Are gay people born that way or is it simply a lifestyle choice?
Poll
 | 36 votes (63.15%) | ||
| | 21 votes (36.84%) |
57 members have voted
Quote: WongBoit is actually talked about all the time.
it is called bisexuality.
many gay guys talk about straight male's tendencies
because the sex sites are teeming with men
who identify as straight but want gay sex.
So the opposite of that....would you agree there are gay men that WANT to be straight (not bi)?
Ken
Quote: WongBoit is actually talked about all the time.
it is called bisexuality.
Thats not the same thing. If you're having a
relationship with Johnny at the office and he's
got a passionate thing for you, try and tell
him your secretary is looking pretty good
some days and you might go for it. See what
his reaction to your 'bi-sexuality' is.
Tell us Bob. Tell us what Johnny's reaction would be. You seem to have some insight here that I lack.Quote: EvenBobThats not the same thing. If you're having a
relationship with Johnny at the office and he's
got a passionate thing for you, try and tell
him your secretary is looking pretty good
some days and you might go for it. See what
his reaction to your 'bi-sexuality' is.
Quote: s2dbakerTell us Bob. Tell us what Johnny's reaction would be. .
The same as my wife's would be if I told
her I had a thing for the neighbors college
freshman son and I'm going for it.
Quote: EvenBobThats not the same thing. If you're having a
relationship with Johnny at the office and he's
got a passionate thing for you, try and tell
him your secretary is looking pretty good
some days and you might go for it. See what
his reaction to your 'bi-sexuality' is.
Gay men seem happy with their choice, and they will attack any gay man that tries to leave the reservation. This is why they are so against conversion thearapy. They are not afraid counseling will not work, they are afraid it WILL.
Once again, to the gay males here. You say you are treated second-class and have "no choice" in the matter since you are born that way. If I offered you a "straight pill" that would put you to sleep 8 hours, then you would wake up wanting straight sex only and be repulsed at the thought of going down with another male, would you take it?
We know the answer is "no" by the silence on it.
the answer is no.
the world has enough boring mundane heterosexuals in it.
maybe you are the one who needs the pill.
you seem positively enraptured by gay sex.
edited: deleted comment
Quote: WongBowhat silence? you think you are going to get silence from me? keep dreaming.
the answer is no.
the world has enough boring mundane heterosexuals in it.
maybe you are the one who needs the pill.
you seem positively enraptured by gay sex.
Comedy central, the gay community likes to have it both ways (insert joke).
If 'they' are talking about their choices, stories, posts etc., and WE dont respond to it, that means WE are afraid to get involved with the discussion or are homophobic.
BUT
If we get involved in conversations, (defend being straight) then we are 'gay interested' but just too afraid to express our 'real feelings' on the subject.
More BS from a rookie poster IMO.
Ken
Quote: AZDuffmanThey are not afraid counseling will not work, they are afraid it WILL.
Being Gay for many Gay men is 80% of who they are.
Take that away and they have nothing left. The attention
they get would be gone, the Gay 'lifestyle' that sets them
apart from straights is gone, chasing other men in their
spare time would vanish, talking about being Gay half
the day is kaput. They're not going to give all that up,
are you kidding?
A straight man's sexuality makes up very little of their
identity. We don't talk about it, we don't have a
special straight 'lifestyle' we're always pushing. When
I had the bar and got a lot of Gay customers from down
the street, thats all they talked about, being Gay. It
was amazing. They're fascinated by who they are and
think everybody else is too. It gets real old real fast,
but not to them.
Quote: WongBo...and i do not think most people care about other people's sexuality.
there are a few who are really hung up on the topic.
most of them in my experience have issues with their own sexuality.
desperately trying to convince themselves and others that they have no homosexual tendencies.
Republican politicians.
Quote: EvenBobBeing Gay for many Gay men is 80% of who they are.
It's good that you added "many". Because a lot of them aren't that.
But there is selection bias: they don't come to gay bars (any bar where you can openly talk about being gay counts as a gay bar for the gay scene). And those who do come to gay bars, don't come there just to get wasted.
