Homosexuality is/isn't a choice.

@snailbait

Why?

Because we live in the real world, and people are inconsiderate jerks who are so stuck up in their own ideas that they will take baseball bats to anyone who thinks differently, and contrary to what Tv cop shows try and teach us most of them are more likely to pursue to local kid selling pot than who ever beat up the local gay guy.

Also to why should they act some what normal in public, because it's polite. I don't want to talk about anal casually in public nor do I want to hear some what 40 year old dude talking about doggy with bhis wife. This plays back into the respect argument, for as much as people say we need respect, we also need to respect others.

I'm not saying don't be different but don't be "look at me I'm so different I look like a total ass-hat about it" either. Fetish wear and bed room wear are for the home and clubs, not public streets, as much as I like seeing girls in linger it would still be rude if that's all they wore walking down the street. granted what i basically described was any beach during the summer but still. Talk about having pride in yourself, or lack their of nothing says "I want respect, cause I'm proud" like dressing in fetish wear in proud daylight.

Yeah, I'm going to respect your poor for exposing me to your personal perferences on an open street when I wouln't dream of doing tha same without asking first. Ya, you totally desereve my respect, cause you obviously respect me.

^^ Out of curiosity, could I have an example? Would someone who everyone deems is obnoxiously stereotypical count as "worthy of it"?

^ Ever hear of Rocky Horror Picture Show? People walk around in their lingerie for that and yet nobody complains. It's part of the event.

And obviously, if people are that annoyed by a man in his underwear then they just shouldn't go. If things get violent, hopefully stationed police officers will stop such behavior.

I just don't think a guy deserves to get beat up for acting stereotypical according to your video. I don't like blaming the victim.

edited 15th Mar '11 6:13:20 PM by snailbait

Some of this reminds me of after-show interview being done for the cast of "The Real L Word". Each person was asked the same question: what kind of lesbian are you? Different women gave their own answers, but one woman very cunningly responded with a question of her own: "what kind of heterosexual are you?". The point she seemed to be making is that it's a bit absurd to establish a sort of taxonomy of homosexuality because human beings can't be socially and sexually compartmentalized so easily. This point also echoes the basis for the whole debate as to whether or not homosexuality is a choice as well as whether or not it matters if it's a choice.

Aondeug's personality reminds me of this issue because, as her profile more or less notes, she is interested in lesbian issues without it being the totality of her existence. It's just something she gravitates toward from time to time, so does that make her a textbook lesbian or just a human being who has a sexual and romantic interest in members of her own sex?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it also seems that there are as many variations in true sexual preferences as there are people in the world (as obvious as that sounds to some), so that resurfaces the question as to how significant choice in sexual orientation really is. This is personality subject at its core. The gay guy who is extremely flirtatious and feminine isn't really "stereotypically" gay so much as his sexual promiscuity is a part of his personality, regardless of his orientation. I don't find homosexual flirtations to be any more pronounced than the flirtations of a heterosexual, and assuming that homosexuals can't control their sexual activity because of their sexual orientation raises my suspicions a bit.

Some pages back, someone made the analogy between non-choice homosexuality and innate tendencies toward a certain food or a certain color. The analogy is not without its flaws, but it's a sound argument to me.

edited 15th Mar '11 6:18:50 PM by Aprilla

An example of those I deem worthy of it are people who come off as amazingly obnoxious and assholish. They shouldn't be bashed for being a stereotype, but more for being an annoying twat.

Example? I knew a rather frustrating camp gay in high school. He was incapable of talking about anything not related to gays and had a rather negative view towards Christianity in general. He wasn't well learned on the subject and sung praises for Buddhism (which isn't too kind on gays either). Overall he was just an annoying fucking bitch and I'd complain about him from time to time. Not because he was camp, but because he was just incredibly annoying. His expression of his campness only frustrated me further (we all have types we don't care for, mine is camp).

edited 15th Mar '11 6:19:46 PM by Aondeug

Aondeug: I bet his excuse for all of that would be "Well, that's just the way I am", which is arguably part of the dilemma because without elaboration on his part, people are going to come up with their own explanations, some of them geared towards hostility. I agree with what you're saying here, and I'll take it a bit further in noting that many if not all gay bashings seem to come down to an insecurity complex in the perpetrator. I believe one suspect in a gay bashing case even defended himself by saying he couldn't control his hatred towards gays anymore than they could control their sexual orientation. Sounds like some social Darwinism kicked in.

I'm not saying anyone should get beaten up (maybe slap upside the head Gibbs style with a Stop Being So Sterotypical but not beat up.)

