Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[Lilah]

1. Not genetic or not genetic alone, because studies on identical twins
do not show 100% match where the twins are the same orientation.
I think the chances are slightly over 50% of being the same orientation,
something like 53% to 47%. Since this is not random either, but there
is a slightly greater chance of matching orientations than not matching,
it could be argued that genetics may predict a "tendency" but that other factors are involved.

Source: "Homosexuality: Can it be healed" by Francis MacNutt

2. In some cases homosexuality may be able to change by choice to undergo spiritual therapy. If you look at real cases of people who changed, this can either be interpreted as "changing orientation as a choice,"
or as "going back to one's original orientation that is natural and not a choice"
(where the other conditions were not natural but were not chosen either).

This is based on faith in people's reports and interpretations.

Regardless if different people look at these changes as natural or unnatural,
the fact is that there are REPORTS of both people changing and people saying they could not change.

Examples: People Can Change - An alternative healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

3. NOTE: Because this is faith-based, and cannot be proven either way without more scientific research, where I find people can agree to avoid arguing is that these changes or conditions are SPIRITUALLY determined.

This is also completely faith-based, but at least it covers all the cases and interpretations,
and allows for explanations either way. People still report either changing or not changing.
There is no need to argue, if we can agree it is a spiritual process that determines if people change or not.

I enjoy reading your perspectives; always flavored with a sense of civility.

I question your assertion/your Implication that homosexuality can be altered/changed by a spiritual process since
spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it
typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches.

My question is who's spiritual process is used?

Hi Lilah the spiritual process is based on human nature.
So people use whatever version of that process they relate to.
Some use Buddhism some use Christianity or a mix of methods.

The common factor I found follows similar patterns, whether someone
comes out gay or transgender or straight: they identify which behavior or cultural conditions
are NOT natural or true to them. they work through the issues that conditioned this behavior.
And as they heal of the fears or conflicts, even abuses in some cases, then they
make peace with their natural selves. And this is where they can come out as gay or bi,
as transgender or heterosexual.

They forgive and heal of whatever conditions they felt were imposed on them
that aren't natural or true, and they come out with their natural being that is right for them.

I listened to the interview with Matthew Shepard's parents, who said they knew he was gay from the age of 8. His parents are smart, loving, kind, generous, and from all accounts provided a very stable home for their children. After reading what happened to Matthew Shepard, I cannot fathom why anyone would
choose a gay lifestyle. And I cannot fathom why emotional and mental pain would turn someone gay.

"If a person is homosexual by nature - that is, if one's sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one's identity as gender or skin color - then society can no more deny
a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow." Jon Meacham

 

[Delta4Embassy]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

 

[Michelle420]

1. Not genetic or not genetic alone, because studies on identical twins
do not show 100% match where the twins are the same orientation.
I think the chances are slightly over 50% of being the same orientation,
something like 53% to 47%. Since this is not random either, but there
is a slightly greater chance of matching orientations than not matching,
it could be argued that genetics may predict a "tendency" but that other factors are involved.

Source: "Homosexuality: Can it be healed" by Francis MacNutt

2. In some cases homosexuality may be able to change by choice to undergo spiritual therapy. If you look at real cases of people who changed, this can either be interpreted as "changing orientation as a choice,"
or as "going back to one's original orientation that is natural and not a choice"
(where the other conditions were not natural but were not chosen either).

This is based on faith in people's reports and interpretations.

Regardless if different people look at these changes as natural or unnatural,
the fact is that there are REPORTS of both people changing and people saying they could not change.

Examples: People Can Change - An alternative healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

3. NOTE: Because this is faith-based, and cannot be proven either way without more scientific research, where I find people can agree to avoid arguing is that these changes or conditions are SPIRITUALLY determined.

This is also completely faith-based, but at least it covers all the cases and interpretations,
and allows for explanations either way. People still report either changing or not changing.
There is no need to argue, if we can agree it is a spiritual process that determines if people change or not.

I enjoy reading your perspectives; always flavored with a sense of civility.

I question your assertion/your Implication that homosexuality can be altered/changed by a spiritual process since
spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it
typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches.