Also, I think you might be exaggerating with 80%. Although... I know a few straight people who don't amount to anything, other than their routine office job, their clothes and phones, and occasional sexual relationships, and are content with that. (I'm not being judgmental or dismissive; I heard it from them, openly and sometimes even with pride). So all they have apart from being straight is the things they buy. They'd be better off actively gay, it's probably less boring.
Quote: P90They'd be better off actively gay, it's probably less boring.
I disagree. Having a life centered around you're
sexual orientation is as boring as it gets. Sex
should be a minor part of who you are, not your
reason for existence.
Ken
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/science_tech/gay-gene-homosexuality-source-may-lie-in-epigenetics-or-epi-marks-scientists-say
Quote: EvenBobLooks like there is no Gay gene,
No true Bob. I have seen plenty of gay jeans, even owned a pair. lol
Quote: kewljNo true Bob. I have seen plenty of gay jeans, even owned a pair. lol
I agree. the guy who use to cut my hair was a gay gene.
Quote: EvenBobLooks like there is no Gay gene, but its still connected to genetics.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/science_tech/gay-gene-homosexuality-source-may-lie-in-epigenetics-or-epi-marks-scientists-say
If you read the whole article, they point out this is only a hypothesis and sufficient data verifying it has yet to be collected. lol But the argument sounds plausible.
And I read this entire thread since it went on before I showed up. I noticed the people who I thought had the poorest, uninformed arguments really don't post much here anymore.
Governments should be all about "unions" - giving people the legal rights to claim deductions, have power-of-attorney priviliges, insurance coverage, etc. Leave "marriage" to the churches and those willing to perform ceremonies so that the word marriage doesn't lose its meaning to those that don't care. Then the governments can allow same sex "unions" and confer all of the government benefits and rights that any couple has.
Of course life continues on through vaginal intercourse with a male, straight and simple. But there is plenty of technology to continue life without vaginal intercourse.
Marriage is not about creating life. It's an institution that creates a family. It nature took its course, males would try (and do try) to impregnate anything possible out there. Sex is about creating life. Ask a man married for 30 years how much sex he's having! What good is marriage after the kids have left the proverbial nest?
The logic that "gays are born with a problem as yet not understood" is just ignorant, disgusting imagery aside. Certain people are born or develop a preference that is in a minority, and in this minority, they cannot reproduce because they prefer the same sex. It makes them different, not sick or wrong, or even having a problem.
Hitler had the same kind of disdain for the Jews and a nation, full of hatred and ignorance, went along for the ride.
I've never heard of a man truing to impregnate a snake, even if it could be held still long enough.
If Mother Nature meant for sperm to be released into another man's ass for any viable reason whatsoever, it wouldn't be a prison sport and there wouldn't be aids.
It sounds like traditional marriage frustrates you. It all depends on your value system, or lack thereof.
Quote: iluvdisco33You sir, are a completely misled individual.
Maybe a better question would be:
Are internet trolls born that way or is it a lifestyle choice?
The ball is in your court, sir.
Quote: boymimboThe logic that "gays are born with a problem as yet not understood" is just ignorant,
Actually it's just wrong. I mean, it's perfectly well understood: gays, and others, are born in a world where some poeple try to deny them rights for inconsequential reasons, religious fantasies or a combination of these and other factors. We understand that very well.
Quote: iluvdisco33You sir, are a completely misled individual. Comparing Jews with gays is a distinct insult to Jews, which shows a disdain on your part.
I've never heard of a man truing to impregnate a snake, even if it could be held still long enough.
If Mother Nature meant for sperm to be released into another man's ass for any viable reason whatsoever, it wouldn't be a prison sport and there wouldn't be aids.
It sounds like traditional marriage frustrates you. It all depends on your value system, or lack thereof.
LOL!!!
Actually, mother nature has provided us with many ways to release sperm. If mother nature had just intended for us to release sperm into the vagina of a female of the opposite sex of our species, then she wouldn't have allowed us to find the innumerable other ways for men to get that kind of pleasure, including anal sex.