A RPHS event and something that cordons off a section of the city are very different. Also these are types of people who want it to be acceptable to do this any time, any where, if is fine I'm all for that but not forcing it in peoples faces, I'm saying their should be laws against it, or repercussion for it but the basis of society is based on respect and you don't get respect by showing none.

Education is a powerful tools, waving giant flags,waring glitter, and showing off hot d/s relations on a public street is not. (No matter how sexy I personally find it.)

Your only causing more stereotypes reinforcing ones that already exist and giving the rest of us. They don't see us more like people then, they see us more differently, everyone has their kinks but not all of us create parades about it plus it puts forth one of the worse stereotypes of them all that all gays/pans/bi's are in some ways either a crossdresser, kinkster, exhibitionist or deviant or all three when most are just people with different TASTES!

that being said I find crossdressing socially acceptable.

when it's one person doing their thing that fines, fine you gathering in some spot in the open and start shouting and playing loud music you start promoting a stereotype in the worst way possible.

Plus gathering in large numbers makes people think that Camp Gay is our default mode, thank you Vocal Minority for doing more to hurt gay understanding than help. It's bad enough that when ever St. Patrick's day comes around everyone (I know) just goes to the parade to get drunk!

Like I said I have issues with "Pride" parades.

edited 15th Mar '11 6:47:02 PM by Vyctorian

What are your opinions about Mardi Gras then? That's another celebration with a bunch of stereotypically wild, sexually charged excitement but I haven't seen the same kind of scrutiny towards that.

Edit: I guess you sorta addressed that by bringing up St. Pats Day parade.

edited 15th Mar '11 7:02:23 PM by sparkpoint

Aondeug: Hmm, yeah, I'd probably find him annoying too. I can't get along well with anyone too campy. Personally (and I know you didn't say you would do the following), I don't think he deserves any kind of punishment though. I would just ignore him.

^^ Sorry, I don't believe in slapping people for being a flaming queen. That's not how I roll. Let's just agree to disagree.

edited 15th Mar '11 6:53:28 PM by snailbait

The concept of gay pride parades as being stupidly risquee clothing and people talking about sex is horribly one-dimensional. There are such people. There are also straight people who do comparable things; the only difference is that straight people are so visible that the fringe population doesn't threaten to define the whole.

And that visibility problem is exactly why gay pride parades and similar events exist in the first place. They show the world that this population exists. Yes, the fringe population shows up there (which is partially because of a complex set of social factors, including the idea that when people reach the monumental step of self-identifying as gay or whatever they often feel a drive to take it as far as possible), but so does the rest of the gay population, in increasing numbers, and that can do nothing but help.

This kinda just makes me want to create a casual gay pride parade with people who are gay in day wear and formal outfits, with low toned classical music, and monotone floats, with "we are just as normal as you" flags just to combat the stereotypes.

Considering how the idea of Straight Gay alone causes some people to flip out, that parade would be a shitstorm waiting to happen. Well actually probably not, if it is as boring as you describe it to be hardly anybody would show up.

That sounds more like a march then a parade.

then we will march our way...into Mordor.

edited 15th Mar '11 7:33:23 PM by Vyctorian

A movement should be about equal rights. I don't think there are only two messages, as you stated at the end, I believe there are many messages that are possible; some better than others.

That said, "pride" segregates people, I think. It's the sort of thing that might stop a white man from hanging out with a black man - and that friendship is what is desired, isn't it? To be a friend and an equal? Segregation is very present today. Not with women, no, but with race in particular, it is ever-present. Pride is a means to an end. And as with any means to an end, there is hurt involved.

(I would also note that, given the in-fighting I just witnessed, you don't speak for all homosexuals either.)

To those partaking in it, it is a means of empowerment. To those outside of it, certainly causes "defining" - justified or not.

This can be turned around though. If you say that you are "a nigger, and proud of it", that also looks like it is admitting shame. It could easily be interpreted by a racist as "I am a bad person and proud of it".

That would make for an awesome T-shirt store. I'd love to wear a shirt that says "BLACK AND PROUD OF IT"... even though I'm white. I'd get some funny looks.

The problem here is that no matter what, the experiment will never be tested properly, and even if it were, the results would never be believed. I'll elaborate:

A person petitioning that homosexuality is a choice likely does so in an attempt to win over homosexuals to a religious cause. Problem: if they were to test their idea, then they would be sinning. It works both ways too. Let's imagine that a homosexual is tested to see of the can be reoriented.

