# do you think being gay is a choice?



## jarrod (Nov 17, 2008)

if so, guess what: you're attracted to your own sex.  you are, in effect, stating that you are just as attracted to your own sex as the opposite,  but you made the choice to be heterosexual.  just thought you'd like to know.

jf


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2008)

Let's see...

Second class citizenship.
Denial of rights and privileges everyone else has.
Public insult.
The Closet.
Family derision.
Excommunication.
Fear of physical violence.

Yeah, I think people would choose that...

Actually, no, I think sexual orientation is innate.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2008)

As with many aspects of their personality, a person can choose to control, suppress or re-direct their sexual proclivities but I do think that to a very large extent those fundamental drives are 'hard coded'.  

Some socialisation, on the 'suppression' side of the equation at least, plays a role I'd guess but, in the end, it's a trait that must have some survival value for the species as it's still there in the gene-pool.  That applies across the spectrum of life on Earth too - there are homosexual seagulls, whales, lions, wilderbeast ...

Sadly, religion has demonised the trait and it has become socially marginalised and persecuted as a result.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

I was looking at this a little while ago... making assessments of who's good looking and who's not... (Beckham had a HORRIBLE suit that needs to be burned)... does this make me Gay? 
http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/the-25-hottest-hunks-in-hollywood/2450?nc
I think not! 

Alot of people are going to hate/ding/disagree with me on this but, I feel strongly that it's a choice... straight down the line. We may not always understand the choices we make or even the reasons why but we find more comfort with it either way. The reasons are varied of course and some go deep but it's still a decision that one makes over time or on the spur of the moment. 
:idunno: sorry, but that's my take on it.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> As with many aspects of their personality, a person can choose to control, suppress or re-direct their sexual proclivities but I do think that to a very large extent those fundamental drives are 'hard coded'.



I agree. Certainly, there's no evidence to support the notion that it's a 'choice' in any common sense of the term, and much evidence that it's largely inborn and becomes 'set' by the time a child is around 5 years old or so. Yes, nurture likely has a role and yes, you can go against your nature--as Richard Dawkins said, men defy their genes every time they use a condom--but the evidence for a biological component is absolutely convincing, including twin studies and other findings.



> Some socialisation, on the 'suppression' side of the equation at least, plays a role I'd guess but, in the end, it's a trait that must have some survival value for the species as it's still there in the gene-pool.



I personally believe the same (though reasoning in terms of survival of the _species_ is always suspect), but it isn't clearly so. Some common traits are side-effects of the whole genetic system that inheritance is based upon (e.g., color-blindness). They stay in the gene pool because while something like color vision is valuable, the process isn't perfect.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> t's still a decision that one makes over time or on the spur of the moment.



Yet, it's almost unheard-of for a homosexual to concur with the statement that he or she made a conscious choice to be attracted to others of the same sex. (Why would a person make such a choice if he or she didn't already have such a predilection? What benefits would it entail if it satisfied no internal need?) Choosing to engage in homosexual sex is a choice, but one doesn't choose to _want_ to do so anymore than one chooses to _want_ to have chocolate ice cream be one's favorite flavor.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2008)

If you assume that sexual orientation is a choice, then it implies that _all of us_ have the ability to choose which gender we find attractive.  Do you think that if you really wanted to, then you could become sexually excited by someone of your own gender?  If you tried really, really hard, in a Herculean, black belt effort, could you _choose_ to be "turned on" by another guy?  If someone offered you $50 million to switch your orientation--not perform the act, but actually _switch your ability to become aroused _by the opposite to the same sex--could you do it?

Because, if not, then why would you assume that anyone else could choose their sexual orientation?  Are they any better at making such a choice than you are?  Are they more _determined_ than you?

Logically, if it's a human trait to choose sexuality, then it implies any one of us should be able to do it.


----------



## jarrod (Nov 17, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> As with many aspects of their personality, a person can choose to control, suppress or re-direct their sexual proclivities but I do think that to a very large extent those fundamental drives are 'hard coded'.
> 
> Some socialisation, on the 'suppression' side of the equation at least, plays a role I'd guess but, in the end, it's a trait that must have some survival value for the species as it's still there in the gene-pool. That applies across the spectrum of life on Earth too - there are homosexual seagulls, whales, lions, wilderbeast ...
> 
> Sadly, religion has demonised the trait and it has become socially marginalised and persecuted as a result.


 
i agree.  we all make choices as to how to act on our sexuality, but we seldom if ever choose that proclivity.  environmental factors play a part as well, but once those are ingrained there is really nothing you can do about it.  



MA-Caver said:


> I was looking at this a little while ago... making assessments of who's good looking and who's not... (Beckham had a HORRIBLE suit that needs to be burned)... does this make me Gay?
> http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/the-25-hottest-hunks-in-hollywood/2450?nc
> I think not!
> 
> ...


 
ma-caver, i do disagree with you, but i also admire your ability to express an unpopular opinion.  let me ask you, do you think that you chose to be straight, & that you could have just as easily chosen to be gay?

jf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 17, 2008)

I use to work with a guy that was convinced it was a choice that is right up until the time he was sitting at my desk and a woman walked by who was a lesbian and told everyone she was. He made the statement &#8220;she just hasn&#8217;t been with the right man yet, that&#8217;s the only reason she&#8217;s a lesbian&#8221; To which I responded, &#8220;Then by that same logic you are only heterosexual because you haven&#8217;t been with the right man yet&#8221; He thought about it for a second and then said &#8220;umm&#8230;aaaa.. you know&#8230; I had not thought of that&#8221; I have no idea if he looks at it differently today or not but for a brief moment there he sure did


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 17, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> Let's see...
> 
> Second class citizenship.
> Denial of rights and privileges everyone else has.
> ...


 
Yes I can see it now

The average college age kid sitting there thinking...hmmm let me see... become a social outcast with my current piers.... possibly get tossed out of my house by my family...get attacked by people I don't even know....HELL YEAH... 

Give me a break it is not a choice it is biology.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 17, 2008)

I wonder if being straight is a choice as well?  I can't help that I'm attracted to women.  It's just part of who I am, and I don't think that's something that I could ever change.

Something to think about....


----------



## jarrod (Nov 17, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I wonder if being straight is a choice as well? I can't help that I'm attracted to women. It's just part of who I am, and I don't think that's something that I could ever change.
> 
> Something to think about....


 
brandon, i think you really need to pray about this choice you've made.  women will lead you to satan.  remember adam & eve.

jf


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 17, 2008)

Most of my lifetime, and for a hell of a long time before that, there was enormous stigma to being gay. A 'str8-acting' closeted gay, as my father was until he came out in his seventies, suffers the additional humiliation of being privy to hearing what many straights really think. I have a great deal of difficulty believing that people ever chose a status which afforded them second-class citizenship, at best, and which subjected them to violence.

The extent to which people can exercise a choice to surpress their sexuality is another discussiom. Actual suppression of ones own sexual instincts (hetero or otherwise) is a pretty rare item, which is to say, there are very few actual virgins in the world, and I would suspect even the chaste have some outlets.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2008)

Is it a choice?

Yes.  And No.

Some people do choose it.  
Some people are just wired that way.
Some people like both, but choose to focus on 1. Others enjoy all aspects of their sexuality.

Gentlemen.
Blond, Brunete, Redhead, Asian, Indian, or Black?
Rank em.
My preferences and Yours will be different.  Why?
You're wired that way.

Some men don't like oral sex. (I know, it was a shock to me to to read that one).
It's a wiring issue.

The idea that I'm hetro because I haven't met the right man yet, is a good one.  
The right person might cause those forces of attraction to reconnect. 
I personally doubt it, I like women way too much, but.....who knows.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 17, 2008)

I have I suppose an un-orthodox thought on sexual orientation, being that it is neither inbred nor a 'choice'

My belief is that sexual orientation develops at a young age based on discover of sexual stimulation and the surrounding environment or inputs.

In other words, as a person is discovering their own sexuality, the outside stimulus and exposure that generates or is a part of that discovery will strongly influence the associations that go along with that stimulation, which will strongly influence what we desire to feed those still growing appetites, if you will.

We *like* to be turned on, that's who we are as people.  I believe that as we are maturing and growing to understand our bodies and our sexuality, the outside influences that give us those sensations imprint up on us where we will seek out those sensations in the future.

What it comes down to is  that it's not really a genetic pre-determination... but neither is it something you choose.  Like tastes in clothes and music, it's something that develops as you grow

That may be wrong, but it's a workable theory for me to get by with


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

jarrod said:


> ma-caver, i do disagree with you, but i also admire your ability to express an unpopular opinion.  let me ask you, do you think that you chose to be straight, & that you could have just as easily chosen to be gay?
> 
> jf


Based on my upbringing and life's experiences.... Yes


----------



## zDom (Nov 17, 2008)

Let me pose another question:

Do people choose to be pedophiles? Or is it just how they are "wired"?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2008)

zDom said:


> Let me pose another question:
> 
> Do people choose to be pedophiles? Or is it just how they are "wired"?


Wired.  Or in my opinon, short circuited, in that their wiring doesn't mature as they do.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I was looking at this a little while ago... making assessments of who's good looking and who's not... (Beckham had a HORRIBLE suit that needs to be burned)... does this make me Gay?
> http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/the-25-hottest-hunks-in-hollywood/2450?nc
> I think not!
> 
> ...


 
I may be wrong, but I think that if you really think about it, you'll come to the conclusion that you didn't really decide to be straight, unless at one point you were bisexual and decided tht you actually did like women better, you just liked women, no decision, it was just the way you were.


----------



## Kiru (Nov 17, 2008)

Interesting topic. Of course it's not a conscious decision. Actually, based on my own studies of the mind, I think that being completely straight is the result of social conditioning. To back this up would be all those older civilizations where homosexual relations were considered not only normal, but sometimes even preferable. In Japan, for instance, Samurai did not trust their wives and often did not truly love them. Instead, love was felt between men more often. Women were for sex and other things considered female duties.

