2

6/12/2006 12:05:02 AM

Quote :

" We should regard it as a choice, a choice that is a good one to make, because if we regard it as less than that we are selling homosexuality short. "

How exactly would you know whether or not being gay or straight is a choice when you aren't either of the two?

Just because you can choose either gender to sleep with, doesn't mean that the rest of the population has the same ambigous take on sexuality as you do.

Im pretty sure if you asked most gay people if their sexual orientation was one they had deliberately chosen, they'd argue that they were born gay. Im almost positive if you asked most straight people if they chose to like the opposite sex, they would say that it wasn't a choice at all.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 2:12 AM. Reason : asdf]

6/12/2006 2:11:23 AM

Quote :

"ssjamind: in my not so humble opinion, it does kind of matter. if it isn't genetically encoded to be gay, then there isn't a direct biological imperative for performing sexual acts with members of the same sex. in that case, people do it to show affection or simply because they enjoy that behavior. if there is not a genetic predisposition to being gay, i think people should try and avoid acts of gayness. because sex is a primer to procreation, i think a higher value should be placed on it. i think people need to show more discipline and self control than to just stick it in any hole that gets them off. there are circumstances where people won't be able to help themselves even if they're not predisposed genetically to being gay. for example, prison love--if two men or women grow affectionate towards each other because they're so removed from the opposite sex. i would say its less worse if two people have actually decided to be lifelong partners and actualize the real meaning of commitment, but in modern reality lifelong partnership is fickle. again, that's just my opinion."

I've been debating whether or not to respond to this...let me sum up what you just said in those four paragraphs:

[ssjamind]If it's genetic, I'm cool with it because I have to be.

If it's a choice, I'm not cool with it because homosexuals are promiscuous and don't value procreation or commitment. Many heterosexuals are also promiscuous and don't value procreation or commitment. I think that sucks.

That's just my opinion.[/ssjamind]

(Your post is moderately offensive and also doesn't make sense.)

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 4:40 AM. Reason : sss]

6/12/2006 4:37:16 AM

In my opinion, the main question isn't whether homosexuality is right or not...the fact is that it's not our place to tell others how they live their lives. As long as they aren't hurting other people, they should be free to have relations with whoever they want to.

And it definitely isn't the place of our government to tell people who they can or cannot be with. 100 years ago, people said that it was wrong for people of different races to be together. Now they are saying that it is wrong for people of the same sex to be together. In the big scheme of things, does it really matter?

6/12/2006 7:15:43 AM

Quote :

"How exactly would you know whether or not being gay or straight is a choice when you aren't either of the two? Just because you can choose either gender to sleep with, doesn't mean that the rest of the population has the same ambigous take on sexuality as you do."

As I said, that ambiguous take on sexuality came from a lot of thinking. I was straight for 22 and change years. I had exactly zero inclination toward other men for that entire time. I know it is a choice because I was straight and now I'm not. Now, as I said, maybe I am genetically predisposed to have that option, but I find it unlikely. I'm genetically predisposed toward cancer -- a cellular abnormality -- not love, a thought process.

Quote :

"Im pretty sure if you asked most gay people if their sexual orientation was one they had deliberately chosen, they'd argue that they were born gay. Im almost positive if you asked most straight people if they chose to like the opposite sex, they would say that it wasn't a choice at all."

I want to make a point you all may not have thought about. As a young child, I had no inclination toward either sex until fifth or sixth grade. Nobody particularly had cooties, but you know what I'm talking about. The interest was minimal. I don't think anybody is born gay or born straight, but by the time puberty hits, you have established agreement or disagreement or complete ignorance of everyone's expectations for you (What BridgetSPK meant by "environment"). I think you might find that straight people were pretty normal as kids, gays were pretty rebellious, and bisexuals were not so much guided as shoved out of the nest. Now, that last sentence was pure speculation, but I was a regular kid and I became straight when growing up, and (as you say) I had no choice. It was only 10+ years after said puberty began that I noticed the choice at all. But, there it was.

People who think it isn't a choice very likely have not looked for it within their own minds. It takes some balls to look for it, because you might give up what's familiar to you; you might lose your family, everything. So most people don't even look, and they stay stuck in the box that they had hashed out for themselves by age 10.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2006 8:48:33 AM

although this may be offensive, im not trying to be mean by saying it.

did you ever think maybe you are the exception to that statistical 99%. just cuz we are straight doesnt make our opinion any less valid. it doesnt mean we havent considered those types of options or thought about it. i understand the value you bring by diversifying the opinions in this thread, but it certainly doesnt inherently make you more correct.

i just wanted to say that since you kept harping on your own experience, which may or may not be relevant at all.

