It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proud To Be Gay, Ashamed To Be Straight

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by junglejake
I'm guessing the weight issue is something you or someone you love is dealing with, TinkleFlower., not really, Jake. Really, it's from a somewhat clinical perspective. Some people have medical conditions that simply preclude them from choosing to lose or gain weight. Just one of those sadder facts of life.

I understand your point about analogies, too. I'm guilty of overanalyzing them at times, absolutely! - you know this

But in this instance, it does seem to be a flawed analogy. We're trying to compare a situation which theoretically always down to choice - with a situation where that just doesn't always apply. You know?

I don't mind looking for the similarities - I can list many of 'em myself. But when the premise of an analogy is based upon a flawed statement - that being, "weight control is a choice, and being gay is a choice", then the analogy itself might be deemed fatally flawed.

If we could say that "weight control is inherently a choice", then we'd be onto a pretty good (and very effective) analogy. But as it's not, we can't really apply it, surely?

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:42 PM
I actually think it's quite fitting. "Weight control is a choice, homosexuality is a choice." By your arguement, weight control is not always a choice, and by many homosexuals accounts, being gay is not a choice. Yet both are. You do not have to take that fork and stick another piece of grizzle into your mouth, just like you don't have to engage in sexual relations. When you're there, faced with the decision to have another piece of cake or not, it may feel like you don't have a choice, but you do. What would you do if lost in the desert without any food? Your choice would be taken away from you and you would be able to not eat. It may feel for some guys that, when they see a really hot guy, they have to have him; there is no choice in the matter. Yet, drop 'em in the same desert with the overeater while dropping pictures of the really hot guy all over the place, and they will have that choice taken away as well.

So actually, as I analyze the metaphor more, I am starting to think that it truely is a great match. Both options have a choice, yet those faced with that choice don't feel they do.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:53 PM
No no...I'm not talking about people who over-eat.

I'm talking about people who - as a result of severe metabolic disorders - will not lose weight even if they're eating salads all day (surgery sometimes helps, but often won't address the disorder itself and thus won't prevent further weight gain).

The people who really can not do this via choice. Who would struggle to lose weight even if they never picked up a donut, never ate a second piece of pie or ate nothing else but salad-with-no-dressing-please.

That's all. It's a point about people who simply do not have a choice, versus the concept of having a choice.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:49 PM
Without going back to quote anyone or over analyze this too hard, I actually don't logically believe in essences either.

That would include fat, thin, gay or straight much in the same manner a chair does not hold unique properties I'd describe as chairness.

That is to say beyond the demonstrable functionality, or acts and proclivity to same, which may well also be ascribed to a rock (as regards what it means to be a chair) were that rock suddenly found under my butt.

But the world isn't logical. It's metacryptical. People, God love 'em, do ascribe to essences. And as pertains to the western world anyway, I think we have the Christianity movement to thank for the idea of "being gay" as much as anything (see those links on last page as to history). Those everyday acts which once required no defense whatsoever as not sinful, now do.

If people calling themselves good people (in essence), based on their own actions they offer as prescriptions for mankind, weren't saying this or that harmless act makes others a bad person (in essence), I doubt there'd even be a "gay rights" movement... aka "keep your declarative essences off me."

[edit on 15-8-2005 by RANT]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I think the concept of "orientation" was created by the "everyone must be gay crowd" to include as many people in the rainbow-striped tent as possible.

And as my post above this shows, much the same thing can be said of the concept of "sin" to include as many people in the Centurion guard as possible.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:52 AM
Nice job Rant, Tinkleflower and Junglejake.

For once, this argument boiled down to epistemology, instead of semantics. This is actually quite rare in modern times, and I feel priveleged to have been part of the discussion.

The whole essence/experience argument began with Plato, and even J.P. Sartre couldn't let go of it. Yet somehow, for the person in the street, arguments always end up being semantic battles.

Yet THIS discussion went in the existential direction.

Again, nice job!

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by junglejake
just like you don't have to engage in sexual relations.

So someone is not straight or gay until they have sex?

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:58 PM
Ding ding ding, what to we for him Johnny? Ya gots it now, not sexual until sex, hence the term SEXUAL.
I'm glad that's clear now.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:56 AM
Well I'm still pretty sure I was solidly heterosexual a good decade or so before I ever had actual sex.

And despite the odds against it (like a 10:1 ratio of male to female Dukes of Hazzard cast members), I found Daisy just fine without any formal training or spiritual guidance on the issue.

I'm sure many homosexuals experience the same revelations absent experimentation as well.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:03 AM
One of the problems that I have with labels/orientation is that is kind of gives the lie to what real people experience in real life.

I think most people's sexual urges fall along a continuum. Unless you want to spend hours constructing a rigorous model with a sliding scale that ranges from "100% hetero" to "totally gay" at the other end, it seems to make a lot more sense to say that fantasies are what they are, and that complex humans vary from one day to the next.

