Queer people of faith

wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Queer people of faith

As a total faggot, I sometimes wish I was born earlier, before the AIDS epidemic began. Why? Because, at that point in history, being queer also meant you were a skeptic and freethinker, if not a downright atheist. The guy you were fucking wouldn't have to take a condom out of his ass and go to church the next morning.

 

After the AIDS epidemic, we saw lots of gay men running back to faith. This is when the gay-friendly churches were founded, later to be follow by the gay Jewish and gay Muslim help groups.

 

As someone who was president of my university's queer organization, and someone who has been relatively active in the community (ie, sleeps around a a shitload), I will certainly say that queer people of faith outnumber those who are freethinkers. We even have queers who are "waiting for marriage." The only thing I'd say is notable is the high amounts of New Age faiths, such as Wicca.

 

Now, there was a good two years where my religion and my queerness overlapped, and that was because I couldn't think of a rational way to reject my religious beliefs, and my understanding of Islam had always been rather liberal anyway. But, when I did find a way out, oh boy did I jump off that boat.

 

So, honestly, for other queers here, or others with at least some vague familiarity with the community, does the high amount of religious folk these days bother you? Unlike me, not all of them want a way out of faith. Certainly they're not as dogmatic as the straight ones, but still, why do they resign themselves to religious groups, where 90% of the believers find their lifestyle and feelings an abomination, as opposed to a philosophical position that almost anyone who holds it affirms their rights? It's just moronic.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Now my dogs are sleeping

Now my dogs are sleeping peacefully on either side of me completely unaware that they are about to embark on one of their favorite things, walk in the park. This will give you plenty of time to mull over things with your tunnel vision and think of some more cutesy "boo hoo'age".

have fun-

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Btw your theism states that you know gays are good and wonderful and everyone else should believe that, I might be suprised if you don't go door to door thumping this dogma.

Once again you completely miss the point.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF LABEL, BE IT POLITICAL, NATIONAL, RACE OR SEXUALITY OR RELIGION, is automatically good or bad.

The only one being dogmatic here is you, not me.

I am STRICTLY talking about their sexuality, not them as individuals human beings.

You keep mistaking "yucky" as "bad". I keep giving you the rational way out of the corner you painted yourself in and you are STILL stupidly making the label the issue.

If I was being dogmatic I would pass laws physically forcing you to have gay sex. Since all I am doing is simply saying "you find it yucky" that can hardly be called dogmatic.

You are the one treating someone different than you as being bad.

There are 7 billion people on this planet and they display a RANGE, not an absolute.

YOU you simply find gay sex yucky. Boo hoo, crybaby.

 

 

 

 

This "range" as you like to put it is rather large. There are people who lack self control which causes them to attempt sex with children, we call them pedophiles. There are people who hate simply because they like to. This range extends rather far on either side and you fail to recognize I myself as well as yourself are in this "range" you speak of.

Now it is about lacking self control? Now you have gone from equating homosexuality mental retardation to pedophiles and now lack of self control?

So I guess the gay couple who owned the real estate agency two houses down from my former apartment never raped anyone. Never molested kids and they managed to turn a wreck of a house they paid 20 grand for into what is now probably a 200,000 dollar house. I guess they lacked self control, no wait.....

Still succeeding at making yourself look like a fool.

RAPE of adults and pedophilia is not about sexuality it is about power and control the sex in either case is merely a manifestation of the criminal's lack of control because of their selfish need to control others.

Heterosexual men rape women all the time. So maybe hetorsexuality too is a problem? Heterosexual men in prison rape other men. NOT because they want gay sex, but because they want to dominate someone. Sexuality is a separate issue than the criminal act of trying to dominate someone else.

Once again you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about.

"Maybe gays have  a problem"

"Gayness is like mental retardation"

"Gayness is like pedophilia"

"Gayness is a lack of self control"

Evolution produces idiots and you most certainly are an example.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:robj101

Sandycane wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Remember how you are treating gays the next time a Christian equates you to Hitler because you don't believe

I don't think she said anything about *treating* them in any way mr. thought police. "wew wew wew stop, you are not allowed to think bad thoughts about people you have to think what I think"

That's a funny analogy considering the debate on Hitler's "atheism", only a blind fool would actually equate Hitler to atheism and I would hardly bother to seriously argue or consider such a statement unless somehow it really did touch a nerve. Usually a touchy nerve denotes a problem.

You are correct, in fact, I said gays should be entitled to the same basic human rights that everyone else is.

Yea, like lepers have the right to go to a hospital. Just as long as when you go, you're not in the same wing. Keep those gays in a separate wing, you wouldn't want to catch their gayness.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Our 'nature' is, among other

Our 'nature' is, among other things, what inclines us to make certain choices more often than others, when 'rational', conscious assessment doesn't clearly point either way.

In some matters, that subconscious 'bias' can be hard to consciously overcome.

You don't 'choose' to find certain people, or categories of people, more attractive than others, either aesthetically or as potential sexual partners.

It is true that intellectual factors, like finding out that someone is a fundie, or a Nazi, or politically on the 'other side', can be a 'turn-off'.

This can make it a bit fuzzy in assessing definitively what is a conscious choice and what is your sub-conscious pushing you, or someone else, one way or the other.

=======

Homosexuality is within the normal RANGE of human behaviour, it occurs quite often enough to be considered more than an occasional genetic 'misfire'.

Sexuality is not even a single dimension -  the degree to which someone prefers partners of one sex to another, the degree to which they can control the urge to have sex, the intensity of their sex drive overall, whether they restrict their acts to only one kind or will try anything, and so on, are all different dimensions of a person sexual 'nature'.

And sex is not purely for reproduction even if that is why it exists. Especially in social mammals, it also functions for social bonding, which is important for a social group. For bonding purposes, homosexuality, or any non-vaginal sex, is actually to be preferred, if unwanted pregnanciy would cause problems.

Actually, sex does not exist because of the need for reproduction, it is for genetic mixing, spreading the genes, to allow evolution to work more effectively. Otherwise parthenogenesis would be fine, and two sexes would not be necessary.

========

In my world, the 'morailty' of an act should be most importantly a matter of whether someone is being harmed, forced against their expressed desire to participate in something, or otherwise being subject to someone else's will when they don't want to be.  Causing someone pain and distress can pretty much only be justified if it is to address some injury or illness, such as the pain of a medical procedure, drilling a tooth, bursting an abscess, treating a broken bone, administering unpleasant medicine, etc.