How a person becomes homosexual in a society that frowns upon it, I'm not sure about. However, I really believe that social insecurities and teachings of homosexuality being wrong is mostly based in religion. I don't like religion at all, and often find it funny that people who are atheist still cling to the views bestowed upon modern society by the church.

Homosexuality cannot be anymore a choice for homosexuals than being straight is a choice by me. I don't take modern social views at all and think a more bisexual society would have less tension in it. But in this world, people find any reason they can to hate and judge. There has to be a direction for their fingers to point.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

zDom said:


> Let me pose another question:
> 
> Do people choose to be pedophiles? Or is it just how they are "wired"?


Again, that is a choice. A child is far more vulnerable and less likely to say no when faced with intimidation and confusing psychological attacks by the perp. 
Of all the ones that I've known while working at a Sexual Abuse Treatment Center dealing with sex offenders in group (and individual) therapy, it has been a choice to sexualize a child because of convenience, ease, opportunity and essentially talking themselves into it. It becomes exciting because of the extreme taboo associated with it and it makes their lives more "interesting" so they go into a repetitive cycle of low self-esteem, acting out, rationalizing, justifying, minimizing, denial and acting out and then guilt, remorse and abstience, then boredom and right back into low self esteem and it cycles all over again... time and again they CHOOSE to stay into that cycle instead of making the choices of breaking OUT of that cycle. 
But that is applicable to sex offenders. Almost all of these guys were married or been married or in hetro/gay relationships prior to their offenses... they all sought something to enhance their "immediate gratification/satisfaction needs" when their partners didn't provide it for them... opportunity arose in a child that they found attractive and twisted that attraction into something sexual because they were being selfish at the time.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Some men don't like oral sex.



What, receiving? Now you're just being preposterous.



> The idea that I'm hetro because I haven't met the right man yet, is a good one.
> The right person might cause those forces of attraction to reconnect.



You've met me, so that disproves this theory. 



FearlessFreep said:


> I have I suppose an un-orthodox thought on sexual orientation, being that it is neither inbred nor a 'choice'
> 
> My belief is that sexual orientation develops at a young age based on discover of sexual stimulation and the surrounding environment or inputs.
> 
> In other words, as a person is discovering their own sexuality, the outside stimulus and exposure that generates or is a part of that discovery will strongly influence the associations that go along with that stimulation, which will strongly influence what we desire to feed those still growing appetites, if you will.



Your theory seems to be a blend of this one and the one that immediately follows it. It seems clear that there is _some_ level of biology involved but it also appears that there is an environmental influence too. But it appears to 'set' well before one could call it a _choice_ made by the person.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2008)

arnisador said:


> You've met me, so that disproves this theory.



I'm just not into curly hair.


LOL!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 17, 2008)

> Do you think that if you really wanted to, then you could become sexually excited by someone of your own gender?



Actually, yes I do.  I have no interest in but I believe it could be done.

As humans, we *enjoy* being stimulated physically.  At a lower level than I think we give conscious thought.  Just as food is a more baser need than the taste  of hamburger vs steak, and therefore the physical attraction to food is more base than are particular likes or dislikes in the type of food, so do our bodies respond to physical stimulation at a more base level than our particular emotional or intellectual attachment to the circumstances by which that stimulation is given.

The pre ponderous supply of various mechanical, electrical, and manual means by which we do that is evidence enough that we are not as physically picky as we might think. (emotionally picky is another matter)

So I certainly think it's possible to receive physical sexual pleasure from.. someone other than we personally accept as our "orientation" (either way)

Now, given what I said about that I think orientation is strongly a learned/developed attachment between the stimulation of pleasure and the origin of that stimulation I think one could develop a positive attachment other than the one they now accept.

I think, like learning to like different food, different culture, different music, etc... I think it would be much harder to develop that positive association the second time around.


---------
Interestingly, while typing all the above, my mental frame of reference was from that of a heterosexual person (myself) becoming homosexual, which I think would be theoretically possible given the right conditions.  However, I suppose it sounds like I'm advocating the other way around...I was careful to try to avoid specifying much in terms of orientation or direction.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 17, 2008)

> But it appears to 'set' well before one could call it a choice made by the person



Yes, that sums it up well and I almost said that, but I was trying to avoid saying the term "chosen for you" because that sounds a little more fatalistic than the tone I was going for


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 17, 2008)

First -- let's not confuse sexuality with love.  They are not true synonyms.  Love is an emotion felt between two people; sex may or may not figure into the equation.  It's quite possible to love someone of the gender that would be the target of your sexual interest -- and feel no sexual attraction to that person.

Sexual orientation is a complex issue.  Looking at the patterns of abuse victims becoming abusers themselves, it's clear that there is some sort of nurture (or malnurture in the case of abuse) aspect or effect -- but it's also clearly not that simple.  Today, we've seen people raised in VERY homosexual households who were heterosexual, and vice versa.  My personal best guess is that we are "wired" with proclivities or tendencies; environmental factors then influence those tendencies as we grow and mature, shaping the final expression.  

One final note -- even the Catholic Church doesn't view homosexuality IN ITSELF as sinful or immoral.  Instead, it recognizes that homosexual acts, LIKE ANY SEXUAL ACT, outside of the bonds of marriage is sinful.  See the links HERE especially paragraph 2358:


> The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.


.  And homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia or sexual abuse of any other children.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2008)

A couple of thoughts...

1.  What about prison love?  Certainly close emotional sexual relationships develop in prison between members of the same sex.

2.  Also, I remember reading a study on rats that showed that their was a marked increase in homosexual behavior as the population of rats rose.  This study was used to show that homosexuality could very well be a population control mechanism.

I don't think its cut and dry either way.  Some people decide.  Some people are just wired that way.  Regardless, its not something I consider immoral.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 17, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> A couple of thoughts...
> 
> 1.  What about prison love?  Certainly close emotional sexual relationships develop in prison between members of the same sex.



That issue is discussed in the same Wikipedia article posted on this thread:


> *Desire, behavior and identity*
> 
> Some people distinguish between
> 
> ...



My understanding, essentially, is that individuals, under circumstances of isolation, like prisons or work camps, may form physical and even emotional/romantic connections with others of the same gender, then abandon these relationships and return to heterosexual life. Even with these relationships in their history, they do not necessarily identify as homosexual or bisexual.


----------



## DavidCC (Nov 17, 2008)

I don't think a homosexual man is choosing to be so, concisously.  Are they that way becasue of some pre-natal biology, some post-natal biology, or some environmental factors 9learned behavior?)  I don't know.  But most gay guys I ahve ever known have been just as attracted to the male body as I am to the female; and conversly repulsed in the reverse.

I've known some guys who were bisexual, I'm not as sure that this is biological as much as psychological.

My wife and daughters make me sit through hour after hour of Project Runway.  Quite a corss-section of male homosexuals on there; from the ridiculously flaming to the 'wouldn't know if he didn't tell you'.  I think this is where the choice comes in... how you act, how you want people to perceive you, is all about what is going on in their head.  Some people want to be special SOOO badly they will putup with a lot of derision from society at large.

I have a theory that if being gay was as mundane as having brown hair, many of these guys would find something else to build a personality around.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 17, 2008)

I KNOW it is a choice in some cases, more than a few people have told me so.
Explain Anne Heche. Was she "born gay"? If so why is she now married to a man? It isn't the 1950's she never had the star status of Rock Hudson, even if she had, in this day and age homosexuality isn't a bar to employment in Hollywood the way it was.


----------



## kaizasosei (Nov 17, 2008)

At some level i think there are choices made.  However, i think that everyone is to a certain degree at mercy to the compulsiveness of their personal type of sexuality.  Remember that Freud discovered that sexuality is a big part of our society as well as an individuals psychology. 
Jung suggested that every person has a female aspect of an anima as well as a male aspect of animus.  In a healthy individual, there is a sort of balance achieved-irrespective if someone is straight or gay.  
  Question is then, is it a choice to be goofy or a loudmouth. Is it a choice to be a criminal?  Is it a choice to like a certain kind of music?  Some would say yes, others would say no...
it's really hard to say.  But i understand the logic, because you are saying that if it is a choice, then those that are straight or gay are only so because of a concious choice and not some deeper vocation.

Basically, i think that people are all capable of a much greater diversity of sexual experience than they typically partake in.  So in essence sexuality is a type of luxury in itself in the typical society of today..especially in certain circles. In some circles it is shunned as something wrong.

I personally believe that the question of being gay or straight has much more to do with selfimage as well as deepseeded feelings towards a certain sex or type of person.  
 But as i see it, it is irrelevant if someone is straight or gay at many levels.  The most important thing is that one is not exploiting others in any way whatsoever.

It's not about whether on not one can have sex with such or such a type of person or sex, what is way more important is if one can feel love for them and treat them accordingly and respectfully.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, takes on a whole new meaning here.  That again takes for granted that what we have the same wishes and tastes, which is not always the case.  In many places it is taboo to touch someones food for example, while in other places with different understandings of hygiene it may be natural

At some time in our life, we develop a kind of abstract image of our personal  'perfect someone'.  If that happens to be the same sex, then it is most natural to be gay.

The question is, can or should in certain instances, something that strong be surpressed?  If surpressed i believe it might be counter productive and harmful to self as well as surroundings.  On the other hand, if someone has sortof malevolent sexual tendencies(which latently we can and do relate to albeit with repulsion, aggression or hatred) then it would be a service to those that they exploit or hurt to surpress the urges. 

Another question is, can sexual orientation change?  Chemically and hormonaly speaking it can, but under what conditions will the human being actively change their self image to such a degree that they feel more attracted to a certain sex over another or even become bisexual?  In the black and white world we live in, bisexuality seems somewhat out of place, however, it is reported that many celebrities especialy women profess to being bisexual.

