No more "born this way"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2015 12:36 PM GMT
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730310-100-sexuality-is-fluid-its-time-to-get-past-born-this-way/

    Do you think anti-gay extremists will use this information to try and change us to become straight?

    Quote: "Some people know at earlier ages than others, some are bisexual rather than gay, some show more change over the course of their life. All this means that whenever someone comes up with a tag line like “we’re born that way”, they ultimately do everyone involved a disservice."

    It is still about two adults who are doing their business behind closed doors, so who cares what others think. The state does not care about this. Obviously as long as they are all consenting adults, who the hell cares?

    The matter is that for gay men sexuality is most of the time fixed.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Jul 27, 2015 12:43 PM GMT
    These narrow minded bible thumping screwballs will never give up on their horribly failed conversion therapies and the sad fact of the matter is that thousands of human lives will be totally ruined by this ultra right wing, religious idiocy.icon_mad.gif
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 27, 2015 1:10 PM GMT

    She basically just says that scientifically speaking "born this way" is too simple a statement. I agree.

    I never understood the whole choice vs genetic debacle. It shouldn't be an issue.
    Would it suddenly be wrong for me to be a with another guy if my being attracted to guys was by choice?
    There is nothing wrong about gay sex so it doesn't matter why people are doing it. It doesn't need to be defended.

    I don't have to tell people I can't help the way I am because there is nothing that needs to be justified. It's already fine.

    Also, as much as I like Gaga, she doesn't get to weigh in on this one.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 803

    Jul 27, 2015 5:52 PM GMT
    CheeseKraut said
    There is nothing wrong about gay sex so it doesn't matter why people are doing it. It doesn't need to be defended.


    It could be correctly stated that male to male or female to female sexual antics have no practical purpose in Nature.
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Jul 27, 2015 5:56 PM GMT
    The science does say sexuality among gay men is more likely to be fixed compared with gay women. Only a small percentage will there be bisexuals.

    http://www.newsweek.com/male-sexuality-fluid-or-fixed-308200

    But we know many strong homophobes are secretly gay.
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Jul 27, 2015 6:07 PM GMT
    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/27/this-crowd-brought-their-children-to-watch-isis-brutally-execute-a-gay-man/

    Again, the extremist religious pelts or throws off a gay man as a spectacle for children to see. Truly sickening.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2015 6:11 PM GMT
    Huh Liberals:

    Obama, in his January 2015 Glozell interview refers to being gay as a "lifestyle choice" (starting at 7:55):

  • FuerteC

    Posts: 588

    Jul 27, 2015 6:12 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidHuh Liberals:

    Obama, in his January 2015 Glozell interview refers to being gay as a "lifestyle choice" (starting at 7:55):



    Obviously it is not a lifestyle choice, any more than straight people choose their lifestyle choice.
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 27, 2015 6:30 PM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler said
    CheeseKraut said
    There is nothing wrong about gay sex so it doesn't matter why people are doing it. It doesn't need to be defended.


    It could be correctly stated that male to male or female to female sexual antics have no practical purpose in Nature.


    Ah, the old everything-in-nature-has-a-reason-theory as made famous by Walt Disney.
    Still popular although debunked more often than "Giant crocodile in NYC sewers."

    One opinion is that a family (as a production unit for offspring) is more likely to do well with non-reproducing (spare) adults. Especially with the high mortality rate of old.
    Remember, people didn't live by the whole one man-one woman dogma until very recently (on a natural timescale, that is). They lived in bands (as your garden variety native American would). They didn't marry and they weren't monogamous. The ratio of adults versus (many) children was important enough to sustain a gay gene.
    I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying it could be true. So could many other scenarios.
    Except the one about a stone age family being like the Flintstones. That's honkin' load of bull.

    What is true is that people do not naturally occur in monogamous couples. No primate species does. That's birds.

    Also, bees of which almost none reproduce but are still very natural. Let us talk about birds and bees. And ants.
    And fish that switch genders.

    Anyone who told you nature equals reproduction as shown in the Lady and the Vagabond is either lying or retarded. Probably both.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2015 6:36 PM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler said
    CheeseKraut said
    There is nothing wrong about gay sex so it doesn't matter why people are doing it. It doesn't need to be defended.

    It could be correctly stated that male to male or female to female sexual antics have no practical purpose in Nature.

    Sexual antics??? No practical purpose??? What exactly is your agenda here?
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Jul 27, 2015 7:02 PM GMT
    It is still about two adults who are doing their business behind closed doors

    is offensive: as if a relationship only happened in bed. Hell, being gay (or hetero) is about affection, support, the perception of beauty... to confine sexual orientation to one thing is asinine.

