Neverside

There is no such thing as a homosexual!

Originally posted by pingu:

Now, on to your point about choices. I KNOW people who had a choice, yes they were attracted to men, and women, but then they decided to solely go after men. And I KNOW people who have gone from one side, to the other, and back again over a long period of time. Perhaps the choice for some gay people is quite subliminal, and subconcious...but that is still a choice.

Considering the words you used there, it seems like you're just talking about bisexuals who are choosing who they want to date and have a relationship with. That has got nothing to do with sexual orientation. Do you honestly think homosexuals can simply decide to be attracted to the opposite sex? Even people who go through reparative therapy to try and "heal" their homosexuality and "reorientate" themselves fail. The vast majority of them fail (when it comes to attractions) and of the ones who "succeed", nearly all have deeply religious roots. This type of therapy can last a lifetime (if they wish to keep it up) and costs thousands of dollars.

But even if you knew these special people who could so easily decide who they were attracted to, do they account for the whole gay population? Is that really grounds for you to accuse Patrick like that? I'm assuming you're straight, and for you to say whether someone else, who you don't even know, chose their orientation or not (with your limited understanding) is detestable. I simply can't understand how an educated person could think this way. I don't mean any offense by that. I really just don't understand it.

Last edited by Jewels, October 5th, 2005 12:39 AM (Edited 1 times)

Considering the words you used there, it seems like you are a very hypocritical person.

Anyway, what was your point? That sometimes conclusions are drawn from surveys, and the people surveyed don't account for the whole population?

Seriously, I don't see your point.

EDIT: Oh, and just to reaffirm another point I have made several times - I am for gay marriage

Last edited by pingu, October 5th, 2005 07:00 AM (Edited 1 times)

My main point was on the issue of choice. I didn't mention anything about people being surveyed.

I'm no hypocrite either. There's a big difference between what you did to Patrick and what I did to you: my comments were taking into consideration what you've said previously. You ignored what patrick said, and told him that he chose to be gay. That's directly contradicting what he said about himself. All I did was assume you were straight (which I do have reason to believe unless you were being purposely misleading), and say you had limited understanding on the subject (which you seem to have shown considering what you posted [no. 108]).

Like I said, it seemed like you were talking about bisexuals choosing you they wish to "go after"; that's got nothing to do with choosing sexual orientation.

Let me put it this way then - a society that is 100% homosexual would collapse underneath itself. So from that statement, we can say that heterosexuality is the natural choice (the choice that allows humans to continue existing).

My statement about hypocrisy is about you saying that I have "limited understanding", yet then say that you "don't mean any offense". I (and I'm sure most people) take offense when someone questions my intelligence.

Originally posted by pingu:

Let me put it this way then - a society that is 100% homosexual would collapse underneath itself. So from that statement, we can say that heterosexuality is the natural choice (the choice that allows humans to continue existing).

Your first statement is true, but that in no way links to sexuality being a choice. Heterosexuals don't choose to be heterosexual; they just are. What they do choose however is to reproduce.

Now, do you still think homosexuals choose to be that way? You haven't said anything valid that backs up what you've said about it actually being a choice. There's a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour, and you've simply been describing behaviour, which isn't what this is about.

Originally posted by pingu:

My statement about hypocrisy is about you saying that I have "limited understanding", yet then say that you "don't mean any offense". I (and I'm sure most people) take offense when someone questions my intelligence.

I'm not questioning your intelligence overall. I'm only pointing out your understanding when it comes to choice of sexuality, and from what you have posted, you do show limited understanding on this issue (and have yet to show otherwise). I don't mean that in an offensive way though; it's not like I said "you're stupid, but I don't mean any offense". That would be hypocritical, but I didn't say that.

Originally posted by Jewels:

Now, do you still think homosexuals choose to be that way? You haven't said anything valid that backs up what you've said about it actually being a choice.

There is, thusfar, no genetic componenet whatsoever to homosexuality.

Go here. The "Born That Way Theory" section might be of benefit to this discussion.

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'm very aware of NARTH and have read many of its articles, as well as many ex-gay ministries and other organisations like them.

I never said homosexuals were born that way, nor did I claim for there to be genetic component; all I said was that it's not a choice. There are possible biological components (that doesn't mean necessarily mean genetic) as well as other factors that could contribute to it.

If I have time I'll dig up all my previous research and post them here, but one thing you all should know is that NARTH is a single secular organisations that is against all other mainstream professional organisations like the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

Last edited by Jewels, October 5th, 2005 08:37 PM (Edited 1 times)

Originally posted by Jewels:

I never said homosexuals were born that way, nor did I claim for there to be genetic component; all I said was that it's not a choice.

If it's not genetic, how exactly is it not a choice?

Quote:

If I have time I'll dig up all my previous research and post them here, but one thing you all should know is that NARTH is a single secular organisations that is against all other mainstream professional organisations like the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

Nice, but irrelevant.

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Originally posted by Celldss:

If it's not genetic, how exactly is it not a choice?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that homosexuals don't choose their attractions, in much the same way heterosexuals don't either. Their is no "straight gene", so you could say that being straight isn't genetic either, and it's also not a choice.

Originally posted by Celldss:

Nice, but irrelevant.

You linked to NARTH, so I gave a little background information on that organisation. It's relevant if you don't wish to be biased.

Last edited by Jewels, October 5th, 2005 10:09 PM (Edited 1 times)