Living in a society, we are in many ways connected and one and the same species. 
Basically though, to try and solve this mystery i would focus on the aspect of love or partnership, because in all healthy relationships, that is more important than the physicaly sexual aspects.

Taken to a further level, sexuality is a simply a state of mind having much to do with a certain type of harmony, privacy as well as intrusion.  That is why respect and deep understanding of the human being is a crucial ingredient to ALL social interaction.





 j


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Nov 17, 2008)

You are born with it.

Freud like to say:



> theorized that every person has the ability to become bisexual at some time in his or her life.[24][10] He based this on the idea that enjoyable experiences of sexuality with the same sex, whether sought or unsought, acting on it or being fantasized, become an attachment to his or her needs and desires in social upbringing


 
You can try the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

I have friends who consider themselves gay but who have had sex with woman and told me sex is just sex unless you have emotional attachment to that person.

I have heard of guys using sex on another guy not because they are gay but as an act of humilation in prison. Though we could say on some level that they are gay.

If we follow the Kinsey scale and Freuds logic we can see that Human sexuality has the capacity to go either way and is not always in such extremes.

Noone chooses their sexual orientation. An innate drive will draw you into that direction. We can however choose to explore our sexuality which can result in engaging with the same sex but how we identify ourselves within our own sexuality is not a choice it is a need fullfilled by our stimuli.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Nov 17, 2008)

I think sexual oreintation and fetishes are (read the WHOLE statement before passing judgement) personnal *subconscious* decisions made based heavily on elements ingrained in our DNA and/or based on pyschological responses from our expreinces. Now, stay with me here...

Take your sex of choice. What is your favorite part of that sex (ie, what gets you off). In Women your probably going to say things like big boobs, round butt, long legs, what ever. In Men it's probably what ever involving the butt, and ripped thighs. Guys, I'll be the one to break the news to you, few women are actually turned on by your arms or abs.
Those things probably have genetic reasons to them. What are boobs for? Breast feeding babys. Maybe there's something to your/your husbands interest in big boobs. And you can kinda figure out the rest.
As for being gay/straight. There are quite a few animals that will change there sex is a population is too heavily one sex. Maybe our species is evolving to that point, and homosexuality/bisexuality is just the first part of that evolutionary process. 
But, there are 'ghosts in the process' of evolution (ie, your tonsils and appendix). But, I don't think that sexual orientation is something that is simply an anomoly.

Now, with everything I have said above, I would like to say that I do recognise that there are members of the GLBT community who are not completly GLBT. I figure that probably about 20% of the population (at most) is simply having phase/trying to tick of mommy and daddy.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 17, 2008)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> If we follow the Kinsey scale and Freuds logic we can see that Human sexuality has the capacity to go either way and is not always in such extremes.



I suspect as the stigma associated with homosexuality retreats, sexuality will be seen more on a continuum than in polarizing terms.

The term, heterosexual, which originated in the late 1800s, only came into popular use in the 1960s. I remember seeing an old clip of Steve Allen asking people on the street, "Are you a heterosexual?" The reactions he got were priceless. Tried to find it on YouTube, but it didn't come up.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 17, 2008)

I dont know


For some, they lead a life style by choice

for some, they dont.

so I dont know.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 17, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I dont know
> 
> 
> For some, they lead a life style by choice
> ...



I would agree. 

There appear to be people leading gay lives who have been damaged in some way at some point; there are people who appear to be gay who are trying to lead hetero lives because they can't stand the thought of the difficulties in facing the truth.

I've met many GBLT people of varying persuasions-of-origin but most people I've known who appear (to me, at least) to be happy with their lives insist that this is something they've always known from their earliest possible memories.

I'm sure the topic question, in it's origin, was intended to be a simple yes-or-no, so in that context ... when we're talking about a gay person who was not damaged/raped and we're talking about their sexual orientation alone ... no, I don't think it's a choice in that context.

I'll refrain from further expansion because I don't want to throw the thread off.


----------



## Nomad (Nov 18, 2008)

I don't know.

Unfortunately, I have a very limited pool from which to draw my conclusions.  Me.  I don't believe that I made a conscious choice somewhere along the way to be a heterosexual; I just knew that somewhere around 13-15 I started really noticing some of the girls in the short skirts at school.

For that matter, I don't think I ever made the conscious choice of who I found physically attractive; it was something fairly innate to me, although I could certainly analyze it and say what I liked best about them and what I didn't.

If I didn't make those choices, I wouldn't presume that anyone else did either, especially given the social stigma, threats of violence, and other difficulty that comes with the "wrong" "choice".

Most, if not all, of the people that I know who are homosexual have stated similar things to me; they believe that it was almost purely biological and that they didn't make choices in their sexual orientation along the way (although they have made the harder choice of letting others know that they were gay, risking the loss of friendships, social stigma, violence, etc).

Who am I to say that they're wrong?


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 18, 2008)

I haven't read this thread yet (I've got a meeting to go to), but I posted something on this subject a while ago on a different thread:



JBrainard said:


> Sit right back and I'll tell you a tale...
> My wife's best friend. She was raised fundamentalist Christian and remains one to this day. I have had many discussions / debates with her about Christianity over the years and I want to point out that she is strong in her convictions and faith, does not follow the "sheep" mentality of some churches, and is not a hypocrit when it comes to the teachings of Christ.
> That's the set-up. The twist is that she is a lesbian. She has always been a lesbian. Being a very strong believer in her Church's views on homosexuals, she has gone through so much heartache over the years that it depresses me as I type this. *This is not something she chose. *She has always hated this part of her. So, a few years ago, she started to go to one of those "we'll turn you strait" Christian groups. She proclaims that she is now cured. The problem is that she isn't attracted to men, which makes it very hard to have a relationship with one. She will not admit to herself or to us that she is still, deep down, a lesbian. But it is so sadly obvious to anyone who knows her well. She has not had a relationship of any kind now for two years, and she is becoming suicidaly depressed. *If anyone doesn't want to be a homosexual, it's her.* After seeing all the pain and self hatred she has gone through, and the sad failure of her "turning strait," I find the opinion that homosexuals can "turn strait" offensive, insulting, and mean-hearted.
> I'm sure there are people out there who are experimenting with their sexuality, calling themselves gay, and then, what do you know, being "turned strait" through Christ works. If that's what makes them happy, more power to them.
> But, sorry folks, I've seen it with my own teary eyes, a true homosexual can't be unmade.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 18, 2008)

JBrainard said:


> I haven't read this thread yet (I've got a meeting to go to), but I posted something on this subject a while ago on a different thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well she might want to look into WHY she finds men unattractive.... that might be a start.


----------



## kaizasosei (Nov 18, 2008)

Really, being a guy and all, i can definately understand not being attracted to men.   
Maybe your friend just hasn't found the right man.  Hey, being alone is never easy no matter if you're strait or gay.   ****, i was alone for two years and it sucked.  If it wasnt for my code of spirituality i would have probably been suicidal too.  Thing is though, one must believe that as sure as night turns to day, there are chances and there does come a time when love is reborn in a new relationship.  Also, if one really truly makes it a priority, one can speed up the process and go out and find something.

Sounds to me like a problem of not knowing what one wants, or worse still what one needs.  Shouldn't be alone for too long.  Dunno about those weird Priests and Nuns...i mean how they do it and abstain all that time.  It's probably mostly ********... i bet they be either strange or secretly exercising as masturbating machines.  But for most mortal people, being lonely or alone for too long does suck.  I can testify to that.

Many times, it is spirituality, that is supposed to set the person free, that is responsible for guilt, freakish vegitarianism or veganism, anti substance and anti whatever demonising cultish ****....pisses me right off.  

It's not that being vegie or vegan is bad at all, ****it, everyone should go to and eat or not eat whatever the **** they want.  It just pisses me off when they think that their code is the one and only or ultimate truth and that they are better than everyone else.  What abnoxiously audacious and disrespectful.


j


----------



## zDom (Nov 19, 2008)

IMO,

I think we may have inclinations, but I think we all make choices on how to "wire" ourselves. Acquired tastes.

Take beer, for example.

Very few people enjoy the taste of beer initially. But those of us who truly enjoy it develop a taste for it, develop a preference. Eventually, we DO like beer.

There are certain visuals or smells or sounds that we might find somewhat attractive (or unattractive!). But then our internal dialogue kicks in and we EMBRACE or REJECT lines of thinking.

In doing so, we decide WHO we area.

For example, a guy may smell another guy walk by and find it smells good. But THEN they might think

a) "Ew! That is another GUY! Smell GOOD? No way! I'm *NOT GAY* Look at Lisa over there! I'd love to  ... (etc., etc.)

Or,

b) Mmmmm .. I wonder what it would be like to be closer to him, to... (etc.)


Eventually one will become "wired" either way depending on which thoughts they embrace and which they reject &#8212; those decisions probably being based on beliefs, culture, (and yea, to some extent inclinations.) "As a man believes in his heart, so is he."


This is probably what Yeshua (Jesus) meant when he talked about those who lust in their hearts have ALREADY sinned: they've taken that step toward wiring themselves for fornication, or adultery, or pediophelia, or whatever.

So by the time they are adults and sexually active, I guess it is true: yea, that is "how they are wired" and they "can't help" that they are attracted to "X" whether that is men, women, children or goats.

But I really do think at SOME point in our lives &#8212; very early perhaps &#8212; we all make a choice.



Side topic, cultural rules CHANGE.

Lets take, for example, a 15 year old girl who has matured sexually.


A hundred years ago she would be eligible for marriage.

Nowadays, she is a ticket to the Big House.


So, even though this hypothetical girl is physically an ADULT, our culture has decided she is a "teen" and _teen = child_ so THIS is pedophilia.

So NOW we condition ourselves to reject sexual thoughts about this girl because

_to think sexually about her is to embrace pedophilia._


And rightfully so &#8212; mentally a 15-year old is not prepared to be an adult in today's culture in the same way a 15-year-old was 100 years ago.