My question is who's spiritual process is used?

Hi Lilah the spiritual process is based on human nature.
So people use whatever version of that process they relate to.
Some use Buddhism some use Christianity or a mix of methods.

The common factor I found follows similar patterns, whether someone
comes out gay or transgender or straight: they identify which behavior or cultural conditions
are NOT natural or true to them. they work through the issues that conditioned this behavior.
And as they heal of the fears or conflicts, even abuses in some cases, then they
make peace with their natural selves. And this is where they can come out as gay or bi,
as transgender or heterosexual.

They forgive and heal of whatever conditions they felt were imposed on them
that aren't natural or true, and they come out with their natural being that is right for them.

I listened to the interview with Matthew Shepard's parents, who said they knew he was gay from the age of 8. His parents are smart, loving, kind, generous, and from all accounts provided a very stable home for their children. After reading what happened to Matthew Shepard, I cannot fathom why anyone would
choose a gay lifestyle. And I cannot fathom why emotional and mental pain would turn someone gay.

"If a person is homosexual by nature - that is, if one's sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one's identity as gender or skin color - then society can no more deny
a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow." Jon Meacham

I can tell you why, in some instances bad experiences with the opposite sex.

A gay lifestyle isn't just "sex" .

In a relationship there are other components.

So someone who may be bi-sexual or asexual may choose the gay lifestyle.

Societies phobias do not equate fear of making choices for self in all instances.

 

[Michelle420]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

Nicely put.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Not genetic or not genetic alone, because studies on identical twins
do not show 100% match where the twins are the same orientation.
I think the chances are slightly over 50% of being the same orientation,
something like 53% to 47%. Since this is not random either, but there
is a slightly greater chance of matching orientations than not matching,
it could be argued that genetics may predict a "tendency" but that other factors are involved.

Source: "Homosexuality: Can it be healed" by Francis MacNutt

2. In some cases homosexuality may be able to change by choice to undergo spiritual therapy. If you look at real cases of people who changed, this can either be interpreted as "changing orientation as a choice,"
or as "going back to one's original orientation that is natural and not a choice"
(where the other conditions were not natural but were not chosen either).

This is based on faith in people's reports and interpretations.

Regardless if different people look at these changes as natural or unnatural,
the fact is that there are REPORTS of both people changing and people saying they could not change.

Examples: People Can Change - An alternative healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

3. NOTE: Because this is faith-based, and cannot be proven either way without more scientific research, where I find people can agree to avoid arguing is that these changes or conditions are SPIRITUALLY determined.

This is also completely faith-based, but at least it covers all the cases and interpretations,
and allows for explanations either way. People still report either changing or not changing.
There is no need to argue, if we can agree it is a spiritual process that determines if people change or not.

I enjoy reading your perspectives; always flavored with a sense of civility.

I question your assertion/your Implication that homosexuality can be altered/changed by a spiritual process since
spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it
typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches.

My question is who's spiritual process is used?

Hi Lilah the spiritual process is based on human nature.
So people use whatever version of that process they relate to.
Some use Buddhism some use Christianity or a mix of methods.

The common factor I found follows similar patterns, whether someone
comes out gay or transgender or straight: they identify which behavior or cultural conditions
are NOT natural or true to them. they work through the issues that conditioned this behavior.
And as they heal of the fears or conflicts, even abuses in some cases, then they
make peace with their natural selves. And this is where they can come out as gay or bi,
as transgender or heterosexual.

They forgive and heal of whatever conditions they felt were imposed on them
that aren't natural or true, and they come out with their natural being that is right for them.

I listened to the interview with Matthew Shepard's parents, who said they knew he was gay from the age of 8. His parents are smart, loving, kind, generous, and from all accounts provided a very stable home for their children. After reading what happened to Matthew Shepard, I cannot fathom why anyone would
choose a gay lifestyle. And I cannot fathom why emotional and mental pain would turn someone gay.