Or perhaps if it is part of restraining or otherwise preventing them from inflicting pain or worse on someone else, or yourself, as in self-defense.

Then one 'should' not cause or allow such harm by a failure to act when it is clearly within your capability and availability to do so, but I see this as a bit less compelling an issue, depending on circumstances.

None of this arises in considerations of consensual homosexual activities.

Attaching 'moral' views and ideas and proscriptions to actions which don't fall within such boundaries, where the people involved are cool with it, and no broader harm can be clearly pointed to, that is the problem I have with Religion based 'morality. I have the same objection to people attaching 'moral' judgements to things because they simply don't like them, when that dislike is based on their personal distaste, and there is no 'harm' involved, in the sense I described above.

=======

Is that sufficiently clear?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Btw your theism states that you know gays are good and wonderful and everyone else should believe that, I might be suprised if you don't go door to door thumping this dogma.

Once again you completely miss the point.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF LABEL, BE IT POLITICAL, NATIONAL, RACE OR SEXUALITY OR RELIGION, is automatically good or bad.

The only one being dogmatic here is you, not me.

I am STRICTLY talking about their sexuality, not them as individuals human beings.

You keep mistaking "yucky" as "bad". I keep giving you the rational way out of the corner you painted yourself in and you are STILL stupidly making the label the issue.

If I was being dogmatic I would pass laws physically forcing you to have gay sex. Since all I am doing is simply saying "you find it yucky" that can hardly be called dogmatic.

You are the one treating someone different than you as being bad.

There are 7 billion people on this planet and they display a RANGE, not an absolute.

YOU you simply find gay sex yucky. Boo hoo, crybaby.

 

 

 

 

This "range" as you like to put it is rather large. There are people who lack self control which causes them to attempt sex with children, we call them pedophiles. There are people who hate simply because they like to. This range extends rather far on either side and you fail to recognize I myself as well as yourself are in this "range" you speak of.

Now it is about lacking self control? Now you have gone from equating homosexuality mental retardation to pedophiles and now lack of self control?

So I guess the gay couple who owned the real estate agency two houses down from my former apartment never raped anyone. Never molested kids and they managed to turn a wreck of a house they paid 20 grand for into what is now probably a 200,000 dollar house. I guess they lacked self control, no wait.....

Still succeeding at making yourself look like a fool.

RAPE of adults and pedophilia is not about sexuality it is about power and control the sex in either case is merely a manifestation of the criminal's lack of control because of their selfish need to control others.

Heterosexual men rape women all the time. So maybe hetorsexuality too is a problem? Heterosexual men in prison rape other men. NOT because they want gay sex, but because they want to dominate someone. Sexuality is a separate issue than the criminal act of trying to dominate someone else.

Once again you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about.

"Maybe gays have  a problem"

"Gayness is like mental retardation"

"Gayness is like pedophilia"

"Gayness is a lack of self control"

Evolution produces idiots and you most certainly are an example.

 

 

 

If I say being gay is choice like wether or not to eat a bowl of cheerios are you going to say I'm calling them or actually correlating them to "cheerios" as well? lmao you are amusing.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Once again

Brian37 wrote:

 

Once again you completely miss the point.

 

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Good job, robj101... sorry I

Good job, robj101... sorry I wasn't here to assist, I just got back from WallyWorld. That was entertaining, too.

For the record: I was the one that said gay sex was 'yucky' not robj101.

and, it was I that used the bell curve to compare normal chickens with abnormal chickens. I was not comparing chickens to gays.

Carry on Soldier, I think my mower is fixed so I have to get busy.

later

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
For Bob:"That's what I

For Bob:

"That's what I object to here, as I did in the other time this business came up with you.

It bugs me because you seem fine and pretty clear thinking away from this topic."

If this is indeed the case then why are you so abjectly in denial that there could be something I have seen or understood about my thoughts or even the general public's that may have an effect on how people percieve homosexuality other than it just being "yucky" as Brian quaintly puts it. I tend to look at the overall picture on everything it's not just personal opinion though I may express that as well if it may get a point across.

I would have absolutely sworn you also wrote something like: "your perception of homosexuals and attitude towards them says something" but for the life of me I can't find it.

Anyway, how do you take Brians rabid defense of homosexuality here overall? I have stated that an exposed nerve is often tender and he seems to have a very tender spot for this subject.

You are easier to actually have a discussion with, Brian babies around and cries from some emotional conflict from within when discussing matters obviously so close to his heart.

I generally don't start insulting anyone's views unless I feel they truly deserve it. Ergo Brian is a bleeding heart liberal ass who refuses to consider anything on this subject, his mind is closed. I enjoy people who can actually see and imagine someone elses view. I see his, but he is blind to mine. He is a context grinch who twists words to suit his own agenda, I even demonstrated that I can do the same thing but in general I refuse to use such tactics of which he blatantly and repetetively demonstrates.

I know you two are friends but you seem to have a much clearer head when discussing things.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anyone having a strong

Anyone having a strong sexual preference for young partners, and a lack of self-control, is like a pedophile, whether they are gay or straight.

Same with any person having difficulties restraining their sexual urges. IT IS NOT A GAY/STRAIGHT ISSUE!

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Anyone

BobSpence1 wrote:

Anyone having a strong sexual preference for young partners, and a lack of self-control, is like a pedophile, whether they are gay or straight.

Same with any person having difficulties restraining their sexual urges. IT IS NOT A GAY/STRAIGHT ISSUE!

 

Thanks for adding the "whether they are gay or straight" part, I apparently didn't feel a need to add it as there is no relevance in the way I used it, but thanks anyway.

Are you too going to now say I compare gays to cheerios? lol

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Another example of Brians

Another example of Brians context grinching.

I might say something like: Being born gay is like a squirrel giving birth to a rainbow hue'd baby elk. Brians response "how are gays like rainbow hue'd baby elks you whiney baby BOO HOO!

..lmao

Btw this is just a silly example, a rainbow hue'd baby elk being birthed by a squirrel would be rare indeed lol and has absolutey no DIRECT correlation to being gay in any form or fashion other than both things HAPPENED.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
 Things are getting ugly

 Things are getting ugly here, with names and red herrings being flung about, and I think I'd like to steer the conversation back to the topic of "normal or not," while avoiding any implications of morality for the time being. 