But it has a WHOLE lot more to do with out collective mindset &#8212; physically they are still equipped and ready for adult life.

And, even more difficult for Today's Males: we ALL have to "rewire" ourselves somewhere along the line. Because as 15 year old boys, it is _OK_ (culturally correct and encouraged) to think of her as a potential mate (i.e. sexually) isn't it?

But those who embrace such thoughts about a 15-year-old girl at 25 or 30 are sick, eh?


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 19, 2008)

zDom said:


> IMO,
> 
> I think we may have inclinations, but I think we all make choices on how to "wire" ourselves. Acquired tastes.
> Take beer, for example.
> ...


This probably occurs more often than is willfully admitted. Outwardly homophobic and inwardly actually attracted to the man in the next cubical or the weight machine next to theirs. 
Yet it's still a choice to act upon these impulses or be repulsed by them to a greater or lesser degree. 



zDom said:


> Eventually one will become "wired" either way depending on which thoughts they embrace and which they reject  those decisions probably being based on beliefs, culture, (and yea, to some extent inclinations.) "As a man believes in his heart, so is he."
> 
> This is probably what Yeshua (Jesus) meant when he talked about those who lust in their hearts have ALREADY sinned: they've taken that step toward wiring themselves for fornication, or adultery, or pedophilia, or whatever.
> 
> ...


Choices are influenced by choices that are influenced by choices and many of those are unconscious choices because we've been making them all our lives and it becomes habit or as you say ... hard-wired. It's what we are taught (or not taught) through our childhood. Can anyone honestly say they remember every single thing that occurred in their lives? Every single word we heard and said, and even tougher... every single image, sound, smell (a powerful influence by itself), touch, taste that may (or may not) influence how we perceive things? Of course not. We may remember a lot but not everything. Yet they're there and those thoughts, experiences, feelings, actions, influences, teachings, make us up what we are today.  
Our feelings are who we are, deep down inside, not our thoughts. Thoughts are a reflection or an expression of our feelings. I dare say that when we are born we have no thoughts at all, just a bundle of feelings. As our eye sight begins to clear and we see the smiling faces of our mothers and fathers beaming down at us we have a reaction and make a conscious connection from that visual to what we are feeling. Beginnings of thought.
As we get older we learn to read and listen and communicate and thoughts processes are refined and we associate the feelings with those thoughts. All our 5 senses are geared to providing us with information and our feelings are a result of that sensory input... through out our lives. 
Say a toddler has a friend and they are always glad to see each other and we adults say aww so cute how they always hug and hang out with each other ... this goes on for a few years, then the parents of one child moves and the other goes on and makes new friends but never quite as close as the one who moved away. 
The association of good feelings with another person of the same sex lingers. As an adult they may not quite understand why they have this attraction but it's there, it feels natural it feels normal. 
Another scenario... children experiment and even a one time experiment into bodily explorations can be a strong influence into adult hood. I'm sure many can recall that one time in the basement or a sleep-over or behind the shed or in the bathroom, etc. Can it be possible that these experiences influence how we think/feel/act around the same (or even opposite) sex? 
I know of a gentleman who was as a young boy molested by his older sister because she was curious and he was handy so she forced him to drop his pants and let her examine him closely. He recalls being frightened because she threatened him (blackmail) and worried about being caught by their parents... but his sister was very imposing and thus he had been very wary & cautious around women for a long time. It bothered him to the point where he had to get therapy and is now married and doing well. 
Child molestation does have long reaching ramifications and influences well into adulthood and does sometimes influence a individual's choice in sexual preferences because they're *feeling* more "comfortable" "safer" with one or the other sex. 




zDom said:


> Side topic, cultural rules CHANGE.
> 
> Lets take, for example, a 15 year old girl who has matured sexually.
> A hundred years ago she would be eligible for marriage.
> ...


This is very true. That children 100-150 even 200 years ago were maturing faster than today's children. Necessity demanded it. People didn't live as long as they do now (even without wars) and thus to continue perpetuating the species girls as young as 13 or 14 were married off and often to men 10-15 years their senior. By then a man had his farm/ranch/plantation/business set up and ready to go. A boy of the same age however had a few more years to grow up some before taking on the mantle of manhood... but in some cases they too grew up faster than their counterparts today. 
But society has changed, medical advances, safer (comparatively) areas to live in, less of a struggle to put food on the table (shopping as opposed to hunting)... etc. Also the field of psychology had advanced enough to help society realize that at 12-13-14 even up to 17 there was still room to grow at a more leisurely pace and mature more comfortably, thus the practice of marrying young literally died out, because it wasn't necessary anymore. 


zDom said:


> And, even more difficult for Today's Males: we ALL have to "rewire" ourselves somewhere along the line. Because as 15 year old boys, it is _OK_ (culturally correct and encouraged) to think of her as a potential mate (i.e. sexually) isn't it?
> But those who embrace such thoughts about a 15-year-old girl at 25 or 30 are sick, eh?


Girls are just as capable of looking at a 15 yr. old boy and seeing them as a potential mate and probably more likely to and very likely not exactly in the same way that a boy is looking at a girl. 
We say it's sick (and I agree... ok?) for a 25-30 yr. old to "lust" after a 15 yr. old because we see it as taking advantage of the emotional and mental immaturity of the 15 yr. old. To take advantage sexually of anyone of _any_ age is sick, more so the younger because it connotates an expression of power, control, dominance and ironically above all ... weakness.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> We say it's sick (and I agree... ok?) for a 25-30 yr. old to "lust" after a 15 yr. old because we see it as taking advantage of the emotional and mental immaturity of the 15 yr. old. .


 
Not sick to lust after her; it's biology. No more choice in that than in being gay. 

It's sick to act on it, though.....


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 19, 2008)

zDom said:


> Let me pose another question:
> 
> Do people choose to be pedophiles? Or is it just how they are "wired"?




stigma anyone?


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> > Originally Posted by *MA-Caver*
> >
> >
> > _We say it's sick (and I agree... ok?) for a 25-30 yr. old to "lust" after a 15 yr. old because we see it as taking advantage of the emotional and mental immaturity of the 15 yr. old. _
> ...


 Well, as thinking, rational beings that we're supposed to be it is just as sick to lust after her/him at that age biology or no. An adult is supposed to know better. I've met a few 15-16 yr. olds that just are like, gorgeous but I get a grip and refrain from any thoughts or ideas about lust. She's still a child and while she may have developed her womanly curves and figure earlier than other girls ... she is STILL a child... and thus my thoughts about her are accordingly. Lusting after someone who isn't emotionally and mentally ready *isn't* right and IMO it's wrong to give in to the biology of it, even just thinking about it, because thinking leads to fantasy and invariably fantasy can lead to acting out. 
I'm smarter than that I like to think, and I feel that all adults should be likewise. Besides the pillow talk of a 15 yr. old just would not compare to that of a woman in her late 20's and 30's. 

But I think we're straying off topic here.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well, as thinking, rational beings that we're supposed to be it is just as sick to lust after her/him at that age biology or no. An adult is supposed to know better. I've met a few 15-16 yr. olds that just are like, gorgeous but I get a grip and refrain from any thoughts or ideas about lust. .


 

Wait'll you have teenage kids. A veritable parade of nubile young women hanging out at the house. Sure, I nipped those thoughts in the bud, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have them-especially on first glance....you've as much as said that you do as well....
.....God, I hope my kids never see this....:lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 19, 2008)

It's called being human, heterosexual and male, I'm given to understand.  Our genes don't know or care that society has 'advanced' in the past century or so.  

As long as our socialised higher-brain functions have the controlling vote, that instinct level response will never get further than an internally raised eyebrow.  That's the important point on such a matter, really.

Of course, there is also the case that the 'Far Country' age divide in such circumstances really is quite a barrier.  The genes might not be responding to anything but 'propogation' but the mind is busy recognising all those reasons why May-December relationships hardly ever happen :lol:.

Anyhow, altho' somewhat related I suppose, this is not really addressing the OP as such, so we'd better do a little "nipping in the bud" of our own I reckon .


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Wait'll you have teenage kids. A veritable parade of nubile young women hanging out at the house. Sure, I nipped those thoughts in the bud, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have them-especially on first glance....you've as much as said that you do as well....
> .....God, I hope my kids never see this....:lfao:


Well I can acknowledge that a girl is pretty, attractive, beautiful and gorgeous... it doesn't mean that I'm undressing them mentally or even physically desiring them.  

But we're off topic anyway... care to start another one?


----------



## zDom (Nov 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well, as thinking, rational beings that we're supposed to be it is just as sick to lust after her/him at that age biology or no. An adult is supposed to know better. I've met a few 15-16 yr. olds that just are like, gorgeous but I get a grip and refrain from any thoughts or ideas about lust. She's still a child and while she may have developed her womanly curves and figure earlier than other girls ... she is STILL a child... and thus my thoughts about her are accordingly. Lusting after someone who isn't emotionally and mentally ready *isn't* right and IMO it's wrong to give in to the biology of it, even just thinking about it, because thinking leads to fantasy and invariably fantasy can lead to acting out.
> I'm smarter than that I like to think, and I feel that all adults should be likewise. Besides the pillow talk of a 15 yr. old just would not compare to that of a woman in her late 20's and 30's.



Well said; exactly what I was thinking.




MA-Caver said:


> But I think we're straying off topic here.



Or are we?



MA-Caver said:


> "because thinking leads to fantasy and invariably fantasy can lead to acting out"



Is definately relevent to the discussion: do homosexuals THINK about homosexual activity (instead of rejecting such thoughts) and thus become homosexual by reinforcing instead of rejecting and eventually act on it? Or do they think these thoughts because they are homosexual?

Might they not, in the same way a "thinking, rational beings" rejects initial thoughts about a teenage girl also reject initial thoughts about someone of the same sex? Is this not a moment of decision?