"If a person is homosexual by nature - that is, if one's sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one's identity as gender or skin color - then society can no more deny
a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow." Jon Meacham

Hi Lilah that's fine if everyone in a state agrees to that.
However, like the issue of when does a person's will and rights begin,
in the womb or at conception, or upon birth; this becomes a matter of faith-based belief.

What seems natural and right to one person is faith based to someone else.
And technically govt is not supposed to be used to dictate or regulate, much less mandate or punish based on belief.

Until there is a consensus, that's technically crossing the line with faith-based arguments.
But if people AGREE (like there used to be consensus on marriage through the state, or agreement
to use God in pledges or on money, and Crosses and prayers/Bibles in public schools) then this is not violating
anyone's religious freedom.

I tell the same thing to prolife advocates, that a consensus would be needed and this cannot be forced by law.
To them it makes perfect sense, that that spirit is alive and feels pain, but it is still faith based, as harsh as it is
to see that suffering that results, because the law requires "free choice" in the matter.

Guiliani also explained this to prolife constituents that the Constitutional laws require respect for the equal beliefs of others.

I guess this marriage law issue is putting the shoe on the other foot.
Now liberals can know how the prolife advocates feel when something as basic to them
as abortion being murder is argued as faith based and cannot be mandated by law.

 

[Lilah]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

(doing it this way as too many replies make them squish together on my system)

Lilah said, "My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites."

As one of the very few open members of the LGBT community on this board I can tell you I know a lot more about it than you. As a bisexual in particular I can tell you who I have sex with is always the result of my making a choice to pursue a sexual relationship with someone. I may find either sex attractive, even desireable, but who I have sex with is me deciding to do that.

Even Kinsey's 5 or 6 point scale of orientation shows it isn't gay or straight but something in-between most of the time. Assuming a bell curve, most people aren't gay or straight, but somewhere in-between. That's irrefutable. I'd simply go further and show how ridiculous it is to pretend being gay or straight is an absolute. You can always choose to try a lesbian relationship yourself. And if the number of 50+ men who only after getting married, raising kids, then becomming transgendered is any inidication, 'trying it out' is something many eventually do. If you don't you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion on the subject.

 

[Michelle420]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

What sexual preference do all hermaphrodites have?

 

[Lilah]

1. Not genetic or not genetic alone, because studies on identical twins
do not show 100% match where the twins are the same orientation.
I think the chances are slightly over 50% of being the same orientation,
something like 53% to 47%. Since this is not random either, but there
is a slightly greater chance of matching orientations than not matching,
it could be argued that genetics may predict a "tendency" but that other factors are involved.

Source: "Homosexuality: Can it be healed" by Francis MacNutt

2. In some cases homosexuality may be able to change by choice to undergo spiritual therapy. If you look at real cases of people who changed, this can either be interpreted as "changing orientation as a choice,"
or as "going back to one's original orientation that is natural and not a choice"
(where the other conditions were not natural but were not chosen either).

This is based on faith in people's reports and interpretations.

Regardless if different people look at these changes as natural or unnatural,
the fact is that there are REPORTS of both people changing and people saying they could not change.

Examples: People Can Change - An alternative healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

3. NOTE: Because this is faith-based, and cannot be proven either way without more scientific research, where I find people can agree to avoid arguing is that these changes or conditions are SPIRITUALLY determined.

This is also completely faith-based, but at least it covers all the cases and interpretations,
and allows for explanations either way. People still report either changing or not changing.
There is no need to argue, if we can agree it is a spiritual process that determines if people change or not.

I enjoy reading your perspectives; always flavored with a sense of civility.

I question your assertion/your Implication that homosexuality can be altered/changed by a spiritual process since
spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it
typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches.

My question is who's spiritual process is used?

Hi Lilah the spiritual process is based on human nature.
So people use whatever version of that process they relate to.
Some use Buddhism some use Christianity or a mix of methods.

The common factor I found follows similar patterns, whether someone
comes out gay or transgender or straight: they identify which behavior or cultural conditions
are NOT natural or true to them. they work through the issues that conditioned this behavior.
And as they heal of the fears or conflicts, even abuses in some cases, then they
make peace with their natural selves. And this is where they can come out as gay or bi,
as transgender or heterosexual.