6/12/2006 8:55:38 AM

Quote :

"I'm genetically predisposed toward cancer -- a cellular abnormality -- not love, a thought process."

love isnt a thought process

it is just your reaction to someones pheromones where if you mated youd produce a child with a superior immune system

dont fool yourself

6/12/2006 9:15:46 AM

^^Quite possible... I'm just inclined to think that I'm not that remarkable.

^I think if you asked ten people what love is you'd get ten different answers. How about we both quit fooling ourselves. Look, if I can live with and and around men for 22 years and have absolutely no physiological reaction to seeing them or being near them, and then change my mind and all of a sudden I do have physiological reactions, it's not just genetics. The thought process itself is what enabled those hormones to flow, and I think my previous conviction (that I can't love men) is what prevented them from flowing in the first place.

6/12/2006 10:30:39 AM

i'm not reading this whole thread so forgive me if i am repeating others

but it doesnt matter

if it isnt a choice, then hating them is just as bad as hating someone b/c they are black, white, asian

if it is a choice, then hating them is just as bad as hating someone b/c they are jewish, muslim, christian

6/12/2006 10:34:12 AM

that.....OR THE MEDIA TURNED YOU GAY. CENSORSHIP I DEMAND!!!! and videogames too.

6/12/2006 10:48:05 AM

Quote :

"WildfireWing New Recruit 1 Posts In my opinion, "

STFU noob.

[/obligatory]

6/12/2006 10:55:40 AM

Quote :

" Your post is moderately offensive and also doesn't make sense."

offensive to you...ok fine

"doesn't make sense"...i guess that's your way of saying you disagree

6/12/2006 11:05:46 AM

And I'm sure that you know so much more just because you spend all your time online and make lots and lots of posts.

A more appropriate response would be to actually respond to my comment.

And blame the author of this post...he used my unity account, so I actually had to pay to register another email address.

6/12/2006 11:07:33 AM

the problem with ur post is that there are tons of things that dont hurt anyone that we regulate daily. it all hinges where you want to draw the line.

6/12/2006 12:04:53 PM

^^ zomg. At least there's a statute of limitations on internet theft!!! Mwahahaha.

Quote :

"STFU noob. [/obligatory]"

I bet she's much more well-read than you. Then again, so is my cat.

Quote :

"The thought process itself is what enabled those hormones to flow, and I think my previous conviction (that I can't love men) is what prevented them from flowing in the first place."

It's quite possible that you were genetically inclined to being bi-sexual but your mind kept yourself in denial. I don't even know how to assess your situation, but I'm not sure if your experience would apply to everybody. I mean we all know a kid that was gay when he was little. He wasn't sexually mature yet, but damn if he wasn't gay.

I really just don't think whether its a choice or not even matters. As long as a lifestyle involves consenting adults, I don't see why we as a free society shouldn't recognize it. There's no victim in a homosexual act.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2006 12:44:48 PM

Thanks for the support.

Yes, there are many things that we do daily that don't hurt other people that we regulate, but those things tend to hurt the person who is doing them. Since when does sex between two consenting adults hurt either one of the partners? (And don't say STDs, because a straight couple is vulernable to them as well.)

6/12/2006 2:01:08 PM

Quote :

"Yes, there are many things that we do daily that don't hurt other people that we regulate"

I'd argue against those as well. I'm strongly opposed to victimless crime -- people should have the option to do whatever they like with themselves.

6/12/2006 2:15:50 PM

Quote :

"And I'm sure that you know so much more just because you spend all your time online and make lots and lots of posts. "

thats funny. and original. i dont think anyone has ever rsponded to "stfu noob" in such a manner before.

anyhow, note the "[/obligatory]", and be sure to take it personal.

6/12/2006 2:52:29 PM

Quote :

"It's quite possible that you were genetically inclined to being bi-sexual but your mind kept yourself in denial. I don't even know how to assess your situation, but I'm not sure if your experience would apply to everybody."

Yeah, that's a possibility. I am but one data point.

Quote :

"I really just don't think whether its a choice or not even matters. As long as a lifestyle involves consenting adults, I don't see why we as a free society shouldn't recognize it. There's no victim in a homosexual act."

