The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Touring Mars]

Not really, bi-sexuals are just greedy!

Actually, from what I've seen of friends who were bi-sexual, it was merely the first step in becoming homosexual. This is probably mostly due to them all being adolescents at the time and not being sure so taking the middle ground at first.

I reckon that most gay people know they are gay from an early stage - but there is also the fact that most people are conditioned to be (or act) heterosexual from a very early age as an ordinary part of their upbringing. I think it is fair to say that most children are brought up to be straight - whether they actually are or not, and it's fair to say that being heterosexual is the 'default mode'. So it's not surprising that genuinely gay people can and (in most cases do) face a time in their lives where there is a conflict. As you say, bisexuality is a stepping stone to homosexuality for some people, but for others I'm sure it is what they are supposed to be...

I also suspect alot of people are more bisexually inclined than they realise - or care to admit. My mate's ex-girlfriend was very androgynous-looking - and she was beautiful. Finding someone of the same sex attractive - or someone of the opposite sex who looks like the same sex as yourself - doesn't make you gay or even bisexual, however.

 

[Diego440]

I also suspect alot of people are more bisexually inclined than they realise - or care to admit. My mate's ex-girlfriend was very androgynous-looking - and she was beautiful. Finding someone of the same sex attractive - or someone of the opposite sex who looks like the same sex as yourself - doesn't make you gay or even bisexual, however.

I also think bisexuals are usually more inclined towards one end and just decide to take it sporadically in the other end.

 

[Duke]

Hey, it's easily possible to like Mexican food one night and sushi the next. I don't really see why bisexuality has to be more than that.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Hey, it's easily possible to like Mexican food one night and sushi the next. I don't really see why bisexuality has to be more than that.

Yeah, but sometimes when you're eating a nice garden salad, what you're really hungry for is a greasy cheeseburger.

Actually, I guess we should ask a bisexual what it's like to pick and choose. So, what's it like? Is it like picking out something to eat?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Most bisexuals I've talked to describe shifting preferences over time - they may enjoy a opposite-sex relationship for three months, three years, or three decades, then experience a sudden urge to be with a member of the same sex, or vice versa. To be fair, most of the "true" bisexuals I've talked to are female so I can't really speak as well to male bisexuality. I would imagine it would operate along the same lines.

 

[Diego440]

Yeah, but females (especially the hot ones) are expected to be bisexuals.

 

[Submerged]

Yeah, but females (especially the hot ones) are expected to be bisexuals.

Just to point out in this discussion, I never quite understood how it was almost totally socially acceptable for a attractive young woman to pursue bi or homosexual relationships without much social backlash, but when a guy does the same as the aforementioned woman, he is pretty much looked at weirdly and questioned all the time. It seems rather "wrong" for a want of a better word, that a female can explore and discover homosexuality while males are not yet able to do so with as much freedom.

This is based on my opinion on the current media society though.

Does it come from the history of society or merely something more shallow?

 

[TwinTurbos94]

both,

Society kinda makes a "double standard" and shallownessfor everything here in America. My culture can only use the N-word,but as soon as another person from another culture says it that hasn't have to "struggle" like we had to they get bent out of shape.

Same thing with women, Women at some times seem to be encouraged to be bi-if they're "hot",because of what we see in the media today. But guys can't because society says it's not masculine.That same argument can circle around and go back to this topic right here. How come I can get married to the one I love and a guy and/or girl can't because they are the same sex?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

There also seems to be an observable phenomenon here - female sexuality, on the whole, seems to be a great deal more fluid than male sexuality. Whether this is merely because women feel more open to share their more "experimental" thoughts than men do I'm not sure, but it DOES seem that women, when alternate sexuality is concerned, are more likely than men to operate on a broader continuum. Men seem far more likely to identify as one polar opposite or another, except in cases of being in the middle of the "coming-out process" as someone mentioned earlier, and are claiming bisexuality as a stepping-stone. Again though, the difference between "identifying as" and "being" can be obscure, and nearly impossible to define from an outside perspective.

 

[superberkut]

Perhaps this is because women tend to have a better understanding on sexuality than men, and as a result because the women are sometimes more informed of this trend than their counterparts of the other gender, there is less pressure to live the life that religion and common nature dictate.

These words and their connotations do not hint at my opinion on the matter...