As I understand it, the two sides are as follows:

Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me. 

On the other hand, Bob is arguing that homosexuality is "normal" because it is something that occurs with some regularity among the human population, and various other animal populations as well. This is also a valid point. However, I am not sure of the usefulness of this position, because then almost anything could be said to be "normal" as long as it occurs in some percentage of the human population. For instance, I have bipolar depression, and that would be "normal" because it can be demonstrated that some people have bipolar depression. Same could be said for Down's syndrome, homosexuality, Klinefelter's syndrome, fear of heights... 

Now Bob, I apologize if I have misread your position, and if I have, please feel free to correct my assumptions. However, while I agree with you on technicality, I will reiterate my above statement that putting this issue in these terms is just not useful or helpful. There are many "options" that are outside the realm of possibility for the human experience at this point in time (i.e., having blue skin), so I can understand that those things would be "abnormal." But it does us little good when looking only at the actual possibilities or options available. And so I would argue in favor of the position that in order to meaningfully distinguish between options, we must designate "normal" or "abnormal." 

Later on I will talk about "natural" vs. "unnatural," but I'd like to do that in a separate post. Tell me what you guys think so far... Am I understanding the argument correctly?

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote: Things

greek goddess wrote:

 Things are getting ugly here, with names and red herrings being flung about, and I think I'd like to steer the conversation back to the topic of "normal or not," while avoiding any implications of morality for the time being. 

As I understand it, the two sides are as follows:

Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me. 

On the other hand, Bob is arguing that homosexuality is "normal" because it is something that occurs with some regularity among the human population, and various other animal populations as well. This is also a valid point. However, I am not sure of the usefulness of this position, because then almost anything could be said to be "normal" as long as it occurs in some percentage of the human population. For instance, I have bipolar depression, and that would be "normal" because it can be demonstrated that some people have bipolar depression. Same could be said for Down's syndrome, homosexuality, Klinefelter's syndrome, fear of heights... 

Now Bob, I apologize if I have misread your position, and if I have, please feel free to correct my assumptions. However, while I agree with you on technicality, I will reiterate my above statement that putting this issue in these terms is just not useful or helpful. There are many "options" that are outside the realm of possibility for the human experience at this point in time (i.e., having blue skin), so I can understand that those things would be "abnormal." But it does us little good when looking only at the actual possibilities or options available. And so I would argue in favor of the position that in order to meaningfully distinguish between options, we must designate "normal" or "abnormal." 

Later on I will talk about "natural" vs. "unnatural," but I'd like to do that in a separate post. Tell me what you guys think so far... Am I understanding the argument correctly?

 

You have a better grasp on it than some here and it seems a bit more of a moderate view in actually being able to see and weigh both sides which I applaud.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote: Things

greek goddess wrote:

 Things are getting ugly here, with names and red herrings being flung about, and I think I'd like to steer the conversation back to the topic of "normal or not," while avoiding any implications of morality for the time being. 

As I understand it, the two sides are as follows:

Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me.

 

Yay !  Somebody finally gets it !!!!           Abnormal does not mean abhorrent, vile, immoral, etc.

greek goddess wrote:
  On the other hand, Bob is arguing that homosexuality is "normal" because it is something that occurs with some regularity among the human population, and various other animal populations as well. This is also a valid point. However, I am not sure of the usefulness of this position, because then almost anything could be said to be "normal" as long as it occurs in some percentage of the human population. For instance, I have bipolar depression, and that would be "normal" because it can be demonstrated that some people have bipolar depression. Same could be said for Down's syndrome, homosexuality, Klinefelter's syndrome, fear of heights... 

  Bravo !!!

greek goddess wrote:
Now Bob, I apologize if I have misread your position, and if I have, please feel free to correct my assumptions. However, while I agree with you on technicality, I will reiterate my above statement that putting this issue in these terms is just not useful or helpful. There are many "options" that are outside the realm of possibility for the human experience at this point in time (i.e., having blue skin), so I can understand that those things would be "abnormal." But it does us little good when looking only at the actual possibilities or options available. And so I would argue in favor of the position that in order to meaningfully distinguish between options, we must designate "normal" or "abnormal."

 

  Thank you gg for restoring some sanity to this discussion.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:greek goddess

robj101 wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

 Things are getting ugly here, with names and red herrings being flung about, and I think I'd like to steer the conversation back to the topic of "normal or not," while avoiding any implications of morality for the time being. 

As I understand it, the two sides are as follows:

Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me. 

On the other hand, Bob is arguing that homosexuality is "normal" because it is something that occurs with some regularity among the human population, and various other animal populations as well. This is also a valid point. However, I am not sure of the usefulness of this position, because then almost anything could be said to be "normal" as long as it occurs in some percentage of the human population. For instance, I have bipolar depression, and that would be "normal" because it can be demonstrated that some people have bipolar depression. Same could be said for Down's syndrome, homosexuality, Klinefelter's syndrome, fear of heights... 

Now Bob, I apologize if I have misread your position, and if I have, please feel free to correct my assumptions. However, while I agree with you on technicality, I will reiterate my above statement that putting this issue in these terms is just not useful or helpful. There are many "options" that are outside the realm of possibility for the human experience at this point in time (i.e., having blue skin), so I can understand that those things would be "abnormal." But it does us little good when looking only at the actual possibilities or options available. And so I would argue in favor of the position that in order to meaningfully distinguish between options, we must designate "normal" or "abnormal." 

Later on I will talk about "natural" vs. "unnatural," but I'd like to do that in a separate post. Tell me what you guys think so far... Am I understanding the argument correctly?

 

You have a better grasp on it than some here and it seems a bit more of a moderate view in actually being able to see and weigh both sides which I applaud.

100% agreed.

Looking forward to reading more from you on the subject.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:You see the

robj101 wrote:
You see the problem here is that you absolutely refuse to believe there could be a problem with gays.

If all you mean is that they are in the minority, why do you keep using these potentially misleading negative terms? And why do you compare them to "new tires that blew out?" Humans had a purpose for those tires when they made those tires, but nature does not have purpose.

robj101 wrote:
You see the problem here is that you absolutely refuse to believe there could be a problem with gays. You want them so badly to be just like a hetero..they just like to have sex with the same gender and to your thinking it is exactly the same as having sex with the opposite gender and you can even work it out in your head how it's great and awesome, hell maybe it's even better![

I believe your judgment of his motivations is incorrect.

robj101 wrote:
but where we differ is in that you think they are "normal" and I do not, why is that?

