Arreat Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I personally think it's by choice, most likely caused by friends or some event that made them "switch teams". BTW: I'm in no way shape or form attempting to bash on homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Well I'm pretty sure people are born gay. True, some people get their pyschosexual what-not messed up by something that happens to them, but its not common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Depends on what you mean by "gay". Are you asking why some people have gay feelings, or why people have homosexual relationships? I think that they are born into the former while they choose to enter into the latter, much like a heterosexual would choose to go celibate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 iuno I'd say by choice. Couldn't go anywhere with the wimminz, so they tried their luck with the guys. Or vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Before this gets too out of hand I think we ought to haul out the Kinsey scale. Might be right might be wrong, but the main point of it is Straight and Gay are hardly Black and White. Its all rather a mess, you've got your Bi's, your Bi curious, your asexual, your transsexual, and all of the sudden they're all demanding their own bathroom. Edit: TO whoever added the None of the Above option, I'd like my vote changed to that. -Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebbers Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I think homosexuals are born. It's like your ethnicity, you cant choose it, your born that way. The same with certain mental illnesses. Though with mental illnesses they can be brought along later in life through stroke, seizure, head trauma and other things. Actually now that I think about it, homosexuality can be a choice also. So I really don't know what to think now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 This'll probably end up in the senate before long, and it probably should. Meh, I say choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Either way, it's irrelevant. If it was a choice, it was theirs to make. It if wasn't, you can hardly hold them responsible for offending people's sensibilities. Basically a non-issue if there ever was one, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I'd say by choice. Couldn't go anywhere with the wimminz, so they tried their luck with the guys. Or vice versa.I'm going to pretend that this is a bad joke...because I imagine >=90% of all homosexuals would take extreme offense to that remark. The thing I find interesting is we care so much about what it is that makes people "gay" or "not gay" but we don't seem to care so much about what it is that makes people like or dislike tomatoes. It seems like just about as pertinent a thing to care about. Maybe we should investigate whether or not people are born with a tendency for wearing fuzzy robes or not after a shower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I'd have to say you are born with a tendency to be gay, of course life shapes you as well but I'm sure that even though a child would be raised in a entirely gay community it wouldn't automatically turn out to be homosexual. I don't think choice has anything to do with it, that just seems absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 The poll needs more options. In addition to the two options, there are also theories that kids become homosexual with time (nature versus nurture), that it's a combination of the three, or that it varies from person to person. As neither of the two offered alternatives fit my view, I refrained from voting. I think I don't know. But I'm sure it's not a conscious choice, and that fundies' "homosexuality therapy" largely not only does not work, but also does more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I'm saying it's a hormonal disorder that can occur in puberty. I actually read this in a reliable book and I think it's plausible. I think the choice there is to accept it, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I'm saying it's a hormonal disorder that can occur in puberty. I actually read this in a reliable book and I think it's plausible. I think the choice there is to accept it, or not. I agree with this. Clearly homosexuality is not a choice, but being "born" gay might not be entirely correct either. However, I did vote for the born gay option, though on second thought, voting "none of the above" would have been better. *If a Mod could change my vote, I'd appreciate it.* Really, I don't think that there's a "gay gene" any more than there is a gene to prefer Coke over Pepsi and vise versa. It's something that is developed. Probably, one's sexual preferences/tendancies develop during puberty. Meaning that when someone's born and before they hit puberty, they are essentially asexual... meaning they have no sexual drive. When puberty hits, hormones are going to determine if someone is straight, gay, bi, curious, or whatever else there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 The thing I find interesting is we care so much about what it is that makes people "gay" or "not gay" but we don't seem to care so much about what it is that makes people like or dislike tomatoes. It seems like just about as pertinent a thing to care about. Maybe we should investigate whether or not people are born with a tendency for wearing fuzzy robes or not after a shower? Reducto ad absurdium. I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies, then we can put it in the same category. Same for fuzzy robes. I'd say that some people end up more vulnerable to or receptive toward (take your pick) homosexual behavior. In the face of a paucity of evidence, it looks like nurture may have the upper hand at the moment. If there is in fact a "gay gene", I'm sure it won't be long before someone discovers it at the current rate of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Unbelievable. Sorry, what year is this...? You can choose a lot of things in this world, but you can't choose what turns you on, and you can't choose who you fall for. I'm straight. I like girls, period. I didn't get to "choose" this. This is instinct, and it's hardwired. In my experience, anyone who thinks people "choose" to be gay are: 1) Bisexual and whose feelings could lean either way 2) Closet cases 3) Trying to justify their own bigotry So, who here could choose to be gay if they wanted exactly...? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies, Maybe I missed the memo explaining WHY what a person chooses to do consensually with themselves or another human being should be impacting social policy, or really be the concern of anyone at all. I'm not reducing this issue to the level of personal taste in food because I think it will give my argument merit, I compare the two because there is no reason to assert that the choice between straight and gay or tomato or no tomato are significantly different. We are SO CONCERNED with sex, we give it this ridiculous importance above other personal choices/traits. It for some reason matters to us who is having sex, who they're having it with, HOW they're having sex, WHY they're having sex, and how OFTEN they have sex. Apparently, if somebody isn't having the "right" kind of sex, there must be something wrong with them. They've got some defective genes, they had issues in their upbringing, they've a chemical imbalance perhaps. Really though, who cares? Why does this matter? These are rhetorical questions of course, because it seems that a great number of people really DO care. I find it absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 educto ad absurdium. I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies, then we can put it in the same category.As ET Warrior said, it's not that it has an important impact. It's that it shouldn't have an important impact. I could, in fact, just as easily be opposed to genetically manipulating tomatoes on the grounds that people choose to like tomatoes, rather than being born with a "tomato gene". It'd be absurd, of course, but technically I could do it. But it begs a question: Is it of any importance how it comes there are homosexuals? Whether or not they are born that way or become that way or choose it is irrelevant, as the end result remains: homosexuals and homosexual (newsflash, hm:p?). Just like there are people who fall in love with persons of other skin colours, other economic classes, or, goodness forbid, other religions. Homosexuals are part of life. They don't do more harm than heterosexuals, they aren't going to go away any time soon, and they deserve the same rights we "normal" people do (in fact, I'm wondering what's taking Spider so long - he's way overdue with his rant about how marriage is an obsolete institution and how homosexuality and sports bag rape are non-issues:p). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Frankly, ET, it's irrelevant how you feel about people's sexual choices. It's obvious that you are of the camp that says "hey.....whatever makes you happy and doesn't have an (arguably) adverse impact on me." I'm not even arguing here whether homosexuals should "get a pass" or not. My point was only that b/c it does have a social impact (where my/your feelings about tomatoes don't) that your comparison was ridiculous. @DE--what is this sports bag rape argument you reference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Frankly, ET, it's irrelevant how you feel about people's sexual choices.Perhaps you are missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that people's sexual preference doesn't currently have a social impact. I am saying that people's sexual preference shouldn't have a social impact. People need to stop caring. People should care about somebody else's sexual habits just as much as they should care about their taste towards tomatoes. That is to say, very little. (Unless you're trying to sleep with / cook for said person. Then those things might matter more) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 No, I understood exactly where you were coming from and indicated as much. I merely pointed out, correctly, that your comparison was silly and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Yes, people shouldn't care about sexuality in terms of homo vs hetero. But they do. Wow, do they ever. What odds do people give a US Presidential candidate who comes out of the closet the year before announcing their candidacy? We are, after all, still on Planet Earth. Well, some of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 "Red states"-bet against it. "Blue states"-maybe 50/50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 The thing I find interesting is we care so much about what it is that makes people "gay" or "not gay" but we don't seem to care so much about what it is that makes people like or dislike tomatoes.Good point. (blabla so frequent blaiblaiblub ) Really, I second that. It's like the food thing. Some prefer steak and some a good burger. Some like both. Some none of it. And why do they like it or not? Because grandma sucked at making burgers or they once had a steak with mould on it. Or both. Or for complete different reasons, who knows. The gay people I do know simply experienced during their youth (or after their first marriage) that they somehow have a better erection if they are opposed to same gender. Nothing spectacular. Also, there are people, who don't like sexual contacts at all. Is it a gene? Is it a choice? No. Because this is very often connected to how they where raised, or even to molesting or rape. It's nothing these people chose. It's a behaviour they developed due to experiences and circumstances in their lifes. ... YES! I *do* know there a those among us, who chose abstinence as their path to enlightenment, but remember, how many of you are (for unknown reasons?) gay and just too frightened to tell, because your religion is against it? Also, this is addressing people who don't like it, not those who don't want it until the easter bunny gives permission. XD So, in the end it's not THE gene, it's not THE choice that makes a person gay or not. If at all, then it maybe dependend to a handful of genes combined with personal experiences and the social environment, but I seriously doubt there is a manual on "how to get a person straight/gay" available. The only true "choice" most gay people make is whether they have a "coming out" or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 No, I understood exactly where you were coming from and indicated as much. I merely pointed out, correctly, that your comparison was silly and why.I don't think you have correctly pointed out anything in regards to my argument. You have glossed over the part where the comparison is intended to make people think about WHY it is that we not only care HOW people are having sex, we also seem to care about why it is that they're having sex that way. Of course my little post on this corner of the internet isn't going to make any sweeping social changes, but I still think it's an important point to make. You also ignored the point that the comparison isn't there to say that currently the two items (homosexuality vs. tomato hate) are on the same level of public interest, so much as to say that the two items SHOULD be on the same level of public interest. You may not have noticed, but I prefaced the entire statement with "The thing I find interesting [...]" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 @DE--what is this sports bag rape argument you reference?It's an analogy he makes some times, something among the lines of "it doesn't matter who you have sex with, be it a man, woman, or sports bag. It's not that darned important". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.