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I voted a sin against God/nature. We were designed the way we were for a reason you know? And God created a man and a woman, that's end of where I'm concerned.

 

[TheCracker]

We were designed the way we were for a reason you know?

And what 'way' is that then?

 

[Famine]

I voted a sin against God/nature. We were designed the way we were for a reason you know? And God created a man and a woman, that's end of where I'm concerned.

So why can the ding-dong go so easily into the poop-chute? Can't be an accident in design, what with God being so perfect and everything...

 

[Pako]

So why can the ding-dong go so easily into the poop-chute? Can't be an accident in design, what with God being so perfect and everything...

Just because you can go in the 'out' door, doesn't mean you should.

 

[Famine]

Free will can't have been an accident of design either...

 

[Pako]

Free will can't have been an accident of design either...

Just because you can go in the 'out' door

, doesn't mean you should.

 

[Famine]

, you're free to make what ever choice you want.

Like putting Male in the Out tray.

 

[Pako]

Like putting Male in the Out tray.

Not sure what this means...., but sure.

 

[Duke]

I voted a sin against God/nature. We were designed the way we were for a reason you know? And God created a man and a woman, that's end of where I'm concerned.

So there's absolutely, positively no way that God could have designed approximately 10% of the population to be homosexual? You claim to know God's mind well enough to be perfectly sure of this?

 

[Leonidae]

I voted a sin against God/nature. We were designed the way we were for a reason you know? And God created a man and a woman, that's end of where I'm concerned.

Interesting stuff..

More interesting stuff to read..

From Wikipedia

Some Christians view the Bible as fallible, perhaps being in part divinely inspired, but suffering from the shortcomings resulting from being written, censored, translated, and revised by humans who wrote down the prior oral traditions. Conservative Christianity sees the original texts of the Bible as inerrant, or at least infallible, regardless of the many versions due to differing translations, interpretations, additions and omissions; as the literal word of God. Some Christians, along with many non-Christians, see the Bible as mythology, purely symbolic or didactic folklore, which contains irrelevant and obsolete morality.

I think that gives you something to think of before you let out more narrowminded opinions. but, each to their own..

 

[Touring Mars]

A friend of mine is a prominent researcher in the field of biology and sexual orientation, and he recently co-authored a book called "Born Gay" (reviewed here) which provides evidence to show that homosexuality has very little to do with upbringing or nurture, and alot more to do with genetics. (A review on the same subject by the same authors is available here)

This being the case, what does that say about the morals of homosexuality? If our sexual orientation is not chosen, but innate, then how can you possibly be held morally responsible (or morally reprehensible) for that fact? Similarly, if sexual orientation is bestowed upon us by a higher power, then why should we be held responsible for that? Or if homosexuality is a result of influence (or 'corruption') or even choice, then how come no amount of influence can persuade the average heterosexual to change their sexuality? (A frequent argument is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice - but strangely, heterosexuality isn't...)

For those who support the Creation, sorry, "Design" hypothesis, what significance does a genetic influence on sexuality have?..Why would a Creator that abhors homosexuality purposefully design us with homosexual propensity?? I'd blame Evolution myself, but you can't

 

[Duke]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the whole nature/nurture/choice question in homosexuality is a large red herring.

It has yet to be demonstrated to me in any convincing way whatsoever that there is anything inherently morally wrong with homosexuality, so having a "choice" to be gay or not is irrelevant. It only clouds the deeper issue. Who cares if it is a choice or not? Who cares if I prefer whiskey or vodka, as long as I'm of legal drinking age and don't indulge to dangerous excess?

Certainly it is possible - and common, even - for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike to behave immorally in their sex lives. But their gender of attraction has nothing to do with that behaviour at all.

 

[Pako]

@TM,

That would certainly add some difficulty to the discussion. "I was born this way, I can't help the way I feel.....". Given the direction you are taking this, a spin off from this would be,

Should there be exemption of accountability for our actions if they are the product of pre-disposed genetic decisions?

[edited]
@ Duke, I agree...

 

[Zrow]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the whole nature/nurture/choice question in homosexuality is a large red herring.