See, one could argue that some "straights" are falsely categorized. Because it is seen as a black/white issue. Same with some gays. I can picture a gay person who feels keenly the importance of maintaining their gender identity, even when they have "straight" thoughts; he or she might merely 'supress' the thoughts that challenge the identity they want. I'm pretty sure straight people do this, too.

And that doesn't even take into account that some people are more sexual than others. Regardless of gender, you can name friends that always have their minds "in the gutter." You probably also know some people who just aren't very sexual. I have a straight friend who's like that. People joke about her being "Pat" behind her back, because she isn't particularly gay OR straight. Just not very sensual. But still a great person.

And this is why I think the whole question of "orientation" is pretty destructive. It's sort of like making people declare a political party affiliation before they vote. It sort of TELLS them what they believe, instead of asking them.

Labels about "what kind of person you are" really amount to a denial of the individual's growth and change over a lifetime.

Orientation labels, to me, seem like an attempt to separate people; to generate an "us versus them" mentality. It demands that people conform to a stereotype.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:19 AM
(I do agree that most of the later posts in this thread in particular have been wonderful - well done for keeping things civil, logical and a pleasure to discuss!

This raises an interesting point.

Most humans I've ever come into contact with would concede to feeling some kind of appreciation (if not outright attraction) to someone of the same sex, at least once in their lives.

This leads me to contemplate the idea of humans being inclined to be attracted to a person based on something other than "what's in the pants", whether this is conscious or not. An example might be (personal experiences aside) the guy who feels drawn to a gal at the bar, spends a few hours with her, and then discovers "she" is actually "he".

In these cases, what purposes would labelling actually serve?

What does this say about the theory that humans are heterosexual by default?

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:43 AM
Part of the problem is current American pop culture, which says that the ONLY intense relationship you can have with a person MUST be sexual in nature.

I remember the claim that Lincoln must have been gay, because he slept in the same bed with another man for 4 years. This is a classic example of imposing OUR sexual hang-ups on other peoples and times. They lived in a boarding house, and there were less that 20 beds in a town of several hundred people. The other choice was sleeping in the livery stable, reeking of horseflop.

In our culture, most intense relationships run the danger of becoming sexual, since, particularly for males, that is the only acceptable close relationship.

I have a friend, who was talked about at work because he had "a man" staying in his home with he and his wife. Now, my friend got back from Iraq, where he and this other fellow became "best buddies." And you can imagine how tight their friendship must be, having run the gauntlet togehter. And, the friend of his is moving to this area. But, you know how people (gay AND straight) love a sexy rumor. . .

I wonder if the gay community has this kind of expectation; that if you are ever seen with someone besides your own partner, that rumors emerge. Most hetero cliques certainly do.

Another example is a chess club I belong to. Some of the guys' wives are deeply suspicious of us, even though there are no women present. Sometimes I think they are just distrustful of the mutual "intense relationship" the members have formed.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:04 PM
It's kind of sad that fellowship these days has to remain very superficial or people immediately assume something of a sexual nature is going on.

Sex does not make the relationship, love does. Sex is an added bonus to marriage, a way for a husband and wife to share something closer than any other relationship. However, that does not mean you can't feel an intense love and have an intense, intimate relationship without sex. You can, and I do, love a man with all of your heart without sexual thoughts or ideas entering into the relationship.

Yet, today, society tells us otherwise. If I say to someone, "I love ya, man," I almost feel obliged to tack on the "platonically" label. This is because we have changed love from meaning, "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties," to love meaning only sex. If you love someone, sex will be involved, unless you tack on those labels like plutonic.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:53 PM
So according to you right now I'm not straight since I am not currently at this moment shagging some girl? I can only be considered straight when I have inserted myself into a woman? Does oral count or does it have to be full blown sex? Damn I thought I was straight all the time, confused....

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
So according to you right now I'm not straight since I am not currently at this moment shagging some girl? I can only be considered straight when I have inserted myself into a woman? Does oral count or does it have to be full blown sex? Damn I thought I was straight all the time, confused....

Er...According to who? If you're refering to me, then you managed to skew my words to levels that...Well, I don't even know how you could have arrived at that conclusion.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:01 PM
I would say, for my self, that unless you are being sexual right now, at this moment, then you are . . . not being sexual.

Unless you're doing something at the moment (or trying to start something) you're gender identity isn't really that relevant.

I bridle at the notion that something you spend less than a tenth of one percent of your time on should somehow define you.

Of course, my wife calls me the "burp talker" because I like to recite famous quotes or sing songs while burping. But that is her label, not mine. It hardly sums up the whole of my existence. The same goes for J the L. Unless you're an axe-murderer or something, you're sexuality isn't really that relevant to the totality of your self, is it? Or can we define you by your access to orgasms?

By the way, I can burp-sing as far as "proudly" in the US national anthem. Beat that!