I mean, what about homosexuality really bothers you? The fact that it exists? It exists throughout nature and is not limited to homosapiens. From your writing, it appears that you think it's a "disease" that needs to be cured based on the fact that being gay doesn't allow one to propogate the species as "nature" intended. Perhaps being "gay" is mother nature's way to curb overpopulation and is "as intended".
Traditional marriage doesn't frustrate me at all. My procreating is complete - one child. I'm happily married, but the purpose of my marriage is not procreation - it's compansionship.
I would say however, that the institution of marriage probably interferes with your view that mother nature wants us to procreate. If our purpose on earth was to just procreate, then marriage goes against that, because it is instinctive for a man to spread his seed to as many partners as he can, while it is instinctive for a woman to find a long term partner who can secure the well being of their offspring.
I didn't compare Jews with gays. I compared the hatred of Jews to the hatred of homosexuality. Hitler thought that the Jews were a disease to his perfect society. There are a number of people who feel the same way about homosexuality, and hey, they have the abomination verse in the bible to back them up.
Quote: WongBoi can only assume from this post that you have tried them both, many times, and have finally reached this conclusion.
Would you make the same assumption if the point under discussion was suicide or horse racing?
Quote: EvenBobLooks like there is no Gay gene, but its still connected to genetics.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/science_tech/gay-gene-homosexuality-source-may-lie-in-epigenetics-or-epi-marks-scientists-say
Not too surprised. The theories I'm seeing is that any sufficiently complex human trait is possibly a mix of genetics, gene expression (epi-genetics) and environment. Unless a behaviour can be directly linked to a set of proteins produced in the cells, it's always going to be more complex than a simple genetic marker.
The observation is quite the contrary - homosexuality is found everywhere in nature. Simply ask some professional working with animals. Even on of the cat of my parents is homosexual.
Quote: MangoJIf homosexuality were some kind of genetic property that would be inherited to their offsprings, homosexuality would have been vanished long long time ago (assuming that homosexual people have significantly less children than heterosexual people).
Not necesarily.
For one thing, there are such things as mutations. These are "genetic" in that they are in a person's genes, but are not inherited as the person's parents did not have that trait (but their reproductive cells did).
Then, too, there are such things as genetic conditions that favor one sex but not another. For example, Hemochromatosis, a condition where too much iron is retained in the blood, si terrible for men, but might be helpful for women, who regularly loose iron in menstruation. Such a genetic condition might tend to persist.
Then there are recessive genes which help when a person has one copy. Sickle cell anemia is a classic case. People with two "defective" copies of the gene suffer terribly and are at high risk of dying young. but people with one gene are mroe resistant to malarial parasites.
And then there's your parenthetical assumption: homosexuals can have children. Until recently all to many did have children rather regularly as they amrried and tried to keep a "normal" life ebvcause they repressed or hid their homosexuality. Now it's not hard at all for gay men and women to have children by any of a variety of ways.
But all that, while interesting, is entirely irrelevant legally.
Still, as those who claim that the purpose of marriage is reproduction, don't insist on weeding out heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce (and there are millions). Why don't they insist that straight couples undergo fertility tests, for instance, or that childless marriages be dissolved?
Quote: Nareed
Still, as those who claim that the purpose of marriage is reproduction, don't insist on weeding out heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce (and there are millions). Why don't they insist that straight couples undergo fertility tests, for instance, or that childless marriages be dissolved?
The Bible doesn't condemn infertility? Or maybe it does, I've never read the thing cover to cover. :)
Quote: iluvdisco33I believe it's all pretty clear cut and logical: gays are born with a problem as yet not understood (but it will be solved someday, and hopefully, be correctable) and the twisted sickness of same sex marriage should be obvious to everyone..
What are they going to do about the twisted sickness of masturbation? Or as follows: "gravely disordered action"
Quote:2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."[137] "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."[138]
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/bible_mast.htm
Quote: tringlomaneThe Bible doesn't condemn infertility?