The result? Because the experiment exists to prove a point, the homosexual will never ever allow it to be true. Truth be damned, they will fight for their cause - even if they have to make it true.

And no one would believe the results anyways, even if they were carried out honestly. Someone who succeeds will have been "gay all along". Someone who steps away from homosexuality didn't do so on their own, no, they were forced to do it, by hell fire and brimstone Christians.

Essentially, I could try and succeed, but the results would be absolutely meaningless.

I think I need to reaffirm here (in case this was directed at me) that it's not that one decides their orientation ahead of time, but rather, they can influence it, to the point of nearly full control.

Not everyone feels that way though. :/

Agreed.

How convenient, requesting that people who disagree would just disappear.

Unfortunately, that isn't how life works. (On second thought, fortunately.)

Even though this was something of a joke, I do like the principal.

I would note that in a religious context, I find it a shame that many Christians have been compelled to define homosexuality as central characteristic. Where is this Christian without sin? Why ask? Because stones have been thrown.

On a more personal note, I have had homosexual tendencies. For example, I blushed a bit at the trope picture for Uke. I step away from this however, and that stepping away is what I consider a choice. Before someone drags on about me being in denial or something, I would state that I find it strange how someone can lead a straight life, be happy, and then all of a sudden realize that "they were gay all along". I don't buy that. I think what happened there was that they took an interest and indulged it.

Such would be like me saying that "I was a My Little Pony fan all along"... even though the version I'm so fond of had not existed until recently. I realized that I liked it, not that I was always a fan and was in denial. That sounds patently ridiculous.

If I were to "give it a try", I would very likely decide I enjoy it. However, I continue to avoid it.

What I can't speak for though, is those who already have indulged their desire.

"Not everyone feels that way though. :/"

No fucking duh. I wasn't saying otherwise. I was merely mentioning that I personally feel no fear nor see a reason to feel it.

As for the "We should be polite and normal" thing. I do this at work, other professional or formal settings, and when initially meeting people so as to not scare them off. The moment they have any comfort around me and I around them it becomes a hell of all the disturbing shit I will say. In the most casual manner possible. I only stop when directed to do so and deem said request appropriate (It depends on wording, the request itself, and the person asking whether or not I agree to it. I accept most requests. Others it just makes me pick on them). I don't get much flak for this thankfully. Many find amusing to see the tiny, "quiet" girl talking about sexy Nazis while swearing like a sailor...

Well, they do say that the vast majority of people are attracted at least slightly to both genders. You've just bumped up against your inner bisexual! The problem is that for you it may be easy to just say 'oh okay I won't "indulge my desires,"' but for gay people that's not really an option, or at least is only an option as much as forced celibacy would be. Frankly, assuming God exists, it would be really, really, really dumb of him to give people attractions both romantic and sexual as well as the capacity to act upon those attractions and then tell them 'lolno, I gave you the wrong set so you'll just have to sit out.'

You put too much faith in the thought that God is not a huge troll...I have seen God and lo and behold he is a troll face.

The idea is not without its merits! However, if we drop the assumption of rationality on the part of our hypothetical supreme being we may as well just include a bunch of beaver-duck things with poison spines and be done with it.

Only the boy beaver duck things have poison spines! Get it right dammit!

Was it not in this thread that I said, from a Scriptural perspective, celibacy is an ideal for all people?

You're listening to Paul again. Sex is sex. It's pleasurable so that people will do it. Also biological imperative and whatnot. Celibacy is kind of a silly ideal, especially since apparently only straight people get the super-secret cheater way out (thus leaving the gays the ones really hit by the impact of the "ideal" of celibacy); a much better ideal in terms of Christian dogma would be loving monogamy— an ideal into which gay people can incidentally fit just fine without being left out in the cold.

If listening to Paul is such a problem, what does Jesus have to say about celibacy?

I'm no expert on the scriptures, but I don't think he says anything much. Beyond "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

Unlikely; common sense says nobody is proud of being a bad person.

Even so, who cares about the racist himself? The other people around are more important, and they'll listen even if the actual racist doesn't. (It's oddly like internet arguments, actually; no matter how piggishly an opponent misinterprets your argument, that ultimately just reflects worse on him and doesn't help him win at all.)

Eh, no. Many, many gay people very much don't want to be gay. (Why would they? There's been hate against gay people since before there were any gay people to hate.)

Since that is true, and since what you propose has been tried before, if you were right we would have expected it to have worked right?

Well, it doesn't work, and it's quite mentally damaging besides.

"Monogamy is good and don't get divorced unless there's actual abuse." About celibacy? Nothing.