Uuuhh, because you guys defined your terms differently?


 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:If

Sandycane wrote:
If homosexuality is a 'personal choice' then it is possible to not be so - obviously... and is proven by all of the gays who maintain a 'double-life'.

If it is caused by genetics, then it is also possible to choose to not be homosexual since it is not a physical abnormality like say, being born a hermaphrodite.

Can you choose to be homosexual, Sandy?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:Sandy,

greek goddess wrote:
Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me.

We weren't technically arguing about that, lol. I wasn't certain that this was how they were defining it until around page 6. It is possible that they already stated this many times before that. If that is the case, I apologize, but stuff that some people wrote led me to suspect that they were using the term with connotations like 'bad' or 'not following nature's intentions.'

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Sandycane

butterbattle wrote:

Sandycane wrote:
If homosexuality is a 'personal choice' then it is possible to not be so - obviously... and is proven by all of the gays who maintain a 'double-life'.

If it is caused by genetics, then it is also possible to choose to not be homosexual since it is not a physical abnormality like say, being born a hermaphrodite.

Can you choose to be homosexual, Sandy?

 

Sure. I could choose to be a lesbian or, bi-. If I did, GG would be just my type. 

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:greek

butterbattle wrote:

greek goddess wrote:
Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me.

We weren't technically arguing about that, lol. I wasn't certain that this was how they were defining it until around page 6. It is possible that they already stated this many times before that. If that is the case, I apologize, but stuff that some people wrote led me to suspect that they were using the term with connotations like 'bad' or 'not following nature's intentions.'

 

To simplify it further (hopefully it wont be taken out of context again somehow) people seem to want to think it is not "different". Homosexuality and heterosexuality are obviously different. Heterosexuality is obvious in that it is how we reproduce, homosexuality seems more of a choice or decision made somewhere along the line whether it is the person making a concious decision to do so or "nature" making this decision to have sex with the same gender. Unless you can explain how these two things are not different then we have nothing more to discuss really.

I like GG's idea of starting a thread discussing "natural" vs "unnatural".

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:greek

butterbattle wrote:

greek goddess wrote:
Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me.

We weren't technically arguing about that, lol. I wasn't certain that this was how they were defining it until around page 6. It is possible that they already stated this many times before that. If that is the case, I apologize, but stuff that some people wrote led me to suspect that they were using the term with connotations like 'bad' or 'not following nature's intentions.'

Oh ok, sorry for not 'getting' the argument, haha. Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm a bit lost as to who is arguing what at this point, so just step in and correct me if I'm somehow getting it wrong. 

Now as I said in my previous post, I wanted to avoid any moral implications for now, so purely in regards to simple statistics, I concede that it is appropriate to call non-heterosexual people "abnormal," as it is most common for a person to display an attraction only to the opposite sex. 

But yes, I'm with you butter, I do think a few people have made statements that implied "abnormal = bad, immoral, etc." whether they intended to or not. This is certainly something I don't agree with. I see nothing bad or immoral about whatever one's sexual orientation may be. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Sure. I

Sandycane wrote:
Sure. I could choose to be a lesbian or, bi-.

 

Neat.

Would that be just like throwing a switch, or would that involve some kind of reverse ex-gay therapy ?

 

(Can't wait for D'Artagnan to show up, btw)

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:greek

 

greek goddess wrote:
Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me.

butterbattle wrote:
We weren't technically arguing about that, lol. I wasn't certain that this was how they were defining it until around page 6. It is possible that they already stated this many times before that.
 

 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
  I tried a few times to emphasize that labeling something as abnormal is not the same as condemning it.   That is still my position.

 

 

butterbattle wrote:
If that is the case, I apologize, but stuff that some people wrote led me to suspect that they were using the term with connotations like 'bad' or 'not following nature's intentions.'

 

        

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
  The examples that I compared homosexuality to should not have drawn scorn as they did.  My choice of physical conditions that could be labeled as abnormal were chosen exclusively upon the fact that they were not dependent upon choices or preferences but were conditions that were congenital in nature.  Why ?  Because my belief was that similarly either heterosexual or "abnormal" homosexual tendencies were primarily determined before birth. 

  My concern was in regard to the origins of homosexuality, not in denigrating it.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:But yes,

greek goddess wrote:

But yes, I'm with you butter, I do think a few people have made statements that implied "abnormal = bad, immoral, etc." whether they intended to or not. This is certainly something I don't agree with. I see nothing bad or immoral about whatever one's sexual orientation may be. 

I think that would have been me... and here we go again with technical definitions....

I don't mean immoral as in the biblical sense.... or, do I?

Hmmm. I better think about this before I put my foot in my mouth again.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:(Can't wait

Anonymouse wrote:

(Can't wait for D'Artagnan to show up, btw)

 

s/he has yet to be identified.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Anonymouse

Sandycane wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

(Can't wait for D'Artagnan to show up, btw)

 

s/he has yet to be identified.

Probably not gonna be me, cause I'm still wondering how that voluntary transformation from straight to gay would actually work.

(If you were kidding about that, I do humbly beg your forgiveness. )


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Probably

Anonymouse wrote:

Probably not gonna be me, cause I'm still wondering how that voluntary transformation from straight to gay would actually work.

(If you were kidding about that, I do humbly beg your forgiveness. )

I'm thinking maybe Sandy meant that she could choose to engage in homosexual behavior. This is true; anyone could choose to sleep with a person of the same sex, regardless of whether any sexual attraction was truly present. However, one cannot consciously choose who they are attracted to, and attraction (not action) is what defines sexual orientation. For instance, despite the fact that I have yet to have actual sex with a female, I still identify as bisexual, because I am attracted to both males and females. Hope this clears some things up. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Probably not gonna be me, cause I'm still wondering how that voluntary transformation from straight to gay would actually work.

(If you were kidding about that, I do humbly beg your forgiveness. )

I'm thinking maybe Sandy meant that she could choose to engage in homosexual behavior. This is true; anyone could choose to sleep with a person of the same sex, regardless of whether any sexual attraction was truly present. However, one cannot consciously choose who they are attracted to, and attraction (not action) is what defines sexual orientation. For instance, despite the fact that I have yet to have actual sex with a female, I still identify as bisexual, because I am attracted to both males and females. Hope this clears some things up. 