    Moreover, one study is hardly definitive, nor does it take into account personal perceptions - I can't remember being anything but gay. Ever.
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 27, 2015 7:13 PM GMT
    tazzari saidIt is still about two adults who are doing their business behind closed doors

    is offensive:


    So is a straight couple doing it not behind closed doors. Unless they are both models and it's on cable.
    Even then it's usually kind of gross.

    Why do straight people have to love you? We don't love them.
  • Zigs_01

    Posts: 226

    Jul 27, 2015 7:18 PM GMT
    Except that most straight males people wouldn't want to get in a relationship with a male.
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 27, 2015 7:20 PM GMT
    Zigs_01 saidExcept that most straight males people wouldn't want to get in a relationship with a male.


    Truth be told straight males people are *really* bad in bed.
    Ask me how I know.

    But what does this have to do with the subject at hand? Focus, dammit!
  • Wendigo9

    Posts: 426

    Jul 27, 2015 7:22 PM GMT
    Gonna burst this bubble easily, because no-one is born gay or straight, we all discover that on our own through the teenage years. Trannies however, why kill off what's called beautiful when you're born? You don't go under the knife to find out who you really are, it's practically suiside to your real identity. Even then it'd be too late to turn back once a mistake has been made surgicaly.

    Point being, born this way means your 100% real and proud of who you are, fake is just wrong.
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 27, 2015 7:27 PM GMT
    I can pull off "I became this way!" with just as much spirit.

    I don't want my sexuality to be a congenital affliction.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jul 27, 2015 7:32 PM GMT
    There are many different opinions and probably will be for decades to come.

    We are not all alike. For many of us, our affectional orientation is relatively fixed and can be changed only to a very limited degree. For some, affectional orientation does seem to be rather fluid. Attempts to change affectional orientation generally fail to work and are sometimes disastrous. On the other hand, some change seems to occur unintentionally.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1037

    Jul 27, 2015 7:43 PM GMT
    The real nonsequitor here is that it's somehow "genetics" vs "choice".

    Even if you weren't "born this way", that doesn't mean you chose it.

    I don't like asparagus. I don't like the movie "Caddyshack". I don't like brown cars. I don't like New Jersey.

    I really, REALLY like peanut butter.

    I wasn't born with any of these tastes, but I also didn't choose them. I just grew this way. Based on personal development and experience, a whole catalog of preferences was imprinted on me. They became a part of me. They ARE me. I could no more choose to un-like them than I chose to like them in the first place.

    I realize that some of the things I don't like are things a lot of people really like, and some of the things I like are things that others despise. That's OK. That means there's more of the good stuff left over for me.

    Like sucking cock, for instance. It's not a taste I was born with, it's something I never would have chosen, but I'd never, ever want to give it up.
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 27, 2015 7:51 PM GMT
    I love that term affectional orientation.
    It is about affection much more than it is about sex.

    The things that are typically female are often not appealing to me. Not just genitals and other physical qualities.
    There is a complexity to the female mind that I find extremely tiring/childish and sometimes even offensive.
    This constant preening and fretting. Worrying about what she said and how part of her vulnerable needy self perceives said opinion. It makes me want to grab a hamster and let it bite my eye. It is SO annoying to me.

    Not all women are like that but it is a female phenomenon.

    I have a couple of close female friends. Some of the girly variety. It's hard not to choke them.
    Even this week I was having drinks with a girl, watching the people walk by and cussing them out for poor choices in footwear when she suddenly puts her head on my shoulder and sighs "Tell me..when am I irresistible?"

    icon_eek.gif

    Like a bitch, I am sitting there trying to come up with an answer but I end up shrugging her off my shoulder and going "err...I dunno."
    I wanted to throw her on the floor and kick her in the side repeatedly.
    Pretty much the reaction I would have in any other situation of intimate harassment.
    It was NOT ok and no less inappropriate than a suit pinching a secretary's ass.

    There's a holier than thou selfinvolvedness that I have come to expect from women that I don't know how to tackle. Pisses me off to.

    Anyway, no affection there. So I like the term.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 27, 2015 8:21 PM GMT
    Wendigo9 saidGonna burst this bubble easily, because no-one is born gay or straight, we all discover that on our own through the teenage years. Trannies however, why kill off what's called beautiful when you're born? You don't go under the knife to find out who you really are, it's practically suiside to your real identity. Even then it'd be too late to turn back once a mistake has been made surgicaly.

    Point being, born this way means your 100% real and proud of who you are, fake is just wrong.

    Sounds like you were a late bloomer. Not everyone discovers they're gay as a teenager. I knew I was gay long before I was teenager. I was just on the fast track, I guess.