It has yet to be demonstrated to me in any convincing way whatsoever that there is anything inherently morally wrong with homosexuality, so having a "choice" to be gay or not is irrelevant. It only clouds the deeper issue. Who cares if it is a choice or not? Who cares if I prefer whiskey or vodka, as long as I'm of legal drinking age and don't indulge to dangerous excess?

Certainly it is possible - and common, even - for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike to behave immorally in their sex lives. But their gender of attraction has nothing to do with that behaviour at all.

This is what I've always believed. What difference does "choice" make? You can't punish people for something they're born with? The ends are the same. It's really, really just a case of people trying to make decisions for others (important decisions, no less) because they feel they have some moral authority, which is absolutely freakin' bogus.

It's infuriating. It makes me angry to even write about it in this thread.

 

[Sage]

This being the case, what does that say about the morals of homosexuality? If our sexual orientation is not chosen, but innate, then how can you possibly be held morally responsible (or morally reprehensible) for that fact?

What if someone has a genetic disposition to kill anybody he sees? You still have to hold that person morally responsible for his actions.

Not that I’m equating homosexuality with murdering, of course. I’m really just making the same point as Duke – I don’t care, for moral or legislative reasons, whether homosexuality is genetic or not (although I do think it’s something we should find out for science’s sake).

 

[CraftyLandShark]

It makes no difference to those of us who have no moral qualm with homosexuality whether its a choice or not - agreed.

I do agree with Sage though, we should find out, nonetheless. Not just for the sake of science, either. Proving that homosexuality is as immutable as skin color or how many fingers you have would provide a near-irrefutable basis on which to convince those who base prejudice on the idea of "lifestyle choice" that they're misguided. Not that this would change the underlying attitude behind the mentality, but it could aid in aboloshing institutionalized prejudice. Take the Boy Scouts for example - the Supreme Court ruled that they're allowed to ban gay and/or atheist scouts and scout leaders from their organization - DESPITE being an entity that receives public funding.

And to ND 4 Holden Spd: a post I made a few pages back regarding what the Bible does and doesn't say about those who prefer to land their jumbo jets on the chocolate runway https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2913128&postcount=244

 

[Roo]

Take the Boy Scouts for example - the Supreme Court ruled that they're allowed to ban gay and/or atheist scouts and scout leaders from their organization - DESPITE being an entity that receives public funding.

As an aside, I'm not sure about America, but over here the Scouts have to accept anyone regardless of sexuality (along with race, religous belief (as opposed to non-belief) etc.). The only groups of people the Scouting movement forbides are atheists and paedophiles.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

The Girl Scouts are like that in America - they don't even exclude atheists.

The Boy Scouts have an official policy not to accept homosexuals or atheists, but there are troop leaders at local levels who defy that policy.

 

[Danoff]

What if someone has a genetic disposition to kill anybody he sees? You still have to hold that person morally responsible for his actions.

Obviously you have to hold everyone responsible for actions that violate the rights of others. And obviously consensual homosexuality does not violate the rights of anyone. But I think it makes the job of advocating for gay marriage easier if you can claim that their relationship is no more a lifestyle choice than a heterosexual marriage.

Perhaps this is because women tend to have a better understanding on sexuality than men,

Uh... no. Women are sexier, and that's because men are more interested in visual stimulation than women. The reason women are more likely to be bisexual is because both men and women are naturally designed by evolution to pay attention to the physical attributes of women. Looks are generally less important to women, and personality is generally less important to men (from a strictly biological impulse point of view). That is why women are sex symbols. That is why beautiful women sell products better than men. And that is why women more often see other women as attractive.

I think it is a social climate that causes it, but it's one that arises from basic human instinct.

 

[Sage]

Obviously you have to hold everyone responsible for actions that violate the rights of others. And obviously consensual homosexuality does not violate the rights of anyone. But I think it makes the job of advocating for gay marriage easier if you can claim that their relationship is no more a lifestyle choice than a heterosexual marriage.

Yeeeaaahhhh, buuuutttt… The problem I have with it is that, on an ideological level, it’s a very slippery slope – if you even mention the genetic pre-disposition thing when discussing gay marriage, you give some credence to the Christians’ morality argument, which means that you acknowledge Christian morality’s place in government. (Well, Christianity currently is entangled in our government, but you know what I mean.)

I know it’s a less practical position to take in a country with a Christian majority, but it just feels ideologically dishonest to me to not argue what’s true to your heart.