Not the point. A great many people make the claim that the purpose of marriage is reproduction. If so, then only those who 1) can reproduce and 2) intend to reproduce, ought to be allowed to marry. They should stand by their convictions and demand the sacred purpose of marriage be fulfilled.
My wife can't reproduce (never could), and I've got my offspring, so I am with my wife for love and companionship. And there are plenty of people who reproduce outside of marriage.
Sex leads to reproduction, not marriage.
That was my joke, for which I was soundly insulted. After 30 years of marriage, first off, sex is typically rare and the female has going through menopause.
Quote: NareedNot the point. A great many people make the claim that the purpose of marriage is reproduction. If so, then only those who 1) can reproduce and 2) intend to reproduce, ought to be allowed to marry. They should stand by their convictions and demand the sacred purpose of marriage be fulfilled.
I was more implying the place where these people got the idea from, but that's probably restating the obvious, which I am quite good at. :(
Quote: tringlomaneI was more implying the place where these people got the idea from, but that's probably restating the obvious, which I am quite good at. :(
Oh, I know it all ultimately goes to the Bible. Hell, to hear them talk, there was no marriage anywhere at any time until Jesus came along. I just can't apss up a chance to puncture their arguments.
Though I should also add it gives me great comfort to know that those who oppose homosexuality have already lost, at least in the US, Canada and much of Europe. In other places they are losing, too. It's not all over yet, but you can see the end.
I actually personally believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Since the context of marriage is biblical, let churches perform marriages. A marriage is a form of civil union. Let everyone else perform civil unions. Change the tax forms to change the status from married to "unioned". Governments can then confer all rights and benefits to "unioned" couples and the "holy sanctity" of marriage is maintained. Everyone's happy. Separation of church and state is maintained. And if a church was to perform a marraige between homosexual couples (like the Anglican church), that's their choice.
Back to the original argument: being gay is a choice. But certainly, you are born with a tendency. How you act on them is your choice.
Quote: boymimboI actually personally believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Since the context of marriage is biblical, let churches perform marriages.
The context of marriage is legal, not religious. This goes back to the dawn of civilization, if not before then. It's true that religion was mixed in with politics until relatively recent times, but that's not true anymore.
BTW, per your definition marriages performed by, say, Jewish or Sikh or Buddhist temples shouldn't be marriages either.
Quote:Back to the original argument: being gay is a choice. But certainly, you are born with a tendency. How you act on them is your choice.
Bein Christian is a choice. I think we can cure that.
I didn't start the thread and it begged for opining. Gays serve no viable purpose other than to flaunt their weird alternative lifestyle in the presence of normal people. Why is it that most gay men have to talk funny? Why do they have to flailing their hands and arms around like little sissys? And why in heaven's name do every single one of the so-called gay couples getting "married" that we see on tv consist of fat and butt ugly females, the goofiest looking she-men on earth, and every one of them wears a shot-eaten grin non-stop. No, these freaks are not normal....not to those who have moral, ethical, and traditional values they don't.
I work with a gay man. My daughter's best friend is a gay boy (I hope). Neither of these people flaunt their "weird alternative lifestyle in the presence of normal people". Neither of them talk funny. Neither of them flail their hands and walk around like sissies. Neither of them are obviously "gay'. Anderson Cooper wasn't obviously gay. There are plenty of people in all walks in life who are gay but don't possess the stereotypical qualities. There are probably a number of professional athletes who are also gay.
And no, they're not "normal". WTF is normal? Certainly gayness is becoming normalized in this society thanks to some progressive thinking. This normalcy allows gay teenagers to feel comfortable in their own skin without fear of getting bullied or worst yet, committing suicide because some f***ing idiots think that gay people are diseased, or are freaks, or are not normal. Some people think progressive is not good. Fine.
Quote: boymimboYou may have a majority backed opinion, in your country. We've had gay marriage in Canada for a long time and we've been fine with it.
I work with a gay man. My daughter's best friend is a gay boy (I hope). Neither of these people flaunt their "weird alternative lifestyle in the presence of normal people". Neither of them talk funny. Neither of them flail their hands and walk around like sissies. Neither of them are obviously "gay'. Anderson Cooper wasn't obviously gay. There are plenty of people in all walks in life who are gay but don't possess the stereotypical qualities. There are probably a number of professional athletes who are also gay.