Btw, not trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia or attach stigma, Zeeb; just thought it would be interesting as a comparison, especially since SOME consider both to be deviant.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 20, 2008)

zDom said:


> Might they not, in the same way a "thinking, rational beings" rejects initial thoughts about a teenage girl also reject initial thoughts about someone of the same sex? Is this not a moment of decision?


Yes and coming to a decision one makes a choice. A choice if they will abide by that decision or reject it. 
You decide to hit someone you make a choice? Same with whom you sleep with. What you eat. What street to turn up on when you're driving. This TV show or that one. Which movie at the theater. What clothes to wear. Going to work or calling in sick. Nearly 99.999% of what we do is based on choices. We make the same choices about whatever it can become a habit which is a thought which is a way of life.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Yes and coming to a decision one makes a choice. A choice if they will abide by that decision or reject it.
> You decide to hit someone you make a choice? Same with whom you sleep with. What you eat. What street to turn up on when you're driving. This TV show or that one. Which movie at the theater. What clothes to wear. Going to work or calling in sick. Nearly 99.999% of what we do is based on choices. We make the same choices about whatever it can become a habit which is a thought which is a way of life.


 
Agreed, you can make a choice about what actions to take or not to take. Sexual orientation is not a choice, a person can't choose to be attracted to members of one gender or another, they can only choose to act on that attraction or not.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2008)

I like cats. I can choose to get a dog, but it doesn't change the fact that I instinctively like cats.

I like black, and I like blue.  I can choose to wear/use other colors, but I like blue and black.

I like brunettes. I may choose to sleep with a blond, but it doesn't change the fact that I am much less interested in blonds than I am brunettes.

I like Coke. I may choose to drink Dr.Pepper, but I prefer Coke.

I'm attracted to women. I might choose to sleep with a man, but it doesn't change that I prefer women.


Choice and Preference are not the same thing.  
A HomoSexual prefers their own gender.
A Bisexual prefers them both.
A HetroSexual prefers the opposite gender.

Any of the above may choose to sleep with something they do not prefer.
It's a choice.
It's not what they would prefer.

Should I chop your head off or should I blow your head off? Please choose.
Well, I'd prefer to live.
What you prefer isn't a choice that is available to you.

Hey Gay Guy!
You can marry a chick, or you can be single, pick one.
Well, I don't like those choices.
Tough. That's all you can have.

Lifes rather unfair like this.


Sidebar: If God really hates homosexuals, why doesn't God do something about them? I mean, this is the guy who wiped out all life on Earth except for 1 tiny boats occupants, who at a wave of his hand changed languages in Babel, who could selectively wipe out only 1st born Egyptian boys, who took out 2 whole cities because they were so evil. Certainly it's within his power to wave that big hand and turn all the gays into salt right? He's had a couple thousand years to do this. Must not be that important, or maybe, just maybe, God doesn't care, and it's just stupid mortal man who gives a ****. My moneys on the latter.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Sidebar: If God really hates homosexuals, why doesn't God do something about them?



Ever hear of AIDS? 

It's been said many times before that God (the traditional Christian KJV Bible God) is merciful and that he has patiently waited for his children to repent. As with Lot he sent his messenger out among the populace and begged them to repent... Lot pleaded for the lives of those in Sodom and Gomorrah and managed to talk God (via his angels-- the visitors) down to finding just ONE righteous person (other than himself and his family) in the city... but he could not... because they refused to repent. The bible does not say exactly how long of a time period this took place in. Either way... 

God doesn't HATE homosexuals... he just hates what they DO. He just  wants them to stop.


----------



## Carol (Nov 20, 2008)

Yeah cuz only homosexuals get AIDS  

/sarcasm


----------



## zDom (Nov 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I like cats. I can choose to get a dog, but it doesn't change the fact that I instinctively like cats.
> 
> I like black, and I like blue.  I can choose to wear/use other colors, but I like blue and black.
> 
> ...




But what I'm asking or suggesting is, are your preferences based on your decisions early in life rather than entirely on natural inclination? Isn't it possible that if early on in your life you had some positive experiences with a dog and chose to give 'em a chance that you might have ended up liking dogs better?

As for your questions regarding the Creator, 

a) Freewill

b) Homosexuality is not what people were designed for. SOME species are designed to swing both ways and still reproduce. Not us. It is contrary to our design.

Even if you reject the idea of a Creator who cares about us, consider it in the light of Kant's Categorical imperative: If we ALL embraced homosexuality, it would mean the end of our species.

Having said all that, homesexuality really doesn't bother ME. Guys with guys means less competition for the gals. I've found most gay guys I've met are amusing/entertaining &#8212; full of personality and fun to be around. (shrug)

Gals with gals is either

a) Hot

or 

b) Something that keeps manly looking women happy with no effect on me.

But the OP asked: "Do you think being gay is a choice?" And I guess, after hashing it out in discussion, my answer is: 

YES. A choice made early enough in life that it becomes a hard-wired preference that would be difficult to re-wire.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 20, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yeah cuz only homosexuals get AIDS
> 
> /sarcasm


I get your sarcasm but it was the choice of otherwise hetros or bisexuals having relations with gays that caused it to spread to non-gays... but initially it was primarily gays who gotten the disease... male gays by the way... lesbians were virtually untouched... that says something I think... :idunno:


----------



## jarrod (Nov 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> but initially it was primarily gays who gotten the disease... male gays by the way... lesbians were virtually untouched... that says something I think... :idunno:


 

what, that god likes lesbians?

god _is_ a man!

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 20, 2008)

jarrod said:


> what, that god likes lesbians?
> 
> god _is_ a man!
> 
> jf


What man DOESN'T like lesbians? :lol:


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> What man DOESN'T like lesbians? :lol:


 
I used to be a card-carrying "lesbian deprogrammer." :lfao:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I get your sarcasm but it was the choice of otherwise hetros or bisexuals having relations with gays that caused it to spread to non-gays... but initially it was primarily gays who gotten the disease... male gays by the way... lesbians were virtually untouched... that says something I think... :idunno:





> God doesn't HATE homosexuals... he just hates what they DO. He just  wants them to stop.



The disease also spread quite widely through intravenous blood transfusions. Agencies responsible for donor blood ignored warnings from the health community and failed to adequately screen donated blood. Did God have something to do with that? Or was the essentially human ***-dragging over a virus that was associated with gays and IV drug users.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I used to be a card-carrying "lesbian deprogrammer." :lfao:


I was told I was a Certifier. Not sure I liked that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Ever hear of AIDS?


 
Clearly God hates African heterosexuals.  David Duke was right!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I was told I was a Certifier. Not sure I liked that.


As to AIDS, my data says its point of origin was Africa, based on a mutation of a simian virus, tracing back to somewhere between the late 1800's and the 1950's.

Considering that all those evil Egyptian babies died in 1 night, and that nuking 2 cities from space takes minutes, not decades, these 60+ years of AIDS seems a bit, ah, not loving and merciful to me.  You know, considering the 7 year incubation slow, decaying death, full of pain and anguish. Any God who would do that sort of thing is, well, a jerk.

Of course, the argument that AIDS is "Gods Gay Punishment" implies a number of things. 
1 -That "God" has lousy aim 
2 -Doesn't care about killing innocents
3- Doesn't take proper safeguards to ensure the right people "get it".

Now, this leads me to wonder if the same "God" also was behind the SCUD Missile system, and guided my eye surgery.

Explain to Ryan White, that he was just "collateral damage" in "Gods war against the evil Gay Empire".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2008)

zDom said:


> But what I'm asking or suggesting is, are your preferences based on your decisions early in life rather than entirely on natural inclination? Isn't it possible that if early on in your life you had some positive experiences with a dog and chose to give 'em a chance that you might have ended up liking dogs better?



I've owned probably 6 dogs, loved em all. I just like cats more, and had only owed 2 prior to getting the 3 kibble chompers I now have.

You might be right, in fact I think experience does have a lot to do with forming "you". But there are some things that are just in the basic coding.



> As for your questions regarding the Creator,
> 
> a) Freewill
> 
> b) Homosexuality is not what people were designed for. SOME species are designed to swing both ways and still reproduce. Not us. It is contrary to our design.



I have a mouth, my gf has a mouth. If a female mouth can work on my gear, theoretically so can a male one.
Both men and women have butt holes. Enough said.
So, the idea of tab P in slot V for the act of reproduction while a valid idea, it denies the idea that P into V/A/M for pleasure.
So, unless we're going to deny sterile couples from copulation, you can't limit your argument to mere reproduction capability.



> Even if you reject the idea of a Creator who cares about us, consider it in the light of Kant's Categorical imperative: If we ALL embraced homosexuality, it would mean the end of our species.



I'm cool with that. Now, can anyone help me find the phone number for that Cylon extermination group? 



> Having said all that, homesexuality really doesn't bother ME. Guys with guys means less competition for the gals. I've found most gay guys I've met are amusing/entertaining  full of personality and fun to be around. (shrug)



A few of my friends are. They're like everyone else to me.



> Gals with gals is either
> 
> a) Hot
> 
> ...



Ironically, I've found several of the heaviest "gay men bad" folks to have large lesbian porn collections. Take that one as ya will.



> But the OP asked: "Do you think being gay is a choice?" And I guess, after hashing it out in discussion, my answer is:
> 
> YES. A choice made early enough in life that it becomes a hard-wired preference that would be difficult to re-wire.



I agree and disagree. I think some folks are just wired that way from the start, some develop it as they go, and some never do.

But there's no evidence that kids exposed to the so called "gay lifestyle" will be more or less gay than anyone else.



> *Question: *Will Children Raised in Homosexual Households Become Gay?
> *Answer: *
> The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it. "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay."
> 
> ...



So, it's as much a choice as a wiring matter.