Thank you once again for translating/defusing.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Probably not gonna be me, cause I'm still wondering how that voluntary transformation from straight to gay would actually work.

(If you were kidding about that, I do humbly beg your forgiveness. )

I'm thinking maybe Sandy meant that she could choose to engage in homosexual behavior. This is true; anyone could choose to sleep with a person of the same sex, regardless of whether any sexual attraction was truly present. However, one cannot consciously choose who they are attracted to, and attraction (not action) is what defines sexual orientation. For instance, despite the fact that I have yet to have actual sex with a female, I still identify as bisexual, because I am attracted to both males and females. Hope this clears some things up. 

I beg to differ... according to NoMoreCrazyPeople, his sister did just that.

Quote:
My sister was straight for 29 years, has 2 children, now she is in a lesbian relationship, so what is she?  Bi/gay?  No, she's none of the above, and all of the above, she is herself!!!  She is a completely unique person with a completely unique blend of sexual interests, she finds some women attractive, and some men, she can see herself in relationships with both however leans towards one side.  So what is she? 
My reply to what is she was, 'confused'.

Can you explain why you doubt that I could do the same?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:greek

Anonymouse wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Probably not gonna be me, cause I'm still wondering how that voluntary transformation from straight to gay would actually work.

(If you were kidding about that, I do humbly beg your forgiveness. )

I'm thinking maybe Sandy meant that she could choose to engage in homosexual behavior. This is true; anyone could choose to sleep with a person of the same sex, regardless of whether any sexual attraction was truly present. However, one cannot consciously choose who they are attracted to, and attraction (not action) is what defines sexual orientation. For instance, despite the fact that I have yet to have actual sex with a female, I still identify as bisexual, because I am attracted to both males and females. Hope this clears some things up. 

Thank you once again for translating/defusing.

haha, no problem... 


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I beg to

Sandycane wrote:

I beg to differ... according to NoMoreCrazyPeople, his sister did just that.

Quote:
My sister was straight for 29 years, has 2 children, now she is in a lesbian relationship, so what is she?  Bi/gay?  No, she's none of the above, and all of the above, she is herself!!!  She is a completely unique person with a completely unique blend of sexual interests, she finds some women attractive, and some men, she can see herself in relationships with both however leans towards one side.  So what is she? 
My reply to what is she was, 'confused'.

Can you explain why you doubt that I could do the same?

I guess I doubt this because I strongly believe that you can't consciously choose to be attracted to someone. I've had sex with people that I wasn't attracted to. I wasn't attracted to them before we had sex, and I wasn't any more attracted to them afterward. I consciously chose to have sex with them (however "conscious" you are when under the influence of alcohol and/or other substances), but I was unable to make myself truly physically attracted to them. 

In the case of NoMoreCrazyPeople's sister, I can't say for certain what kinds of attractions she felt. Did she always harbor a latent attraction for females as well as males, and simply chose to enter a relationship with a male? Or is she someone that can see herself with anyone, regardless of gender? Then I would label her as bisexual or pansexual. However, she may very well be "confused" if she now claims to have no attraction to males anymore, and if before she claimed to have no attraction to females. Maybe NoMoreCrazyPeople can clarify for us if he ventures back into this thread. I don't know if it is possible for one's sexual orientation to change throughout the course of one's lifetime or not; I suppose it is rare, but possible.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

I beg to differ... according to NoMoreCrazyPeople, his sister did just that.

Quote:
My sister was straight for 29 years, has 2 children, now she is in a lesbian relationship, so what is she?  Bi/gay?  No, she's none of the above, and all of the above, she is herself!!!  She is a completely unique person with a completely unique blend of sexual interests, she finds some women attractive, and some men, she can see herself in relationships with both however leans towards one side.  So what is she? 
My reply to what is she was, 'confused'.

Can you explain why you doubt that I could do the same?

I guess I doubt this because I strongly believe that you can't consciously choose to be attracted to someone. I've had sex with people that I wasn't attracted to. I wasn't attracted to them before we had sex, and I wasn't any more attracted to them afterward. I consciously chose to have sex with them (however "conscious" you are when under the influence of alcohol and/or other substances), but I was unable to make myself truly physically attracted to them. 

In the case of NoMoreCrazyPeople's sister, I can't say for certain what kinds of attractions she felt. Did she always harbor a latent attraction for females as well as males, and simply chose to enter a relationship with a male? Or is she someone that can see herself with anyone, regardless of gender? Then I would label her as bisexual or pansexual. However, she may very well be "confused" if she now claims to have no attraction to males anymore, and if before she claimed to have no attraction to females. Maybe NoMoreCrazyPeople can clarify for us if he ventures back into this thread. I don't know if it is possible for one's sexual orientation to change throughout the course of one's lifetime or not; I suppose it is rare, but possible.

She was always attracted to girls as well as boys, in the same way that most girls are attracted to other women, however like most women, didn't really see herself making the jump towards actually being in relationships with one.  Deciding to give women a try only really happened because the right girl came along that made her feel that way, and she was very tentative, but really couldn't help herself when the right girl came along.  She would be with a man again if the right man came along, although from listening to her it sounds like she is now much prefering relationships with women over men.   


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I don't know...I have been

I don't know...

I have been in the presence of certain women that I have felt 'attracted' to. But, being attracted to someone does not = having sex with them, imo.

 While I may entertain the thought of the possibility, it is against my 'nature'  to act on those thoughts... not because I can't but, because I know who I am.. '(I'm) like the Tower of Pizza, I may have certain leanings but, I always remain upright.' (Tracy to Hepburn)

I guess I feel that just because we have the ability to do a certain thing doesn't mean that we should. (We being 'I') Obviously others don't have the same feelings.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I actually have a cousin who

I actually have a cousin who went through his early years in school listening to ac/dc having girlfriends etc and then the last couple of years of highschool he changed. He was listening to what the girls listened to (I can't think of any examples from 1990 lol) and he got very feminine. No one in the family thought much of it because he was raised by his mother and grandmother who coddled him, wouldn't let him play sports and actually managed to get him out of gym class even because "they" didn't like it. He understood more about hair and fashion than what a typical male would care about knowing. (they took turns taking him to the beauty salon to do their own hair and his I suppose) A couple of years out of highschool he married a woman. He is 3 years my elder and about 4 years ago finally came out of the closet. He is still married to this day. For whatever that story is worth.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I don't

Sandycane wrote:

I don't know...