And no, they're not "normal". WTF is normal? Certainly gayness is becoming normalized in this society thanks to some progressive thinking. This normalcy allows gay teenagers to feel comfortable in their own skin without fear of getting bullied or worst yet, committing suicide because some f***ing idiots think that gay people are diseased, or are freaks, or are not normal. Some people think progressive is not good. Fine.
"Normal. What a stupid-ass word that is." -from A Separate Peace
I wasn't aware that we can receive personal messages here, but apparently because I hit an "alternative lifestyle" nerve and I'm not TOLERANT enough for him with what I think, some guy called Nareed sent me a nasty and disgusting pm. Dollars for donuts he's dealing with a "problem". And I'm sorry, I won't respond to trash talk.
Quote: iluvdisco33some guy called Nareed sent me a nasty and disgusting pm. Dollars for donuts he's dealing with a "problem". And I'm sorry, I won't respond to trash talk.
I'm sorry, I just laughed out loud and frightened my
dog. You have no idea the number of faux paux's
you just posted. Priceless..
Quote: iluvdisco33I wasn't aware that we can receive personal messages here,
Suspension for disclosing contents of a PM?
Quote: NareedSuspension for disclosing contents of a PM?
I don't see any contents or quotes of what you sent.
He can say you sent him a nasty PM, no rule against that.
You have lots of experience with those, if I recall..
Quote: EvenBobI don't see any contents or quotes of what you sent.
The bigot claims I called him something. That's a disclosure and against the rules. And if calling him a bigot is cause for suspension, let me just repeat: this poor man's version of Jerry Logan is a bigot.
Of course, this pales in comparison to posting a link to a podcast, but I can't be so evil all the time. it gets tiresome.
Quote: NareedSuspension for disclosing contents of a PM?
The Wizard can certainly overrule me, but I'm going to make an exception to the suspension in this case because he was not even aware that he could receive PM's, and therefore, could not have been aware of that rule as he would know he could receive PM's if he were aware of that Rule.
Further, it doesn't appear that he disclosed any of the specifics of the PM.
Finally, and I could be wrong, but it really doesn't seem like there is any good reason to send him a topical PM about this matter when we already have a topic right here in which your opinion on his position can be posted.
Quote: Mission146The Wizard can certainly overrule me, but I'm going to make an exception to the suspension in this case because he was not even aware that he could receive PM's, and therefore, could not have been aware of that rule as he would know he could receive PM's if he were aware of that Rule.
I will cite a universal principle: ignorance of a law (or rule) is no excuse for breaking it.
Quote:Further, it doesn't appear that he disclosed any of the specifics of the PM.
Well, that's a judgment call. I say he did.
Quote:Finally, and I could be wrong, but it really doesn't seem like there is any good reason to send him a topical PM about this matter when we already have a topic right here in which your opinion on his position can be posted.
Funny how my mind works, doesn't it? ;P
I'm also going to ask that you peruse the Forum Rules:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/2-forum-rules/#post37215
To become familiar with all of the Rules, including the PM Rule.
If you feel that Nareed's PM violated any of the other Rules, then you may not post such in-thread, but you may report such a PM to either myself, Wizard or JB and we will take the appropriate action if it is violative of other Rules.
As you can see in my post above, (which was made after your most recent post) I was in the process of typing out a public, "Warning," at the time you were posting. This, "Warning," reflects my punishment for the offense.
Quote: iluvdisco33What I don't understand is Nareed's hateful approach here and lying about what I've opined about.
Why would you understand, you've only been here
a month. Give it awhile..
Quote: iluvdisco33Mission146, I understand and will familiarize myself with the regulations concerning this. I simply did not post the contents of his pm because I would never do that anywhere without permission. What I don't understand is Nareed's hateful approach here and lying about what I've opined about.
That's why I stay out of these threads. You've been insulted and you haven't publicly asked for anyone to be suspended. I give you credit for that.