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Ever hear of AIDS?
> 
> It's been said many times before that God (the traditional Christian KJV Bible God) is merciful and that he has patiently waited for his children to repent. As with Lot he sent his messenger out among the populace and begged them to repent... Lot pleaded for the lives of those in Sodom and Gomorrah and managed to talk God (via his angels-- the visitors) down to finding just ONE righteous person (other than himself and his family) in the city... but he could not... because they refused to repent. The bible does not say exactly how long of a time period this took place in. Either way...
> 
> God doesn't HATE homosexuals... he just hates what they DO. He just  wants them to stop.



The origins of HIV/AIDS have never been attributed to homosexuals.  Contemporary theories on its origins tie it to a strain of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus which occurs in monkeys that is nearly identical to HIV.  And no, they don't think humans got it from buggering monkeys, although I suppose that isn't outside the realm of possibility.  One theory is that it was hunters coming into contact with infected monkey blood.  Other theories tie it to improper use of hypodermic needles and even being spread by heterosexual prostitutes.  One theory is that HIV was already running rampant in Africa for years before it showed up in the western world but due to poor medical care and other diseases running rampant, it wasn't identified right away.

Even if AIDS was part of God's master plan to rid the world of gays, which, incidentally, I think is ridiculous and more than a little insulting, the group at the biggest risk of increasing infection worldwide is heterosexual women.  Also, worldwide, 90% of new HIV infections in both genders are attributed to heterosexual sex.  So I guess God's plan backfired.

Not to turn this into a religious discussion but it's my understanding that the current Christian idea of God is that he is the creator of all and that he's infallible.  If that was the case, why would he create homosexuals knowing ahead of time that they're going to fail (by having gay sex), and then try to exterminate them after they did exactly what he expected them to do?  Moreover, why, if he's infallible, would his plan for extermination backfire so badly?

Edit:  Damn you Bob Hubbard for beating me to the punch!


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2008)

One of the most annoying and amusing things for me as a Jew is the way everyone else has taken over 'ownership' of the Bible. Quoting from it to enforce any rules they think they want to enforce or put across any view they want.
Firstly the stories and commandments in the Bible were created for a specific audience, a people who had been kept in slavery and were then freed. They had no real cultural identity nor much of a way of surviving so they needed rules to live by. The reason it took 40 years in the desert to travel what could have been done in weeks was that the Jewish people need to outgrow their slave mentality and become a strong functioning nation. Hence the Bible with it's stories on how to live and how not to live, with it's dietary laws, agricultural advice and legal requirements. It taught slaves how to govern themselves, become free and hopefully become good people. It showed them how good people behaved and why they should be good people. However while it showed them the way free choice was always given, they could choose not to listen and go their own way. No one had the right to stop them. Basically, G-d only wanted volunteers. that's why he offered the Jews a covenant to be their G-d.   

The nation wasn't big, even the biggest nations then weren't big by our standards. You couldn't ignore what was happening among the people, everything people did affected others so there were rules laid down in the commandments like no adultery, no homosexual acts (there's no law against homosexuals, homosexual love or attraction, it being felt that love between two people of the same sex was as natural as heterosexual ones, it was the sex act that was considered wrong), no stealing, no murder etc. In a small community all these things would affect a great many people whereas these days it wouldn't. Now it won't break up the community if two men decided they want to be a couple but it would have caused a huge strain on a small community where marriage between a man and woman was the most productive for the community bringing with it children.

These rules were written for a specific people at a specific time to enable the survival of the people when life was fragile. The Jewish people made a covenant with G-d at the time, most of us chose to carry on honouring that contract. Over time, wise heads have changed many of the laws so they are relevant to the times. They are still being changed by the will of the Jewish people. The law is a living entity, it must change with the times. Apart from the ultra orthodox who still believe homosexual sex acts are wrong, the general feeling in Judaism is that when the commandments were given homosexuality wasn't understood. It feels that the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman should be highlighted rather than frown on same sex marriages. While the different parts of Judaism believe differently on the 'causes' of homosexuality and whether same sex marriages among Jews are good or bad, just about everyone agrees it's inhumane and unJewish to make gays and lesbians feel like outcasts or treat them as sick. 


Why then are modern non Jews insisting on sticking to the very old laws that weren't made for them? They haven't updated the Biblical laws but quote them directly causing huge pain for a great many. If you choose have a contract with G-d and he asks that you don't do a thing, *you* don't do it. You don't have the right however to decide for any other person how they should live their lives. If someone is gay and wants to marry their same sex partner, you don't have to like it but you have no right to stop them. You certainly don't have the right to think that G-d will strike them down nor that he would punish them, why would he? They haven't a contract with Him!

If you take the laws written for someone else, you have to take all of what comes with it and you have to accept that free will is given to everyone. Each of us has the right to behave as we think we should in regards to our own behaviour and as long as that doesn't hurt anyone else and gay relationships certainly don't just by being gay,no one has the right to interfere or ban such relationships. 

I really don't understand why people use someone elses laws, someone elses words and stories to justify what they think and impose it on the rest of us.


----------



## Carol (Nov 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I really don't understand why people use someone elses laws, someone elses words and stories to justify what they think and impose it on the rest of us.



Behold, the power of dislike.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Behold, the power of dislike.


 
Do you mean I dislike people? I don't in the least, I'm just tired of people being hurt by people who quote parts of the Bible *they* think means what they *want* it to mean instead of what it does mean to the people it was writen for.


----------



## Carol (Nov 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Do you mean I dislike people? I don't in the least, I'm just tired of people being hurt by people who quote parts of the Bible *they* think means what they *want* it to mean instead of what it does mean to the people it was writen for.




OMG I am sorry... no...that's not what I meant at all!  

I agree with you.  

And, I meant that when a person dislikes another person, or group of people...or when a person has an agenda to push...it seems as if any reason that supports the dislike, or supports the agenda...becomes OK in the mind of the protagonist.

About 100 years ago, some of the exact same arguments about marriage were being made in this country...only then it was about interracial marriage instead of gay marriage.  Its heartbreaking to me to see the rhetoric that was being used against people getting married that didn't have matching amounts of melaninin in their skin.  Logic, science, common sense, human decensy, all being trumped so one person can push something on someone else.  This is what I mean by the power of dislike.

I don't like seeing it happen whether the target is gays or whether the target is evangelical Christians or Arabs, or blacks or Jews or white men or anyone else.  If we as individuals are proud of who we are and are happy with who we are, then there is no reason to denegrate someone else or to implore someone else to change.  However if we are not happy with who we are or proud of who we are, the place where change starts is the mirror, and not the soapbox. 

Or, in the words of Yogi Bhajan, be the change you wish to see in others.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2008)

Didn't think you did Carol! 

Why don't people simply mind their own business? That's the plain and simple answer. If my friends are happy in whatever relationships they are in I'm happy for them. I try not to judge anyone who's not a politician as it's none of my business. Politicians and 'celebrities' set themselves up to be looked and and questioned by us so it's fair to judge them if they want our support but only in as far as their public performances or acts are concerned. 

Choice or nature? who cares? everyone has a right to happiness and as long as it hurts no one it really, really doesn't matter what sexual orientation people are. Only busybodies and interferers who like to pry and spoilt things think they have the right to decry what people do in situations like this.Where are they when the babies are being tortured to death by sadistic adults? when Baby P here was having his fingrtips cut off and his back broken, where were the Bible bashers and do gooders then, why didn't they save him or were they too busy hating same sex married couples? If you want to do something constructive for the love of G-d and for humanity the haters should get out and do something to help the people who need it, the battered children, the starving, the war refugees, the sick, the lonely and the bereft. Stop hating, stop preaching  get out and do something!

I'm just so fed up and tired of people quoting the Bible to justify themselves. Get your own book please, leave mine alone.


----------



## zDom (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'm just so fed up and tired of people quoting the Bible to justify themselves. Get your own book please, leave mine alone.



I agree and well, disagree.

I agree that the self-righteous judgemental types shouldn't be using "your book" to beat other people up.

But I also reject the idea that just because I lack a genetic connection to the book that I shouldn't be able to use it to benefit myself 

FWIW, I don't think G-d created AIDS to punish homosexuals. I think of the Bible, rather, as the Designer's Manual &#8212;*very useful for living a better life!

Historical context aside, if you live life under the terms of the contract (great description, btw) outlined in what we non-Hebrews call the Old Testament, you avoid a lot of trouble in your life.

I don't think G-d listed a kosher diet or a prohibition against homosexual sex because he likes to deny us pleasure, so much as he was aware of the natural consequences of non-kosher diets and homosexual sex.

It's like telling a 2-year old not to touch the stove when they've never been burned. There really isn't any use in trying to explain to them. You tell them NO! and then they either obey, and happily go on their toddler lives without a second-degree burn, or they disobey &#8212; causing themselves unnecessary pain and you, as the parent, a empathetic pain of watching them go through something they really didn't have to.

It's NOT the parent PUNISHING the child for touching the stove! So yea, those religious wackos are WAY off base. AIDS is just a natural consequence of choosing to indulge in homosexual sex.

I've run into the natural consequence myself: fornication very often leads to broken hearts, for example.

Some of us just just prefer to touch the hot stove despite the consequences (shrug). And bacon is yummy.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

I tried bacon of course lol, too salty and pork chops tasted just ugh.

I seee no reason why non Jews shouldn't use the Bible if they wish, there's some pretty good advice in there ( for all sorts of things including how to make love properly) I just don't want people use it as something to hit others over the head with. 
zDom, I think you hit the nail onthe head when you said it was a designers manual. Whether it was 'divine word' or G-d giving us some wise people to write it, the Torah remains a very good manual for living reasonably happily and without too much grief. The Talmud must be used along side it though, I think it's the lack of the Talmud that makes non Jewish users of the Bible miss out very important points and issues. The Jewish religion is a very questioning one and we are constantly debating laws and texts seeking modern answers to modern problems.
I'm not saying we are better than anyone else, I believe religions are like petrol ( ok gas lol) many different brands and names but they all do the same job. I just don't want people using my religion to hurt people.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 21, 2008)

zDom said:


> AIDS is just a natural consequence of choosing to indulge in homosexual sex.


