Homosexuality is a choice

Have to totally agree. I can even use myself as an example. :)

I'm going to note here that this is something I have told very few people, so you could say it's a sort of coming out.

Because I am physically male and sexually orientated as male, it's easy to label me as "straight". However those aren't the sum total of what makes up our sexuality and gender.

What few people know about me is that when it comes to the other important parts, the Brain Sex and Gender Identity, I test as female. This means that my brain is more female in the way it thinks than it is male, and while physically male, I would prefer to be female physically. If I'd grown up in a different place and time, then becoming transgender would have been a very likely option for me to choose, though due to my body size and shape it's not one that I am likely to do now simply because even with a $1 million in surgery the results would be a very heavy, set 6' 3", ugly, and un-feminine woman. Nor do I plan to become a drag-queen because my body is well and truly male whether I like it or not.

But what does it all mean? Had I been in a position where I had understood the way I was as a kid and that there was a way to "fix" it which I could have done, I'd likely be a female now, not a male, but my sexual orientation would still be male meaning that as a transgender, I'd have been considered gay.

So which am I? I know a lot of guys joke about being lesbians trapped in a man's body, but for me it's really true. What it means to me is that sexuality and even gender identity can be very subjective and labelling it based on only what we see doesn't cover the entire gamut of possibilities out there.
What your saying is some real heavy duty stuff. Its one of the reasons i have a real hard time with simple-minded binary ideas of sex / gender. For example traditionally in gender reasignment surgery it was pushed on transexuals that they HAD to act like and dress like and be stereotypes of the opposite sex to their then physical bodies. The result was that male to female and female to male transexuals frequently were more "female" than biological females or more "male" than biological males. I.E., walking stereotypes. It as develped that many transexuals are prefectly happy going only part of the way. For example I now some she/males who are perfectly happy with their "male" gentelia of penis and testicles and some he/shes that are prefectly happy with intact vaginas annd a functioning ovaries. In fact some transexuals are perfectly happy being a sort of third gender between male and female.

A generation ago transexuals would have been expected to make a full transition to the opposite sex including a sexual attraction to the opposite sex of the sex you are going to be a member of. This was in keeping with a simple-minded binary view od human sexuality and gender. A generation or so ago your mentioning that you would still be attracted to women and that you were a Lesbian trapped in a man's body so to speak would have made it damn difficult to get the help you needed to begin the transition. Also if you showed "difficulty" in adopting the full pattern of stereotypic behavior (like liking to wear pants or using little or no make-up if your supposed to be a male to female trannsexual) patterns of the sex you aspired to be you would face serious difficulties in getting help to change your sex/gender.

Regarding your own situation. Your candour in outlining your predictiment is understood. I don't know if you have sought help or advice for this and you have indicated various reasons why the transition is virtually impossible for you right now. I would like to make a small suggestion that might help. Have you considered dressing / acting (if you don't already) in an andrgenous fashion?
 
Bishadi, you ignored my #246. I'll pose it as a question: Do you think that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation?
 
Many people in the past lied about their sexuality and still do. Usually because they are gay and live in a bigotted world and pretend they are straight! I prefer a place where people can be whom they are, no lies or pretense. After all what they do in their own lives doesnt affect me and mine. It only affects anyone when lies are outed.
And please dont tell a member to hang themselves Bishadi. It tells more about you than the rest of your railings.
 
sounds like the peeve i see is the lack of maintaining coherance to what you read and basically have a subjective approach to observing the nature of life.

i could care less how you view the lineage of mankind, but your line of life will dies off if you do not procreate. ie... the combination of your mother and father could be wasted by a the selfish choice of actions, by you!

kind of like same sexual intercourse dont do much for either as they are too busy taking resources for their own entertainment, or perhaps because they live the entertainment industry versus the good of others or even themselves.
i have accidently stepped on ants too, but when one attacks me, it aint no accident


better than the self-centered argument; i do because i can and dont care about anyone else but myself.


there is no right to lie, in itself.


but to know what life is, then procreation is not only for you. ie.. your parents and the whole lineage since the beginning of time, that makes you.

i never discount Love, but hell to liar

First off. Say what now?

If I understand you, you are saying that not procreating is selfish. How so?

For example, I have no children. However, both of my sisters do. Those children carry my DNA, so the future of my genes is secure. Some of my resources (time, money, attention) go towards my sisters' children. When my kid sister got divorced, she was flat broke for a while. I paid for my niece's private school. Now that she's in a terrific college, I can feel some pride in helping her succeed.

In pre-modern times, a spinster aunt might contribute food. She might take care of the children when the mother was ill. She might even adopt the children if the mother died in childbirth. The reasons for doing this are based more on family and tribe than contributing to the gene pool but it accomplishes the same thing.

Adults who do not have children contribute to the well-being of the community so that the children of the community can thrive.
 
The "gays can't have babies, so the race will go extinct!!!" gambit just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. It's just so nonsensical. The "goal" of propagation is not to make babies, it's to make adults who will be able to do their part. If the infant animals die, the line dies out as well.

There are numerous examples of social animals who do not breed within their group but instead support the group in some fashion. This is the "natural order."

To say that all individual animals must breed is ridiculously over-simplified. It's a stoner argument. "But dude, like the animals and DNA and stuff, right?"

Next time you hear this, ask if they're also against homosexuals adopting ;)

If they say "yes", then you can inform them that they're full of **** wrt homosexuality being "against the natural order" - because if survival of the species is the concern, then raising orphaned/abandoned children is necessary by some member(s) of the community.