I have been in the presence of certain women that I have felt 'attracted' to. But, being attracted to someone does not = having sex with them, imo.

 While I may entertain the thought of the possibility, it is against my 'nature'  to act on those thoughts... not because I can't but, because I know who I am.. '(I'm) like the Tower of Pizza, I may have certain leanings but, I always remain upright.' (Tracy to Hepburn)

I guess I feel that just because we have the ability to do a certain thing doesn't mean that we should. (We being 'I') Obviously others don't have the same feelings.

I had a friend years ago admit he had this for me http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Man%20Crush at first I was like "wtf"

Maybe girls/women have an equivalent /shrug

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Sandycane

robj101 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

I don't know...

I have been in the presence of certain women that I have felt 'attracted' to. But, being attracted to someone does not = having sex with them, imo.

 While I may entertain the thought of the possibility, it is against my 'nature'  to act on those thoughts... not because I can't but, because I know who I am.. '(I'm) like the Tower of Pizza, I may have certain leanings but, I always remain upright.' (Tracy to Hepburn)

I guess I feel that just because we have the ability to do a certain thing doesn't mean that we should. (We being 'I') Obviously others don't have the same feelings.

I had a friend years ago admit he had this for me http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Man%20Crush at first I was like "wtf"

Maybe girls/women have an equivalent /shrug

Maybe but, that's not what I was talking about... but, I've seen the 'man crush' behavior. Kind of nauseating if you ask me.... when girls do it, too.

No, what I meant was a real attraction. Like, the same way I might be attracted to a man... but, different.

I hesitate to do this (where is Brian anyway??  but, I'll give you an example.

There was this girl at the garden center the other day, Asian, short hair, tan and toned, not 'pretty' but sort of androgynous-looking, not 'girly' but, definitely not masculine either. I felt an instant attraction to her and thought to myself, 'if I were gay, she'd be my type'. But, because I know who I am, I would never act on those feelings and felt silly for even thinking such a thing.

Fantasy is one thing and reality is another altogether. Sometimes they go together other times, they should not.

TMI !!!!!!   but, that's okay, you don't know me.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: I actually

robj101 wrote:

I actually have a cousin who went through his early years in school listening to ac/dc having girlfriends etc and then the last couple of years of highschool he changed. He was listening to what the girls listened to (I can't think of any examples from 1990 lol) and he got very feminine. No one in the family thought much of it because he was raised by his mother and grandmother who coddled him, wouldn't let him play sports and actually managed to get him out of gym class even because "they" didn't like it. He understood more about hair and fashion than what a typical male would care about knowing. (they took turns taking him to the beauty salon to do their own hair and his I suppose) A couple of years out of highschool he married a woman. He is 3 years my elder and about 4 years ago finally came out of the closet. He is still married to this day. For whatever that story is worth.

 

I realize I'm probably going to get called "politically correct" again, but Rob, really.  Gender stereotype city.

I discouraged my sons from playing sports.  Why?  I knew two guys when I went to high school that ruined their knees permanently playing football.  (American style.)  Fortunately, I did not have anyone in my high school drop dead playing sports.  Knee injuries were bad enough.  My oldest son belonged to the computer club and the chess club.  My middle son was so weird --- totally antisocial in high school, in fact, we pulled him out and home schooled him to a GED.  (He now has 3 AS certificates, another from the Army, and is going for a BS in EE.  Go figure.)  My youngest was the only who showed any interest in sports and he was so bad (part of his other neurological problems) that the coach would not let him play in the games.  I didn't protest as I agreed with the coach.

None of them are gay or bisexual.  How do I know?  I've seen what they "Like" on Facebook.  Playing sports does not necessarily make you "manly".  The man I am married to doesn't give a rat's ass about sports and he is very manly - thank you for inquiring - and not bisexual.  Even as little boys, my sons didn't play with dolls, fix hair, or other past times that many people would label "feminine" activities.  Not because I discouraged it - I would have bought any of them a doll if they wanted one - and they knew it.  The youngest had about 20 stuffed animals he slept with until he was about 5.  Still heterosexual.

It doesn't matter if you buy your little girl dolls.  If she is a tomboy, the dolls will sit in the bottom of the toy box.  My mom bought me a new doll for christmas every year until I finally asked her to stop.  I never played with them.  I would have rather had a train set.  I still want a train set but I don't have anywhere to put it.  Or a construction set.  I asked for one of the big sets - poured over pictures of what all you could make from it - and my parents bought me a doll instead.  And I am not "butch" or a "dyke' - thank you for inquiring.

My point - finally - if you are not inclined to a particular response to a particular gender, it doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do for you or with you.  That genetic component is next to impossible to influence.  You can deny it.  You can experiment.  A lot of young people do.  Most people settle into what is comfortable for them - somewhere on that continuum of human sexual expression.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:       My point

cj wrote:

 

 

 

 

My point - finally - if you are not inclined to a particular response to a particular gender, it doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do for you or with you.  That genetic component is next to impossible to influence.  You can deny it.  You can experiment.  A lot of young people do.  Most people settle into what is comfortable for them - somewhere on that continuum of human sexual expression.

 

 

    I agree. Perhaps external influences can have some additional effect but I'm basically on board with your assessment.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

My point - finally - if you are not inclined to a particular response to a particular gender, it doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do for you or with you.  That genetic component is next to impossible to influence.  You can deny it.  You can experiment.  A lot of young people do.  Most people settle into what is comfortable for them - somewhere on that continuum of human sexual expression.

 

    I agree. Perhaps external influences can have some additional effect but I'm basically on board with your assessment.

 

I think external influences may help you be more or less comfortable in your skin.  If you are somewhere in the middle of the continuum genetically, those influences may push you one way or the other a little distance.  But I don't think they could push you from one end to the other.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:robj101 wrote: I

cj wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I actually have a cousin who went through his early years in school listening to ac/dc having girlfriends etc and then the last couple of years of highschool he changed. He was listening to what the girls listened to (I can't think of any examples from 1990 lol) and he got very feminine. No one in the family thought much of it because he was raised by his mother and grandmother who coddled him, wouldn't let him play sports and actually managed to get him out of gym class even because "they" didn't like it. He understood more about hair and fashion than what a typical male would care about knowing. (they took turns taking him to the beauty salon to do their own hair and his I suppose) A couple of years out of highschool he married a woman. He is 3 years my elder and about 4 years ago finally came out of the closet. He is still married to this day. For whatever that story is worth.