They forgive and heal of whatever conditions they felt were imposed on them
that aren't natural or true, and they come out with their natural being that is right for them.

I listened to the interview with Matthew Shepard's parents, who said they knew he was gay from the age of 8. His parents are smart, loving, kind, generous, and from all accounts provided a very stable home for their children. After reading what happened to Matthew Shepard, I cannot fathom why anyone would
choose a gay lifestyle. And I cannot fathom why emotional and mental pain would turn someone gay.

"If a person is homosexual by nature - that is, if one's sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one's identity as gender or skin color - then society can no more deny
a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow." Jon Meacham

Hi Lilah that's fine if everyone in a state agrees to that.
However, like the issue of when does a person's will and rights begin,
in the womb or at conception, or upon birth; this becomes a matter of faith-based belief.

What seems natural and right to one person is faith based to someone else.
And technically govt is not supposed to be used to dictate or regulate, much less mandate or punish based on belief.

Until there is a consensus, that's technically crossing the line with faith-based arguments.
But if people AGREE (like there used to be consensus on marriage through the state, or agreement
to use God in pledges or on money, and Crosses and prayers/Bibles in public schools) then this is not violating
anyone's religious freedom.

I tell the same thing to prolife advocates, that a consensus would be needed and this cannot be forced by law.
To them it makes perfect sense, that that spirit is alive and feels pain, but it is still faith based, as harsh as it is
to see that suffering that results, because the law requires "free choice" in the matter.

Guiliani also explained this to prolife constituents that the Constitutional laws require respect for the equal beliefs of others.

I guess this marriage law issue is putting the shoe on the other foot.
Now liberals can know how the prolife advocates feel when something as basic to them
as abortion being murder is argued as faith based and cannot be mandated by law.

"What seems natural and right to one person is faith based to someone else.
And technically govt is not supposed to be used to dictate or regulate, much less mandate or punish based on belief"

With over 7 billion people on Earth, it's conceivable that we all are different. Someone else's faith should not dictate how a person should live their life.
I read Middlesex, a book about a person's journey as a hermaphrodite. Who among us should decide which sex a hermaphrodite should be?

“Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.” Viktor Frankl, one of my favorite authors.

 

[emilynghiem]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

 

[Lilah]

(doing it this way as too many replies make them squish together on my system)

Lilah said, "My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites."

As one of the very few open members of the LGBT community on this board I can tell you I know a lot more about it than you. As a bisexual in particular I can tell you who I have sex with is always the result of my making a choice to pursue a sexual relationship with someone. I may find either sex attractive, even desireable, but who I have sex with is me deciding to do that.

Even Kinsey's 5 or 6 point scale of orientation shows it isn't gay or straight but something in-between most of the time. Assuming a bell curve, most people aren't gay or straight, but somewhere in-between. That's irrefutable. I'd simply go further and show how ridiculous it is to pretend being gay or straight is an absolute. You can always choose to try a lesbian relationship yourself. And if the number of 50+ men who only after getting married, raising kids, then becomming transgendered is any inidication, 'trying it out' is something many eventually do. If you don't you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion on the subject.

I think you know more about yourself than I, but I don't think you know everyone's story, and you simply cannot paint them with the same brush.
You're wrong, I cannot ever choose to try to be a lesbian because I am not attracted to women in a sexual way; only men.
If you are the only one who is qualified to contribute to a discussion, then perhaps you should get out of your mind.

 

[Lilah]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

What sexual preference do all hermaphrodites have?

I can't possibly answer that as people are different.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

(doing it this way as too many replies make them squish together on my system)

Lilah said, "My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites."

As one of the very few open members of the LGBT community on this board I can tell you I know a lot more about it than you. As a bisexual in particular I can tell you who I have sex with is always the result of my making a choice to pursue a sexual relationship with someone. I may find either sex attractive, even desireable, but who I have sex with is me deciding to do that.