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:25 PM
No JJ it was to Deesw post, not yours. Hey go over to Collaborative Fiction Section and check out Faux News Part Duex.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
I've never been able to understand that aspect of "political correctness" either. It's that aspect which chiefly makes it seem insane to the average person.

What the "politically correct" crowd doesn't seem to understand is that you can be pro-one thing without being anti-something else!
They assume that, if you like one thing, you must hate its opposite. Which is a ridiculous idea.

It's especially irritating when you realize that a lot of these same liberal hypocrites actually do use that same logic when the rail on and on about the Iraq war. How many times have you heard them say "I support the troops, but I'm against the war".

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:04 PM

Originally posted by deesw
Ding ding ding, what to we for him Johnny? Ya gots it now, not sexual until sex, hence the term SEXUAL.
I'm glad that's clear now.

Ding, ding, dong! That is absolute rubbish. You don't get it at all. Everyone is a sexual being regardless of age and whether or not they are actually having sex. Plus, how many gay people have you heard say that they knew they were gay as far back as they can remember. Most people can remember back to the age of 5 or earlier.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 12:53 PM
OK - I'm new to this, so please forgive if i don't do things just right the first time.

I'm not going to try and tell anyone what to think or do - or how to do it.

I just wanted to share my feelings on this.

I'm 100% gay - and I am SO tired of being told I "chose" to be like I am - I tried my DANGEST to fit in my whole life - If I could have chosen which way I wanted to be - let's see - it would have gone a little something like this: "hey - I'm still a kid, but i'm starting to feel puberty coming on, so I guess I have to pick one sex to be attracted to for the rest of my life - well, since everyone else I know is attracted to members of the opposite sex, I guess I'll go that way too - then I'll be fitting in and considered "normal" by all my friends". BAM! Choice made - yay, I'm straight, thank you for my certificate of straightness - whew! thank GOD I didn't make the wrong choice, that could have been embarassing!

Is that how it worked for ANY of you?

As I see it - from what I've read on these boards, apparently I DO have a choice - and to chose, one must have options

For me, because I CANNOT imagine myself being "intimate" with a woman AT ALL! (no offence ladies, but those "parts" are disgusting to me), these are the options I have available to me accoriding to the people that just plain don't like homosexuality.

I can:

1. Choose to pretend to be straight, find a woman that I can trick into marrying me so I can have a wife, make children, pretend to be straight for EVERYONE ELSE'S benefit and just HOPE that I don't feel HORRIBLY guilty for the rest of my life for lying to this woman, lying to my kids, lying to myself and everyone I know, every day, 24 hours a day untill the end of time.


2. Choose to be alone for the rest of my life and die a miserable, bitter old man that never got to know love.

OK - those are my choices, according to the good folks over at the Holier Than Thou Foundation.

Which would you choose? - You have to pick ONE. - Can't make up another one - Live a gut-wrenching lie, or live and DIE ALONE -

I don't want either of those choices for THE REST OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!

I do know that the 10 commandments tell me not to lie - but I don't remember them telling me I had to die alone. I never have and never could Lie enough to a woman to trick her like that JUST so I could "fit in" to the mold the world expects of me. Never went on a date, never "chased tail", never had ANY sexual encounters till I was 28, and never lied about being a virgin - I WOULD lie when someone would say "You're STILL A VIRGIN?!?!?!!??!??!?!??!! WHY, ARE YOU GAY?" I would say "NO!" - That is a lie I wish I didn't feel like I HAD to tell to people back then.

If it is a "choice" Please tell me what my options should have been - because I do not know what happens after our bodies cease to function on this planet, it seems to me it would be a shame to waste this life being all alone if this is the only shot we get at happiness. Since NONE of us know for sure what happens when we die, we'd all better make the best of what we have now.

As for my Morality - I met a nice guy when I was 28 - we've been together for 4 years now, he's the only person I've EVER "bumped uglies" with - and I hope we're together for the rest of our lives - - And we keep it to ourselves - we walk FAR apart from each other when we go the grocery store or Wal-mart - we feel like we have to hide from everyone when we go out - he won't even sit next to me in the truck so I can put my arm around him, just because he's afraid that someone will see it and do something to hurt us. We do everything other couples do, but because of the stigma put on our kind of relationship, it is a VERY strained relationship that can only exist in the privacy of our home - Now tell me I'm pushing my "adgenda" on someone - when It's OK for a straight couple to walk around holding hands and kiss in public, but I can't even think about being free and showing my affection for the one I love just because some people think it's "icky" - Besides, even if it were 'acceptable', I think displays of affection should be kept in the home, but since when has holding someone's hand really hurt anyone else?

I hope I have not offended anyone - I don't want to fight or argue - I just want to know why I have to feel so HATED and so ASHAMED of who I NATURALLY am - and WHY I have to live life wishing I could either magically turn straight or just go on and die so it would all be over with.

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in