    I think your characterization of trans people, and your opinion of their elective surgery, is unfairly biased. Actually, I think circumcising babies is a far greater atrocity, even though it's commonplace, and therefore socially acceptable. It is an involuntary and permanent mutilation of the male genitals, after all.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 27, 2015 8:29 PM GMT
    CheeseKraut said
    She basically just says that scientifically speaking "born this way" is too simple a statement. I agree.

    I never understood the whole choice vs genetic debacle. It shouldn't be an issue.
    Would it suddenly be wrong for me to be a with another guy if my being attracted to guys was by choice?
    There is nothing wrong about gay sex so it doesn't matter why people are doing it. It doesn't need to be defended.

    I don't have to tell people I can't help the way I am because there is nothing that needs to be justified. It's already fine.

    Also, as much as I like Gaga, she doesn't get to weigh in on this one.

    If we're all fluid, then anyone can weigh in on it, because words like gay and straight would be meaningless.

    Not that I believe in sexual fluidity....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2015 8:40 PM GMT
    HottJoe is back!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2015 9:32 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Wendigo9 saidGonna burst this bubble easily, because no-one is born gay or straight, we all discover that on our own through the teenage years. Trannies however, why kill off what's called beautiful when you're born? You don't go under the knife to find out who you really are, it's practically suiside to your real identity. Even then it'd be too late to turn back once a mistake has been made surgicaly.

    Point being, born this way means your 100% real and proud of who you are, fake is just wrong.

    Sounds like you were a late bloomer. Not everyone discovers they're gay as a teenager. I knew I was gay long before I was teenager. I was just on the fast track, I guess.

    I think your characterization of trans people, and your opinion of their elective surgery, is unfairly biased. Actually, I think circumcising babies is a far greater atrocity, even though it's commonplace, and therefore socially acceptable. It is an involuntary and permanent mutilation of the male genitals, after all.


    I'm incredulous of people who "discover" they are gay late in life. Little boys and girls start liking each other very early. Remember how every now and again you'll hear news stories about how some little boy is chastised in kindergarten for kissing a little girl. Ask any childhood educator if this is not the norm. Things change as later in grade school as kids begin to tease each other if they pair up as boyfriend and girlfriend. This is the stage were boys and girls accuse each other of having "cooties," boy germs'" and "girl germs." Although, there still remains a secret attraction.

    When I was small I wondered why I didn't feel the need, like the other boys did to be interested in girls. I knew I was different and I in my innocent mind equated different with wrong. When I reached the age when young men get erections over seeing female tits and ass I was getting them over male muscles and bulges. My friends were talking about feeling tits and getting their fingers wet in a pussy and I wasn't in the least interested. I knew I was gay because by this age it was well known to me and my peers that a guy who was different was a fag, a homo, gay - someone to be ostracized, ridiculed, tormented, and beat up. I knew I was those things - gay, homo, fag, but I didn't want to be ostracized, ridiculed, tormented, or beaten. I couldn't accept myself. It took me years to, yet I KNEW I WAS GAY FROM AN EARLY AGE.

    I didn't discover I was gay for I always knew even if I didn't have the word for it. I discovered self acceptance, not that I was gay.

    I often wonder how un self aware someone must be not to know from their early days.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2015 11:20 PM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler said
    CheeseKraut said
    There is nothing wrong about gay sex so it doesn't matter why people are doing it. It doesn't need to be defended.


    It could be correctly stated that male to male or female to female sexual antics have no practical purpose in Nature.


    No, it could not. Firstly, practicality is not the only arbiter of natural behavior; secondly, male/male and female/female sexual antics serve similar natural purposes in social cohesiveness, intimacy and longevity.

    If humans were the only species that partook in homosexual activities...well, it wouldn't matter if we were, as we'd just be unique...but they're not. Bonobos, dolphins, penguins, cattle, sheep...oh dear god, nearly all species.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Jul 27, 2015 11:24 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    FitBlackCuddler said
    CheeseKraut said
    There is nothing wrong about gay sex so it doesn't matter why people are doing it. It doesn't need to be defended.


    It could be correctly stated that male to male or female to female sexual antics have no practical purpose in Nature.


    No, it could not. Firstly, practicality is not the only arbiter of natural behavior; secondly, male/male and female/female sexual antics serve similar natural purposes in social cohesiveness, intimacy and longevity.

    If humans were the only species that partook in homosexual activities...well, it wouldn't matter if we were, as we'd just be unique...but they're not. Bonobos, dolphins, penguins, cattle, sheep...oh dear god, nearly all species.
    Now attempt the virtually impossible, try to educate all the narrow minded bible thumping screwballs on these scientific facts. You will be in for a real treaticon_exclaim.gif