things we have now that we have never had - worldwide organizations comprised of many nations acting as a limited form of international congress. Human rights organizations policing the world bringing attention, aid, and funding to areas of the world in need of it. Democratic governments which allow the average man a relatively free and easy life in comparison with the average man of medieval Europe (for instance). Charitable institutions every where you look, doing everything possible to help starving, homeless, abused, displaced, sick and elderly people. Laws prohibiting slavery, child labor, domestic violence, etc.
And most importantly - the very concept of "human rights" itself.

Many of these things are in stark comparison to the daily life of the average person at any point in the history of human "civilization".

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-26-2004).]

Lacuna - All I am saying is that the fact that two people decide to legally endorse their relationship is no reason for them to be given tax breaks - gay or straight.

Other than that I agree with everything you've said here so far. . .

Especially the whore part.

norm: teehee...you're right. i dunno what i was thinkin

ramasax: bugger! i hate it when that happens....which is why i use notepad for lengthy posts
and believe me, being a woman, i know how vile we can be and was most definitely not singling out men. i should have included the milk man and most definitely the poolboy (mmmmm.....the poolboy.......hehe)

believe it or not, i don't totally disagree with you. i don't think gay couples should be raising children, but for me, that's another subject completely.
as for marriage, if something you've done in front of your God and your state is so fragile that a gay couple you don't even know can undermind it.....well, WOW!
if it's just a matter of them calling it 'marriage' then change the definition so that it only covers people married in churches. i just think it's silly to begrudge anyone being able to get "hooked up" because of who they've choosen to be with.

basically, i'm too concerned with when, where and how i'm getting laid to be worried what everyone else is doing it

on a side note that i felt the need to point out:

quote:

---

Where does this lead us? Maybe homosexual couples can help remedy all the disfunctional families out there. They want the title of marriage regardless of the impact on society and not to mention those children they will be adopting. And don't tell me teenagers won't be given a damn hard time (both mental and physical abuse for a good part of their childhood) when they introduce Dad & Dad to their friends. If you ask me homosexuals are being selfish.

---

that same argument has been used with interracial couples when they wanted children.....