Even Kinsey's 5 or 6 point scale of orientation shows it isn't gay or straight but something in-between most of the time. Assuming a bell curve, most people aren't gay or straight, but somewhere in-between. That's irrefutable. I'd simply go further and show how ridiculous it is to pretend being gay or straight is an absolute. You can always choose to try a lesbian relationship yourself. And if the number of 50+ men who only after getting married, raising kids, then becomming transgendered is any inidication, 'trying it out' is something many eventually do. If you don't you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion on the subject.

I think you know more about yourself than I, but I don't think you know everyone's story, and you simply cannot paint them with the same brush.
You're wrong, I cannot ever choose to try to be a lesbian because I am not attracted to women in a sexual way; only men.
If you are the only one who is qualified to contribute to a discussion, then perhaps you should get out of your mind.

People who think they can never have a homosexual relationship, are absolutely totally irreufutably straight, are usually also the most arroused by homoerotica.

Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today

 

[emilynghiem]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Hi Delta4Embassy
I see some spiritual karma behind both
* how people are incarnated as soul mates,
and may cross over between races religions political groups ethnic or gender,
* and the social reactions and dynamics around these issues, too.

Both are going on, internally and externally,
and this is part of a greater spiritual process of growing.
We are having these discussion for reasons, both directly related and indirectly.

Even what you call "made up constructs and religion/politics"
are part of a process, and there are reasons why people organize by common beliefs.
We are supposed to come to terms with our differences as a society,
and organizing by groups is part of that process.

the next stage is learning to work with different groups,
after we are done freaking out that people have beliefs and won't change.
When we get past that, we can move forward to how are we doing to deal with our differences
and still make workable policies we can all live with.

 

[Lilah]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

 

[emilynghiem]

People who think they can never have a homosexual relationship, are absolutely totally irreufutably straight, are usually also the most arroused by homoerotica.

Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today

Just because people with or recovering from eating disorders may be more prone to get "triggered"
by photos of skinny models or anorexic people,
which can cause them to relapse,
doesn't mean this is a healthy condition or impulse to act on.

The same attractions can be considered spiritual
and not necessarily act on them sexually.

You don't have to "sexualize" everything to try to justify a point.
These can just as well be spiritual attractions and nothing to do with having sex with that person.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

People who think they can never have a homosexual relationship, are absolutely totally irreufutably straight, are usually also the most arroused by homoerotica.

Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today

Just because people with or recovering from eating disorders may be more prone to get "triggered"
by photos of skinny models or anorexic people,
which can cause them to relapse,
doesn't mean this is a healthy condition or impulse to act on.

The same attractions can be considered spiritual
and not necessarily act on them sexually.

You don't have to "sexualize" everything to try to justify a point.
These can just as well be spiritual attractions and nothing to do with having sex with that person.

She started it. She's so straight and could never try a lesbian relationship, she's only into guys.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

 

[Michelle420]

(doing it this way as too many replies make them squish together on my system)

Lilah said, "My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites."

As one of the very few open members of the LGBT community on this board I can tell you I know a lot more about it than you. As a bisexual in particular I can tell you who I have sex with is always the result of my making a choice to pursue a sexual relationship with someone. I may find either sex attractive, even desireable, but who I have sex with is me deciding to do that.

Even Kinsey's 5 or 6 point scale of orientation shows it isn't gay or straight but something in-between most of the time. Assuming a bell curve, most people aren't gay or straight, but somewhere in-between. That's irrefutable. I'd simply go further and show how ridiculous it is to pretend being gay or straight is an absolute. You can always choose to try a lesbian relationship yourself. And if the number of 50+ men who only after getting married, raising kids, then becomming transgendered is any inidication, 'trying it out' is something many eventually do. If you don't you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion on the subject.

I think you know more about yourself than I, but I don't think you know everyone's story, and you simply cannot paint them with the same brush.
You're wrong, I cannot ever choose to try to be a lesbian because I am not attracted to women in a sexual way; only men.
If you are the only one who is qualified to contribute to a discussion, then perhaps you should get out of your mind.

There is a binary spectrum, this is known in LBGT community.

The Kinsey Institute - Kinsey Sexuality Rating Scale

Breaking through the binary Gender explained using continuums