 

I realize I'm probably going to get called "politically correct" again, but Rob, really.  Gender stereotype city.

I discouraged my sons from playing sports.  Why?  I knew two guys when I went to high school that ruined their knees permanently playing football.  (American style.)  Fortunately, I did not have anyone in my high school drop dead playing sports.  Knee injuries were bad enough.  My oldest son belonged to the computer club and the chess club.  My middle son was so weird --- totally antisocial in high school, in fact, we pulled him out and home schooled him to a GED.  (He now has 3 AS certificates, another from the Army, and is going for a BS in EE.  Go figure.)  My youngest was the only who showed any interest in sports and he was so bad (part of his other neurological problems) that the coach would not let him play in the games.  I didn't protest as I agreed with the coach.

None of them are gay or bisexual.  How do I know?  I've seen what they "Like" on Facebook.  Playing sports does not necessarily make you "manly".  The man I am married to doesn't give a rat's ass about sports and he is very manly - thank you for inquiring - and not bisexual.  Even as little boys, my sons didn't play with dolls, fix hair, or other past times that many people would label "feminine" activities.  Not because I discouraged it - I would have bought any of them a doll if they wanted one - and they knew it.  The youngest had about 20 stuffed animals he slept with until he was about 5.  Still heterosexual.

It doesn't matter if you buy your little girl dolls.  If she is a tomboy, the dolls will sit in the bottom of the toy box.  My mom bought me a new doll for christmas every year until I finally asked her to stop.  I never played with them.  I would have rather had a train set.  I still want a train set but I don't have anywhere to put it.  Or a construction set.  I asked for one of the big sets - poured over pictures of what all you could make from it - and my parents bought me a doll instead.  And I am not "butch" or a "dyke' - thank you for inquiring.

My point - finally - if you are not inclined to a particular response to a particular gender, it doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do for you or with you.  That genetic component is next to impossible to influence.  You can deny it.  You can experiment.  A lot of young people do.  Most people settle into what is comfortable for them - somewhere on that continuum of human sexual expression.

 

"For whatever that story is worth"-me

I'm just reporting the news here. If it's normal for a boy to visit beauty salons often enough to know the clientel by name then perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. If it's completely normal to take a kid out of gym class because "they might get hurt" then perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. Perhaps I should have just said "I have a cousin who is gay" would that soothe and ease your mind?

edit: I never said "playing sports makes you manly" lol girls play sports too. 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I don't

Sandycane wrote:

I don't know...

I have been in the presence of certain women that I have felt 'attracted' to. But, being attracted to someone does not = having sex with them, imo.

Oh, I agree. Just because you are attracted to someone does not mean you have to have sex with them. Additionally, there are different types of attraction, and there are ways that you can be "attracted" to someone that are not sexual. 

Sandycane wrote:

I guess I feel that just because we have the ability to do a certain thing doesn't mean that we should. (We being 'I')

Yes, this is true under certain circumstances. For instance, I have the ability to have sex with men besides my boyfriend, but if I want the relationship to continue and to respect his feelings, I should not. However, the way you framed your statement makes it sound like women "should not" have sex with other women, for whatever reason. In my opinion, there is no reason why two single consenting adults should not carry out a sexual relationship (and whatever that entails) if that is what they so desire. I'd be curious to know why women should not have sex with each other, if that was in fact what you were getting at. 

Sandycane wrote:

Obviously others don't have the same feelings.

I agree with you. I think that people should do whatever they want, and at the same time only do what they are comfortable doing. However, we shouldn't let our own feelings on a subject limit the ability of others to participate in activities related to that subject.  


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote: I

greek goddess wrote:

 

I agree with you. I think that people should do whatever they want, and at the same time only do what they are comfortable doing. However, we shouldn't let our own feelings on a subject limit the ability of others to participate in activities related to that subject.  

Wholeheartedly agree.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:"For whatever

robj101 wrote:

"For whatever that story is worth"-me

I'm just reporting the news here. If it's normal for a boy to visit beauty salons often enough to know the clientel by name then perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. If it's completely normal to take a kid out of gym class because "they might get hurt" then perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. Perhaps I should have just said "I have a cousin who is gay" would that soothe and ease your mind?

edit: I never said "playing sports makes you manly" lol girls play sports too. 

 

This is why I don't often respond to your posts. 

Is it normal for a boy to visit beauty salons often enough to know the clientele by name?  I wouldn't know for sure as I don't have any research to support an opinion.  I know men and boys who know beauty salon clientele by name.  I have no idea if they are gay are not. 

Is it completely normal to take a kid out of gym class because "they might get hurt"?  From my viewpoint yes, since I have done just that.  Didn't seem to bother the kid one way or the other.  Since I have no research on the topic, I have no opinion on whether it is a common practice or not.
 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:robj101 wrote:"For

cj wrote:

robj101 wrote:

"For whatever that story is worth"-me

I'm just reporting the news here. If it's normal for a boy to visit beauty salons often enough to know the clientel by name then perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. If it's completely normal to take a kid out of gym class because "they might get hurt" then perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. Perhaps I should have just said "I have a cousin who is gay" would that soothe and ease your mind?

edit: I never said "playing sports makes you manly" lol girls play sports too. 

 

This is why I don't often respond to your posts. 

Is it normal for a boy to visit beauty salons often enough to know the clientele by name?  I wouldn't know for sure as I don't have any research to support an opinion.  I know men and boys who know beauty salon clientele by name.  I have no idea if they are gay are not. 

Is it completely normal to take a kid out of gym class because "they might get hurt"?  From my viewpoint yes, since I have done just that.  Didn't seem to bother the kid one way or the other.  Since I have no research on the topic, I have no opinion on whether it is a common practice or not.
 

But you apparently had enough of an opinion to point out ... click click click  zippety doo da zippety day!

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I realize I'm

cj wrote:

I realize I'm probably going to get called "politically correct" again, but Rob, really.  Gender stereotype city.

I discouraged my sons from playing sports.  Why?  I knew two guys when I went to high school that ruined their knees permanently playing football.  (American style.)  Fortunately, I did not have anyone in my high school drop dead playing sports.  Knee injuries were bad enough.  My oldest son belonged to the computer club and the chess club.  My middle son was so weird --- totally antisocial in high school, in fact, we pulled him out and home schooled him to a GED.  (He now has 3 AS certificates, another from the Army, and is going for a BS in EE.  Go figure.)  My youngest was the only who showed any interest in sports and he was so bad (part of his other neurological problems) that the coach would not let him play in the games.  I didn't protest as I agreed with the coach.