 
No, it isn't. Read the previous posts, which contain factual information on AIDs which cannot be found -- no matter how hard you want it to be there -- in the Old or New Testaments.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2008)

> AIDS is just a natural consequence of choosing to indulge in homosexual sex.



Sure it is. Just like blindness is a natural consequence of masturbation and chapped lips a natural consequence of oral sex.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> No, it isn't. Read the previous posts, which contain factual information on AIDs which cannot be found -- no matter how hard you want it to be there -- in the Old or New Testaments.


 
I think you may have misread zDoms posts, he said quite plainly that he didn't believe that AIDs was made by G-d to punish homosexuals.
He was and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, meaning that AIDs exists and if you choose to have homosexual sex you stand a very high chance of contracting it. I don't think he was apportioning blame or saying it was written exactly that way in the Bible. Gay sex carries health risks by it's nature ( I'm not going to go into details why on this thread) so it was proscribed by the Bible. In Biblical times heterosexual sex carried health risks as well. In the days before antibiotics, health knowledge and hygiene most things were a risk so the writers of the Bible sought to minimise as many risks as possible. Hence for example rules like washing your hands before eating and not eating shellfish!
Life today is different and there aren't as many risks even with AIDS.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2008)

Hetro sex stll does carry man risks.  Herpes isn't curable. Neither is the so called "super" gonorrhea. Unwanted pregnancy's. Not to mention leaping out a second story window when daddy gets home can be quite hazardous on a horny teen male. LOL!

But I find the idea that a 60-100 year old disease, that targets hemophiliacs and blood transfusion patients, and just anyone unlucky enough to get some blood on them, to be a rather poor idea of "Divine Retribution" against something that's been going on for oh, 3,000+ years at least. Actually I find it rather, stupid.

Of course, the idea of a Christian falling back on the Old Testament is odd, since the idea of Jesus was to create a new contract with god. A "New" Testament if you will that replaced the old one, and turned God from this angry to-be-pleased god to this loving father god. But that's a debate for another thread I think.

Again, I don't think "Gay" is really a choice. Who, in their right mind, would choose a life of persecution legislated discrimination, internal confusion, denial, and public misinformation?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 21, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Hetro sex stll does carry man risks. Herpes isn't curable. Neither is the so called "super" gonorrhea. Unwanted pregnancy's. Not to mention leaping out a second story window when daddy gets home can be quite hazardous on a horny teen male. LOL!


 
And, actually, the primary vector of HIV/AIDS transmission worldwide is _heterosexual_ sex. This has been especially true in Africa, where it's thought to have originated.....


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

I don't believe it's a choice either but if it were I wouldn't think any differently. Finding someone you love and who loves you is the best thing in the world regardless of your sexual preferences. I don't condone promuscuity by anyone, male, female, gay or straight. I'm old fashioned that way though I don't believe you have to marry to be happy, I think perhaps legally in the case of wills and taxwise you may be better properly married.


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I think you may have misread zDoms posts, he said quite plainly that he didn't believe that AIDs was made by G-d to punish homosexuals.
> He was and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, meaning that AIDs exists and if you choose to have homosexual sex you stand a very high chance of contracting it. I don't think he was apportioning blame or saying it was written exactly that way in the Bible. Gay sex carries health risks by it's nature ( I'm not going to go into details why on this thread) so it was proscribed by the Bible. In Biblical times heterosexual sex carried health risks as well. In the days before antibiotics, health knowledge and hygiene most things were a risk so the writers of the Bible sought to minimise as many risks as possible. Hence for example rules like washing your hands before eating and not eating shellfish!
> Life today is different and there aren't as many risks even with AIDS.



This was how I interpreted his post as well, although, I would've made the distinction of anal sex, since that's really where the risk lies and applies equally to heterosexuals.  Anal sex carries a lot of risk factors with it because of the absorbative characteristics of the rectum, the ease with which the tissue can be damaged, causing exposed blood vessels, and the fact that feces are responsible for the transmission of diseases like E. Coli and parasitic infections like trichomaniasis.  Those risks transcend gay or straight.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

Frostbite said:


> This was how I interpreted his post as well, although, I would've made the distinction of anal sex, since that's really where the risk lies and applies equally to heterosexuals. Anal sex carries a lot of risk factors with it because of the absorbative characteristics of the rectum, the ease with which the tissue can be damaged, causing exposed blood vessels, and the fact that feces are responsible for the transmission of diseases like E. Coli and parasitic infections like trichomaniasis. Those risks transcend gay or straight.


 
Er yes I took it as read that people understood that lol and wasn't going to go into details! I took it as read too that people would understand the risks were the same for all parties.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 21, 2008)

Just from my own personal experience with gay people I believe its nurture based; however, I wouldn't say they are choosing abitrarily, but, acting on the idea of being gay by engaging in sexual activity with the same sex is a choice.
Sean


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 21, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Just from my own personal experience with gay people I believe its nurture based; however, I wouldn't say they are choosing abitrarily, but, acting on the idea of being gay by engaging in sexual activity with the same sex is a choice.
> Sean


 
And from personnal experience with my 2 sons, I have to conclude that nurture is WAY overrated. I have 2 boys, raised in the same loving household, attended the same schools, had the same religious education.

They are as different as any 2 people can be.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'm just so fed up and tired of people quoting the Bible to justify themselves. Get your own book please, leave mine alone.


 
And use they use a lousy translation at that. ANd by not tempering with Talmud, they don't quite get the entire context and meaning either.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I think you may have misread zDoms posts, he said quite plainly that he didn't believe that AIDs was made by G-d to punish homosexuals.


If this the case, I apologize to zDom.



> He was and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, meaning that AIDs exists and if you choose to have *homosexual sex* you stand a very high chance of contracting it.



What concerns me is this notion of "homosexual sex." Bob Hubbard already clarified (in perhaps more detail that I wanted) that anything two gents can do can be replicated by a gent and a lady. Certain sexual acts seem to be higher risk when performed unprotected. Thus AIDS has spread through both same-sex and different-sex contact. Coincidentally, homosexual sex acts qualify sodomy under arcane laws.


----------



## zDom (Nov 22, 2008)

Yea, Tez read me right (no problem, Gord).

But just to give "equal time", heterosexual fornication ALSO has health-related "natural consequences" (in addition to broken hearts).

How many STDs would be around if everybody played by the "no sex until marriage" / "no switching partners via divorces" rules?

They may still be out there, but would be, I think, rarities.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 22, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> If this the case, I apologize to zDom.
> 
> 
> 
> What concerns me is this notion of "homosexual sex." Bob Hubbard already clarified (*in perhaps more detail that I wanted*) that anything two gents can do can be replicated by a gent and a lady. Certain sexual acts seem to be higher risk when performed unprotected. Thus AIDS has spread through both same-sex and different-sex contact. Coincidentally, homosexual sex acts qualify sodomy under arcane laws.


 
LOL! I think we were all being coy and not wanting to give too many details so  didn't say  as obviously as we could have done that what two men do could also be done with a man and women. In many places in Africa sodomy in a male female relationship is held to be a good form of contraception, the wearing of condoms being scorned.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 25, 2008)

CanuckMA said:


> And from personnal experience with my 2 sons, I have to conclude that nurture is WAY overrated. I have 2 boys, raised in the same loving household, attended the same schools, had the same religious education.
> 
> They are as different as any 2 people can be.


You can't raise two different people the same way and expect the same results. That does not change my hypothisis. It only confirms it.
Sean


----------



## Brian S (Nov 26, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Hetro sex stll does carry man risks. Herpes isn't curable. Neither is the so called "super" gonorrhea. Unwanted pregnancy's. Not to mention leaping out a second story window when daddy gets home can be quite hazardous on a horny teen male. LOL!


 
Yep. Maybe the answer lies in doing what God commands to begin with? Along with the realization that God allows certain things to happen for a reason. Doesn't make it any less sad.



> But I find the idea that a 60-100 year old disease, that targets hemophiliacs and blood transfusion patients, and just anyone unlucky enough to get some blood on them, to be a rather poor idea of "Divine Retribution" against something that's been going on for oh, 3,000+ years at least. Actually I find it rather, stupid.


 
Agreed. That sort of reasoning is of a non-Christian POV imo. Kind of like some people who blamed hurricane katrina on divine intervention. That's old covenant preaching and in pure denial that Jesus' blood had any power whatsoever. I don't get it.



> Of course, the idea of a Christian falling back on the Old Testament is odd, since the idea of Jesus was to create a new contract with god. A "New" Testament if you will that replaced the old one, and turned God from this angry to-be-pleased god to this loving father god. But that's a debate for another thread I think.


 
Agreed.



> Again, I don't think "Gay" is really a choice. Who, in their right mind, would choose a life of persecution legislated discrimination, internal confusion, denial, and public misinformation?


 
I think gay is a result, not exactly a choice. Several things cause it imo. Sexual abuse, lack of attention from a father/mother, lack of a good solid male/female role model, lack of affirmation from your dad/mother, etc. There are several factors imo, but something happened somewhere along the line.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 26, 2008)

IMO, we may not have a chose on how we are born , or a chose as to how we were raised . These are things out of our control. But as an adult this is where the buck stops. I have met a lot of people that blame things on the above, but this is a cop out. As adults we have freedom of chose, which amounts to accountability. We choose to be where we are in life, if this were not so, then we would be robots. I read this somewhere, cant remember right now, but it goes something like this choose ye this day, whom you will follow. All of our actions, what ever they are, are governed by the choses we make.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 26, 2008)

seasoned said:


> IMO, we may not have a chose on how we are born , or a chose as to how we were raised . These are things out of our control. But as an adult this is where the buck stops. I have met a lot of people that blame things on the above, but this is a cop out.