If they say "no", then you can inform them that they're full of **** wrt homosexuality being "against the natural order" - because if survival of the species is the concern, then raising orphaned/abandoned children is necessary by some member(s) of the community.
 
First off. Say what now?

If I understand you, you are saying that not procreating is selfish. How so?

For example, I have no children. However, both of my sisters do. Those children carry my DNA, so the future of my genes is secure. Some of my resources (time, money, attention) go towards my sisters' children. When my kid sister got divorced, she was flat broke for a while. I paid for my niece's private school. Now that she's in a terrific college, I can feel some pride in helping her succeed.

In pre-modern times, a spinster aunt might contribute food. She might take care of the children when the mother was ill. She might even adopt the children if the mother died in childbirth. The reasons for doing this are based more on family and tribe than contributing to the gene pool but it accomplishes the same thing.

Adults who do not have children contribute to the well-being of the community so that the children of the community can thrive.

I hear that a lot from the guys at work - that choosing not to procreate is selfish. I generally don't want to get into it with those guys since it's at work...but when friends make comments like that, I usually respond by informing them that having children is as selfish as it can be.

Dads want their little boys to be just like them. Moms want to see little thems running around. Parents want their children to do well, and see it as a sign of their own success when the child shows him/herself to be well adjusted/successful. It's selfishness all the way around.
 
homosexuals cant evolve via the fact of no procreation.

In that case, fatal genetic childhood diseases like progeria do not exist. Nor do genetic conditions that leave people sterile.
 
thread is TL;DR on a subject I don't bother talking about much, so if this has been said, sorry:

If homosexuality is a choice, so is heterosexuality. Remember when you chose to be hetero?

Yeah. Thought so.
 
The odd thing is that when I choose to be heterosexual, I find myself fantasizing endlessly about having sex with men, even while I'm having sex with women. What kind of choice is this?

I have procreated, btw, and my son is straight. I have two brothers who had the same genetic endowment and environment as I, who are both straight.

There's an awesome hypothesis for the cause of homosexualty called "sexually antagonistic selection" which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject. It explains how homosexuality can have a genetic basis and remain stable in a gene pool even if homosexuals never reproduce. (Oddly, gay and bisexual teens have higher rates of unintended pregnancies than straight teens, I am told). When I explained sexually antagonistic selection to my straight brother, he said, "I've already decided what causes gays and nothing you can say will change my mind". LOL.

So, are we seeking truth, or only seeking confirmation for what we already believe is true?
 
Many people in the past lied about their sexuality and still do. Usually because they are gay and live in a bigotted world and pretend they are straight! I prefer a place where people can be whom they are, no lies or pretense. After all what they do in their own lives doesnt affect me and mine. It only affects anyone when lies are outed.
And please dont tell a member to hang themselves Bishadi. It tells more about you than the rest of your railings.

If that was a response to me I didn't mean lying about actual sexuality, I meant lying about the "why" and "when". Most gay people I know or know of, would say they have always felt that way to varying degrees and that it wasn't a "lifestyle choice". Maybe I'm wrong but I thought most gay people would agree with that. If I'm right in saying this, why is Bishadi convinced this isn't the case?

Should've explained myself further.
 
If God hates fags, why does he keep making them?

God dont unless you follow Gen 3:22.



But the issue is that few know what the life of matter/mass is.

If a cell divides and gives a portion of itself to live into the next generation, then the LIFE of that cell is a part of the next. (that energy; the fire (per se))

When a person procreates, their life and the life of all their previous generations, gets another chance.

But gay copulation dont make babies.

God didn't create the gay preference, it is a choice of the person, not the choice of the life.

Mankind can make a child while the women is still a virgin (untouched by a man) via test tube babies; god cant even do that (unless Gen 3:22 is correct).

The problem is exactly what i mentioned in i believe my first post on the thread; most have no clue what life is, their purpose and how to live longer.
 
I just hope your issue is that English is not your first language.

i know it is mine
If you are serious about this, that English is your first language, it makes it hard to take what you say seriously. I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that an understanding of the language on this level doesn't inspire confidence in your understanding of other things.
 
I hear that a lot from the guys at work - that choosing not to procreate is selfish. I generally don't want to get into it with those guys since it's at work...but when friends make comments like that, I usually respond by informing them that having children is as selfish as it can be.

Dads want their little boys to be just like them. Moms want to see little thems running around. Parents want their children to do well, and see it as a sign of their own success when the child shows him/herself to be well adjusted/successful. It's selfishness all the way around.

I think you don't really get their point.

I know anecdote isn't data, but I guess it's better than nothing at all: I've managed to corner a couple of relatives into "ok, so why IS it selfish?" Turns out that they don't actually give a flying f-word about anything else than someone to pay their pensions. It doesn't help that some paid PR by insurance companies also plays on the same fears to get people to switch their pension plans to them.

You know, in case you were wondering why so many conservative types are all for making lots of babies, but basically only care about you until you get born, after that, screw you, you're not getting any welfare, medical insurance or anything from them... well, that may well be why. You're supposed to make those new people to pay for their retirement, not to actually get any benefits themselves.

And it's of course selfish to choose to not make more of those little piggy banks for them.
 
Excuuuuse me, "hemorphridite"? Repeated 6 times? What a maroooon.


A hemorphidite is someone born with both male and female sex organs


these are the only genetic version of bisexual which can be homo or hetero and it be based on biology


the rest are of choice


sexual orientation is the psychologist definition that has ruined the nature of the whole issue; people are being lied to about the facts!

ie.... medical science is not governed by beliefs, it is based on physical applications; science!
 

Back
Top Bottom