None of them are gay or bisexual.  How do I know?  I've seen what they "Like" on Facebook.  Playing sports does not necessarily make you "manly".  The man I am married to doesn't give a rat's ass about sports and he is very manly - thank you for inquiring - and not bisexual.  Even as little boys, my sons didn't play with dolls, fix hair, or other past times that many people would label "feminine" activities.  Not because I discouraged it - I would have bought any of them a doll if they wanted one - and they knew it.  The youngest had about 20 stuffed animals he slept with until he was about 5.  Still heterosexual.

It doesn't matter if you buy your little girl dolls.  If she is a tomboy, the dolls will sit in the bottom of the toy box.  My mom bought me a new doll for christmas every year until I finally asked her to stop.  I never played with them.  I would have rather had a train set.  I still want a train set but I don't have anywhere to put it.  Or a construction set.  I asked for one of the big sets - poured over pictures of what all you could make from it - and my parents bought me a doll instead.  And I am not "butch" or a "dyke' - thank you for inquiring.

My point - finally - if you are not inclined to a particular response to a particular gender, it doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do for you or with you.  That genetic component is next to impossible to influence.  You can deny it.  You can experiment.  A lot of young people do.  Most people settle into what is comfortable for them - somewhere on that continuum of human sexual expression.

 

cj~ Thank you for bringing this up! Just like sexuality, gender occurs on such a continuum, and is influenced by both innate and environmental factors. 

My parents didn't want to "force" gender stereotypes on me or my siblings, so they bought us toys intended for both genders. However, for the most part, my sister and I gravitated toward "girl" toys, and our brother was content to play with his "boy" toys. That's not to say there wasn't some overlap. For instance my brother liked playing with our barbies - he would strip them down and make them "slaves" to his G.I. Joes, lol. and my sister and I loved hanging out in his room with all the action figures. And there were some fairly unisex toys that we all shared. I was maybe the most "neutral"~ when we were in elementary school, my brother's friends all agreed that he had the coolest big sister, because I would dress up with them and play pirates and Star Wars and Power Rangers with them, which the other sisters refused to do. But I still loved playing with dolls and having tea parties and whatnot, so I was no tomboy either. I would say I was still primarily a girly-girl.

Anyways, my point in all this is that gender and sexuality are two things that strongly define an individual, and definitely are not black and white. Plus, sex and/or gender do not imply anything about one's sexuality. Thank you so much for pointing this out. 

 

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

I don't know...

I have been in the presence of certain women that I have felt 'attracted' to. But, being attracted to someone does not = having sex with them, imo.

Oh, I agree. Just because you are attracted to someone does not mean you have to have sex with them. Additionally, there are different types of attraction, and there are ways that you can be "attracted" to someone that are not sexual. 

Sandycane wrote:

I guess I feel that just because we have the ability to do a certain thing doesn't mean that we should. (We being 'I')

Yes, this is true under certain circumstances. For instance, I have the ability to have sex with men besides my boyfriend, but if I want the relationship to continue and to respect his feelings, I should not. However, the way you framed your statement makes it sound like women "should not" have sex with other women, for whatever reason. In my opinion, there is no reason why two single consenting adults should not carry out a sexual relationship (and whatever that entails) if that is what they so desire. I'd be curious to know why women should not have sex with each other, if that was in fact what you were getting at. 

Sandycane wrote:

Obviously others don't have the same feelings.

I agree with you. I think that people should do whatever they want, and at the same time only do what they are comfortable doing. However, we shouldn't let our own feelings on a subject limit the ability of others to participate in activities related to that subject.  

That depends on the subject. Same sex relationships, I agree with you. No matter how I determine what is right and wrong for me, it's not my place to force everyone else to be like me - even if I think they should.

That's why I said, 'We, being me' in my previous reply.

I was going to elaborate but, instead I'll just say that I'm old-fashioned that way and leave it at that.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:That depends

Sandycane wrote:

That depends on the subject. Same sex relationships, I agree with you. No matter how I determine what is right and wrong for me, it's not my place to force everyone else to be like me - even if I think they should.

That's why I said, 'We, being me' in my previous reply.

I was going to elaborate but, instead I'll just say that I'm old-fashioned that way and leave it at that.

Ok, sounds reasonable. 

Well, I'm out for the night. peace out everyone! 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
For the record, PDW, I

For the record, PDW, I didn't see anything from you that might be misinterpreted to mean that "abnormal" is bad. It was mostly Sandy and maybe some rob.

robj101 wrote:
To simplify it further (hopefully it wont be taken out of context again somehow) people seem to want to think it is not "different". Homosexuality and heterosexuality are obviously different. Heterosexuality is obvious in that it is how we reproduce, homosexuality seems more of a choice or decision made somewhere along the line whether it is the person making a concious decision to do so or "nature" making this decision to have sex with the same gender. Unless you can explain how these two things are not different then we have nothing more to discuss really.

Sure, they are different in the sense that heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite gender and homosexuals are attracted to the same gender. They are also different in that people cannot procreate by having sex with the same gender.

I'm not sure what it means for homosexuality to be "more" of a choice though. Heterosexual is more common, but they are both influenced by genes and environment to the same extent.

greek goddess wrote:
For instance my brother liked playing with our barbies - he would strip them down and make them "slaves" to his G.I. Joes, lol.

Lmao.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:My point - finally

cj wrote:

My point - finally - if you are not inclined to a particular response to a particular gender, it doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do for you or with you.  That genetic component is next to impossible to influence.  You can deny it.  You can experiment.  A lot of young people do.  Most people settle into what is comfortable for them - somewhere on that continuum of human sexual expression.

 

I'm kinda [sic] drunk, but that was really beautiful. I'm teary eyed now. I love you, cj.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth wrote:cj

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

cj wrote:

My point - finally - if you are not inclined to a particular response to a particular gender, it doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do for you or with you.  That genetic component is next to impossible to influence.  You can deny it.  You can experiment.  A lot of young people do.  Most people settle into what is comfortable for them - somewhere on that continuum of human sexual expression.

 

I'm kinda [sic] drunk, but that was really beautiful. I'm teary eyed now. I love you, cj.

 

 

Thank you.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.