In the ideal sense you are right. We should just be OK with it no matter what. But, in the practical sense, regarding it as a choice and regarding it as genetic have different ramifications toward how soon it becomes completely accepted by society and by law. This has to do with the attitudes with which people regard homosexuality -- if it's genetic, then allowing gay marriage is, in some people's minds, the same as building a wheelchair ramp. It's not good enough. If it is a choice, and we regard it as a choice, then sexuality becomes something along the lines of religion -- "freedom of sexuality" should be placed right up there with freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition.

And I don't think I'm just splitting hairs; we're talking civil rights here. Every little bit helps. The more we know, the better.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 5:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2006 5:39:54 PM

Quote :

""freedom of sexuality" should be placed right up there with freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition."

thats where you start to slip-n-slide down a very dangerous slope.

Honestly, I really hate slippery slope arguments most of the time.

But what the fuck is "freedom of sexuality"? Does that include freedom to fuck your sister? To fuck an animal? Do you consider those to be "victimless" crimes? Honestly, you tell me. Because I don't really give a shit if you fuck some random consenting dude, but when you start messing with kids and/or animals, thats just messed up on many levels.

6/12/2006 7:00:03 PM

i was going to comment on that too, but figured id get yelled at. best to just define it as sex between two consenting, able-minded adults.

i say, make sexual preference a protected class, give um some sort of union/marriage/whatever, and be done with it.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2006 7:02:58 PM

whys it gotta be 2 consenting adults.


I feel i am genetically disposed to love multiple women at the same time.

you are offending my sexual orientation and i demand equal rights.

6/12/2006 7:14:26 PM

probably because of the obvious loopholes for tax purposes

6/12/2006 7:28:04 PM

well by some ppls narrow definition it has to require your penis in a pelvic hole of ur partner. you could try to put ur penis in more than one person, but it might be difficult.

6/12/2006 7:37:47 PM

Quote :

"But what the fuck is "freedom of sexuality"? Does that include freedom to fuck your sister? To fuck an animal? Do you consider those to be "victimless" crimes? Honestly, you tell me. Because I don't really give a shit if you fuck some random consenting dude, but when you start messing with kids and/or animals, thats just messed up on many levels."

Man, fuck if I know what's up with bestiality. I think if you're going to draw the line someplace, "consenting adults" is a great place to draw it.

Quote :

"well by some ppls narrow definition it has to require your penis in a pelvic hole of ur partner. you could try to put ur penis in more than one person, but it might be difficult."

I don't think it's good to define it as where your penis goes. Hell, penises go all kinds of places, and lots of things go into vaginas. Cucumbers should be legal, man. It's not a fetish of mine, but let's bring this one along for the ride.

OK, that paragraph was a joke.

Quote :

"whys it gotta be 2 consenting adults. I feel i am genetically disposed to love multiple women at the same time. you are offending my sexual orientation and i demand equal rights."

Really, I don't know what I think about this anymore. I'm still trying to get my footing with boys -- And that might alienate most or all of you, but there you go. I take no stance on polyamory.

And I'll go you one further. I feel that a genetic predisposition to love many at the same time is a more valid claim than a genetic predisposition to love or not to love the same sex. Why do I say so -- Genghis muffuckin Khan.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 11:26 PM. Reason : sp]

6/12/2006 11:25:29 PM

Well I'm gay. I do not, for one moment, believe that I chose my sexual orientation. I mean really, how can someone say I chose to be discriminated against and constantly called names? Who would want that? Be serious. Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on this topic b/c this horse has been beaten severely over the past few years on TWW.

6/13/2006 10:51:42 AM

maybe you just like attention.

6/13/2006 10:58:21 AM

If you knew me, then you would not know I was gay unless I told you. Therefore, your comment is utterly ridiculous.

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 11:15 AM. Reason : asdf]

6/13/2006 11:15:39 AM

Quote :

" how can someone say I chose to be discriminated against and constantly called names"

if no one knows ur gay then i dont see the issue you have here. the other comment was just a joke though.

6/13/2006 11:26:06 AM

^good point.

There are two questions here. One, is sexuality a result of environment or genetics -- and in either case, it's possible to have no choice, like J-Me. Two, is it possible to have a choice? To that end I say yes it is possible, because I had one. Also, because of my experience I think it is environment. I also think that to call it genetics is impeding to the progress of civil rights.

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : rewrite]

6/13/2006 3:55:42 PM