 
I'm going to disagree, only to the extent that some things, especially where the results are subconcious or at least we are unaware we are doing them intentionally come from past programming and they take a great deal of effort to de-program or relearn behavior that is less counterproductive... It's not always clearly a choice.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 26, 2008)

I believe it to be hard wired. Ive always heard the phrase "you cant change who you love".  

Like pheonix said in one of the earlier post, why would be choose a likestyle that is generally looked down upon in our society. 

B


----------



## seasoned (Nov 26, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> I'm going to disagree, only to the extent that some things, especially where the results are subconcious or at least we are unaware we are doing them intentionally come from past programming and they take a great deal of effort to de-program or relearn behavior that is less counterproductive... It's not always clearly a choice.


 
 Point well taken.


----------



## zDom (Nov 26, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I believe it to be hard wired. Ive always heard the phrase "you cant change who you love".



I beg to differ. I've done it many times.

My dad likes to say that "love" is a VERB, not a feeling 

Whether or not you accept the above, feelings DO follow decisions if given enough time.


----------



## jarrod (Nov 26, 2008)

zDom said:


> I beg to differ. I've done it many times.
> 
> My dad likes to say that "love" is a VERB, not a feeling
> 
> Whether or not you accept the above, feelings DO follow decisions if given enough time.


 
i think i'd disagree with your dad on that.  you might have some control over how you act on your feelings, & your feelings may change over time to a degree, but not expressing the feeling doesn't negate the feeling.  

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 26, 2008)

I've changed the 'who' many times.
But the 'what' has always been consistantly female.  hair, skin, shape, size has varied, but always been female.


----------



## zDom (Nov 28, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've changed the 'who' many times.
> But the 'what' has always been consistantly female.  hair, skin, shape, size has varied, but always been female.



Maybe you just haven't met the right guy yet?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 28, 2008)

Entirely possible.

Anyone know what Legolas is doing?


----------



## zDom (Nov 28, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Entirely possible.
> 
> Anyone know what Legolas is doing?



Please stay on topic, Bob. Legolas would be an *interracial* relationship.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 28, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Entirely possible.
> 
> Anyone know what Legolas is doing?



_Gawdhewashotinthatmoviewasn'the?_



zDom said:


> Please stay on topic, Bob. Legolas would be an *interracial* relationship.



Wouldn't that be interspecies?  Elf + human = ?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 28, 2008)

Either way, somewhere, somehow, someone's passing a law against it.

Then again, going Elf wouldn't really be gay.
Hobbits now.....I mean, did you see how Sam looked at Mr. Frodo?
I bet they took a lot of baths together.


----------



## Bodhisattva (Nov 28, 2008)

jarrod said:


> if so, guess what: you're attracted to your own sex.  you are, in effect, stating that you are just as attracted to your own sex as the opposite,  but you made the choice to be heterosexual.  just thought you'd like to know.
> 
> jf



It's nice you are deciding this for people.

I don't think it is my business whether it is someone's choice to be gay, or whether it is genetic.  I think it is not my business at all, so the question never occurs to me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 28, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> I think it is not my business at all, so the question never occurs to me.


 
This bit I fully agree with.  At the end of the day, unless someone is attempting to force unwanted attentions upon us or those close to us, what business is it of ours?

I admit that such an attitude was not one that came easily when I ventured out into the world.  I came from a strict religious background and went straight {Yeah! 'Orientation' pun attack } to a university setting where 'gay rights' were a hot topic - this was the early '80's.  

It took a while to 'adjust' - I still remember with great embarassment snarling at some fellow that I would break his arm if he grabbed my behind again ... mind you, I can't say I wouldn't react with equal frankness today.  I hope I'd be more polite about it tho' .


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 28, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> This bit I fully agree with.  At the end of the day, unless someone is attempting to force unwanted attentions upon us or those close to us, what business is it of ours?
> 
> I admit that such an attitude was not one that came easily when I ventured out into the world.  I came from a strict religious background and went straight {Yeah! 'Orientation' pun attack } to a university setting where 'gay rights' were a hot topic - this was the early '80's.
> 
> It took a while to 'adjust' - I still remember with great embarrassment snarling at some fellow that I would break his arm if he grabbed my behind again ... mind you, I can't say I wouldn't react with equal frankness today.  I hope I'd be more polite about it tho' .


I would admit that I would be a bit more polite and tolerant if some bloke grabbed my **** but it depends upon the spirit in which he did it.  Years ago it would've warranted a hard punch in the snoot. But today it's a stern verbal warning that they have no right to touch without permission. 
When I worked at McDonalds a couple of my managers were (openly) gay and they were pretty much respectful and kept to themselves while doing their job. But once one of them just was in a "playful" mood and grabbed me... I turned around and did the "hey hey now watch that!" and got a smile and everyone continued on working. 
Later same manager came up to me during a break and gave a passing apology... I told him no worries but asked that he not do that without permission. So it's all good...
Thing is it's one thing to be playing around and such but to be serious and expect seriousness back... uhh no. Attempts to conversion is also a no-no... it's disrespectful of one's own choice.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 28, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> This bit I fully agree with.  At the end of the day, unless someone is attempting to force unwanted attentions upon us or those close to us, what business is it of ours?


Here in Toronto, the Pride Week and parade are among the largest in North America. Mayors and Police Chiefs march in the parade. With the passage of gay marriage rights into federal law, some in the community are wondering where to go from here.



> I admit that such an attitude was not one that came easily when I ventured out into the world.  I came from a strict religious background and went straight {Yeah! 'Orientation' pun attack } to a university setting where 'gay rights' were a hot topic - this was the early '80's.


I was brought up nominally United Church of Canada Protestant -- at least I was baptized. The preponderance of my religious education was in an all boys Catholic school throughout the seventies -- this was a homphobic/heterosexist environment before those came into popular use. In the middle school years I was an outsider -- poor at sports, disinterested in pro sports, good at theatre arts, polite to teachers, and quite soft-spoken. So y'all can probably guess how I got tagged.

The experience of being a victim of that kind of hate even though I am herosexual, has had a profound impact on my life. So I am receptive to people, like my father, who come out. I understand why it is necessary for many. 

Like yours, Suke, my university days and other experiences allowed me to meet and work with many gays. All of a sudden, it was semi-safe for them to be out. Any proximal unease I had through lack information gradually faded away.

When my dad came out to me, it unleashed a flashback of feelings about being tormented in school. I was angry all over again, fighting old bullies from the past. I was also very much in fear of my father's safety: he was a somewhat naive individual, and I worried about any abuse he might suffer directly in life.



> It took a while to 'adjust' - I still remember with great embarassment snarling at some fellow that I would break his arm if he grabbed my behind again ... mind you, I can't say I wouldn't react with equal frankness today.  I hope I'd be more polite about it tho' .


After dad came out, I had a long talk with a doctor I know who is very well-known in the gay community because of his practice in treating AIDS. It was cathartic to be able to talk to someone about some of apprehensiveness I felt, which he explained did not made me either homophobic or hypocritical. Others I made the mistake of speaking to said things like, "Dude, I'm sorry," or "You must be creeped out," after my father, a widow of many years, married his male partner.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 29, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Here in Toronto, the Pride Week and parade are among the largest in North America. Mayors and Police Chiefs march in the parade. With the passage of gay marriage rights into federal law, some in the community are wondering where to go from here.



You know the gay pride parade actually brings a lot of money into Toronto and is more a fun spectacle than a political movement now, at the end of the day with same sex marriage being legalized in Canada and most rational people realizing it wasn't going to be the end of civilization,  sexuality is almost a non-issue now as far as I can see.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2008)

Ramirez said:


> with same sex marriage being legalized in Canada and most rational people realizing it wasn't going to be the end of civilization, sexuality is almost a non-issue now as far as I can see.


 
What, you've allowed '_gay marriage_???!!!  :lol:

Oh, the _horror_! :lol:

How long has this been going on? How do you deal with near constant rain and odor of fire and brimstone? Are cats sleeping with dogs? Did the gays set up local recruitment stations near all the high schools? DO they regularly protest and storm churches? 


What is going on up there in Canada? You people are going to *hell!*:lfao:


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> What, you've allowed '_gay marriage_???!!!  :lol:
> 
> Oh, the _horror_! :lol:
> 
> ...



 It is just chaos up here, Romeo and Juliette is now Romeo and Petruccio, Melissa Etheridge , George Michael, Elton John are all that is allowed to be played on the radio, Batman dancing with Robin!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 29, 2008)

Ramirez said:
			
		

> with same sex marriage being legalized in Canada and most rational people realizing it wasn't going to be the end of civilization, sexuality is almost a non-issue now as far as I can see.


 


			
				Elder said:
			
		

> What, you've allowed '_gay marriage_???!!!  :lol:
> 
> Oh, the _horror_! :lol:
> 
> ...



Mark,
They know about Pride Week and the marriage thing, but don't tell them about Sodomy Fest in February.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 29, 2008)

Is that restricted or can anyone come?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 29, 2008)

Sodomy Fest?



Bob Hubbard said:


> Is that restricted or can anyone come?



Under Human Rights legislation, all are welcome. US dollars accepted at par.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 29, 2008)

Cool.  Now to find where I put my Black Russian.....might even get my picture taken in it for my new avatar.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> What is going on up there in Canada? You people are going to *hell!*:lfao:



We only allowed it because hell is a hell of a lot warmer then where we live and we were desperate!!!!!

:lfao:


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 14, 2010)

It depends from person to person. If I had to chose between a really masculine looking woman on steroids that is 220 pounds of muscle and a petite guy that looks better than my girlfriend, I would take the bodybuilder. I cant get myself to be gay.

Some people are attracted to both and can make the choice, others are repulsed by physical activity with women.


----------



## Stac3y (Jul 14, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> Sodomy Fest?


 
That's year round in New Orleans.


----------

